Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm. 

However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on.

A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mother, Queen Elizabeth II. Charles had had the longest-ever wait of an heir apparent to take the throne, during which time discussion about his fitness to be king had become widespread. There was even serious talk of the crown skipping a generation and passing directly to William. In the event, that didn't happen, but it was an unsteady start to a reign.

In the intervening two years Charles appeared to have settled comfortably into the role and, despite growing republican sentiment (which would probably have happened even with William as king), seemed to be performing his duties well, with no major setbacks, faux-pas or scandals - or not new ones at any rate. Now his cancer diagnosis and forced withdrawal from public life could seriously destabilise the institution whose very raison-d'être, supposedly, is its stability.

He has waited a long time to lead the institution and visible leadership is the key - as his late mother famously said "I have to be seen to be believed". No matter how assiduously Charles attends to his red boxes behind the scenes, or how hard his consort and family work to cover his sick leave, his effective disappearance from public view so soon after his coronation is bound to leave a vacuum and fuel all sorts of speculation. Let's face it, there's never a good time for a cancer diagnosis but, for Charles, his could scarcely have come at a worse one. 

For the institution it is a perilous moment for the ship to be without its captain at the helm, although this is not unique historically. There are two notable parallels: the first when King George III was incapacitated with 'madness', leading to the Regency of the Prince of Wales, and secondly Queen Victoria's long and self-imposed withdrawal from public life after the death of her husband, Prince Albert. On both occasions, the popularity of the monarchy plummeted, and yet it has survived until today. But for how much longer?

I hope, for his sake and his family's, Charles makes a full recovery. But even if he is able to resume his public duties again at their previous level, doubts will have set in and I suspect the question hanging over every appearance, whether voiced or not, will be "is he up to it, will he get through it?". The stamina expected of two septuagenarians as king and queen is immense. The fact that Charles' mother managed to carry out her duties until just days before her death aged 96 is exceptional. She had been hale and hearty all her life but for Charles to suffer this health setback now aged 75 must cast doubts over his ability to carry on for another twenty-odd years, or the advisability, indeed the humanity, of expecting him to do so. 

Questions of a retirement age are bound to arise as a result of this diagnosis, leading in turn to questions of abdication, normal in other monarchies but apparently a taboo subject for the House of Windsor after the Abdication Crisis of 1936. And other questions will inevitably follow if the monarchy survives its current setback. For example, if 'the Firm' is to be further slimmed -down, as seemed to be Charles' intention, what impact will his illness have on that process now? Bearing in mind Andrew is permanently out of the picture, Harry probably so, Meghan definitely so, Kate recuperating and Anne, 'the hardest-working royal', aged 73, expectations of the previous level of public appearances will have to be closely managed with the crack team of 'working' royals down from nine to five.

Balcony appearances, State Openings, state visits, audiences, investitures, banquets, garden parties, gala performances, military ceremonies, ribbon cuttings, plaque unveilings, tree plantings, foundation stone layings, ship launchings, charity presidencies etc etc will all need to be drastically curtailed. But how, then, will the cost of sustaining the monarchical structure at its current overblown level be justified?  Which leads to the most dangerous question of all for the institution - the existential one.

What's the point of it all?

Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more