If Prince Charles becomes King Charles, will his kingdom leave him?

By John Lloyd
June 19, 2014

Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Camilla arrive for the second day of the Royal Ascot horse racing festival at Ascot, southern England

Could Prince Charles finally get his crown? And if he does, could it mean the end of the United Kingdom?

Abdication in favor of the younger generation seems to be something of a trend in Europe — if two cases can be considered a trend. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicated last year so that her son, Willem-Alexander, could bring some youth and vitality to the largely ceremonial role.

More recently, King Juan Carlos, widely credited with having assisted the end of the Franco dictatorship in Spain in 1975 and with puncturing a rather feeble coup attempt in 1981, vacated the throne in favor of his son, Felipe. The announcement was followed by large demonstrations calling for an end to the monarchy entirely, with Cayo Lara, leader of the United Left Coalition, quoted as saying, “We are not subjects, we are citizens.”

And that’s the problem. While individual monarchs may be popular in Europe, monarchy is something else.

To be sure, Spain is its own case. There is 25 percent unemployment, with 50 percent of the young unemployed. Leftists did well there in the recent European Parliament elections.

RTR3ULNJ

Britain, on the other hand, has an economy that is growing quite strongly, and people who are doing well are less likely to look to upset a centuries-old apple cart.

But a transfer of power, now much forecast, could change that. Power transferred is power in peril.

Queen Elizabeth’s official birthday (her real one was in April) was celebrated this past weekend with the Trooping of the Color, a ceremony first invented in the 17th century.

The British monarchy, enthroned without break since that time, is surrounded by such rituals – archaic, mysterious to many and still treasured — which the British perform with a solemn and meticulous concentration.

Elizabeth is now 88. Her son Prince Charles, 66 this winter, incautiously admitted two years ago that he was “impatient” to rule, adding with his customary self-deprecation, “I’ll run out of time soon. I shall have snuffed it (died) if I’m not careful.”

Charles’ adulterous (on both sides) marriage to Diana was splayed across every newspaper in the world. The queen, apparently much disturbed by it, appears to have decided that she must continue to bear the burden of the crown, perhaps to punish him, perhaps to ensure that her popularity buoys the monarchy for as long as possible.

When Charles’ son, Prince William, married Kate Middleton three years ago and was seen to have a nice smile and a pleasant way with saying nothing memorable, there was much speculation about “skipping a generation.” The palace press relations people moved to kill that one. Charles’ press secretary underlined that his master would not be “a shadow king.”

The only person in the royal family less popular than Charles is his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, with whom he continued a long affair while both were married to others, and whom he married after Diana’s death.

So, what might happen if Charles were to take the throne, through inheritance or abdication?

A further weakening of the United Kingdom. It’s possible that if Scotland votes to remain part of the UK in the fall, an unpopular king on a London throne could renew the independence push.

A vote to discontinue the British monarch as head of state in Australia – a referendum to abolish the monarchy only just failed 14 years ago — and perhaps, too, in Canada.

A surge of Republicanism, which is presently weak as a movement, but likely to appeal to a younger generation with little loyalty to a monarchy.

A fading of one of Britain’s largest tourist attractions, as the royals lose their allure.

Spain's new King Felipe VI and his wife Queen Letizia attend the swearing-in ceremony at the Congress of Deputies in MadridNow, that allure still very much moves the wheels of the press in Britain, and two recent incidents demonstrate the very different treatment queen and prince receive. The stories come from behind the British royal family’s closed doors, and both are well attested. Both were told off the record.

Word was out — perhaps put out by one of the palace servants who adds to his or her income by informing newspapers of royal tidbits — that one of the queen’s corgis had died. The queen often seems to believe, along with the revolutionary animals in George Orwell’s Animal Farm,* that four legs — horses, corgis — are better than two: and in dog-loving, horse-betting Britain, that’s part of the reason for her endearment to high and low. So the story was hot.

A royal correspondent of the most popular tabloid, Rupert Murdoch’s Sun, called in some excitement to the palace duty press man, and asked for the queen’s reaction to this. It was late in the evening; the press man doubted the queen would unburden her grief for The Sun: he refused to ask.

The reporter, feeling a chill wind readying itself to blow from the news desk were he to return without a quote, insisted, asking finally – how would you feel if your dog died? Well, said the press man, I guess I’d feel pretty upset. The reporter rang off and the next morning’s banner headline stated that according to palace insiders, the queen was quite distraught.

Charles gets no such benefit of the doubt, as the second incident shows. A story about the prince, perhaps leaked by another palace tipster, revealed that Charles had a valet put toothpaste on his toothbrush of an evening. The story continued on to say that Charles had no clue as to why that might strike people as funny.

The stories are neatly juxtaposed because the first spurs, in the breast of many Brits, affection: the second scorn. They are the core of the First Family’s present dilemma.

The best minds in British public relations have helped bolster the monarchy for decades. They have had a good product to present. The famously aggressive tabloids, knowing their readership would punish them if they turned against Elizabeth, showered her with sugary love. Charles III, as he will be known if and when he is crowned, has been much bloodied by tabloids. God will have to work hard to save a none-too-gracious king.

*This piece has been changed to correct the George Orwell book cited. It is Animal Farm, not 1984.

 

TOP PHOTO: Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall Camilla arrive for the second day of the Royal Ascot horse racing festival at Ascot, southern England June 18, 2014. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett

PHOTO: Spain’s new King Felipe VI and his wife Queen Letizia attend the swearing-in ceremony at the Congress of Deputies in Madrid, June 19, 2014. Spain’s new king, Felipe VI, was sworn in on Thursday in a low-key ceremony which monarchists hope will usher in a new era of popularity for the troubled royal household. REUTERS/Juan Medina

7 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Why should we have a monoarchy? We are all born equal and education strives to level the playing field. Andrew joined the esteemed society of scientists. What credentials has he got? CamPB made Chancellor of a university. What’s next?? She being made doctor of social mores? Ridiculous! All the PR cannot whitewash the fact that Charles and CamPB used Diana very badly! No matter how tabloids describe her as acceptable – we know the score! Charles always gets what he wants and perhaps his ascension is one too much for us!

Posted by ucannotmakeitup | Report as abusive

This online story from a journalistic standpoint covers the same usual storyline heard over and over again, and not just only here, but elsewhere, with other online news sources. However, one salient point it fails to make or to “cover” (a terminology utilized in the industry to indicate the scope of the news provided)the is this story´s failure to point out just how well monarchies around the world are fairing from a Human Development Factor, as an measurement index, to determine a nation´s quality of life. Leaving aside all the triviality covered in this storyline about Prince Charles etc., etc.,one must review the Human Development Factor index and will soon determine that countries with monarchies are their form of government all have a higher development factor versus those without monarchies. I must say this is very telling. How about what happened in Australia when in 1975 or so Mr. Kerr fired the prime Minister and parliament later and they started government from scratch. You can see the results today. Politicians of the twenty first century are many times “talkers” not doers and they don´t have their own blood (pun intended) invested into their job as a Monarch does by bloodlines. So be careful there is always more tan one side to every story and oerhaps this is what makes a good read. ¡Long Live the Queen!Down with Fidel Castro a thief, assasin, liar, a fraud acting without performance as if he were KING, but disrespectful to his island nation, unlike the Queen, respectful to her Island nation and commonwealths.

Posted by GEORGE-I | Report as abusive

It seems these royals can change the rules when they feel fit, but they don’t want the people to have any say in whether the archaic system of monarchy should be dispensed with.

Posted by NMac1 | Report as abusive

there was charles the worst then charles the fecund – and to come – charles the what?

Posted by ed_martin | Report as abusive

Ahummm how about Belgium?

Guess it is still Britain, then a whole lot of nothing and then the continent.

Posted by jan_de_vriess | Report as abusive

Unfortunately the usefulness of this article suffers from a lack of knowledge. For example everyone knows that the Queen’s birthday is marked by Trooping the Colour, not Of the Colour which is quite meaningless. It was not an ‘invention’ but used as a practical way of soldiers in the field knowing their colours before they went into battle.
A rehash of old gossip and theories is also pointless, more suited to second rate tabloids than to Reuters any day.

Posted by fkg4 | Report as abusive

The existence of royalty is an act against reason. These people are evil, and produce no value for humankind. In fact, they are a giant burdens upon all people. Chop their heads off.

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive

[…] If Prince Charles becomes King Charles, will his kingdom leave him? Queen Elizabeth's official birthday (her real one was in April) was celebrated this past weekend with the Trooping of the Color, a ceremony first invented in the 17th century. The British monarchy, enthroned without break since that time, is surrounded … Read more on Reuters (blog) […]

… [Trackback]

[...] There you will find 52652 more Infos: blogs.reuters.com/john-lloyd/2014/06/19/ if-prince-charles-becomes-king-charles-w ill-his-kingdom-leave-him/ [...]