Would Henry IX be a good King?
Prince William is known to enjoy riding his powerful motorbike at high speeds — much to the dismay of his protection officers. God forbid, but what if the worst happened?
At some stage in the future we could then expect King Henry IX (Prince Harry) to ascend the Throne, together with (more speculation) his Queen Chelsy.
How would they fare in a job neither expects to get, and for which Harry has not been trained for life?
Let’s assess Harry’s qualities. Apart from a wild streak and a love of nightclubs, Harry has some excellent achievements behind him. He has withstood the ancient tortures of Eton, plus the hard physical and mental tests of Sandhurst, to become an officer of the Queen in the Blues and Royals Regiment. He is also a fine polo player and horse rider.
One side of him that’s not often aired amid the tumult of his nights on the town, is his dedication to charity work — something he wants to concentrate on when, as expected, he leaves the Army early, after a two or three year stint.
Harry recently took on his first Royal patronages. He will be figurehead for three small charities, a move agreed after consultations with Prince William and Private Secretary Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton.
The charities are :
WellChild — which provides medical care and home help for chronically sick children.
MapAction — which helps aid agencies by co-ordinating disaster information on the ground during emergencies. Harry’s Army skills will be brought to bear here as early as next year — a sign perhaps of when he will depart his military duties.
Dolen Cymru — or The Wales Lesotho Link which supports ties between the two countries. Harry also has his own charity in Lesotho.
Prince Harry seems to have got his life organized very well, with his future mapped out for the years ahead.
How, though, would he fare as King Henry IX, if that destiny ever befell him?
King Edward VII was not formerly trained to be monarch even though he was the heir apparent to Queen Victoria. He was popular and in touch with the times and made the monarchy much of what it is today. Harry is not only in touch with the times but he is also a very caring sensitive soul. Already he started a charity which in its self is an achievement. He would probably be more popular as King and make a great success of the job.
By Trudie on October 1st, 2007 at 11:05 am
The classic case, Trudie, was “Bertie”, George VI, who was deemed unsuitable because of a crippling stammer, but became King when Edward VIII selfishly abdicated. With the help of his steely wife, later the Queen Mother, he developed into a well-loved wartime King.
I too think Harry would evolve into the job and would be much admired. I don’t think it will happen though, especially if William marries soon and has children.
By John on October 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
Why is “number 2″ never trained to take on this role? It would seem to be good insurance and would also help for the heir to have someone suitably trained in which to ask advice.
By Cate on October 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Oh, I just love Prince Harry! No offense to anyone, but since he inherited the succession it doesn’t really matter if he would be good or not. If it falls to him to be the king, then he’s the king. I am sure he would do a good job, and that there would be plenty of advisors around to help with his lack of training for the role.
I am glad to see that his first Royal patronages are interests which mean something to him. I have always thought that he is like Diana, with regards to his level of compassion towards others less fortunate than him.
By SadieBoo on October 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I believe that Prince Harry would do very well as King. He has so many fine qualities, has proven his mettle in school and at Sandhurst and has demonstrated that he is a fearless and competitive horseman and polo player. Beloved Princess Diana’s qualities shine through Prince Harry in his commitment to charity, his ability to movingly articulate his (and Prince William’s) loyalty to her memory, and in his ease in interacting and communicating with people from all walks of life. I believe that he would be a splendid King Henry IX, or any other of his names he wishes to be called. Britain cannot lose with her two golden Royal princes, I truly believe. Thanks to the love, care and nurturing of their dear Mother, Britain will be wisely ruled by either of the Royal brothers. I look forward to the day when, as is supposed, Prince William mounts the throne as King with Kate as his Queen and Prince Harry provides strong support for his brother and King. It is going to be a beautiful time, a golden time of endless opportunities and fair prospects and I only hope I live to see it! Advance Britannia!
By Gigi on October 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Wonderfully put, Gigi. I do so agree with you.
By John on October 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Harry was raised the same as William in all the ways that count: parents, Eton, Sandhurts, etc. Is the training necessarily a good thing? Maybe Harry would be a *better* King.
By ClassyCanuck on October 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Regarding second sons and their ability to become good kings, we have precedent:
There is no doubt in my mind that King George VI was a far better king than his older brother, King Edward VIII was during his brief reign or would have been had he stayed the course. It was quite ironic that everyone thought David (as he was called in the family) was the golden prince of promise when in actuality he was weak, greedy, obstinate, a poor judge of character and astoundingly averse to the dictates of duty. His brother Albert, who reigned as King George VI, married the wonderful Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons who became the perfect wife and Queen and became a marvelous and inspiring King whose dedication to the country and his people meant so much to so many and indeed contributed significantly to the victory in WWII. He and his war time Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, admired each other to a great degree and the cooperation and understanding between them was quite splendid. At the time of the abdication of King Edward VIII (who became the Duke of Windsor), everyone feared that Prince Albert, Duke of York, was not’up to the job.’ He confounded all those fears and doubts and succeeded brilliantly, leaving as his Heir the wonderful and wise Queen Elizabeth II.
It is interesting to note that King George V also was not “trained” to be King since his older brother, Prince Eddie, was the Heir. Prince Eddie had been born premature and had many challenges of health and learning disabilities that made him appear slow-witted, dull and backward. He died shortly after his engagement to Princess May of Teck, so we do not actually know if he would have been a good king. In the fullness of time, after Prince Eddie’s death (he was Duke of Clarence and Avondale), Prince George, Duke of York, married his dead brother’s fiancee, Princess May. They were Duke and Duchess of York while Queen Victoria lived, and some time after King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra were reigning, they became Prince and Princess of Wales. After nine years of supporting his Father’s reign (King Edward VII), representing the King in many trips to foreign lands, George became the good and wise ruler King George V with his wife, the majestic and beloved Queen Mary as his consort.
Regarding Prince William and Prince Harry, I do not believe that Prince Harry would be ‘better’ than his elder brother. There is no evidence to suggest that Prince William is not ‘up to the job’–quite the contrary. But I do believe that, should Prince William be unable to reign for any reason, Prince Harry will make an excellent King. Thus we are ‘home free,” as the say here in America, when everything looks rosy-hued!
By Gigi on October 1st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I think Pr. Harry right now is more comfortable speaking in public, I think at both the Diana Concert and the Diana Memorial he seemed to have more of a knack for speaking, but I think William will make a good King and if a incident(god forbid, but it happens) where Pr. Harry had to become King, he would carry out the job and duties quite well and might suprise people. He gets a bad rap in the press, but he is defiantely a charismatic person. People seem to like Harry, well William too, so yes both would make good Kings.
I use to wonder the same thing about Pr. Andrew, not sure what I think now on that, he always seemed to be a kind enough fellow. I think if duty calls, the next Royal in line, gets on with it and performs the duty if they are chosen.
By mandy on October 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Harry is more authentic.
By ClassyCanuck on October 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 am
He’s certainly true to his own nature, Classy. But leaders also have to have insights beyond their own temperaments, don’t you think?
By John on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
I think Harry would have be a very good king but hopefully we won’t ever have to find out.
Gigi, I want to pick up on your over view of Prince Eddie, it seems that there has been alot of revisionism about him, at the time he was much loved and the country was distraught when he died of pneumonia. It was only after he died that the monarchy tried to spin it that it was a good thing and actually the second son was the more suitable one. That has always been the way- the victor writes the history.
But really King George is not a role model in Kingmanship in my view, when the British government were offering the Romanovs asylum which the bolshevics (sp!) had approved. He vetoed purely on selfish grounds because he wanted to save his own crown, didn’t want his own people getting any ideas, not that his crown was ever in any real jeopardy. So he left his cousins be slaughtered and had the cheek to cry tears about ‘Poor Nicky’ when he actually prevented their escape.
As for Queen Mary she was a cold cold woman and the reason poor Bertie had a stammer in the first place is because of the way he and the rest of the family were raised.
So, if God forbid anything did happen to William there would be an outpouring initially and then slowly it would be put out there that really Harry was the best man for the job all the time.
By Eliza on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
There’s no doubt that George V’s decision not to rescue the Romanovs when Lloyd George was prepared to do it, was the worst decision of his reign.
But at the time there was revolution all over Europe. He had to guard the Monarchy in Britain. However, he clearly underestimated the British people’s capacity to understand a rescue of them on purely family and sentimental grounds. In the end it was the blackest mark on his character and is rightly seen as cowardice.
By John on October 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
I certainly agree with you, Eliza and John, that King George V’s failure to rescue his cousin, Tsar Nicholas II and his family was a terrible mistake and indeed a cowardly decision. It is especially odd since he sent a warship to rescue Marie Feodorovna, the Dowager Empress, who was the sister of Queen Alexandra, the mother of Rsar Nicholas II and thus was the aunt of King George V. Why, I have always wondered, was he willing to rescue his aunt but not her son, his wife and children? The answer is no doubt mired in the mists of time, but John is right to say that there was a great deal of fear and confusion all over Europe at the time with revolution exploding in various countries. In this instance, King George V was indeed guilty of cowardice. Nevertheless, in the aggregate, he was viewed as a worthy and dutiful king by the government and the public. The occasion of his Silver Jubilee was the scene of some of the most tumultous displays of affection and respect for the Monarchy ever seen in Britain since the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria.
By Gigi on October 2nd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Why, I have always wondered, was he willing to rescue his aunt but not her son, his wife and children?
I’ve read that he was worried that seeming to shelter a despot/autocrat would upset the British public.
By Aunt Pierre on October 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I have read that, too. He may have been given advice along those lines by the government. I have no doubt that after the horrendous murders in Ekaterinberg, he wished that he had rescued them nonetheless. I don’t believe he ever dreamed that Alix and the children would be murdered by the Reds and I think he felt there was a good chance of the Whites prevailing and rescuring their Tsar and his family themselves and protecting them within Russia.
By Gigi on October 2nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
And to think it was all started by another cousin the Kaiser!!. I think he rescued his Aunt because of her closeness to his Mother HM Queen Alexandra but decided his own crown was more valuable than the lives of his cousins. One has to remember that most of the monarchies, Prussia, Austria and Russia were abolished with lightening speed.
By Trudie on October 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 am