I confess to a deep sense of foreboding as I write these words. For we are now being fed a picture of just how much the Monarchy will change under the reign of the present Prince of Wales.
Prince Charles holding a Kendo stick in Japan
Monarchies need to adapt and change, of course, and when a new personality ascends the throne it may be the ideal moment to introduce difficult and systemic changes into the old institution.
These innovations may come sooner than we think. There is a whisper going around that the Queen may pass the mantle of Monarchy to her son and heir when he is 65 — a mere five years from now. Last week we heard her refer to his future Kingship in public for the first time.
As if to drive the point home, a steady stream of leaks and suggestions is being released by credible media figures.
The country has been informed that Charles will keep his promise to drop the “Defender of the Faith” subtitle, for the looser, and therefore less-Christian, “Defender of Faith”. Any old faith will do, it seems, as long as you believe in something.
The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, spoke out recently against “destructive changes” being made to the old constitution, which has proved its worth over time. He clearly senses a disestablishment of the Church of England.
Last week, a close friend of the Prince, Jonathan Dimbleby, suggested that Charles could become an “active” King, speaking out on issues close to his heart, like climate change, education, architecture and conservation. The Irish and German Presidents were singled out as examples he may follow. Although they are neutral politically, they do get involved in day-to-day discussions on policy matters.
Prince Charles already boycotts Chinese leaders because of their treatment of Tibet. He once called them “appalling old waxworks”. Imagine the political fury if he refuses to attend a State banquet for the President of one of the world’s most powerful trading nations, as he has in the past?
The difference between the Queen and the Presidents of Ireland and Germany is that they are elected by a franchise of the whole population. They have legitimacy for activism — and therefore unpopularity — within their constitution.
British Constitutional Monarchs are expected to follow the convention that they can speak out in private at the weekly meeting with the Prime Minister and warn of future consequences. Other than that, the role is purely ceremonial, except as a last resort longstop against tyranny.
If a King Charles were to take on a Prime Minister directly, he would be swiftly marginalized by crafty and practised political infighters. He wouldn’t stand a chance. His humiliation would be complete, especially under a Labour government.
The Monarchy will not last long under those circumstances. Everything the present Queen has built up as the “unifier of the nation” would be lost. Politicians would begin by destroying what is left of our constitutional checks and balances — as Blair and Brown have gradually done for the past 10 years.
The package of measures Charles’s team of helpers are placing in the media, combined with the almost certain crowning of Camilla, could result in a serious dip in popularity for the Monarchy.
Other countries, over which the Queen now reigns, may decide to dump the Crown as well, leading to a crisis for the new King that could be impossible to contain.
His friend the 14th Dalai Lama was prophesied to be the last leader of Tibet. He is now an exile outside his country.
Will Prince Charles be the last Monarch of the United Kingdom, itself under threat from Scottish nationalism?
There are dangerous shoals ahead for the Prince. Shoring up what he has got may be a better path to Kingship than challenging the people’s representatives. In the end, influence is a more durable form of governance than power itself.
Leading us into the year 2009 is an intriguing new book on the British Monarchy by an avowed Irish republican.
