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.

With the Prince of Wales’s 60th birthday looming tomorrow, Friday, celebrations got off to an exuberant start last night with an evening of comedy at the New Wimbledon Theatre, London.

John Cleese, of Monty Python fame was the master of ceremonies for the evening together with former Fawlty Towers co-star Andrew Sachs, Manuel to his fans. The idea was to give Prince Charles a very special occasion in the presence of a host of comic superstars.

Meanwhile, over at the BBC, an excellent documentary cum interview with the Prince was broadcast last night. It was conducted by Robert Hardman of the Daily Mail and examined every aspect of Charles’s life and charity work. The range of subjects over which Charles presides with great aplomb and expertise must be mind-blowing to anyone who doesn’t keep up.

Tonight, a dinner, with an orchestral performance, will be given by the Queen in honour of her son and heir. Yesterday, she was heard to praise his public-spirited work for charity and even referred glancingly to his future role as King, which is not something she normally mentions in public.

In these depressive times, you would expect the famously frugal Monarch to cut costs even at such a banquet. And indeed the wines selected by the Queen to enhance the Balmoral salmon and venison dishes, are notable but not lavish.

Puligny Montrachet Les Olivier Leflaive, 2006 at £40 ($60) a bottle, will refresh the palette without exciting aficionados of fine wine. The red, Chateau Leoville-Barton St Julien, 1988, around £100 ($150), will be excellent after a few glasses of the white.

The dessert wine is a nice 1996 Sauternes, and a suitably expansive note to end on.

The absence of conductor Riccardo Muti owing, apparently, to a disagreement over the length of his proposed programme and perhaps his fee, will not dampen spirits at what should be a glittering event.

Now here’s an intriguing question for the weekend.

We received an email about Royal fertility tests for women intending to marry a senior Prince. I think it merits some careful consideration.

It’s known that this practice has traditionally been part of the process of the marriage ritual of heirs, or very near heirs, to the Throne. Diana had to undergo a medical examination and we know that it was successful.

What, though, if someone failed? These days the hurdles are much higher than even 20 years ago. It’s not just a Yes/No verdict that’s available. DNA testing can throw up a mass of probability data over a wide range of genetic diseases.

Where does the fail point lie: a one in ten chance, one in 100, one in a million? Most people would probably fail if the criteria were set too high.

Now here’s the rub. How would the Palace handle a situation where a young women was generally fertile, but who had a mild to medium chance of producing children with some genetic disability?

Obviously, they wouldn’t splash it all over the press. If some journalists discovered the truth, editors would be very wary of putting private medical information into the public domain. There might even be general agreement across the media not to publicize it at all.

And how would this play into the current situation of both the heir’s heir and the spare’s long-term girlfriends?

This is a hypothetical question, but one which will make life very difficult in the future for the Royal Family and pose a variety of ethical and practical questions in an age of maximum media exposure.

For the first time, the gardens of Buckingham Palace are to be opened to visitors.

The gardens at the rear of Buckingham Palace

At the bargain price of £20 ($35) per person, groups will be given tours of the 39 acres of lawns, lake and flower collections to raise money for their upkeep.

The Queen has given permission for the venture from next spring in the hope of raising up to £70,000 ($120,000) a year to help pay for necessary repairs and maintenance.

The gardens which are surprisingly large for central London, and exceptionally private, will only go on show when the Queen is absent from the Palace. Even so, it’s a great opportunity for anyone who doesn’t expect to be invited to one of her garden parties to experience the ultimate luxury environment that is Buckingham Palace.

Guy Barter, Head of Gardening Advice at the Royal Horticultural Society, said, “One isn’t conscious of the city which is all around them, and the gardeners have cleverly planted wild species all around the perimeter, which insulates the gardens from the roar of traffic. It is only when one looks up and sees the tops of tower blocks that one is reminded that the gardens are in the heart of the capital. It is very much the Queen’s private garden and that gives it an intimacy which is missing from the big public parks.”

The tours will take place in April, May and June. Numbers will be limited to 25 visitors at a time, who will be given a half-hour talk on the gardens’ history.

This will be followed by a walk around the mile-long path past the herbaceous border, the wisteria-clad summer house and the world-famous rose garden.