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.

The Queen is said to be distressed by the row over Islamic law which she fears threatens to undermine the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and damage the Church of England, reports the Daily Telegraph.

As Supreme Governor of the Church of England she “has been dismayed by the controversy that the remarks have generated at such a difficult period in the history of the Established Church, which faces possible schism over the issue of homosexual clergy”. But she has not expressed any personal view on whether Dr Rowan Williams was right to say it was “unavoidable” that aspects of Sharia law could be incorporated into English codes of justice.

Her personal views can well be imagined, however, as can the Duke of Edinburgh’s.

The backlash to the Archbishop’s statement has been fierce and prolonged, with the vast majority opposing his views, including many moderate Muslims.

The Queen, who approved the appointment of Dr Williams on the recommendation of Prime Minister Tony Blair, takes her role as Supreme Governor very seriously.

A Royal source is reported as saying, “I have no idea what her view is on what the Archbishop said about Sharia law. But the Queen is worried, coming at such a difficult time in the Church’s history, that the fallout may sap the authority of the Church.”

Another Royal courtier said, “The whole thing has not been skilfully handled. It can only have undermined the authority of the Church.”

The Preb David Houlding, a Synod member and honorary canon of St Paul’s Cathedral, said: “We are very fortunate in having a Monarch who strongly supports the mission of the Church of England and I am sure she would want her Archbishop of Canterbury to be held in the highest regard by everybody.”

A Buckingham Palace spokesman declined to comment.