Outgoing American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, often described as a concert-level pianist, played a farewell recital for the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Condoleezza Rice entertains the Queen at the Palace

She was accompanied by Louise Miliband, the wife of Foreign Secretary David Miliband, herself a violinist with the London Symphony Orchestra. They played Brahms with three other LSO members.

The Secretary of State apparently expressed a wish to play for the Queen before leaving office at the end of the Bush administration. She was invited to use the Monarch’s music room at the Palace.

Afterwards, the Queen presented Miss Rice with an audio recording of the recital as a gift.

Here’s a link to a short video of the occasion:

Link to Condi video

With a full-blown slump but months away, the Queen is setting the trend for the nation, as she has in past times of trouble.

Her natural frugality certainly chimes with the times we’re living through. Early on in the credit crunch, the Queen was ahead of the curve when she cancelled her Diamond Wedding party at the Ritz last March.

Mary Riddell writes in the Telegraph that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, hopes the Queen will bring back the feelgood factor to the nation by demonstrating how to be cheerful in a depression. Stoicism through thick and thin has always been HM’s strong point. The PM has clearly noticed.

Gerald Warner, writing in his blog, makes an interesting point: “Gordon Brown wants the Queen and the royal family to lead the nation in hair-shirt frugality, to give an example to the rest of us in these poverty-stricken times. Which is strange, considering it is only three days since Gordon threw good money after bad by doubling the National Debt to £1 trillion [$1.5tr].”

The Prime Minister is, says Warner, hiding behind the Queen’s skirt.

Constitutional expert Peter Hennessey reinforces the point, “The Queen does not need Number 10 to make her into an effective focus for the country. She is such a remarkable figure, she naturally fulfils that function. The Queen has this great gift for adapting without going for fads or fashions. She does not need telling what is required to do. She just does it.”

However, Mary Riddell reports, “At Number 10, where the House of Windsor’s tactics are being followed with interest, Mr Brown is said to speak ‘in affectionate terms’ of his meetings with the Queen.”

The Queen has apparently ordered all senior members of the Royal Family only to be present at low-key occasions and to avoid glossy or glamorous events.

Prince William and Prince Harry have been asked to cleave to the military, while avoiding nightclubs and big, brassy charitable parties.

Royal women will be expected to recycle their outfits, something Princess Anne has been doing for decades. All in all, the Royals will set the style and tone for the hard times to come, with the Queen, as always, way out in front.

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.

What are Prince William’s motives for choosing the RAF over Kate Middleton?

Whichever way you look at it his motivation for deciding on four more years in the military is hard to read. The choice is made more puzzling by his apparent sudden change of mind.

Just a few weeks ago William seemed set to spend 2009 learning about constitutional affairs, interspersed with some Royal engagements and other duties. Although it was never explicitly spelled out, most observers had pencilled in a summer wedding with Kate Middleton.

Then, anonymous voices claiming inside knowledge began to put it about that marriage had been postponed for 18 months at least. No reason was given, which made the claims less credible at the time.

Last week the absent bits of the jigsaw puzzle fell into place. William had decided to train for the RAF’s Search and Rescue unit and was intent on becoming a helicopter pilot on active duty around Britain’s shores and wild places.

So what were his motivations, and how does Kate feel about his apparent desertion? The obvious reason is that he enjoys the excitement of service life.

It may also be true that he views marriage as a millstone round his neck. However much he likes being with Kate, it may simply be “the institution, stupid”.

It’s possible that only one of these motives is the real one. Which one would be interesting to know. There’s a lesser probability that both figured in his decision, in which case maybe the French Foreign Legion would be a better choice.

If the first reason is the primary cause of his sudden change of heart, it holds up to the world that he may never be ready to settle down into the boring routine of marriage and Royal duty — at least until he is considerably older.

An even longer life for his grandmother, and an extended reign for his father, might be very welcome to the reluctant Prince.

I’m also beginning to think that Kate may share those views, although not to the extent of being separated from him for the best part of four years.

She may recognize that you have to swallow some bad stuff in order to realize your dreams. As a middle-class female she probably has a better grasp on the realities, like the necessity to compromise a little and settle for what you get.

William, though, as a Prince born to greatness and worldwide fame, may just believe he can have it all without any diversions down unwanted paths and alleyways.

There’s a disconnect somewhere here. Let’s hope neither of the two personalities in this affair gets hopelessly hurt.

It may be that a Christmas announcement is still in the schedule for a May or June wedding next year. In which case the trajectory remains intact. But some sources are warning this is not so, and normal life has been postponed in the foreseeable future.

Since the future of the Monarchy rests on their shoulders, it would be of great assistance if someone known and credible explained the reasons behind this radical change of tack to the great British public.