It had to happen, especially after Prince Harry’s decision to devote himself to highly specialized military duties in the Army Air Corps.

Just as his brother, Prince William’s choice of a long stint in the RAF’s Search and Rescue squad all but sidelined long-term girlfriend Kate Middleton, Chelsy, the high-flying lawyer, has backed off and all but dumped the Prince.

It has been clear to Royal Anecdotes for some time that neither Prince was ready to make any commitment to their first lady loves.

Chelsy has clearly been cleverer than Kate in forging a serious career for herself. Her future now seems to be back in South Africa.

A military source is reported as saying, “Harry’s training is going to be seriously demanding and he has been told there will be little time for girlfriends and socialising. He is living in a modest room with a single bed and won’t be allowed to drink from Monday to Friday, and he will need to knuckle down.”

Although Chelsy had planned to join City law firm Allen & Overy after her graduation later this year, she has now told friends that South Africa beckons.

Plainly, Harry’s commitment to the Army has put a lot of pressure on her, since they don’t get much time together. A friend commented, “He’s told her it has to come before anything, and she’s a bit fed up of always coming second. She was prepared to make a big sacrifice by moving to the UK. She had her job lined up and a place to live in London. She’s a very bright girl who wants to be a successful lawyer, but that’s all up in the air now.”

The recent closeness of Chelsy with Kate Middleton may suggest that something similar is brewing between Kate and William. The reluctance of the second in line to the Throne to abolish her “Waity Katie” tag delivers its own message.

Both relationships have run their course. I would expect a similar announcement from the Middleton compound soon.

Unless, of course, William makes an executive decision. Why, then, did he choose the RAF over Kate?

Leading us into the year 2009 is an intriguing new book on the British Monarchy by an avowed Irish republican.

You might think that it’s bound to be critical, even abusive. However, this particular Irish republican just happens to be Mary Kenny, an excellent journalist and author with an always sensitive but nevertheless robust view of the world.

She writes admiringly about the Monarchy through the times of Irish unrest and heaps praise on our present Queen. It’s an interesting point of view from an unusual perspective.

Mary Kenny has written a pre-publication article about her book in the Daily Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt:

Perhaps it takes someone with a genuinely republican background to appreciate the value of the British monarchy. I was brought up in Dublin as an Irish nationalist, and I retain that stamp of Irish patriotism. I am proud of the constitution of the Irish Republic, a pioneering document in 1937. … I came to my appreciation of the British monarchy sideways, through examining the historical archives of the role played by the British monarch in Anglo-Irish relations over the 20th century.

I don’t know about you but I shall get my order in early at Amazon.

Finally, a very happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year to all our Readers.

Crown and Shamrock: ­Love and Hate between Ireland and the British Monarchy will be published in spring 2009.

Read the article here.

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

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.