(ORDO NEWS) — Charles’ problem is that people know him too well, writes The Times. For several decades, his thoughts, opinions, interests and weaknesses, not to mention the gruesome details of his soap opera-like personal life, have been in the public eye. But he will no doubt want to leave his mark on the history of the monarchy.
The queen is dead: long live the king! The prince has waited longer to get the crown than any other royal heir in British history, and now he can finally take the throne. Soon we will have an answer to a question that has been asked many times already: what kind of king will Charles be? Will it be a monarch who will forever interfere in the affairs of the country, or will he change our ideas about what it is like to be a ruler in the modern world?
Charles has been preparing for this moment his entire adult life, but, paradoxically, that is why it will be more difficult for him. The vast majority of people knew only one monarch. The style of the queen, her manners and, in general, the approach to fulfilling her own duties have been so deposited in the national consciousness that many of us do not even imagine that the monarch can act differently.
The problem with Charles is that we know him too well. For decades, we’ve studied his thoughts, opinions, interests, and weaknesses, not to mention the gruesome details of his soap opera-like personal life. We know him, and we have already formed an opinion about him. Whatever he does in the coming months and years, we will look at his actions through the prism of preconceived notions, good or bad.
He will undoubtedly want to leave his mark on the history of the monarchy, which, in his opinion, should be more efficient, while all the work should be done by the core of the family. Charles believes that there is simply no place for people like Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, who loiter around at public expense.
Charles tried to convey this message during the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II in 2012. Then on the balcony of Buckingham Palace there were none of the Queen’s children, with the exception of Charles himself. The only members of the royal family who then appeared on the balcony with the queen were himself, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry. It is said that the Duke of York was not very pleased. Seven years later, Charles once again showed his determination to achieve his goals, convincing the queen that his younger brother should step down from royal duties after Virginia Giuffre accused him of sexual abuse.
With the beginning of the reign of Charles, even Buckingham Palace can change its purpose. TV presenter Andrew Marr wrote in his book “The Diamond Queen” that Charles’s aides discussed the idea that the king should settle in Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace would become a government hotel and a center for various events. Could this happen? Most likely not: in recent years, sources close to Charles have done everything possible to hush up the case.
From time to time, Charles voiced other radical ideas. It was reported that he demanded a review of the system of awards, justifying this by saying that they are awarded “to the wrong people and for the wrong reasons”, and the assignment of such titles as the Commander of the Order of the British Empire should be abolished altogether.
The queen, of course, never demanded anything of the sort. But Charles is not like his mother.
Biographers believe that Charles will be an “activist king” and will use his influence to promote the causes he burns with, perhaps not as loudly as before, but with the same dedication. And his regular audience will be the prime minister.
Catherine Mayer wrote: “For better or for worse, but ultimately for the better, a prince is a man on a mission, a knight on a quest. what he does, and they sometimes contradict each other. He understands that he cannot continue to engage in the same activist activities as before he took the throne, but if he no longer speaks out or interferes in the affairs of the country as actively, then he be able to hold weekly audiences with the Prime Minister.”
Such forecasts have appeared frequently in recent years. In 2014, The Guardian published, citing sources close to Prince Charles’s circle, that he would “continue to interfere wholeheartedly” in the affairs of the country after he became king. In 2008, his biographer Jonathan Dibley stated that “careful steps are now being taken to change the role of the future ruler and allow King Charles III to speak out on matters of national and international importance in a way that would now be unthinkable.”
Writing in The Sunday Times, Dibley did not rule out that it would violate the convention that a monarch can only share his views in private with the prime minister and privy council, and such a move could even lead to “seismic shifts in the role of ruler.” Such changes “could provoke an explosive reaction both politically and constitutionally.”
As Walter Bagehot put it, the monarch “has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn.” Is there such a risk that Charles III will cross the line? Will he become, as one of the Labor MPs put it, “a monarch who interferes in the affairs of the country” and thereby cause a constitutional crisis?
According to Robert Blackburn, professor of constitutional law at King’s College London, Charles “will have to put aside his personal views and attend to his duties to society. Moreover, he must suppress his personal views and express them with extreme caution. so that the public does not know about his true feelings.”
According to some critics of Charles, he simply is not able to push his views to the background, but even if he can, it is already too late, because his opinion on issues such as architecture, agriculture, the environment, medicine, education and rights person is known to all.
Blackburn, in his book King and State, argues that the possibility of a constitutional crisis is not just a guess: “When a more decisive person than Elizabeth II ascends the throne in the future, the likelihood is high that the future king is unlikely to want to sign a law that , in his opinion, neglects his mind and soul.” This idea formed the basis of the play “King Charles III”. The play was a success.
In 2018, in a television interview on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Charles tried to dispel fears. He vowed not to be “intrusive” when he became king, and noted that the Prince of Wales and the monarch have very different roles.
When asked by the BBC if he would continue his activism, he replied: “No. I’m not that stupid. I understand that being a monarch is completely different. So I understand perfectly how it works.”
Eternal speculation about whether Charles would be an importunate monarch has long served as a pretext for endless nit-picking. According to a source who has known him for many years, “He gets upset when people … think he doesn’t understand that being head of state is a completely different role.”
Charles’ advisers say he understands very well how the Constitution works, and he is very careful about the requirements that a monarch must meet in order to do anything that could cause constitutional problems. “He is hot and assertive, but he has great respect for the Constitution and is aware of the role of the monarchy in the life of the country. He will not do anything that could threaten the state system,” one of them said.
When, after a decade-long legal battle, The Guardian finally published Charles’s letters to the government, known as the Black Spider Notes, it was revealed that he had pressured ministers on issues ranging from the Iraq war to alternative medicine (not to mention the fate of Patagonian toothfish).
The letters touched on a wide range of issues that worried Charles, and it was clear that he understood politics, but at the same time he did not cross the line of political decency. Historian Andrew Roberts (Andrew Roberts) wrote that all the efforts spent on trying to prove the intervention of the prince in the affairs of the state, went sideways. How stupid The Guardian must feel right now after forcing the Prince of Wales to publish his letters to the ministers of the Labor government that was in power between 2001 and 2005, only to find later that there was no sensationalism in them no, but, on the contrary, they are worthy, respectful, responsible and to some extent down to earth.
This incident shows how our attitude to what is allowed to say to the monarch is changing. When, during a trip to Canada in 2014, Charles told a 78-year-old Jewish woman who fled the Nazis that President Putin “is doing almost the same thing that Hitler did,” his words caused a diplomatic row. Putin replied that such statements are unacceptable and that this is “unroyal behavior.” However, despite the fact that the incident caused inconvenience to the British Foreign Office, 51% of Britons polled by YouGov felt that the comments were appropriate, and only 36% did not approve of them.
Sally Bedell Smith, in a biography published in 2017, could not resist criticizing Prince Charles, but expressed optimism: “As a king, he could inspire and become a unifying force outside of politics, because he has a different style and tone , unlike the queen: he expresses his feelings and speaks more naturally and perhaps more often than his mother.”
“If he behaves with dignity and is serious about his goals, but at the same time restrains his opinion, respects royal traditions, has a sense of duty, shows humanity and demonstrates charm, he may well earn the love and respect that he has been chasing for so long.” she noted.
Royal biographer Hugo Vickers believes that on the royal throne, Charles will appear before us as a different person, although it is difficult to say which one: “He could be a rather interesting king. He understands that he cannot speak out on all those issues that he likes to talk.”
“He is a very cultured person. If I were his adviser, I would recommend that he take up culture, enjoy the heritage around him and greet people. If he switched to people instead of receptions, then this could be a big cultural event. It would be very exciting “Extravagance is not about him. He likes to do things with a certain style and restraint,” Vickers added.
Above all else, Charles knows to take into account the fact that Britain today is radically different from what it was in 1952. Given the changes in cultural identity and religious belief, he made it clear that the old notions of monarchy and religion could no longer be dogma. Although he is still a deeply and sincerely believing Christian and goes to church every week without a pass, even when he is abroad, he studied other faiths, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and especially Islam, with which he feels a special connection.
In a 1994 documentary, Charles outlined his view of the attitude of the monarch, who is the supreme head of the Anglican Church, towards the religion of his subjects. Speaking about the role of the monarch as the protector of faith, he stated: “Personally, I would prefer that not any particular faith be defended, but faith in general, because to defend any one means to have some kind of unique idea, and this is sometimes “It’s a big problem. It’s been that way for hundreds of years. It’s caused people to fight each other to the death. I think it’s such a waste of energy because we’re all striving for the same goal.”
His words shocked the Church of England and raised fears that he might call for its liquidation. But such fears had no basis, because Charles firmly adheres to the position that the decision to liquidate should not be made by the monarch, but by the church itself. But there are still slight doubts about the impact of his position on the board.
It can be said with almost certainty that the coronation ceremony will be different from the one in 1953, so it should not come as a surprise whether the oath that the new monarch must take will remain unchanged by the time Charles pronounce. The King must solemnly swear “to maintain and inviolably preserve the foundations of the Church of England, its doctrine, worship, practice and its government, as it is due to the law of England.”
Someone once said that Charles wanted to have a multi-faith ceremony, but in recent years these claims have been rejected.
Depending on how the coronation goes – be it a slight departure from tradition or a complete upheaval – it will be possible to guess what the reign of Charles III will be: a royal revolution or a gradual evolution? There is very little left to get the clue.
Charles in the Royal Family
For most of his reign, Charles I had tense relations with factions in Parliament. The reason for the disagreement was money, the situation was further aggravated by the fact that the state had to bear the costs of the war. The marriage of a high representative of the Anglican Church with a Catholic also did not cause much approval of the subjects, especially from the Puritans. In the period from 1625 to 1629, the king dissolved parliament three times, after which he decided to rule alone. In 1640, he was forced to convene Parliament to raise funds for the suppression of the Scottish uprising. The situation became increasingly tense, and in 1942, after he tried to arrest five members of Parliament, civil war broke out in England. He was defeated, captured, escaped, lost again, and on January 30, 1649 he was executed in Whitehall for treason.
After the expulsion, the son of Charles I, as the legitimate heir, was called back to England in 1660. Due to secret negotiations with France against Holland and attempts to become an absolute monarch, Charles II had disagreements with Parliament. Since 1681, the king ruled alone. Despite the great interest in science – the Royal Society was founded under Charles II -, most of all, the king was remembered as a “jolly” monarch. The King loved the theater and had many mistresses, among them the former orange peddler Nell Gwyn. He boasted to his wife – Catherine of Braganza – about his love affairs, spent huge sums of money on favorites, and he had at least 14 illegitimate children and not a single child in marriage.
Handsome Prince Charlie
Years of life: 1720-1788
Charles Edward Stuart, or “The Young Pretender”, was the second Jacobite claimant to the throne and liked to call himself Charles III. These claims were based on the fact that he was the eldest son of James Francis Edward Stuart – the “Old Pretender” – who in turn was the son of James II (VII, in Scotland). Handsome Prince Charlie was the instigator of the Jacobite rising of 1745 and was defeated at the Battle of Culloden. The prince fled Scotland and was involved in a failed French plot to invade Britain. He died at the age of 67 in Rome, the city of his birth. He was survived by an illegitimate daughter, Charlotte Stewart, for whom he created the title of Duchess of Albany.
After the death of Charles Edward Stuart, his brother Henry became the Jacobite pretender, who did not try to fight for the throne and died.
Contact us: [email protected]