Retirement? Not for this Man

The Duke of Rothesay (as Prince Charles is known in Scotland) meeting clan leaders at the Highlands Games.

And so, the long wait continues… 

     Prince Charles, Prince of Wales recently passed another milestone as he patiently waits to succeed his mother to her thrones in Britain and across the Commonwealth. He surpassed the age at

William IV, the oldest person to become monarch
in Britain's history. Painting by William Salter.

which Prince William, Duke of Clarence succeeded his brother George IV as King William IV in 1830 at the age of 64 years, 10 months and five days. The Prince of Wales will be 65 in November, which means that he will be the oldest person to become a reigning monarch in British history. He has already been the longest-serving heir-apparent, having become the first in line to the throne upon Elizabeth II’s accession in 1952 when he was three years old. Charles is also currently the third-longest serving Prince of Wales, having held that title since 1958 at the age of nine. Only George IV (as heir to George III) and Edward VII (as heir to Queen Victoria) have served in this capacity for a longer period of time. (The title of Prince of Wales is a customary, not hereditary, title which is granted to the living heir-apparent of the reigning British monarch.) 

     In terms of being the oldest heir in British history, Charles lags behind Sophia of Hanover (a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland & I of England and Ireland), who under the Act of Settlement of 1701 was declared the rightful Protestant heir of Queen Anne in the event that Anne did not have a surviving heir. Sophia died before ever becoming queen at the age of 83 in June 1714. Anne herself died without an heir two months later, and was succeeded by Sophia’s eldest son Georg Ludwig, who became George I of Great Britain and Ireland. 

The Prince's Trust is probably the most notable of Prince
Charles's charitable organizations, and has been credited
by the Telegraph for creating 125,000 entrepreneurs and giving
business support for 395,000 people since it was founded in 1976.

     Charles is now at an age at which most people are considering retirement, but of course he has not even started the job for which he has been born. Throughout his life, he has sought to keep himself active as he waits to succeed his mother by engaging in charity  work and being a vocal campaigner on issues that are important to him, such as the environment, sustainability, urban regeneration, architecture, and giving disadvantaged and troubled youth a fresh start. In addition to being the patron of over 400 charities, there is a core network of 20 trusts and foundations - described by journalist Robert Hardman as “Britain's most extensive multi-cause charitable network” - which the Prince himself runs and for which he raises around £120 million ($190 million) per year - with his staff describing him as a “charitable entrepreneur.” He has also carved out a role in which he uses what he calls “convening power” – the ability bring people together at a table to discuss issues, resolve differences, and take action.

     Over the years, much has been made about the Prince’s advocacy, and whether it is constitutionally permissible for the heir to the throne to speak out on issues which may be controversial, such as his opposition to genetically modified food and his support for access to homeopathic remedies at medical facilities owned and operated by the National Health Service. His meetings with and writings to government ministers and civil servants - some known as “black spider memos” due to the Prince's handwriting - have led to accusations of royal “meddling” in matters of public policy from city/town planning to fox hunting. 

     Some ministers - including former prime minsters Tony Blair and John Major - and supporters of the Prince insist that he does nothing more than express his views on issues affecting the country of which he will one day be king. Ministers can refuse to meet Charles, and if they do have a meeting with him, they are under no obligation to take his views and opinions into consideration when they are making public policy decisions. 

     Other people have expressed concern that Charles, by virtue of his position, can project undue influence on policies affecting the nation in a way that most people cannot, and that such influence by an unelected person should not be permissible (which sounds rather suspect when one considers the politicians who serve the interests of their special interest paymasters, who for the most part happen to be unelected). Then there are those who believe that the principle of having a non-partisan monarch is extended to the monarchy in general, and that any political interventions would be seen as taking sides and can damage the long-term future of the monarchy. 

     In my opinion, it is probably a good thing that the heir to the throne takes an active interest in issues that affect the United Kingdom and the lives of its people. After all, he will be king one

Clarence House - the Prince's residence and office's in London.

day, and it is sensible that he would like to have a firm grasp of what the government does, as well as how and why it does it, which is something that his mother did not have upon her accession at the age of 25. Some sources who have served in government (Tony Blair's former press secretary Alastair Campbell among them) have alleged that from time to time, the Prince has had to be told to exercise restraint in his interventions by various people, including by Blair himself at one point. But so long as Charles avoids actually endorsing political parties or stumping on the campaign trail for one party or the other, it does not appear that he is overstepping his boundaries. Writing for the Australian, Kate Mansey and Peter Conradi said that the Prince now  

“has a member of his staff seconded to the Cabinet Office [the department supporting the Prime Minister and the Cabinet] and one of its civil servants is working for him...which means that the government will learn his views and he can better understand what it is working on.”  

Similarly, his charity work is an outlet for him to do something productive (and often out of the limelight), rather than twiddling with his thumbs. It may still be a very long time before he succeeds the Queen (especially given her good health), so it is better for him reach out and put his money where his mouth is, instead of being seen as aloof and living off of inheritance with no sense of social responsibility. 

     However, once he does become king, Charles will likely have to curb his advocacy activities. He himself admitted as such, when he told Robert Hardman of the Daily Mail that he may not be able to champion his favorite causes “in the same way” when the constraints of kingship are placed on him. It must be remembered that in exchange for the status of being head of state, British monarchs have given up most political power to elected officials. This allows the monarchy to have the moral authority of being the focus of unity and stability for the British nation, and this is partially the reason why the monarchy has remained popular and relevant to the present day. The Prince of Wales will have to be careful. As king, he will have the right to be informed of what the government is doing, as well as the right to ask questions and demand answers from the prime minister and other members of the government. However, he ought to be wise in choosing his causes - so as not to cause division by blatant political partisanship on his part. There are anti-monarchists in Britain who are hoping that Charles will overreach himself (like a previous king named Charles) and provide the spark for their movement to abolish the monarchy.

Coat of Arms of Charles, Prince of Wales. Ich Dien means "I serve"

     Speaking of Charles’s future kingship, there have been a number of suggestions throughout the years that he ought to relinquish his position in the line of succession in favor of Prince William, or that he should abdicate the throne, either immediately upon his accession or in 5-10 years afterwards. The reason for doing this stems from the belief that the monarchy will not be popular under the leadership of a man who may be in his late 70’s when he becomes king. In contrast, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are the fresh new faces of this ancient institution, and have been credited with reviving popular interest in it. Therefore, it makes sense for some people that the Windsor dynasty ought to skip a generation so that William and Kate can become king and queen while they are still relatively young.

     However, the idea of Charles giving up his long-awaited inheritance is about as likely as President Barack Obama giving up his health care law in the United States. First, there is no substantive reason to do so. Sure, there may be some reasons with regard to media folks being deprived of the events they would like to publish and televise (because for many of them, it brings the Diana saga full circle – culminating in the coronation of her son William  at Westminster Abbey, where her funeral service was held). There are also some people who have a tarnished view of the Prince from the 1990's because of the scandals that erupted between him and Diana - which directly resulted in the failure of their marriage and indirectly resulted in her tragic death. 

     But leaving the self-serving and emotional reasons aside, if anything, there is at least one good reason not to skip over Charles: he is more prepared to be king than William. Bending to the short-term thinking of the popular media and even members of the public would unfairly throw William in direct line to succeed his grandmother at a time when he ought to be spending as much time as possible with his young family and pursuing his own interests. Along the way, he will learn what it means to be a constitutional monarch, understanding among other things what he can and cannot do in that position.

     Giving William time to do these things will help to grow into that role over time, like his father. But the more important reason why Charles will not skip over is because of the hereditary principle of the monarchy, which is not simply a show-piece for the media, but is a living, breathing, and integral part of the UK constitution. Running the monarchy is serious business, and many of its functions take place away from the glare of cameras. Like his mother, Charles views being monarch as a solemn and sacred duty, and that he has an obligation to fulfill that duty. If he decided to relinquish his position or abdicate, the laws in the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms would have to be changed to reflect this decision. 

     The only precedence for this is when Edward VIII abdicated in 1936, and the governments of the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State all had to independently recognize the abdication of Edward and - with the exception of Ireland - the accession of his brother Albert, who became George VI. The abdication crisis of 1936 had a profound impact in the Queen, who at the age of 10 became first in line after her father, ascended to the throne 14 years later, and has repeatedly committed herself to serving her people until she draws her last breath. 

     Moreover, once precedence has been established for people in the line of succession to relinquish their place, or for reigning monarchs to abdicate for no particular reason save for the sake of “popularity”, it would reduce the monarchy to a cheap and media-driven popularity contest (like that of American Idol). It would undermine the hereditary principle and begin a slippery slope towards elections – first among people within the line of succession, and then among an ever-widening group until the monarchy itself effectively ceases to exist.

     So barring an act of God, Prince Charles will be, must be, king. If anything, the only questions are whether he will become Charles III or George VII, as well as whether Camilla will become his Queen or Princess Consort. It is true that he is going to be the oldest person to inherit the throne, but that fact ought to give reassurance that the monarchy will be in good and seasoned hands when the time comes. It also ensures that the future generations will be sufficiently prepared to take on the top job themselves, and not prematurely. When it comes to the monarchy, unless a monarch is incapacitated or otherwise unable to discharge his or her duties, age is virtually irrelevant. Case in point: the Queen herself.




Photo Credit: Mark Nebitt via Flickr cc, Rept0n1x via Wikimedia Commons cc, ChrisO via Wikimedia Commons cc, Sodacan via Wikimedia Commons cc 

The Queen's Speech

      In September 1939, King George VI addressed his people across British Empire and Commonwealth as World War II was beginning, 

King George VI

in a speech which has gained fame as the climactic moment in the 2010 Oscar-winning film, The King’s Speech. George rallied them to the war effort by asserting that the rights, liberties, culture, and heritage of the Empire were under threat, and that if they were to be maintained, there would have to be united front to defeat the Nazi’s and the doctrine that “might is right.” At the end, he said:

The task will be hard. There may be dark days ahead, and war can no longer be confined to the battlefield, but we can only do the right as we see the right, and reverently commit our cause to God.

     

     There is no doubt that the king’s eldest daughter and heiress presumptive, the 13-year-old Princess Elizabeth, listened to her father’s speech, and like most people, was comforted and strengthened by his words. She herself (along with her sister, Princess Margaret) gave a radio speech to the children of Britain – many of whom were being sent away from home to safety, either to the countryside or out of Britain entirely. When Britain and the Empire emerged victorious in 1945, King George probably hoped that his family and his peoples would never have to live in the shadow of war again. Furthermore, he also probably hoped that Elizabeth would never have to give a speech like the one he gave six years earlier. But throughout much of the Queen’s reign, Britain and the entire world faced the prospect of nuclear conflict as Cold War between East and West girded on. 

     As it was (thankfully), the Elizabeth II never had to give a “Queen’s Speech” which would have emulated what her wartime father did in 1939. But the UK National Archives – under Britain’s 

Recently disclosed documents reveal a Queen's
Speech for the outbreak of World War III.

disclosure rules – recently released information of a 1983 war simulation in which Britain faced nuclear attack from the Soviet Union (codenamed “Orange”Among other things, there were details on arresting members of paramilitary organizations such as the Scottish National Liberation Army, informing military officers overseas on what to do if communication with London were lost (presumably because it had been bombed), procedures on what to do if an election resulted in the reins of government changing from one party to another, and an address drafted for the Queen to read to the nation in March 1983 on the eve of “World War III.” 

Here is the full text of the speech:

When I spoke to you less than three months ago we were all enjoying the warmth and fellowship of a family Christmas. Our thoughts were concentrated on the strong links that bind each generation to the ones that came before and those that will follow. The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as my family and I shared our Christmas joy with the growing family of the Commonwealth.

Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.

I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939. Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.

We all know that the dangers facing us today are greater by far than at any time in our long history. The enemy is not the soldier with his rifle nor even the airman prowling the skies above our cities and towns but the deadly power of abused technology.

But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.
My husband and I share with families up and down the land the fear we feel for sons and daughters, husbands and brothers who have left our side to serve their country. My beloved son Andrew is at this moment in action with his unit and we pray continually for his safety and for the safety of all servicemen and women at home and overseas.
It is this close bond of family life that must be our greatest defence against the unknown. If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country's will to survive cannot be broken.

My message to you therefore is simple. Help those who cannot help themselves, give comfort to the lonely and the homeless and let your family become the focus of hope and life to those who need it.

As we strive together to fight off the new evil let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.

God bless you all.

     
     The solemn (and haunting) address hits many points, including some that George VI made in his pre-war speech. It is particularly interesting that she refers to the British response to the last two world wars as bench marks for how the British people of 1983 ought to stand in firm resolve against the latest threat to world peace. But the fact that she refers to the enemy not as a country, or even a political ideology, but as the “deadly power of abused technology” emphasizes the point that unlike those previous wars, this one has the ability to wipe out millions of people in a single stroke. The Queen expresses her concern for Prince Andrew, who was a Royal Navy helicopter pilot aboard the HMS Invincible, which shows a personal connection to this war for the royal family as many other British service families are concerned about their sons and daughters in harm’s way. Like her father, she wanted the people of Britain to stand together and help one another like their mothers, fathers, and grandparents had done in years past, and gives hope that the nation and the people will survive.

     In many ways, this was a speech which could have been the last one the Queen gave. It makes me shudder to think about it (which makes this a difficult blog posting to write), and I believe the civil servant responsible for writing it must have felt the same way. During the Cuban Missile Crises, President Kennedy’s speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, supposedly could not bring himself to draft a speech announcing pre-emptive airstrikes on Cuba, which likely would have led to nuclear war. We now know that Kennedy drafte done himself in case a deal was not reached with the Soviets to withdraw their missiles from Cuba. Thankfully, neither of these speeches by Kennedy or the Queen had to be delivered.

     But in a worst-case nuclear scenario, what would have happened to the Queen? When the royal yacht Britannia was decommissioned in 1997, it was revealed that vessel was supposed to be loaded with the monarch and members of her family. Britannia would then sail up to the Scottish lochs to hide from 

HMY Britannia

Soviet radar detection, for in the event that the prime minister and the London government were knocked out, only the Queen could appoint a new prime minister. Under this scenario, the business of constitutional monarchy would be carried out and a new government would carry on with the conflict. In the 1983 war games exercise, it is envisioned that the NATO alliance would have devastated “Orange” and its allies, and that it would therefore open peace negotiations.

     In response to the revelations, Buckingham Palace would not comment on whether the Queen had read out or viewed this speech, saying only that she has received and viewed various government papers throughout her reign. I tend to believe that she did see it at the time since these types of papers usually go through her as she is the monarch, and if she did, I cannot begin to imagine what her feelings may have been. 

     Again, thankfully, she never had to give it to the nation, and we should all be hopeful that no world leader shall give a speech like it – all because of the “deadly power of abused technology.”

A copy of the Queen's wartime address.

 




















Photo Credit: Lzur via Wikimedia Commons cc, Lynda Poulter via Creative Commons cc