Showing posts with label charitable entrepreneur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charitable entrepreneur. Show all posts

Friday, November 15, 2013

Prince Charles at 65

Charles, Prince of Wales during a visit in Jersey in 2012.

     No other heir to the throne has waited as long as he has done. No other heir in history has lived under the near-constant glare of the media spotlight, nor mocked for his idiosyncrasies. No other heir has arguably ever come under such close scrutiny for both his private and public actions, nor created as much controversy as the result of such actions. 

Prince Charles with his father and mother, the Queen and Prince Philip, and his sister Princess Anne at Buckingham Palace in the 1950's.

     His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland turned 65 years old yesterday, the age for retirement for many people (as well as when a pension can be drawn, which will be donated by the Prince to charity). However, he has not even begun to take the reins of the job for which he was born.

     Being the heir to the throne is an unenviable position, for it carries no official responsibilities. Indeed, Britain’s unwritten 
Prince Charles at Andrews Air Force Base in the USA, 1981.
constitution is silent on what the heir actually does. In addition, the hereditary and customary titles held by Charles are mostly ceremonial and carry no official constitutional standing. Much like the Vice President of the United States, the heir to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms has three primary duties: to support the head of state, act in that person’s stead when necessary, and to succeed such person in the event that he or she dies. In the case of the Vice President, at least he or she is in office for a limited period of time (and gets to preside over the US Senate). But the role of heir lasts for as long as the reigning monarch is living, and without a defined constitutional role, Charles – like other heirs before him – has had to carve out a role for himself.
      
     The Prince of Wales has done so by going beyond the traditional royal boundaries of merely recognizing voluntary and charitable efforts. Indeed, he has pushed such boundaries by engaging in charity work and being a vocal campaigner on issues that 
are important to him, such as the environment, sustainability, 
Among other things, the Prince's Trust sponsors
the "Team Program" - a 12 week program which
helps 16-25 year old's to build skills and confidence.
Here, these young people completed a course
in partnership with the West Midlands Police.
energy efficiency, urban regeneration, architecture, alternative medicine, the armed forces, and giving disadvantaged and troubled youth a fresh start. Where there is a gap in the voluntary sector, he feels they need to fill that void. In addition to being the patron of over 400 charities, there is a core network of 25 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 raised around £141 million ($224 million) from April 2012 to March 2013 – with his staff describing him as a “charitable entrepreneur.” Among the most important these bodies is the Prince’s Trust, which has given 650,000 young men and women financial and practical assistance to start a business or get into a desired career. Its beneficiaries have included Idris Elba from The Wire and James Somerville, co-founder of the design company Attik. Prince Charles 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.
 


     Among the issues where the Prince has used his “convening power” has been in the area of interfaith dialogue. As the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England, he is a confirmed and practicing Anglican, but like his mother, he also worships in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland when he is north of the (Anglo-Scottish) border. However, he has long realized that Britain – though still mostly Protestant – has become a multi-faith country, and that he cannot afford to ignore millions of his future subjects 
Charles and Camilla visiting a synagogue.
who practice a faith different from that of Protestant Christianity. He has
attended Catholic masses, and the Archbishop of Westminster – Vincent Nichols – has remarked that Charles appears “thoroughly at home” while visiting Westminster Cathedral. Earlier this year, he was the keynote speaker at the World Islamic Economic Forum, and opened his address with the Arabic phrase, As-salamu alaykum which means “peace be with you.” He is also patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, whose director, Farhan Nizami has described the Prince as “a friend of Muslims.” Within the Jewish community, he has forged close ties with Jonathan Sacks, who recently stepped down as Chief Rabbi, and just yesterday, he attended a service at an Indian synagogue.  Having studied both religions, he believes that they have much in common with Christianity by having universal truths, and desires to build bridges to span the chasms between them. 

     This may explain why the Prince stated in 1994 that he would rather see himself as “Defender of Faith”, not “Defender of the Faith” – a title used by English and British monarchs since Pope Leo X granted it to Henry VIII of England in 1521 – when he accedes the throne. It is also expected that his coronation, while still being an Anglican Christian ceremony, will include a role for representatives of other faiths. Indeed, it does appear that the Prince’s belief in the universality of faith in all of its forms endears him to many Britons in an age when faith is seen as old-fashioned and hogwash. 

     It is the Prince’s faith that probably also guides him on environmental issues, nature, sustainability, and architecture. He has been speaking out on the issues regarding climate change before it became front-and-center on the political agenda, and has 
Dumfries House, which was saved
in part by the Duke of Rothesay.
campaigned to save the British countryside from excessive development brought about by urban sprawl. To this end, he has been an advocate of the redevelopment of urban areas and of adapting older buildings to new uses. For example, Charles led a £45 million consortium which purchased Dumfries House and its surrounding estate in Ayrshire, Scotland before it was sold off and broken up. After much restoration work, the not only is the house open for tours of its contents, but the estate has been reactivated into a working farm producing meat and dairy for a local supermarket, as well as providing research, educational, and training opportunities – which in turn has helped to stimulate economic activity in the area. 

     More controversially, he has spoken against modernist architecture – most famously referring to a proposed extension of the National Gallery in London as “a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-beloved friend.” He has also personally intervened  in projects using modern architecture, leading to some such projects (such as the redevelopment of the Chelsea Barracks in London) either being scrapped or significantly changed to incorporate more traditional forms for architecture. 

     For the Prince, architecture and development are part of his greater environmental agenda. He believes in sustainability, making the interests of humans coexist with those of nature, and taking 
Charles has been a long-time advocate for sustainable
development. Here he is with students taking part in
a course on sustainable urbanism which he founded.
action on climate change. With this in mind, he recently attacked "corporate lobbyists" and skeptics for turning the Earth into a “dying patient”, and during a 2011 address to the European
Parliament, he accused such skeptics of playing a “reckless game of roulette” and having a “corrosive” effect on public opinion with regard to belief (or lack thereof) in the seriousness of  climate change. In a display of the use of his “convening power”, in 2009 he gathered every head of government from the G20 Summit (which was being held in London) and was able to extract $6 billion in rainforest relief. Close to home, he has pursued an interest in horticulture and created an eco-friendly environment at his personal estate at Highgrove in Gloucestershire, England. He is also a proponent of using organic products, and produces a range of food and drink items under the name “Duchy Originals” (named after the Duchy of Cornwall, which is held in trust by the Prince in his role as Duke of Cornwall). For his part, Charles has stated that the birth of Prince George has reinforced his views on the environment, as well as his conviction that he must do something to help preserve the planet and the natural world created by God for future generations. 

     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 
Prince Charles meeting with the UK's leading politicians:
Prime Minister David Cameron (right), Deputy PM Nick
Clegg (center), and Opposition Leader Ed Miliband.
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. 

     Another issue that has dogged the Prince and has brought the future of the monarchy into question is that of his private life, and in particular, his first marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and his second marriage to Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

      Certainly, the collapse of his first marriage provided much fodder for the media for the media to portray Charles as cold and 
The nadir for Prince Charles and the monarchy
was probably in the wake of the death of Diana.
aloof in contrast to the warm and in-touch Diana. Worse still were the revelations of infidelity and Diana herself questioning the Prince’s fitness for kingship, which was the last straw and brought the marriage to an end. Then came Diana’s tragic death in 1997 and the royal family’s initial reluctance to give Diana a farewell that many British people felt she deserved, which was perceived as having a lack of compassion for the dead princess. This was the probably the darkest hour for the monarchy since the abdication crisis in 1936 and for Prince Charles in particular, who now faced open hostility to the idea of him attaining the throne. From here was a gradual process of earning back the respect of the people. 

     Part of that process has included overcoming the obstacles resulting from the Prince’s relationship with the then-Camilla Parker Bowles. Diana reportedly referred to her as “the Rottweiler” and pointed out that she was the third person who was crowding up 
Eight years on, and these two have formed a solid
partnership as a happy and contented couple.
her marriage with Charles. Public opinion squarely blamed Camilla for the failure of that marriage, and did not want Charles to marry her, nor for her to become his Queen. After coming out publicly as a couple however, Charles and Camilla slowly began making to the idea of a marriage more acceptable, especially as Camilla’s profile was increased – being seen with Charles and the Queen at public engagements, which indicated the royal seal of approval. As it was, the marriage did take place in 2005, and in eight years, has appeared to be a successful and happy one. For a man who has had difficulties in his private and public life and has been described as being married to his desk, the marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall has provided some comfort and stability. One only needs to see them together to understand how well they get on with each other.
Camilla herself has now become fully integrated into the machinery of monarchy and has earned the respect and affection the people through her own brand of regal warmth and openness. She is not a replacement for Diana - no one can replace her, not even the Duchess of Cambridge - but she certainly coming into her own as an asset for the monarchy.


     So what is this author’s overall verdict on Prince Charles? Is he an old crank with reactionary ideas? Or, is he a visionary with a long-term view who is ahead of his time? 

     Quite simply, he is man who desires to use his status to good use. According to Time magazine, it was a diplomat by the name of Christopher Soames who “pointed out that few people reject an invitation to meet the heir to the throne, especially if a fancy dinner and highfalutin guests are added to the mix.” Since then, he has used his royal status to bring awareness to causes important to him, and to get people with money and influence to fork over wads of cash to fund his charitable pursuits, which in turn helps to raise more awareness and goes toward providing assistance to people and causes that are in need of it. 

     It is this author’s opinion that 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 day, and it is sensible that he would like to have a firm grasp of 
The Prince shaking hands with a crowd.
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. If anything, his time as heir is different from that of Edward VII, who was prevented by his mother Queen Victoria being allowed to take a part in the affairs of state. 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. He is a sensitive man, but has a burning conviction on making his views known on issues of national importance. If anything, unlike politicians who tend to act in short-term electoral interest, the Prince takes a long-term view on how policies effect people, and has expressed frustrations about political figures who try to take the easy way out of critical issues by applying band-aids (or in some cases, ignoring problems), as opposed to solving them with sustainable and long-lasting solutions. 

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

     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. (According to Time magazine, he is already in the process of consolidating his charities into stronger entities that can go on with less of his direct leadership.) 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. 

     For now though, the Prince will carry on was he has been doing for over 60 years. Indeed, as the Queen continues to age, he will be seen more often in her stead. Last year, he carried out 657 engagements on behalf of himself and his mother. Earlier this year, he attended the State Opening of Parliament at his mother’s side and this week, he will represent her at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Sri Lanka. All of these actions are seen as beginning a transition in which the Prince takes on some of the Queen’s ceremonial duties, such as investitures and meeting foreign dignitaries, resulting in a co-regency of sorts. They are also seen as preparing Charles for kingship as well as the public and the wider world for the reality that he will be king.


     According to a recent Time magazine, aides to the Prince say that he is in no rush to become king, and if anything, is already feeling the weight of the crown like something akin to a prison 
More than anybody else, Charles understands that in order to
gain the throne, he will have to lose someone very dear to him.
sentence. But
other “royal sources” have in the past claimed that he is chomping at the bit for the crown and is impatient each day that he waits. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. As was stated earlier, being the heir the throne is an unenviable position since it carries little formal authority or responsibility, other than deputizing for the reigning monarch. Not merely wanting to be “a presence,” he has had to struggle to find a role for himself, all the while dealing with chaos in his personal life that has spilled out into the public realm. Now, having reached retirement age, he has in many ways found his role as the heir and has found happiness in his personal life. Perhaps this is a reason why Charles is not in a hurry to be king (aside from the fact it requires the death of his mother). Right now, he can define his position as heir to the throne as he wishes, but as king, he will likely be heavily defined by that position, and severely circumscribed by it.  

     Even so, with his long apprenticeship, he will be well-prepared to ascend to the throne because of the work he has done, which 
He's sailing through calmer waters these days.
gives him personal insights into the lives of his people, gives
him  relevance in modern society. 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. He has weathered through personal and public chaos in his life, questions about his fitness to reign, criticisms of his advocacy, and suggestions that he ought to bow out in favor of William. Now, he appears more at ease with himself and new polling reveals that the majority of Britons want Charles III (or George VII) to be their next king. After waiting for so long, it will be interesting to see the direction in which he takes the monarchy, so that it can continue to be relevant going forward. 

     Let us hope that he has many more happy birthdays, and that he continues to work hard in the service of his country and the Commonwealth.



Photo Credit: Dan Marsh via Wikimedia Commons cc, BiblioArchives/LibraryArchives via Flickr cc, West Midlands Police via Flickr cc, Gordon Brown via Wikimedia Commons cc, M3peti via Wikimedia Commons cc, SFU Public Affairs and Media Relations via Flickr cc, Simon Jones via Flickr cc, Worthy FM via flickr cc, Trinidad-News.com via Flickr cc, Sodacan via Wikimedia Commons cc, Birmingham Culture via Flickr cc, Victoria Johnson via Flickr cc 

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

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