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 

Hereditary Head of the Commonwealth?

     One of the Queen’s titles is Head of the Commonwealth – that is, the Commonwealth of Nations. Elizabeth regards this role as one of her most important, as she and the Commonwealth have grown together over the last six decades. She takes the role seriously and has a passionate interest in Commonwealth affairs. As such, she has been credited as being the glue that has kept the organization together. And if the Queen – as reported by the Daily Mail last Sunday – gets her way, it will be ensured that the title will be handed down to all of her successors. 

Background

The British Empire at its height in 1921 – the largest empire in history.

     The Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organization of 54 countries with over 2 billion people, mostly former colonies of the British Empire. The Commonwealth was gradually born from the Empire as colonies gained self-governance and independence from London. Up to 1949, British monarchs evolved from being the unitary head of the Empire to being the head of state of all independent countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations. In that year, Ireland voted to become a republic, an action which automatically severed its membership in the organization, and India was expressing republican sentiments as well, but did not want to break all ties with the British monarch and the other Commonwealth countries. So new membership criteria was drawn up in London which allowed members to be republics, so long as they recognized King George VI – the present Queen’s father – as Head of the Commonwealth. The London Declaration also renamed the organization as the Commonwealth of Nations, marking the birth of the “New Commonwealth” which became predominately composed of countries which no longer owed allegiance to the Crown, but accepted the monarch as “a symbol of the free association of [the] independent member nations.”

 

The Commonwealth of Nations. All member states recognize Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth, but the red countries are the members of the organization that share allegiance to Elizabeth and her heirs and successors as head of state (and are informally known as Commonwealth Realms). The blue countries are the members that either have their own indigenous monarchies, or are republics. Many of them were once independent realms, including India, Pakistan, Kenya, and South Africa.

     But according to Robert Hardman, no one said anything about passing the title on. When Elizabeth II succeeded her father in 1952, the Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, sent her a telegram welcoming her as Head of the Commonwealth, and everyone simply followed along (which technically means that this was the only position to which Elizabeth was “elected”). In my opinion, back then it was hard to think of anyone else succeeding to that title. Britain still had many imperial possessions around the world in 1952, and there were probably conflations between the Empire and the Commonwealth, with many people believing that the new Queen ought to have the same international standing as her predecessors.

So What’s Next?

     61 years on, most Commonwealth countries and leaders have expressed their appreciation for the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth (for regularly visiting Commonwealth countries and taking a keen interest in the affairs of the organization as well as individual member states), but upon the Queen’s death, they will have to decide who will succeed to the title.

The personal flag of Elizabeth II which she uses in her role as
Head of the Commonwealth, especially when traveling in
Commonwealth countries that are not realms of the Crown.

Given the historic link between the Crown and the Commonwealth, it is easy to assume that Prince Charles will be selected to succeed his mother, but again, this is not a given. If however, the Daily Mail is correct in its reporting, it appears that the Queen wants to use the monarchy’s present popularity to get Commonwealth leaders to make Head of the Commonwealth a hereditary title to be passed on to Charles, William, the new baby Prince George, and future successors.

     This comes at a time when the Queen is appearing to make a smooth and gradual transition from her to Charles, with the prince increasingly taking on some of his mother’s ceremonial duties and sitting by her side at the State Opening of Parliament back in May. Earlier this year, it was announced that for the first time since 1973, she would not attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), which is being held on November 15-17 in Sri Lanka, and that Charles would be deputizing for her. This has been seen as preparing Charles for kingship, boosting his profile in the Commonwealth, and making it more likely for him to succeed to 

The 5th and current Commonwealth
Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma.

the Queen’s title when the time comes. And Commonwealth leaders have been expressing some support for continuing the link with the Crown. On Commonwealth Day in March, Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma acknowledged the Queen’s service as the Head of the Commonwealth, applauded Charles’ role in the organization, and elaborated on “a foundation of friendship and continuity” in association with the royal family. He also stated that the “Crown has symbolized the free association of our nations and our peoples.” In her response, the Queen said that she appreciated the “kind and generous sentiments, and for [the] thoughtful words about the link between the Crown and the Commonwealth and its enduring value.”

Julia Gilliard, the Queen's 12th Australian
Prime Minister, who was also the first female
prime minister of the country.

Later that month, the then Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gilliard, gave her own tribute to the Queen, and went further than many Commonwealth leaders by stating that she was “sure the Queen’s successor as monarch will one day serve as Head of the Commonwealth with the same distinction as Her Majesty has done.” 

     So it would appear that with Charles taking his mother’s place at CHOGM, he may go a long way to securing the position of Head of the Commonwealth for himself. But when he arrives in Sri Lanka this November, might he also be able to secure an automatic succession for all of the Queen’s heirs and successors to this prominent international position as well? The Daily Mail has pointed out that the Commonwealth’s website has removed a line stating that the role of Head of the Commonwealth “does not pass automatically to her heir.” It still says that succession is not “automatic” and that Commonwealth Heads of Government will choose future Heads of the Commonwealth. But by removing specific reference to the Queen’s heir, it may be possible that there could be a gradual pivot to the title becoming hereditary in some form, even if that means going through a selection process as a formality.

     In my opinion, it is usually unwise to open a debate on a topic such as this, because it opens the Crown itself to a debate

The Queen reportedly wants to have to issue of
the succession settled before her reign ends.

which often features unscrupulous republican-minded figures. I do not mind an informed and constructive discussion on the merits of a British monarch being the symbolic figurehead of an organization that has become increasing diverse in its composition, but there are anti-monarchists will inevitably attempt to undermine the monarchy in the countries where the Crown still holds authority. Perhaps it would be preferable to leave the system as it is, and to make Charles, William, George, and future heirs work for the title. If however, Commonwealth leaders decide against Charles, who will succeed to the title?

No crowns or royal shields. The Commonwealth flag
represents the fact that the Commonwealth is not a
hereditary Crown institution, and that being
Head of the Commonwealth is separate and
distinct from that of being monarch.

In the 1990's, when the monarchy was plagued with divorces, scandals, and the death of Diana, there were rumblings about making Nelson Mandela the next Head of the Commonwealth. But the monarchy has since recovered its standing, and Commonwealth leaders have been speaking in generally positive terms about the link between the Crown and the Commonwealth. At any rate, the issue of succeeding to the title must be addressed either now or later, and by addressing the issue now – while the monarchy is riding high on public confidence – and potentially forever linking the Crown with being Head of the Commonwealth (albeit keeping the two positions distinct and separate), it will likely save many headaches and much wrangling when the Queen's reign ends.

Photo Credit: Alkari via Wikimedia Commons cc, Foreign and Commonwealth Office via Flickr cc, DilatoryRevolution via Wikimedia Commons cc

Sources:

• Hardman, Robert. Her Majesty: Queen Elizabeth and Her Court. New York: Pegasus Books. 2012. Print (Page 336).