The King and Queen are clearly not invincible. It’s time for Princess Anne to shine
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
“When sorrows come, they come not single spies but in battalions.” As an ardent Shakespearean, the King could be forgiven for dwelling on that rueful line from Hamlet. After getting a bit scratchy over a malfunctioning pen in the days after his mother’s death, the reign of Charles III has gone swimmingly until now.
Concerns that an opinionated Prince of Wales would find it hard to adjust to being a constitutional monarch have proved mostly unfounded. The new monarch has made hugely successful visits to France and Germany and carried out his duties at home with warmth and good humour.
While he can never replace his late mother in the public’s affections (and is wise enough not to try), the King and his Queen, both well into their 70s, have projected a cheerful and wonderfully British image of soldiering on regardless. How well they fulfil that fundamental function of reassuring us; everything will be alright.
And, now, alas, an army of troubles crowds in. Only nine months after that magnificent Coronation, and the Royal family suddenly feels fragile and threadbare. What Charles would call “beastly bad luck”.
The Queen was never ill, or never let on that she was, so we believed that she was immortal. Now that she’s gone, the whole clan seems to be dropping like flies. The King’s prostate problem received sympathetic coverage, but a timely and shocking diagnosis of cancer has had the effect of drawing attention to his instant private treatment compared with the months of agonised waiting his subjects can expect on the NHS. (Health service CEO Amanda Pritchard had a cheek tweeting, “Finding out you have cancer can be very daunting – we hope King Charles’s treatment goes well. As ever, if you have any symptoms or signs of cancer, please do come forward for checks.” As ever? Really, Amanda, with the worst delay between cancer diagnosis and starting treatment in the developed world?)
The Princess of Wales is at home recuperating from major surgery and unlikely to be in action for many weeks yet. Prince William, who intended to take time out to support his wife and three children, will now return to work tomorrow as his father undergoes treatment, either chemo or radiotherapy; both draining.
The Palace has been unusually frank about the monarch’s medical condition, but openness can end up stoking the hunger for more disclosure. It’s not enough to be told the King has cancer; now, the media demands to know what kind of cancer? Although Charles is said to be “wholly positive” and “looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible” inevitably there is a worry.
Would they have told us all this were it not potentially serious? We may find ourselves thinking back to the reigns we learned in history lessons (1837-1901, July 10 – July 19 1553) and wondering whether this one will be shorter than a mediaeval interregnum, shorter even than expected because the King waited so long to ascend to the throne. Poor Charles, poor Camilla. Poor things.
Just to add to the drama, and sense of turbulence, Prince Harry flew in on Tuesday and had a “brief meeting” with his papa at Clarence House. Naturally, there is fresh speculation about a royal reconciliation. Might Harry’s transatlantic dash be used to heal wounds with King Charles and provide a chance to reach out to Prince William? Is Harry’s trip to Britain the “sign of a truce” that could heal the rift in the Royal family or is it yet more opportunistic material-gathering to fulfil the Sussexes’ Netflix contract?
True, family health crises have a way of thawing estranged relatives who can’t quite remember the cause of their icy feud. Or, at least, the reasons for no longer speaking look petty compared to the sudden prospect of eternal loss. This feud is different, I think. It’s hard to imagine William and Harry letting bygones be bygones at their father’s bedside. Too much blood under the bridge.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex showed a merciless (and mercenary) disregard for the health of Prince Philip who was very unwell in the same private London hospital his eldest son now attends, when they gave their notorious interview to Oprah in March 2021. A month later, the Windsor patriarch was dead at the age of 99.
I do hope the rumour is true that the marvellously acerbic Prince Philip referred to Meghan as DoW – the Duchess of Windsor – after her malevolent American predecessor who also had an unfortunate power over the loins of a British prince.
What we do know is that our late Queen was incredibly upset about Harry and Meghan’s exploits before and during her widowhood. Prince William is said to be particularly bitter about the strain his brother imposed on their grandmother in her final years. Not to mention the frequent disgraceful digs the Montecito pair have made at his wife, Catherine.
And there is no love lost between the present Queen and her younger stepson since Harry accused her in his autobiography, Spare, of being a “dangerous” woman, a potentially wicked stepmother who “sacrificed me on her own personal PR altar”. Can’t imagine many cosy fireside chats at the Palace between that pair.
After this mortal shock, the tender-hearted King must long for family unity. “Please boys, don’t make my final years a misery” he begged his warring sons after their grandfather’s funeral. But my guess is the deep wounds inflicted by the poisonous pair only have a chance of being healed if – or when – Harry and Meghan are divorced.
Where does this leave the Royal family at a time of crisis? All hands on deck are needed, but there aren’t a lot of hands. The idea that the Queen will step up her number of engagements is wishful thinking, I’m afraid. Camilla is, as friends say, “a bloody brick” with a lovely, mischievous charm, but she will be 77 in July and is slowing down as people her age do.
Sitting in the carriage at the Coronation, she was clearly in discomfort, following a recent back injury, it was claimed. Occasionally, she looks a bit shaky on her pins. A great deal has been asked of her, and Lord knows she has done it with aplomb, but asking for her to take on more is too much and could endanger her own health. The King needs her to be well.
So, Prince William must, perforce, be on standby to fill his father’s shoes. He has always protectively guarded his time with his young family, wishing normality for George, Charlotte and Louis, not hankering after the Crown, even though poll after poll has shown a public strongly in favour of William and Kate on the throne. It would be good for him to remember that his beloved grandmother was 25-years-old with two children under four when she became Queen. We pray it won’t be necessary, and that King Charles will make an excellent recovery and go on for many years, but if William is called there is no doubt he will prove worthy.
The secret weapon here is surely Princess Anne. Privately, many of us think that the country would do rather well if we had only female monarchs. We’re very good at Queens, you know. The Princess Royal succeeded by the knockout Princess Charlotte, a natural star like her Granny Diana, would be perfect, I think.
The hereditary principle says otherwise – drat! – but there is no reason why Anne cannot play a hugely prominent role while the King is having treatment. At the Coronation, the Princess Royal was magnificent in swishing green velvet robes and a black bicorn hat with a red plume. She looked like a wizard who could put the whole place under her spell. Also, either by luck or cunning design, the red plume on Anne’s hat almost entirely obscured the ginger traitor in the pew behind. What a service she did to the nation!
Since her mother’s death, Princess Anne hasn’t put a foot wrong. In her looks, in her voice, and especially on horseback, she is the best living reminder we have of Elizabeth II. Undoubtedly, she has everything it takes to take the strain of the Crown awhile till the man who regards her so highly is well enough to pick it up again. He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.
