The British monarchy is facing another abdication crisis. Only this time, the British people are calling for it in the guise of abnegation.
Almost half of the British public believe Prince Charles should stand aside and let his eldest son William become the next king, polling shows. …
The idea would be most popular with young people in the 18 to 24 age group, where a third of respondents said they would strongly support the Prince of Wales abdicating when the Queen dies.
(The Independent, January 1, 2019)
The British monarchy: abdicating the throne
It’s one thing to abdicate to avoid an untenable crisis. This is what King Edward VIII did in 1936. And it’s what the king of Malaysia did just yesterday.
But I suspect the latter is in for a rude awakening. Because I don’t think his nubile Russian bride is going to stay with him. You know, the way Edward’s mature American divorcee stayed with him.
It’s even understandable if failing health forces one to abdicate. Reports are that Japanese Emperor Akihito plans to do so in April after a 30-year reign.
But abdicating under public pressure would make a mockery of constitutional monarchy. Henry VIII claimed a divine right to reign – complete with self-serving decrees. That’s how much regard he had for public opinion.
That said, the monarchy survived the abdication of King Edward VIII. So you’d think it could survive the abnegation of Prince Charles.
Except that Queen Elizabeth has decreed abdication tantamount to death. So the only way William would be king before Charles is over Charles’s dead body.
Abolish the monarchy
Monarchy is inconsistent with democracy. And this is especially so in Britain. After all, it claims to have a constitutional monarchy; but it has no (written) constitution.
This is why the issue for me is not abdication. It’s abolition. And my blog is replete with commentaries mocking royalty and all its pretensions. My main target has been the honours list. But I’ve also mocked the much ado monarchists make of royal weddings.
Mind you, abolition might just put the British royals out of their misery. Because they always seem beset by scandals. And Charles has featured in many of them.
To be fair, William has cultivated an image that makes him seem more Boy Scout than Boy king. He even cleaned public toilets to endear himself to his (future) subjects.
Whereas Charles is famous for having personal toilets installed wherever he goes. But this shows the lengths to which he will go just to sit on his throne. It also shows why William will sit on the throne only over his dead body.
Charles is fit to be king
Charles is a fuddy-duddy, fastidious eccentric. Never mind that I find his habit of talking to plants rather endearing.
But he is even more qualified to be king of the United Kingdom than Hillary was to be president of the United States. And we need only look at the mess Donald Trump is making of his presidency. Because it shows the dangers of choosing unqualified people to lead.
Frankly, Charles was not only born to be king, he has earned the right to be. His record of public works (headed by his Prince’s Trust) speaks volumes in this respect. Not to mention that Charles is
- as steeped in politics and military history as he is in architecture and the performing arts;
- as skilled in gardening and painting as he is in polo and skiing; and
- as committed to public service and saving the planet as he is to pluralism and multiculturalism.
No would-be president, let alone another would-be monarch, has similar credentials. What’s more, I suspect he knows more about his 400 patronages than the people heading them do. I even cheered when he called Al Gore out for plagiarizing his work on the environment.
Meanwhile, no royal ever appears more engaging on royal walkabouts or at royal events. Those of course are occasions when members of the royal family (a.k.a. The Firm) interact with the public. Charles never fails to look interested and at ease. And this is so whether he’s
- making small talk with celebrities and commoners,
- hobnobbing with high-ranking politicians,
- joining in local customs and dances, or
- delivering a speech that would make any public speaker green with envy.
That’s Charles. And William would be lucky if he’s half as accomplished as Charles is today when his turn comes to be crowned king.
In any event, Charles would no sooner abdicate than Elizabeth would. Simply put, being monarch is a job for life.
Mind you, Elizabeth II (92) became queen at 25. So Charles (70) would be lucky if he becomes king at 80. Which raises the spectre of William (36) succeeding the queen after all. This, because Charles might die before her.
Sorry, Charlie.