On 21 April Queen Elizabeth II marks her 90th birthday, the first of our reigning monarchs ever to do so, and it will be a very happy occasion, just as her Diamond Jubilee was in 2012. Five years ago there had been a more sombre milestone for the queen’s eldest son, Charles, Prince of Wales. He passed the mark of 59 years spent as heir to the throne set by his great-great-grandfather, Victoria’s eldest son, the Prince of Wales who became King Edward VII in 1901.
The prince will be celebrating his mother’s birthday as enthusiastically as anyone, while oppressed by unmistakable frustration. He’s now 67; the Queen’s mother, the late Queen Mother, lived to 101; when he inherits the throne, he will be well beyond most people’s retirement age.
When or if: as the royal birthday approaches, I’m not the only person wondering whether the monarchy will survive to see the reign of Charles III. Dr Anna Whitelock, director of the London Centre for Public History, said the other day that present support for the monarchy was due to the Queen herself, and warned that the institution might not long outlive her. All those who value constitutional monarchy — which must include the prince — should ponder the very grave difficulties he would face on the throne, difficulties which, it must be said, are largely of his own making.
Such criticisms tend to come from republican malcontents, so let me say that the House of Hanover has no more loyal subject than myself, no stronger adherent to the principles of the Glorious Revolution, the protestant succession and constitutional monarchy. And while I’m not a member of the Prince of Wales’s Party or of the Highgrove Set (if there is one), I’ve always had a soft spot for the prince, as a fellow crank and one more emotionally illiterate Englishman.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in