Waiting to be King

(2 of 2)

In the theology of kingship, in which legitimacy confers inheritance, it ought not to matter whether the heir to the throne is popular or not, as it ought not to matter whether he or she is an athlete or an intellectual. But in the 21st century, public opinion cannot be ignored: a presidential system exudes the aura of being much more in keeping with the mood of the times. (Already, Kevin Rudd, the man expected to be the next Prime Minister of Australia, is promising another referendum on whether that country should jettison the monarchy.)

In the years since Diana's death, the Prince's advisers have worked hard (sometimes too hard) to improve the Prince's standing. He has married the woman he should have married in the first place. His office has been taken out of the hands of tweedy "county" types and staffed by professionals: his public relations are currently managed by the man who once did the same job for Manchester United. The focus in repositioning the Prince has been to concentrate on his work for charity.

The emphasis is significant, because it suggests Charles has recognized that if he is to be remembered it may well be more for his many years as Prince of Wales than what is likely to be a shorter time as King. (If his mother lives as long as her own mother, he may not take the throne for another 20 years, by which time he would be almost 80.) Of course, he remains remarkably privileged. But, as his website points out — along with lots of stuff about his role in the military and how to make compost — his charities raise well over $200 million annually for causes he believes in, and he is patron or president of another 360 organizations.

Less noticed is the incessant stream of letters and messages to government ministers and senior military figures, taking up a campaign, arguing a point, pleading a cause. Ministers confess to finding them an irritation, but concede that he often makes a worthwhile point that has escaped the notice of bureaucrats and politicians.

It would be a distortion to say that all the damage done by the Diana disaster has been undone. Charles is still a long way from being the most popular member of his family. But he is building respect, and, while his ability to see the glass half empty continues to frustrate his supporters, few suggest he is a bad man.

It remains an unenviable role, in which any kind of tittle-tattle, whether true or not, is more or less guaranteed an airing, and in which any self-appointed "expert" feels free to criticize anything from his dress sense to his mental capacity. Periodically someone suggests that perhaps the crown will never sit upon his head, that the inheritance may skip a generation and pass to Prince William. It will not happen, for the very good reason that, once you ignore the heir apparent, why should anyone assume that William has any better a claim on the throne than any other Tom, Dick, not to mention Harry?

One of the lessons of history is that people tend to like their monarchs either young and vulnerable or old and venerable. The first option has not been available to Charles for decades. But the second is not a bad thing to aim for. And in monarchy, nothing succeeds like the succession.

It may sound paradoxical to say this of a man who may not take on his main job until he is well past the age at which almost everyone else has retired. But time is on his side.

Jeremy Paxman is a broadcaster and writer. His most recent book is On Royalty

The originally published version of this story incorrectly identified Prince Charles' advisers as "Buckingham Palace." The Prince actually works and resides in Clarence House.