The future of the monarchy: Is King Charles III set to be the great reformer?

Charles had his passions as heir, and he will surely not abandon them now, writes Mary Dejevsky

He has in the past conceded that, as King, he might express himself more cautiously, in keeping with his new responsibilities (PA Wire)

The heir’s long wait is over. At the moment of the Queen’s death, the Prince became King.

The very simplicity of dynastic succession is one reason why the monarchy has survived as an institution to this day. Another is that, with a hereditary monarch as head of state, no one else may occupy or aspire to that position, leaving the Crown largely above day-to-day politics but with a crucial small residue of power.

The constitutional constraints on the monarch will not change with the accession of Charles III, nor is the King likely to seek to loosen them. But he will probably not be as reticent on public matters as his mother either, who worked more through intimations and wishes conveyed indirectly. Her advice to Scots to “think carefully” before casting their vote in the independence referendum was about as clear as her political intervention ever became.

How far such cautious obliqueness is compatible with the national and international trend for more openness and accountability, or indeed with constitutional democracy itself in the 21st century, can be questioned. But it will probably take a new generation, or a major royal scandal, before that discussion even starts.

King Charles also seems to have retreated on one change he had mooted as early as two decades ago: to alter his title as monarch from “Defender of the Faith” to the broader “Defender of Faith”.

Some saw such a change as little short of revolutionary in signalling an end to the identification of the monarch with the Church of England and even with Christianity. Others saw it as no more than a minor tweak. In 2015, however, Charles backtracked, arguing that the title was broad enough and would remain unchanged.

But Charles had his passions as Prince of Wales, and he will surely not abandon them now. He has in the past conceded that, as King, he might express himself more cautiously, in keeping with his new responsibilities. But this also suggests in turn that he intends still to speak out on matters close to his heart, albeit in what might be called a more monarch-appropriate tone.

And whether or not he retreats on “Defender of Faith”, the fact that he even raised the question all those years ago shows a longstanding awareness that the country he was brought up to rule is very different in its social conventions and ethnic make-up from the one where his mother began her reign.

The former prince’s passions also show a degree of prescience. He associated himself with a number of causes that seem at least as pertinent now, and in some cases even more so, than when he took them up in his relative youth.

He can justifiably claim – as he did recently – to have been an environmentalist and a green campaigner almost before these concerns entered the mainstream, let alone gained the following they enjoy today.

He is an enthusiast for early 20th-century English music, an accomplished watercolourist, and has long taken a keen interest in architecture, where his aesthetic sense soon brought him into conflict with parts of the architectural establishment.

His well-known hostility to a planned National Gallery extension as a “monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend” killed that design. He put his own architectural and social principles into action at Poundbury, the “model” village he built on his own land in Dorset.

It is loved by its residents even as it is derided as pastiche traditionalism by his foes – something Charles might regard as vindication. One glance at the London skyline could prompt people to ask why the future King did not speak out more often in defence of his “much-loved and elegant friends”. Might he raise his voice now?

Charles channelled a crusading interest in social issues into his charity, the Prince’s Trust, and was recently quoted as describing the government’s plans to send would-be migrants to Rwanda as “appalling” – a comment that was not denied.

How far might he be able to exert more influence on government as King than he could as Prince, including in the personal letters he regularly sent to ministers? That will become clear only with time, but he will have an almost unique opportunity to set a tone, address those in power and raise public expectations in a way that could be happily consonant with the times. In so doing, he might not cause a revolution, but he could foster change.

For all his appearance of remoteness, he also starts with more of a connection to his subjects and the social change they have experienced than might be realised. Unhappily married, divorced, remarried, with a “blended” family, a grandson with a wife of mixed race, and a brother who kept unsavoury company, he is no stranger to family complexity. And in matters of family and personal conduct, he has choices that are within his power, and they include shaping the institution of the monarchy for the future.

He inherits from his mother the idea of a slimmed and streamlined royal family, with just the monarch and immediate heirs pictured on major occasions. That image, however, has not (yet) been translated into reality, with a large number of royals, and their staff, on the payroll.

As King, and head of the family, Charles can decide how the royals – and through them, the institution of the monarchy – will relate to the people. Will he modernise the monarchy along Dutch or Scandinavian lines, expecting those outside the direct line of succession to live lives that are closer to those of ordinary people?

Could King Charles decide to reduce, or even abolish the sovereign grant (formerly the civil list), and live largely from the not inconsiderable income of his estates? Might he choose more modest accommodation than Buckingham Palace, for which some other use could be found? Could – should – some of the state ceremonials be pared back or even abolished, starting perhaps with the state opening of parliament, even as its value to tourism is recognised?

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Who should qualify for a “royal wedding”? Beatrice and Eugenie, really? How many royals are needed to open new schools and hospitals? Couldn’t a celebrity do the job, or no one at all? How much royal work might Charles delegate to Prince William and Kate Middleton?

The Queen regarded her service as a lifelong duty, after what was seen as the disgrace of Edward VIII’s abdication. Could Charles one day rehabilitate abdication and retire to the gentleman’s life that seems to suit him?

Charles has become King at 73, years after most of his subjects of the same age started claiming their pensions. How much enthusiasm will he have for modernising the monarchy or instituting change? Then again, he has had decades to consider his role as a 21st-century King.

Maybe he will want to get a move on, fearing that time could run out. And how much change do Charles III’s subjects really want? How attached are they not just to the ceremonial associated with the monarchy, but to the aura and mystery that attends the monarch? Does the UK want a modern monarchy that is closer to the people, or a monarchy complete with all the trappings – or not at all?

Charles hardly comes over as a revolutionary. But he becomes a King whose choices could make or break the monarchy. With two heirs in place, he could leave the institution fitter and more suited to the times than it is now.

Or he could, by his own misjudgements and his distance from his subjects, fuel agitation for alternatives, such as an elected presidency. His ambitions, at least, should become clear soon enough.