TThe British are not used to a sick monarch. The whole purpose of the institute is to convey an image of resilience and invulnerability and to be seen in public, so King Charles’ decision to publicly announce his cancer diagnosis should be commended for his commitment to openness. The first signals from Buckingham Palace, doctors and Downing Street are that there is nothing wrong and that, as Rishi Sunak says, let it go this morning, the disease, whatever it is, was discovered early. After all, the king is 75 years old, active and fit with two meals a day, but he is at an age when many men receive such a diagnosis.
The speculation will now begin. Seventy-two years ago today, a shocked and reverent British public woke to the news that Charles’ grandfather, George VI, had died in his sleep. Even the King had apparently not been told that, after a lifetime of heavy smoking, he had lung cancer – although the fact that his left lung had been removed four and a half months earlier in an operation at Buckingham Palace might have given him a chance. bit of a clue. Those who knew, like then Prime Minister Winston Churchill, knew better, but no one else did, despite his haggard appearance. It could barely be disguised with make-up when he saw his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, on an overseas tour from Heathrow a week before his death. the official cause of which was given as coronary thrombosis.
Charles has robust genes (and doesn’t smoke). The Queen was still performing royal duties 48 hours before her death at the age of 96, after 70 years on the throne, and his father, the Duke of Edinburgh, lived to be 99, but what are we to make of the King’s recent health problems – first treatment for an enlarged prostate, and now this?
We should welcome Charles’s emphasis on openness and reassurance, even if it is rather partial. We don’t know what type of cancer it is, or what the treatment is likely to be; even less, and understandably, the prognosis. The Palace’s statement may have been intended to allay public concerns about the absence of public appearances, but that obviously won’t happen (and some in the Palace would probably say that if nothing had been said there would have been no speculation at all ). In the age of social media, the gossip and rumors will be virulent and obsessive, so it is likely that confidentiality will not last long.
As the oldest king to take the throne, it has always been known that Charles’ reign will be relatively short, but news of his cancer will undoubtedly raise concerns. Who will take his place if he is incapacitated or in decline? When the king spoke of a downsized monarchy, did he really mean that there wouldn’t be enough royals to open things, tour factories and travel to empires around the world? Is this the beginning of the end for a British head of state in Tuvalu, let alone Australia?
Some questions are easier to answer than others. Is Prince Harry flying in to see his father make a rapprochement? Answer: probably not. Will Prince Andrew be allowed back into the public domain to help? Absolutely not.
What about his duties? Last year there were overseas tours and more than 500 public engagements, plus the daily round of red boxes containing official government papers and private meetings such as the weekly briefings with the Prime Minister. Charles has already said he will step back from his public duties during his treatment, so who will take on the job? It will be a busy year politically. For decades we never had to deal with these questions because Queen Elizabeth II was always in thriving health, but now we have to.
Every official photo is now scrutinized for signs of physical weakness or changing appearance. Is he losing weight, has he lost hair? Can he be the kind of monarch Britain expected? Will the long expected short reign turn out to be much shorter than expected?
These may be callous and intrusive questions – and they may be made redundant by a quick return to apparent health – but they will linger prominently in the background. Like every monarch since William the Conqueror, kings must be seen to be believed. Can the flow of information be contained now that the monarch has opted for openness?
-
Stephen Bates, a former Guardian correspondent, is the author of Royalty Inc: Britain’s Best-known Brand and The Shortest History of the Crown.