Prince Charles might miss being king thanks to Meghan and Harry’s interview

OPINION: By Daniela Elser, Royal Writer

In London desk drawers, inside (I suppose) the kind of mahogany giants preferred by the men and women guiding the ship of state, right there, huddled under club ties and old Ascot gambling tickets, there is a document called Operation London Bridge.

It was meticulously crafted decades ago and painstakingly details, literally, what will happen in the hours, days and weeks after the death of the Queen and Prince Charles become King.

The last time the UK saw a coronation was in 1953. When the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth II left Westminster Abbey, 15 months had passed since the death of her father, King George VI.

This time, however, when the Queen passes away, there won’t be such a long delay. Instead, a few months after his funeral, British audiences, rather the world, will enjoy the epic, once-in-a-lifetime spectacle that accompanies a coronation. Rise up King Carlos III!

Except … Maybe … Let’s pause here … This might never happen.

Because at this point, what once seemed like an absurd notion (Charles stepped aside to allow his son, Prince William, to take the throne next), has been reawakened, in the wake of explosive accusations of racism and royal cruelty of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

And this time? This time everything is different.

See, throughout the decades, that you go back to the notorious’ 90s when Charles and his then-wife Diana, the Princess of Wales, were caught up in a devastating media tango, each side reporting the press against the other in a bloody PR war, an idea bounced. the imagination of the public and the press: Why not skip a generation?

Charles, it was thought, with his plant-whispering manners, his tampon manners, was decidedly unpopular, his stiff public demeanor and his 90-degree pocket square image hardly warmed the hearts of even staunch royalists. Why not, this reasoning ran, let Charles spend his twilight years murmuring to his peonies and let his charismatic and charming son, Prince William, who was then comfortably the spitting image of his beloved mother, take the throne. next and happen to your grandmother?

However this actually happened and Charles resigned his place in the line of succession it was always so likely to happen as His Majesty skipped the opportunity to see his gee-gees run at Ascot or Camilla, now the Duchess of Cornwall (in Back then in the 90’s, the Rottweiler as Diana nicknamed her unpleasantly) avoiding her nightly quadruple G&T.

The monarchy does not bow to the popular whim; it is not a reactive beast prone or even particularly willing to give in to public sentiment. There is a way to do things and they will always be done that way. Now who wants a muffin?

As a result, while the idea of ​​passing Charles for William has surfaced at times, it was never even remotely credible as an idea.

And then came Oprah.

This month, Charles’s son and daughter-in-law sparked the most public recognition the royal house has had to face since Diana’s death in 1997, precipitating a global wave of condemnation directed at the palace for the treatment they received from Harry and Meghan.

One of the figures who has suffered the most, on a public level, has been Charles.

Meghan told Oprah that an anonymous member of the Windsor family had “concerns” about the skin color of the couple’s fetus before Harry later clarified that the family member was not the Queen or Prince Philip, which raised even more suspicions that Carlos could be the culprit. . Of course, the truth is that we may never know which royal made the comment.

Meanwhile, Harry told the public that his father had cut him financially and stopped taking his calls at one point.

As the credits rolled on and audiences around the world reeling, it seemed clear that there would be no ‘I Heart Dad’ cups flying from Montecito to Gloucestershire any time soon.

Then came the inevitable elections that followed its slew of prime-time hours, which found a stark generational divide in public reactions. One poll found that 60 percent of those under 35 “agreed with Meghan’s claims that the royal family is racist,” a view that only 20 percent of those over 65 held. Another found that 41 percent of Gen Z thought it appropriate that the palace removed Harry and Meghan’s titles and endorsements, compared to 58 percent of Gen X.

With Charles seen, especially among younger Brits, as a father, at best terrible and at worst insensitive, the old whispers of “jump Charles for William” suddenly resurfaced, louder and louder. .

While this notion has been largely discarded over the years, this time the terrain has changed dramatically and the monarchy faces a new struggle for survival.

A poll conducted for The Times after Oprah found that fewer than one in three Britons (31 percent) wanted Carlos to succeed the queen, while 51 percent wanted the crown to go to William. While the Queen and Guillermo enjoy moderate public approval (59 percent and 58 percent respectively), poor Carlos languishes with 38 percent.

Meanwhile, despite his lifelong commitment to environmental issues, fighting climate change, his penchant for the Dali Lama, meditation, and organic farming, following Harry and Meghan’s interview, Charles was he slides more and more from being viewed with a perplexed indifference to outright hatred. (Polls done before and after Oprah found that the number of people who viewed the Prince of Wales positively dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent.)

What distinguishes this current crisis from others is that it is not an internal family dispute that has broken out in the press; Instead, the House of Windsor is accused of having abominable views on mental health and a horrible streak of racism that still finds its way into real life.

Buckingham Palace now faces a challenge similar to that of Everest: to somehow disentangle itself from these charges and persuade anyone under the age of 40, say, that maintaining a royal family is a worthwhile investment in modern Britain.

Right now, the House of Windsor is losing that battle to the younger Britons for whom the monarchy has come to represent Little England: white, emotionally cold, and clinging to notions of past national superiority.

Abroad, in the Commonwealth, in several countries, including Australia, the discourse of becoming a republic has resurfaced, further threatening to break the scope and mandate of the British crown.

The institution of the monarchy is, at bottom, centered on one thing and one thing only: survival.

At this time, that is not guaranteed. Since October last year, support for the monarchy has fallen across all age ranges in the UK with the largest drops occurring in the 18-49 age range.

If in the years to come, William, with his campaign on mental health, climate change activism, and mid-priced sweaters, emerges as the much stronger contender to win the hearts and minds of generations to come, could Charles pay attention? to the increasing calls to fall? on his sword and let his son reign afterwards?

If the idea of ​​a more than 20-year reign of King Charles III begins to look like it would mean two decades of precipitous decline in public support for the monarchy as the entire gold-edged monolith slides (further) into obsolescence, So could the now- A 72-year-old man faces unprecedented pressure, both in private and public, to give up his right to see his face on the pound coins?

That is a risk the crown may not be able to afford to take.

One thing that could well get in the way of all of this is Charles’s ego. The man has been the heir apparent since he was three years old and has been groomed for this job, and expected for this job, literally for his entire life. That he would happily give up the chance to rule is unthinkable, but could he snatch it from his hands in the pain of the monarchy’s survival? That is the question.

By unleashing this current crisis, by changing the terrain so dramatically beneath the palace, could Meghan and Harry have set off a chain of events that will see King William V on the throne?

King Louis XV of France is said to have famously opined, “Après moi, le deluge”, which basically translates to “after me, the flood”; in other words, when I’m gone, you can all deal with the mess I’ve left behind, and it’s a phrase that is often seen as foreshadowing the bloody French Revolution.

A more suitable 21st century version of this might be ‘Après Oprah, le deluge’.

Sure, we may not be about to see guillotines installed at The Mall, but one particular future King might be about to lose his mind.