Born to Be King – But When?

When Prince Charles was 17, back in 1965, Queen Elizabeth summoned a conference to plan his future. Her husband Prince Philip, her Prime Minister Harold Wilson, her Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey and a pride of other notables soon agreed on the prince’s schooling and military service. But then what? The youth being trained to become King of England might find himself blocked from that or any other position for decades.

The Queen said she would like to avoid “an Edward VII situation,” referring to her great-grandfather, who had spent much of his life ogling ballerinas and sipping champagne before Queen Victoria’s death belatedly brought him to the throne at the age of 59. “It might be wise,” said the Queen, according to her biographer Robert Lacey, “to abdicate at a time when Charles could do better.” Said Philip jokingly: “You might be right. The doctors will keep you alive so long.”

If she chose to, the Queen, now 59, could abdicate at any time in favor of her 37-year-old son. But the only time in English history that any such parent-child transfer occurred was under duress: in 1327 rebellious nobles compelled the effete Edward II to hand on his crown to his young son, who became Edward III. The four other English abdications were also under pressure. Richard II and Henry VI were forced out by political rivals during the Wars of the Roses; James II was expelled in 1688 because he had converted to Roman Catholicism; and Edward VIII gave up his throne in 1936 because of the widespread opposition to his marrying an American divorcee, Wallis Simpson.

Nor is Edward VII the sole example of a prince who spent most of a lifetime in waiting. George IV was 58, and his daughter already dead, when he finally became King in 1820. His younger brother, William IV, was no less than 65, and both his daughters dead, when he reached the throne in 1830. Some famous heirs never reached it at all. Edward, the Black Prince of Wales, who conquered the French at Poitiers in 1356, lived to be 46 without succeeding his father, Edward III.

Twenty years have passed since the meeting at which the Queen discussed the possibility of abdication, and hardly anyone ever mentions that anymore. “It is clear to me that the question of abdication has been ruled out totally,” says Lacey. “Charles may be unhappy in his role, but it is the function of the British royal family to express the intangibles of life, including stability. Since modern British monarchs have no executive role, the sovereign has reverted back to the primitive and magical role, symbolic of society’s continuing.”

Not only is the Queen in excellent health, but she seems to enjoy her regal function and certainly performs it well. “After more than 30 years on the throne, she knows more about power and politics than most politicians,” says a source close to Buckingham Palace. “And although the Queen is theoretically ‘advised’ by ministers, she can, behind the scenes, advise ministers.” Some political soothsayers speculate that she may, in fact, have a key role to play in helping to pick a new Prime Minister if no party wins a majority in the next national election, probably in 1988.

Essentially, though, the British monarch’s role is ceremonial, and if the Queen comes to feel any weariness, she can and probably will delegate more of the ribbon cutting and speechmaking to her son. But nothing more. Says Sir John Colville, who was private secretary to Winston Churchill and helped train the future monarch when she came of age: “I believe that the Queen will reign on to celebrate her golden jubilee, 50 years as monarch, in 2002 A.D.” By then Charles will be 54, Diana a graying 41 and Prince William 20, and people will be speculating about his future prospects.