It’s lonely at the top. That’s become a bit of a cliche, but there are tales from countless world leaders, company CEOs, and even actors and music stars who agree it can be isolating when you reach the heights of your field in life. You can have any number of advisors and assistants in your inner circle, but (in the words of one former US President), ‘The buck stops here’.
However, one particular set of leaders has an almost unique arrangement with an influential confidant—someone who is somehow both more and less powerful than they are. British Prime Ministers past and present will agree—I imagine—that their relationship with the monarch is invaluable. You see, every PM has regular private meetings with the head of state, and absolutely everything they discuss is completely private and confidential.
Now, while (in theory at least) the Crown is responsible for passing the country’s laws and ruling over the population, the constitutional balance between hereditary and elected leaders is complicated. The whole system depends on the monarch remaining apolitical and not becoming directly involved in day-to-day government. In short, they have huge power over the United Kingdom, but only if they never use it. What this arrangement does bring, though, is a sense of continuity. Queen Elizabeth provided that sense of continuity for more than seventy years—until this week.
In a world where politicians rarely think further ahead than the next election (or, in many cases, any further back than the beginning of their political career) the Queen is the one link that has connected every government since the 1950s. She has privately met with every Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and has been the solid foundation behind every government. Through boom and bust, war and peace, tragedy and celebration. While individual politicians preside over five or ten years in Parliament, the monarch can witness the slow, glacial changes to values, culture and global position that are measured over multiple decades.
That relationship, though, has now been dramatically reset. Liz Truss has become Prime Minister Truss just days before Prince Charles has become King Charles III. Truss may have been coveting her place in Downing Street for some time, but Charles has had possibly the longest apprenticeship of any job in history. He took to the throne at the age of 73. He became heir in 1952 and was formally invested as Prince of Wales in a grand ceremony in 1969. And he’s far too astute to have underestimated the task he’s taking on. As a Prince, he was an enthusiastic champion of many causes, including charities, environmental issues and conservation. He was also known to have lobbied people of influence, which was not always well received by the British public. As King, though, Charles has already stated that many of his charitable causes will have to take a back seat. He will adapt to the role of a neutral monarch. This might not come easy to a man who appears to have an inbuilt desire to fight perceived injustices, but for seven decades, he has had the perfect role model on how this should be done.
It would be wrong to say that everyone in the country strongly supports the monarchy in the 21st century—even the current Prime Minister was filmed by a TV news crew in her younger years, voicing some quite unfavourable views on the matter. As I write this, just a couple of days after the national upset of a royal death, many people are already voicing opposition to the continued existence of the royals on social media. And they are likely to become more vocal in the period between Charles becoming King this week and his official coronation—which could be a year or more into the future.
Anyone watching the TV coverage following the death of the Queen can’t fail to notice, though, that for the majority, the reaction has been one of shock and sadness. Even people who wouldn’t identify as strong supporters of the Royal Family as an institution often express a huge amount of admiration for Queen Elizabeth as a person. She has been a constant presence in the lives of most of the population—you’d need to be at least 75 to remember a time before she ascended to the throne. Just months ago, huge crowds assembled for celebrations to mark her Platinum Jubilee, from large outdoor concerts to small street parties.
The difficulties don’t stop in the British Isles. When King Charles first addressed the nation, he referenced his son and daughter-in-law—The Duke and Duchess of Sussex—living in the United States after stepping back from royal duties amid much controversy. There is also a growing desire within many countries that share the British monarch as head of state to become republics. In the Caribbean, in particular, being led by a royal in London is increasingly seen as an unwelcome hangover from the transatlantic slave trade. Initial communications have been positive, though. Even the Prime Minister of Barbados (which became a republic last year) has acknowledged the stability provided by Queen Elizabeth. Many recognised Charles for his role in helping the commonwealth of nations progress from the colonial era into a modern alliance of countries with strong ties.
In the time I have spent working for the BBC World Service, broadcasting to all corners of the world, I’ve been surprised how many countries and cultures refer to the ‘Victorian Era’ when describing the art, culture and events of the reign of Queen Victoria between 1837 and 1901. I didn’t expect outside of Britain and The Commonwealth to identify periods by relating to British monarchs—certainly not over a century later. I firmly believe we have now come to the end of the Elizabethan era, and I know it will be remembered just as significantly.
DAVID HARPER
Journalist and Presenter, London
(Tweets @ThatDavidHarper)