Tonight:
8°c
When Prince Charles turns 60 tomorrow, one of the longest apprenticeships in British history will enter a new chapter.
While the heir apparent has been ridiculed for much of his life, he has always occupied an unenviable position. While he remains much less popular than his mother, or even than his own son Prince William, Charles has gradually earned our respect as a champion of the countryside - a role that will surely stand him in good stead when, one day, he takes his rightful place as our next king.
Still, the fact remains that Charles is now only five years away from claiming his pension. Grey-haired and balding, he looks an increasingly elderly figure. And since his mother seems in robust health - and her mother died at the grand old age of 101 - it seems perfectly plausible that, barring abdication, it might be another decade or two before he finally becomes king.
And this is now his greatest dilemma: what if he turned out to be not Edward VII, a king in waiting until middle age, but rather a prince who never made it to his coronation at all? Ten or 15 years ago, Charles's prospects of winning the nation's affections were miserable, to say the least. Even as a younger man he always struck a gloomy, awkward figure, eclipsed by his glamorous and camera-friendly wife, Diana. As their marriage unravelled in the glare of the media in the late Eighties, it was Charles whom many people blamed.
When the Camillagate tapes hit the papers, complete with embarrassing banter about being reincarnated as a tampon, how we winced. And when Diana confirmed the rumours about Camilla Parker-Bowles in her famous interview with Martin Bashir, Charles's reputation seemed in tatters.
In the aftermath of Diana's death in 1997, Charles often seemed lost in the public furore. A man not given to conspicuous public emotion, he was unfairly cast as the uncaring ex-husband, the villain who had hounded her to her demise. And, while Diana's admirers reviled him, the rest of us simply laughed at him. Satirists cruelly mocked his jug ears, his stooping walk, his halting, antediluvian accent.
When he called for a return to traditional architecture, or expressed enthusiasm for New Age religions and alternative medicine, or joked about talking to his plants, how we all laughed. He seemed as unlikely a monarch - and as remote a figure from Alfred the Great, Edward III or Henry V - as it was possible to imagine.
Yet, while it would be a stretch to say that we have grown to love our future king, we have certainly grown to respect him. With Diana gone, Charles's understated virtues have become steadily more apparent.
Harder-working than most royals, he is the president of at least 15 charitable groups. His organic brand, Duchy Originals, once much mocked as a vanity scheme, makes more than £6million a year, the profits going to charity. And the Prince's Trust spends almost £50million a year helping youngsters who are unemployed, have been in care or in prison, or who are struggling at school - surely one of the worthiest of causes.
So will he ever get the top job? Since the Queen reportedly abhors the idea of abdication, regarding it as a betrayal of her coronation oath, some critics think that Charles should voluntarily step aside, allowing the crown to pass directly to Prince William.
It is true that William would be a younger, more dashing, more photogenic and - let's be honest - more popular king. But this notion seems to me deeply absurd, not least because it entirely misses the point of a monarchical system. The whole point of the monarchy, love it or hate it, is that it is based on hereditary succession.
Although the line of succession has been altered in the past - for instance in the late 17th century, when anti-Catholic sentiment ruled out an entire branch of the royal line - succession to the throne is not a frivolous reality show to be decided by popularity contests or phone votes. If Charles were to step aside, then why not William? Why not jump a generation or a sibling further down the line, if the designated heir doesn't fancy it?
Once we are in that game, of course, the whole point of the monarchy - its respect for tradition, its sense of stability, its ethos of duty and service - is up in the air. Set aside these principles, and it becomes merely a rotating family presidency, stripped of its historic mystery. In any case, an elderly monarch is surely no bad thing, as our current Queen has proved. With age comes dignity, which is why Charles cuts a rather more impressive figure now, as a kind of de facto regent, than he did as a gangling youth.
And, given that Britain has a rapidly ageing population, perhaps it makes sense to have a monarch who is down with the pensioners.
Above all, though, Charles's own history shows the importance of being patient - even at 60. The things that looked ridiculous 20 years ago - the organic carrots, the Eastern religions, the sustainable communities - now look rather less funny and more impressive. Indeed, in many ways Charles is still the most progressive major member of the House of Windsor - and he seems a much more 21st-century figure than either of his sons, both of whom would be right at home in the pleasure gardens of the Georgians.
The funny thing about Prince Charles, in other words, is that the older he gets, the more he seems in tune with our times.
Reader views (9)
Charles cannot voluntarily step aside. It would take an act of Parliament to change the succession. Moreover, why put such a burden on a young man, when the Prince of Wales is prepared for his role as king.
- Marlene, Alexandria, VA USA
The older we get, the more in tune we are with his times.
- Sue E., Sebastopol, CA, USA
Oops a typo: his mother DOES have the respect of the country.
- Jon, London
Prince Charles has tried to make the most of the unique position into which he was born to serve the common good. Free from party politics, he can dedicate himself totally to the public interest, the "res publica", and raise awareness of major issues in society. In his vigour to act as the nation's 'First Republican', the Prince of Wales has interpreted his role in a very similar way to the oft-heralded and highly popular European royals. He continues to be very hands-on in his fundraising efforts, effectively using the royal palaces as conference centres for causes close to his heart. If there is one criticism that can be made of HRH, it is that he has relentlessly milked his privileged position to serve the causes he believed in.
- Adrie Van Der Luijt, London
Prince Charles rocks and through his work in the countryside and the Princes Trust is more in tune with what is going on in the margins of society than most pampered politicians.
He is also a great speaker and will make a great King.
- Paul Galley, blackpool
HRH The Prince of Wales has for his entire life sought to alleviate problems that most thought pure fantasy when he raised them. When he warned of the dangers of genetically modified crops, he was lampooned as an aloof figure talking to plants. When he spoke of the failings of our communities he built a village based on the principles of village life. HRH has not, as many of your readers state, been a Victorian relic, but rather a person who saw long before the rest the perils of world we marched clumsily into. HRH has been proven to be correct, he continues to support countless causes without the fanfare of fame and has taken a personal lead in ensuring that the produce we feed our families is organic and affordable. Rather than mock this man, he should be commended. When his time to rule comes, I for one shall applaud the ascendence of a true man of our time.
- Mark, Hong Kong
Sadly, the influence of the Mountbattens and lack of parental affection on Charles' early years were mired in victorian values and this has, to a large extent coloured his view of the world. This unlike his two sons who from birth with Diana's clear aim to place in them in the world of today pronises a better future for a modern monarchy than Charles would perform. He would be the last of the traditional somewhat removed monarchs but unlike his own mother, too, he has little respect in the country
- Jon, London
God help us if this over-opinionated, hypocritical, pompous oaf ever becomes King. He is not in tune with anything except his own selfish needs.
- Paul Bokor, Newmarket. UK
The problem with Prince Charles is he is a nineteenth century character who seemed to believe that the Prince of Wales was entitled to servants and mistresses, and the husbands should go fishing. Like his relative the Kaiser he has more medals on his uniform than people who have actually fought for their country and he believes that we should respect him. Time for a republic!!
- Alan Walters, Acton England
