WILL we ever see a King Charles III crowned? The first, Charles had his head cut off by Cromwell, the second sired, with the help of Nell Gywnn and her oranges, the Dukedoms of Britain. Charles II, the Merry Monarch, was succeeded by his brother James II who was kicked out for being a Catholic and replaced by the dour Protestant, William of Orange. The auguries are not good.
For the first time for more than loo years republicanism has become, if not respectable, then at least fashionable in Britain. Obscure Labour frontbenchers wonder aloud whether Prince Charles is fit to be king (Mr Ron Davies was immediately disowned by his leader, Tony Blair) the Murdoch and Black newspaper empires encourage their teenaged leader writers to blacken the monarchy, while the tabloids pursue the antics of Fergie, Di and Camilla with all the sanctimoniousness at their command. The monarchy, once sacrosant, has become the target of the errand boys of politics.
The left wing of the Labour party, ("old" Labour as opposed to Blair's "new"), wants Parliament to debate the future of the monarchy. The Tory government remains silent; Tony Blair, realising the political danger inherent in republicanism, does nothing to encourage his own MPs. Blair knows that for the Labour party to come out against the monarchy would be to throw away his chances of victory at the next election.
Queen Elizabeth has done what she can to blunt the attack. The monarchy now pays taxes, as it used to do. But she could not prevent her eldest son marrying Diana Spencer, or Prince Andrew, Sarah Ferguson. Of the two women, Fergie - as she is universally known - is the more tiresome. She is vulgar, lavish in her spending and free with her favours. She has, almost single handed, brought the monarchy into disrepute.
Princess Di is a sadder figure. Beautiful but immature, she seems ready - if her Panorama interview on the BBC is any guide - to make trouble. She has accepted the queen's command that Charles and she should divorce, and to do so - the sooner the better. But she remains the mother of Prince William, the heir to the throne. What influence will she have over him? Will the bitterness which so often accompanies divorce, spill over to the children?
We run the risk of taking sides, of being divided into two camps: those who support Charles; and those whose sympathies lie with Diana. Those who wish Charles to become king point to his record of service, his tireless round of official duties and his very unHanoverian love for the arts. He seems to have more in common with Prince Albert than with Edward VII. Although he remains strictly apolitical, his sympathies tend to lie with the centre left.
Diana, on the other hand, has all the sympathy that accrues to a pretty woman some what out of her depth. She married too young but has continued to fight her corner by encouraging writers like Andrew Morton to spill the beans, and to imply publicly that Charles is not fit to be King. Relations between her entourage (which is much diminished in size, thanks to her behaviour) and the crown are at a low level. It seems that the only thing Charles and Diana have in common today is their adultery.
Divorce is essential. The queen is a fit woman, but her sudden death could cause a constitutional crisis. Prince Charles has said he will not marry again - which may satisfy the bishops of the Church of England; Diana has, not unreasonably, made no such promise. She could easily quit the country and live abroad, marry an Argentinian polo player, become a cafe society queen whose children would spend half the year abroad. It is rumoured that she will receive a lump sum of £15 million as a once and for all settlement, but the education and residence of her children remains to be settled. As with divorce in general, the only winners are the lawyers.
WHAT republicans never discuss is who should become the first president of the British Republic. Second class politicians have the House of Lords, where they can spend their declining years in comfort. No Tory would accept the office of head of state. As far as I can see there is no Mary Robinson on the scene to add lustre to the position. Why not a left wing novelist such as Iris Murdoch, or an articulate feminist such as Germaine Greer? Or, given the love of the British for sport, the boxer Frank Bruno? The speaker of the House of Commons could swop one throne for another, but Betty Boothroyd would surely stay put.
Republics come about as a consequence of social upheaval, or civil war, in which case the leader of the winning side would have first claim on the office of president. There is, thank God, no chance of such a conflict.
In the meantime, the monarchy remains as secure as the present queen. Crowned in 1952, she has made it plain that she will never abdicate. She has behaved impeccably and has won almost universal affection and support. If the throne is to survive her passing, lit will be due to her efforts and example.