Although the coverage has been extreme in amount, it has overlooked a couple of points, so far as I am able to tell, that should be covered regarding the passing of Elizabeth II. As to the lady herself, I am not really ready to write about her. Her loss is one of those events that manages to be greatly anticipated and yet shocking at the same time, and I have not yet worked through my thoughts and emotions regarding this enough to distill them into coherent thought. Perhaps later—

One thing hardly touched upon by the media, though mentioned from time to time, is the one obvious comparison(other than being an English King)between Edward VII and Charles III. The similarity, of course, is that each spent most or all of his Middle Age as Prince of Wales. One could, of course, add that each of them followed a spectacular and revered mother, and was likely to look lacking in comparison.

Victoria(niece of William IV) came to the throne in 1837 at the age of 18 and seems immediately to have changed from being an inhibited, shy and bullied(by her mother)girl to a determined, dignified young woman, still inhibited, perhaps, but not ready to take dictation from Mom or anyone else, and determined to put her mark on the kingdom as fully as possible.

Of course, this was not really so possible as it had once been. Thanks to a toxic mix of Stuart ruler foolishness and Puritan/Parliamentary stubbornness, the days of “real” (that is literal)royal political leadership had been thoroughly leashed to the past and ended in 1689. Real royal political power had declined fairly steadily ever since. The King/Queen still had some power but the balance had clearly shifted to Parliament, mostly the House of Commons.

This had been capped off by the long and no doubt to many emotionally exhausting rule of George III who was literally not in his right mind for roughly half of his reign(1760-1820) His son, the long time “Prince Regent” became George IV and apparently had learned very little of benefit to himself or the country. His successor, William IV was something of an improvement but not a great one and not a bringer of great reform to society.(He did preside over the Great Reform Bill of 1832 but the work was, of course, nearly all done by Parliament). He did not bring the monarchy’s reputation to a lower level, but he restored it, if at all, only to a small extent. So it could be argued that Victoria had a great deal to do by way of reform and restoration of the Crown’s prestige.

It had a great deal to recover from. Late 18th century England was likely one of the more debauched societies in human history. Excessive gambling, political corruption, prostitution and their adherents were all over the place. Mistress keeping was unashamedly practiced by many if not most men of the upper and upper middle class, and heavy drinking to the point of alcoholism was common more or less across the society.

This all created an understandable desire on the part of many people for a return to what they considered to be(or at least hoped were)the standards of a previous generation. Some might have said the hypocrisies of a previous generation, but regardless, some change was clearly in order.

The reaction to the late 18th century ways had likely already begun by the time of Victoria’s ascension and the loose collection of ideas and opinions usually called “Victorianism” may have started before the lady’s reign did. In any event, it came to be identified with the Queen and there is little doubt that it would have been there to some extent, anyway. But there is also little doubt(or none)that without Victoria and Albert it would have been different and less influential. Very broadly speaking, Victorianism included(but was not limited to)an effort to make the world conform, or appear to conform to British middle class values. At its best this included some genuine high mindedness such as opposition to slavery and the slave trade. At its worst it included simple ignoring of reality–not recognizing the harshness of the early industrial revolution, for example, and a refusal to accept some of its social/moral effects. We think of it today as having to do mostly with sex and (as with the Hays Code)this is vaguely correct, but only vaguely. A lot of other things were concerned here too. I guess I’d say it was basically an attempt to make the world be or appear “nice” from a middle class UK point of view and(again like the Hays code) this had some reason and judgement behind it, but went so far as eventually to bring itself into disrepute.

But there were other aspects of Victoria’s reign to be considered, and the most important was the expansion and celebration of the British Empire. I am not now going to deal with the morality or lack of it with which the Brits ran the empire. I do have some opinions on it but I wish to save them for later. For now, let’s just say it made them the most powerful country in the world when you considered financial and military power combined with cultural prestige and overall domination.

All of this, moral, social, imperial etc was part of Edward’s heritage. He was 59 when he became King and therefore approaching being “old” for his time. He is largely remembered by history as a party-boy in his youth and as a rather dissolute middle-aged man who frequently cheated on his lovely and patient wife, Princess/Queen Alexandria. Like a lot of playboy types he also had an unfortunate tendency to get into debt, mostly gambling debt.

But to understand this about Edward is to understand, oh, I guess about half of him. Hidden behind that behavior there was a keen mind, a genuine interest in his family and his civilization, and a desire to do good and keep the peace. At a time when the British crown had declined in power to the point where the Prime Minister and his cabinet were just about (not quite, perhaps)everything in government policy, Edward used his personality and interpersonal skills in a way which gave him influence way out of proportion to his constitutional power. This may have been true in both domestic and foreign affairs, but the emphasis was the latter.

Edward was a natural diplomat, inclined to try to settle disputes rather than encourage them. He was intelligent and discreet enough to have a good understanding of how to do this and he had a genuine desire to do so. In addition to these personal qualities, he had one big situational advantage. His mother had married off her large family to almost every imaginable royal family in Europe. The meant that the nickname often given to Edward, “Uncle of Europe,” was true in almost as many ways literally as metaphorically. He was related to practically everybody in European royalty(and when he wasn’t he could look to his wife who was related to a lot of them too). Both the Kaiser and the Tsar referred to him as “Uncle Bertie.” “I shall write to Uncle Bertie about this,” Tsar Nicholas stated regarding a confrontation between Russian and German power.

During his reign the great powers of Europe were drifting slowly, not inevitably perhaps, but definitely into armed camps. These two camps became the Triple Alliance(Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy) and the Triple Entente(Britain, France, Russia). Edward’s role in all of this is not entirely clear and there is some debate over how much of a role he played in soothing occasional bruised feelings and offering constructive examples of how to keep the peace. But there is wide-spread agreement among historians that his diplomatic skills were considerable and that he used them in the interests of peace

At the time of his death war was not inevitable and there was still a little bit of flexibility in some of the leading players. France and Italy, belonging to opposing alliances, nonetheless did a “secret” deal by which they agreed not to attack each other. And there were some in Germany and Britain who hoped their common racial and religious history and royal families would help them avoid becoming total enemies.

So Edward was largely respected around Europe, at least among the royals(who often still had some power)and perhaps among the entire leadership class mixture. His efforts had been all on the side of keeping the peace, whatever their effectiveness. and it appears he commanded enough respect that in a crisis he might have calmed extreme feelings. Though no one can say for sure, it seems to me a great pity he was not still on the throne in that desperate summer of 1914. It might not have made a difference in the long run, but if it had it would have almost certainly been in the interests of peace–and the world would be much different now.

It is well to keep in mind that he did this against the background of a long reign by a mother who won the respect(and usually the support and affection)of nearly everyone. He may have lived and reigned in her shadow in some respects, but he was his own man and his own inspiration in some ways and left a place in history not as remarkable as Victoria’s, but close to equal in honor.

Charles has a similar situation, thought by no means exactly so. Whereas Victoria presided over the rise of an Empire, Elizabeth presided over the dissolution of one. Victoria’s reign saw an uneven and to some extent overall impossible effort to “restore” values relating to family and religious matters. But while only partially successful, she left a truly enormous and long-lasting influence and set of standards, many of which would eventually go but not without a long resistance.

Elizabeth’s reign saw more or less what many would refer to as the collapse of such. It is to her credit that she may have been somewhat bemused by these social/moral/taste changes, but never seemed confused or hysterical about them. She seemed to me to treat these not always welcome changes with a sort of world weary resignation, and an attempt to garner support for and to preserve what she could of the past. She knew that to preserve some of that past one would have to give up a part of it. “Things must change in order to remain the same.” (See “The Leopard.” a historical novel by Giuseppe di Lampedusa–there was a Burt Lancaster film based on it about 1963)

Charles must now step into all of this and make a place and a series of accomplishments for himself. The only way to do this will be to accomplish something for the UK and for what is left of the Commonwealth of Nations, and, of course, for the world beyond these. I have no serious grasp at this point of specifics, but he needs to keep certain things in mind and give his attention to a few important issues.

Brexit is likely here to stay. I never thought it was a very good idea and one of my few policy criticisms of Boris Johnson(a careless and foolish man in some ways, but not without political talent)was that he was a “leaver” while I would have been a “remainer.” But now it’s here and the UK has to deal with it. This is mainly a matter for the new PM and her cabinet, of course, but Charles could help. He looks to have gotten off on the right foot with Ireland by making a careful and well considered speech there, and that is all to the good. One of the real issues for the government now is Brexit and a real mess over what it means for trade concerning both the Ulster part of the UK and the Republic of Ireland to the south. (If you want to immerse yourself in this complex issue go to the BBC article on Brexit and Ireland posted on on the Internet Jun 27–just google “Brexit & Ireland) The new King could be helpful here just by his presence and, so far admirable calmness.

We know that Charles has been vocal in the past about certain issues. He needs to be careful now and try to help negotiate some changes almost without seeming to do so and certainly without “taking sides” in politics. This does not mean he has to maintain total silence on everything, but rather that he needs to be discreet and balanced, something his mother seemed to come to naturally.

One of his disadvantages is that he divorced one of the most popular and best loved royals in history. Whether this still is a strong mark against him in the mind of most people I don’t know, but surely there must be a residue of that feeling. There are some things you can’t do much about and this may be an example. I think his best bet there is to keep on being a good husband to his lady, now the Queen Consort, and to let the other go and hope others will do the same.

Edward was King at a time when the UK was fighting to remain at the absolute top of the world in power, wealth and national pride. Charles takes office at a time when it is still one of the leading world powers, but closer to the bottom of the list than at the top. I think it will be Charles’s duty and, one hopes, his eventual accomplishment, to help keep it there. Of course, again, the main responsibility will be with the PM and the Cabinet, but the monarch usually plays some role, perhaps perceived by outsiders, perhaps not. But the role has to be at least mostly from behind the scenes.

Since I doubt he will ask for my advice, I will offer it now to whomever will listen. I disliked Brexit not because I wanted to see the UK become less, but because I wanted it to remain as close to the top as possible. A century ago it was at least arguable that it could stay in the top 2 or 3 powers in the world. Today I doubt that is true. Because it is still wealthy(comparatively, anyway)and powerful and because the world consciousness has gotten used to having it heard from, and because of the world-wide influence of British culture and particularly the immense influence of the English language. it has a good chance of staying there.

But the way to stay there is to assume a lot, but not too much. Demand respect, well, of course. But do not claim priority of everything. When there is trouble in Europe, or the Commonwealth or wherever, offer help and if asked take pride in providing leadership.(Johnson did well with Ukraine) But don’t assume. In short be a good, restrained power, sober, dignified and reformed, shorn of its excessive power of the past and ready to offer its huge supply of experience and common sense. If the King will follow this sort of plan and most of all, prevail upon his political leaders to make it reality, well–the sun has already set on the Empire and the days at the very top–but it might keep shining on the residual influence, the result of the wisdom which comes from experience, pride and pain and a mature philosophy that includes them all.

w