The King, cancer and the state

6/02/2024

Man in his 70s is diagnosed with cancer. I stopped what I was doing for a few minutes after I heard King Charles was being treated for cancer. I was surprised later, when a number of people asked me whether it was ‘such a big deal’.

It is a big deal for many ordinary, practical and symbolic reasons.

Anyone receiving a cancer diagnosis, at whatever age, deserves our sympathy. It’s a shock and in general, the treatment is gruelling. This person just happens to be the King. And whatever you think of the royal family, it’s hard not to feel for a man who has spent his whole life preparing for this role and then finds his ability to perform it, curtailed.

Which brings us to the practical. No doubt, important faceless people behind the scenes in the royal household and in Whitehall are feverishly working on plans to support the King and ensure many of his duties are undertaken by other members of the family - and in particular the Queen and the Prince of Wales. As widely reported, if the King was unable to carry out official duties for some time, two or more members of the Royal Family would be appointed as Counsellors of State, to act in his place. The King himself may be less visible publicly but his family will step in. There are though, some official duties which are less easily substituted - appointing a government and its prime minister, the State Opening of Parliament and the King’s Speech, the formal approval of legislation - these are the King’s official parliamentary roles, others can’t easily step in to fulfil them all. We may have a constitutional monarchy but it is very much woven into our parliamentary system of democracy.

And even if those issues could be overcome should the need arise, there is a less tangible aspect to any prolonged absence of the King. The Monarchy is, in some ways,  little more than a tradition and one which some believe to be well past its sell by date. But it survives, despite the scandals, the rows about costs, the arguments about modernisation because it is a visible embodiment of ‘the state’. Queen Elizabeth II famously wore bright, jewel like colours when she was on public engagements because she realised it was important that she should be ‘seen’. What you can’t see, may not exist.

The absence of a written constitution, means, along with Parliament, it is the monarchy which gives shape to the United Kingdom. At a time when trust in politics and institutions is low, and we have come through a period of instability, the monarchy should be the constant. So I’m not making the case for or against the monarchy or the system, just saying, when this particular man in his 70s is being treated for cancer, it matters.

Next
Next

New faces and a changing world order?