Author Douglas Murray reflects on Charles and Camilla, and the future of the British Monarchy
God save The Queen! But Her Majesty – health and long life to her! – is mortal, and 96 years of age. She is an irreplaceable icon... but what comes after?
Source: ‘King and queen’ Harry and Meghan would destroy monarchy 'for good': Douglas Murray (Ignore, if you please, the click-bait-y title! It’s true, but only tangentially relevant. Murray does address this question, but only a sort of post-script to the rest of the interview. The “pair” in question are not the ginger and the whinger, but HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.)
Douglas Murray, author of (among others) The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race, and Identity, and the upcoming The War on the West (scheduled for release tomorrow, April 26th, 2022) is a man who, in the words of my late mother, “has his head screwed on straight.” So when he says something, I am inclined to give it respectful attention.
In this short but worthwhile interview, he provides some reassurance that, in his opinion, Charles and Camilla will be good successors to the incomparable Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Long live The Queen! But she has already had a long life, by any standards, at 96 years of age; and indomitable as she has always been, she is, after all, not immortal. As regards her earthly presence, anyway! One hopes and trusts that her eternal soul will live forever in God’s nearer presence.
And one may also hope and trust that her earthly reign will continue for some time. But how long that may be, no one can know; so it is good to be reassured by someone who may be reasonably assumed to speak with some awareness of the subject that her successors are up to the task. I have not, for much of my politically-aware life, held a great deal of hope for HRH Charles, Prince of Wales, as King of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth Realms.
He has struck me as being somewhat lacking in maturity, gravitas, and possibly even judgement; and inclined to a degree of petulance, and to taking positions on things that I felt a future monarch (or even a senior Royal) had no business taking public positions on. But he has grown on me, in more recent years. And I think that after the death of his father, HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and his mother’s health crises, the full weight of his responsibilities has settled on him more fully, and to the good.
I am still not too keen on his support for “the Great Reset.” But if there is any silver lining to the dark cloud of the Russo-Ukrainian war, it may be that world powers will be more concerned with containing Russia (and possibly China), and hopefully with rebuilding Ukraine after the war, than with trying to establish the world hegemony of the WEF and Davos. Perhaps I am too optimistic! But that is my hope.
[Contrariwise, one of my greatest fears is that support for the rightful aspirations of Ukraine for freedom, sovereignty, and self-determination will become seen as being conterminous with “woke,” globalist Leftism, and those of us who value custom, culture, heritage, history, faith, and tradition will be seen as “literally Putin.”]
And let me be honest, Prince Charles has said and done a lot of things I support. I agree with the importance he places on sustainable agriculture; I thoroughly agree with his appreciation and support for traditional architecture; and I applaud his patronage of the Prayer Book Society of the UK. And I am guardedly heartened by Murray’s assertion (which I have not been able to independently confirm) that he has backed off his declaration, in his younger days, that he wants to be crowned not as Defender of the Faith – meaning the Christian faith – as English Kings have been since the days of Henry VIII, but “defender of faith,” in a generic sense. If he’s wised up in that regard, well and good!
Also, to be fair, both Charles and Camilla have to all appearances inherited, in the case of one, and accepted the mantle of, in the case of the other, the dedication to service that has been so much a feature of Her Majesty’s reign (and was seen in her father, who unexpectedly but dutifully accepted the crown when his brother, Edward, abdicated to pursue matters of the heart). And that in full measure!
Camilla may not be as glamorous or sympathetic a figure, or as beloved by the throngs, as “Lady Di,” the “people’s Princess,” but since her marriage to Prince Charles, the Duchess of Cornwall has been dedicated, devoted, and active in her service to Crown and Country. She has even been known to personally sign her own correspondence, which when one receives the volume of mail a senior Royal does, is not as inconsequential as it may seem!
Of course, Princess Diana was not entirely the paragon her myth proclaimed; as one source has pointed out, “She herself had cheated on Charles, with more than one man, early and often,” and “her increasing hysteria — her constant self-harm, suicide attempts and rage-filled tantrums — were enough to push anyone away.” In point of fact, it was not a match that served either of them well; and the legacy of it has doubtless contributed to the downfall of Prince Harry.
As Murray points out, Prince Charles will inescapably be a shorter-serving monarch than has his mother – but his successor, Prince William, and William’s lovely wife Katherine, Duchess of Cambridge, have hardly put a foot wrong. They are well thought of, and for good reason. Although Murray is doubtless right that Charles and William should never share a helicopter flight (!), it does seem as if the British Monarchy is on a decently solid footing, for that moment – inevitable, but may it be long delayed! – when the longest-serving English monarch in history is one day called home, to her own Lord’s nearer presence.
But, as I say, may that day be long delayed.
God save The Queen!
Continued health and long life to Her Majesty!