by The Laird o’ Thistle (Special Edition)
© Unofficial Royalty 2022

As the two things I want to write about today do not lend themselves being combined into a single column, for this one time I am doing a double feature….

1. “My Heart’s in the Highlands”
My heart’s in the Highlands, my heart is not here;
My heart’s in the Highlands a-chasing the deer;
A-chasing the wild-deer, and following the roe,
My heart’s in the Highlands wherever I go.
— Robert Burns, 1789

I said to a friend yesterday that it feels like a dear aunt has passed, the aunt of the whole world.

In the midst of great sadness, I am taking some comfort in the fact that Queen Elizabeth II died peacefully yesterday at Balmoral, reportedly her favorite place on earth. She passed from this life in the place she loved best with her two eldest children in attendance. (Reports indicate that Prince William, the Wessexes, and Prince Andrew arrived shortly after her passing.) I am even taking a bit of bemused pride in the fact that by dying in Scotland, she died a Presbyterian… for the Sovereign is a member of the Kirk when in Scotland.

Balmoral has been a place of respite and refuge for two great queens, Victoria and Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth has loved it from childhood when she and her parents, her sister, and (often) her cousin Margaret Rhodes would spend summer holidays at adjoining Birkhall. After her father became king the scene shifted to the castle itself, and three years into the reign the young princesses remained at Balmoral for the first three months of World War II before finally rejoining their parents “down south” in December 1939. In the postwar years Balmoral was the site of happy times for the King and his family, and of both courtship and honeymoon for Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip. A number of heartwarming photos remind us King George’s final summer at Balmoral with the entire family… including grandchildren Charles and Anne. (See: https://www.unofficialroyalty.com/transition-the-final-months-of-king-george-vi-and-accession-of-queen-elizabeth-ii/ ) And, now, we will forever treasure the final image of Queen Elizabeth there, taken just two days before her death, a photo of the tiny and frail, but warmly smiling 96-year-old, tartan clad and leaning on her stick, standing by a roaring fire in the castle’s drawing room as she awaited the arrival of her 15th Prime Minister.

I am thankful that before being whisked off to England, the Queen’s body reposes today in the ballroom at Balmoral, where she loved dancing reels at the annual Ghillies Ball. I am also thankful that in a couple of days her coffin will be taken first to Edinburgh, to Holyrood, for due honours in her Scottish capital and palace where, in 1999, she reconvened the first Scottish Parliament since 1707. But as she departs Balmoral for the very last time, no doubt to the plaintive sound of the bagpipe, I hope someone there will quietly whisper in her behalf:

Farewell to the mountains, high-cover’d with snow,
Farewell to the straths and green valleys below;
Farewell to the forests and wild-hanging woods,
Farewell to the torrents and loud-pouring floods.
…My heart’s in the Highlands wherever I go.

2. The New Royal Family

I am sure that many will have shared my experience of startle-ment yesterday, upon hearing the words “His Majesty the King” spoken for the first time in my lifetime. The era of King Charles III and Queen Camilla has begun.

Over the last several years, while remaining firmly in charge, Queen Elizabeth took great care in preparing the way for this moment. She successfully won the agreement of the leaders of the Commonwealth that Charles should succeed her as its Head. In February she made it very clear that she wanted Camilla to be known as Queen Consort when the time came, and then she personally appointed and invested Camilla as a Lady of the Garter. For very practical, but also deeply symbolic, reasons she designated Charles as her representative to preside at the most recent State Opening of Parliament in May. Similarly, it was Charles who “took the salute” for her at the Trooping the Colour in June. And now he is King.

In a moment, yesterday afternoon, everything changed… not just for Charles and Camilla, but for many. William has… just this evening… been created Prince of Wales by the King. William and Catherine are now the Prince and Princess of Wales, Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge, and… in Scotland… Duke and Duchess of Rothesay. William is now the Great Steward of Scotland and Lord of the Isles, as well. Their children are now Princes George and Louis, and Princess Charlotte of Wales. Harry’s children are now… if their parents so choose… Prince Archie, and Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

I deeply hope that King Charles will also fulfill his parents’ longstanding intention and deeply-held wish, and quickly move to create Prince Edward as Duke of Edinburgh. (Albeit, it may be the appropriate time to transition the Royal Dukedoms into lifetime appointments, rather than them being hereditary.)

King Charles has talked for years of transitioning to a “slimmed down” monarchy, with fewer working royals. Over the last several years it has sort of created itself, in large part through the disgrace of Prince Andrew and the departure of Prince Harry to America. I expect that the increasingly frail Duke of Kent (soon to be 87) and his sister Princess Alexandra (soon to be 86) will probably take the new King’s accession as their opportunity to retire from active service. The Duke of Gloucester (age 78) may continue to assist for a while, or he too may decide it is time to step back.

The big question in my mind concerns the ongoing roles of the Princess Royal and of Prince Edward and Sophie (either as Duke/Duchess of Edinburgh, or continuing as Earl/Countess of Wessex). Over the course of the pandemic, and following the departures of both Andrew and Harry from royal duties, they have become invaluable working members of the royal team. I have already heard rumours that Anne may choose to “retire” at some not-too-distant point. (Though, I hope not too soon!) On the other hand, Edward is “only” 58 and, having been forced out of his earlier career attempts largely by Charles, he and Sophie have worked hard for years now “in support of” the Queen, and the Crown.

As I see it, the practical reality for the next several years will be that there is more to be done than Charles and Camilla, and William and Catherine, can do. It is at least twelve years, and probably longer, before Prince George will assume any significant role. (He just turned age 9.) Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis may (or may not) both follow in turn. But, just as happened for Princes William and Harry, the family may also want to give the rising generation a bit more time… until around age 30 or so… before asking them to assume a full load of duty.

Finally, as odd as it seems to say this on his first day as King, I find myself hoping that Charles will at least consider adopting the model of other European royal houses and retiring (i.e. abdicating) at some point down the road. He has, today, pledge himself to “lifelong” service. But, sometimes such service is best offered by stepping back at the right moment.

King Charles will turn 74 in November. As much as I have loved and admired the Queen throughout my 66+ years of life, and have understood her ingrained sense of the “job-for-life” tradition, I have personally wished over the last couple of years that she would have followed Prince Philip’s lead in stepping back, for her own sake as well as for those coming after. She sort of did so, in a very careful and limited way. But as recently as this Tuesday she was still at work, possibly overextending herself in the end. King Charles will have to choose his own way, but I hope he at least holds the retirement option open.

And so, for today and days ahead… “God save the King! God bless the Prince of Wales! And, God bless all of the new Royal Family!”

Yours aye,
Ken Cuthbertson – the Laird o’ Thistle

by The Laird o’Thistle (Special Edition)
© Unofficial Royalty 2022

Embed from Getty Images

I believe that this is the first time that I have been asked by the staff of Unofficial Royalty to address a particular topic, and not a small one at that. On Tuesday, 10 May 2022, Prince Charles presided at the State Opening of the new session of the U.K. Parliament in the Queen’s behalf. It was announced the previous day that the Queen, upon the advice of her doctors, had “reluctantly decided not to attend” the State Opening due to the “episodic mobility problems” that have limited her activities since early last autumn. In an unprecedented, but entirely legitimate and appropriate move, she issued “Letters Patent” designating Prince Charles and Prince William as “Counsellors of State” to act in her behalf, with Prince Charles taking the lead. Charles and William did so on Tuesday, also accompanied by Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall.

All of this was done under provisions of the 1937 Regency Act, which was adopted following the Accession of George VI as a contingency for what would happen if he were to die before Princess Elizabeth came of age. (The Act was subsequently updated in 1946 and 1953; and the need for further revisions is currently being discussed. See note.) The pertinent section invoked for Tuesday’s State Opening reads as follows:

[Section 6] Power to delegate royal functions to Counsellors of State.
(1) In the event of illness not amounting to such infirmity of mind or body as is mentioned in section two of this Act, or of absence or intended absence from the United Kingdom, the Sovereign may, in order to prevent delay or difficulty in the despatch of public business, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, delegate, for the period of that illness or absence, to Counsellors of State such of the royal functions as may be specified in the Letters Patent, and may in like manner revoke or vary any such delegation.
(https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw8and1Geo6/1/16/section/6)

With two Counsellors of State being required, at least implicitly and by precedent, Prince William was called upon to accompany his father in this instance. Though some are questioning whether, in the Queen’s absence, it was actually a “State Opening” (versus simply an “Opening”), I would argue that it was… precisely due to H.M.’s invoking of the provisions of Section 6. This was further reinforced by the symbolic inclusion of the Imperial State Crown in the ceremony… placed on a small table on the very spot where H.M.’s throne usually stands.

So much for the facts of what occurred, and why. The question raised anew by it all concerns the degree to which we are seeing the emergence of a sort of “dual monarchy” in which Prince Charles and Camilla become the “public face” of the Crown, while the Queen… still the Sovereign… retreats more and more from public view. This, I think, is increasingly the case, with Prince Charles and Camilla being assisted by Prince William and Katherine, the Princess Royal, and Prince Edward and Sophie. (Although still officially active, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Princess Alexandra, are increasingly stepping back and “aging out” of their longtime service as “working” royals.) The question behind the question is whether this de facto situation may… sooner or later… shift to an official (de jure) designation.

My layperson’s read of the Regency Act is that it does not provide for the possibility of a co-Regency shared by the Queen and Prince Charles. Nor would the plural wording allow Prince Charles to be solely designated as Counsellor of State without a second Counsellor. Either would, I think, require a revision by Parliament of the legislation.

The focus then shifts to the Queen, and what she is willing to do? By all accounts she has, always and still, totally ruled out the idea of abdication. (One wonders if the future Charles III may hold a different attitude when his turn comes.) By all accounts the Queen is still fully compos mentis (i.e., sound of mind, memory, and understanding), and thus able to do the “desk job” of monarchy, as it were. The issues at hand are her great age, and her apparent physical disability to attend public events going forward.

She’s now at the age where Prince Philip chose to withdraw from public duties. There was talk in the press at the time that she might eventually follow suit. But, as recently as her statement released for the 70th anniversary of her Accession, it is clear that she takes her 1947 pledge that “my whole life, whether it be long or short, will be devoted to your service” VERY seriously. Her Coronation Oath, likewise. The thing that I wonder about, however, is whether she may be at, or near, the point at which that service needs to become vicarious? When does she reach the point at which her devotion to service itself requires her to step further back, if not away?

As in most families, this is probably not something that her family feel they can broach with their mother/grandmother, at least not yet. At some point her U.K. and Commonwealth governments may feel the need to raise the question. The U.K. press has begun making some noises on the topic in recent months. My own gut is telling me that once we get beyond the official Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June, something may significantly shift over the summer. Whether and how that involves some sort of more official and permanent “viceregal” role for Prince Charles will emerge.

All that being said, the one thing that I am absolutely confident about is that Queen Elizabeth II will continue to do her conscientious best in her stewardship of the Crown and her service to the peoples of the U.K. and the Commonwealth to her life’s end, in whatever form that takes. That is her never-wavering sacred trust.

Yours aye,
Ken Cuthbertson, the Laird o’ Thistle

This article is the intellectual property of Unofficial Royalty and is NOT TO BE COPIED, EDITED, OR POSTED IN ANY FORM ON ANOTHER WEBSITE under any circumstances. It is permissible to use a link that directs to Unofficial Royalty.