The news released last night that King Charles had been briefly hospitalised was an unwelcome surprise. A statement from the royal communications department tersely declared that:
The public cannot expect minute-by-minute updates as to every aspect of the monarch’s condition
Following scheduled and ongoing medical treatment for cancer this morning, the King experienced temporary side effects that required a short period of observation in hospital. His Majesty’s afternoon engagements were therefore postponed. His Majesty has now returned to Clarence House and as a precautionary measure, acting on medical advice, tomorrow’s diary programme will also be rescheduled.
The statement ended, with typically regal restraint: ‘His Majesty would like to send his apologies to all those who may be inconvenienced or disappointed as a result.’
At first glance, this may seem like a non-story, a brief detail that hopefully will be swiftly forgotten as the monarch’s cancer treatment continues. An anonymous source was allowed to brief that the news was a ‘most minor bump in a road that is very much heading in the right direction’. The party line that has been taken is that this is a perfectly normal, if inevitably irritating, development when ongoing medical matters of this sort are in train.
This might be absolutely true, and no doubt everyone will wish to send the King good wishes as this phase of his recovery takes place. Yet, inevitably, questions will arise as to the levels of candour that are being displayed in Buckingham Palace and beyond.
The relationship between royalty and the media has always been an uncertain and shifting one. The royal family may be a public institution, but they are also a private group of people who do not always look kindly at having their lives splashed over the newspapers. Unlike the government, which is held accountable at all times and at all levels – sometimes brutally and embarrassingly so – the royals would prefer if news stories about them that make it into the public domain are flattering and upbeat. As such, the carefully managed photo opportunities and press releases usually err on the side of optimism – some might say misleadingly so.
It is typical of this mixture of apparent candour and a desire to maintain privacy that the specific details of the King’s cancer have never been made public. This has led to conspiracy theories of varying degrees of credibility. Although he is maintaining a full diary of public – and, at times, private – engagements, Charles is looking noticeably weaker and more tired than when he became king – still, unbelievably, less than three years ago.
By all accounts, the King’s busy workload comes down to his own Stakhanovite ethic, rather than his being cajoled into it. He may have promised to be apolitical when he took over the throne, but he is also an independent-minded figure who is not used to not getting his own way. Hence the many walkabouts, state visits and suchlike, and no doubt the brief hospitalisation and subsequent confinement to Clarence House (which he still regards as his London base, rather than Buckingham Palace) will have been irritating for him.
The public cannot, and probably should not, expect minute-by-minute updates as to every aspect of the monarch’s condition. The general tone of the news of his recovery seems to have been largely positive, which should be seen as reassuring. Yet this sudden, unprompted announcement, released in time for newspapers to splash it over their front pages, cannot help but prompt concern, despite the ‘nothing to see here’ tone with which it was announced. Suspicions will be raised that there remains more to this particular story that royal communications departments are letting on; perhaps more information will become available as time goes on. Let us hope that it continues to be positive.
Comments