The need for the monarchy has never been greater

The natural reaction to this week’s news that King Charles III is suffering from cancer has been one of concern and compassion. As the Prime Minister said, consolation can be drawn from the fact that the illness has been caught early and that Charles is continuing with his duties – albeit stepping aside from public-facing engagements for the time being. But it hasn’t taken long for conversation to stray on to other questions: might it be better for him to step back from all duties? And perhaps at some point he should give way to Prince William?

Such an idea is to be resisted. Charles III is the oldest monarch to take the throne in British history, and there are obvious health implications. But the King has long been an advocate of the British tradition of monarchy: that it is not a job from which one retires. The crown comes before the person.

Abdication has become a common feature in other European monarchies. Margrethe II of Denmark recently decided to step down, having previously ruled out the idea. But in Britain it has happened only once in modern times, when Edward VIII, a fairly young man at the time, put his relationship with Wallis Simpson ahead of his duty as a monarch. Going further back in history, Edward II and Richard II were forced out and James II fled. In more than a thousand years of monarchs, none has simply retired and handed the throne to a younger generation.

Just because something hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean it can’t of course. Pope Benedict XVI broke a convention of 700 years when he resigned due to ill health. Charles III has already broken the rule that forced his great uncle off the throne: he is married to a divorcée, and is himself on his second marriage.