I know quite a lot about having a spouse with cancer whilst also caring for a young family. I have been there and done that, and would very much rather not have the T-shirt.
The reason for making this point is, I am sure, obvious .
Let me, however, make another point. This is that we now know that the Royal family is intensely vulnerable at this moment. The king has cancer. The wife of his heir has cancer. The third in line to the throne is a child. All are going to be intensely distracted by the family issues that they face, and rightly so. Meanwhile, the only available person really able to help is effectively exiled in California. The rest inspire little confidence.
It is being said at this moment that we should stop discussing this family's health issues. I am happy to do so. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the burden of being both the Royal Family, with massive constitutional responsibilities, and being a family with massive health issues and all the resulting strains to manage, is happening to these people in real time.
There are three entirely fair questions to ask.
The first is whether it is in any way fair to place this burden on any family now?
The second is to ask whether the constitution can survive as it is when it is so dependent on the continual availability of people who are, when all is said and done, only human, which fact we seem far too inclined to ignore.
Third, what are the consequences of wondering whether these strains are intolerable, which the death of the Queen, who somehow seemed to manage them, has exposed?
This is the moment to ask whether the intolerable demands being made on these people (because that is what, in both cases, they are) should be changed.
Any decisions will take time. Hopefully, those now suffering ill health will be better by then. But no one forgets having cancer. No family that has lived through, is unmarked by it, even if those involved recover. And nothing is the same again. It is wholly appropriate to say that, and to ask what can really be done to make the lives of all involved more tolerable in the future. Isn't that precisely the right thing to do now?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Fundamentally a point I have been making for a while, so yes, I agree
I am genuinely sad to hear that another person has developed cancer – its a horrible and frightening disease in every way and regardless of who you are.
I am also very much an anti-royalist: they are an anachronism that have been allowed to endure for far too long and specifically a tool readily employed by the most reactionary and illiberal political actors and institutions. Its well past the time for Britain’s royal family to exist only in the past tense.
I very much doubt it will happen but I would be relieved if Charles was also the last.
I think anyone should ask this question, royalist or not
Too much is demanded
It really is that obvious
We place on them the burden of public scrutiny from birth. They don’t have a choice-or not much of a choice.
Previous generations of royals could rely on a less critical public and less exposure.
I have always take the view that the monarchy is more inspiring than a re-cycled politician selected by a Senate or magic circle as in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
I am moving to the view that however worthy their motives-Charles was an early voice on the environment and I knew people who have been involved with the Prince’s trust which does good work-perhaps it is time to retire the role.
Your question is reasonable.
But these people are part of a machine that has taken on a life of its own.
The royal family are also a beacon, a reference point in the organisation of wealth and the privileges of wealth as well as a justification for it.
The ‘machine’ must survive and it will, no matter what the cost to those in it and those who have to live with it.
A decision was taken to focus attention on core members of the royal family rather than the wider group of uncle and aunts and cousins.
That may be ok when everyone is in good health but as we have seen it results in more eggs being put in fewer baskets, so just a couple of health problems can cause a national crisis. Not entirely a surprise: the current expectation is that one in two people will have cancer in their lifetime. Charles’s grandfather had lung cancer, and it is widely supposed that his mother had bone cancer.
Like much that is wrong in our national infrastructure, it may be cheaper and more “efficient”, but it has become more fragile, less resilient.
Camilla and William are currently taking much of the burden, also Anne and Edward, none of whom are getting any younger. Anyone can fall ill, and everyone dies eventually.
The intolerable demands are created by the tabloid press catering to (and creating) the insatiable public appetite for salacious details of the royal family’s private life. Perhaps the best choice for the individuals involved is to get out of the insane soap opera. And the best choice for everyone else is to avoid the tittle-tattle, fawning obsequiousness, and false division into tragic or flawed heroes and vile traitors.
As usual I expect we will muddle through and the institution will evolve to meet the circumstances as best it can. I just can’t see how a revolution would come. I’d rather see reform of the electoral system and parliamentary representation first. And then perhaps we can talk about the role of the head of state.
I think that this time implosion is more likely.
I am sure the stress is already intolerable.
One more event and the tipping point will have arrived.
I remember 1992 – the annus horribilis. But that was all about divorces and fires. This time the question is whether the family can actually sustain this, at all.
Of old we’d have found a new family. Every one hundred to 150 years or so we had to. Or we at least switched line, as in the 30s. There is no such alternative now. The alternatives don’t exist. That is why I think there is a crisis beyond health issues that needs addressing – not least if health issues are to be managed.
I think your concerns about the viability of the family (while I accept a real concern) may be overstated. We have an heir and a spare (over the water) and the first has three of his own heirs who are children with one hopes many decades ahead of them. Despite Andrew’s disgrace we have his sister and younger brother and all of their children too.
The royals survived the vicious press and pamphlets and cartoons of the Georgian period and also the death of Princess Charlotte in childbirth in 1817, so I suspect they can survive their present difficulties.
You ignore that everything depends on stories
The heir is undoubtedly damaged by recent stories
The children are much to young
The spare has been totally vilified
And the York line could not provide an answer to anything
Sorry, but I have spent time thinking about this accepting only the official lines (near enough) and cannot come up with a story that delivers sustainability now, not in this media era.