In 1660, Britain was in a state of crisis. Oliver CromwellA political and military leader in 17th Century England., the man who had ruled with an iron fist for almost a decade, was dead. His son was not up to the task of governing. War seemed inevitable.

Amidst the chaos stepped forth an unlikely hero: Charles Stuart, soon to be Charles II. His father, Charles IThe king who sparked the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which included the English Civil War. He was accused of tyranny by Parliament and ended up being executed for it., had sparked a bloody civil war against his own parliaments and been executed for treason.¹ And the younger Charles already had a reputation of his own. He was seen as an irresponsible womaniser - the last person to bring peace to a troubled realm.

Yet under his rule, the country underwent a stunning transformation. The arts flourished: writers produced some of the best plays since ShakespeareAn English playwright and poet who is often called the greatest writer in the English language. . After a decade of strict puritan morality, Britain was filled once again with excitement and laughter.

Last week, another Charles took the throne in a time of unrest and unhappiness. Like his namesakeA person who has the same name as another., many thought he was not up to the job. His critics said he was too open about his political positions. His personal life was too messy.² He would not have the respect of the public.

Yet so far he has proved them wrong. His succession has been smooth. 

Indeed, some are cautiously optimistic about the prospect of a more political monarch. They think just like his predecessorThe person who had a job before the current holder., Charles could draw a line under the chaos and open the door to a new flourishing of British culture.

According to writer Aris Roussinos, the crisis gripping Britain today is really a crisis of ideas. He argues that since the 1980s, all major British politicians have agreed on a basic set of principles: the state should be small, taxes should be low and services should be run by private companies.

This consensus held for decades. But today, he says, it is breaking down. It has no answer to the problems facing the country. 

Politicians have shrunk the state so much that it can no longer provide the services people rely on, from healthcare to transport to waste disposal. It has failed to protect us from the energy crisis³. The old ideas are not working. In fact, they are making people's lives harder.

He thinks the old consensus must give way to a new way of doing things: a larger, more resilient state, more investment in hi-tech and green industries, better preservation of natural resources, and more local production.

This is a vision that would need long-term planning and might take decades to complete. But politicians are short-sighted. Governments rarely think beyond the next election. 

A thoughtful, political king, however, who is likely to be on the throne for the next twenty years, could present such a vision to the British people. He could provide continuity from one government to the next, and keep politicians on track.

And these are issues that Charles has always been passionate about: environmental conservation, rural life and clean, beautiful cities. Like his predecessor, he might yet surprise his critics and steer his country towards a better future.

Yes: Charles has been thinking deeply about environmental issues for decades. Now, suddenly, these are the most pressing challenges facing the country. He will be an invaluable source of wisdom.

No: There is a reason British monarchs do not meddle in politics. An impartial head of state is a vital part of our constitution. If Charles becomes too vocal, he will bring down either the monarchy or the whole political system.

Or... Charles probably won't and should not take too active a role in politics. But he could create the conditions for people to think more radically about these important issues.