Fit for a king

Before Charles III ascended to the throne, there were some suggestions that he might take a different regnal name. Charles I, after all, was one of the most unpopular kings in history. He sparked the English Civil WarA series of wars in England from 1642 to 1651 between Royalists led by Charles I and Parliament (followers known as Roundheads) over religious freedom and how the country was run. and ultimately got himself beheaded.

But perhaps Charles III had another Charles in mind. Charles II was among the most popular English kings. He was known as the "Merry Monarch" because his court was so lively.

So, as his coronation approaches, which of his predecessors does Charles III most resemble?

The British people had been lukewarm about Charles when he was heir to the throne, but once he became king, they rallied round. In polls taken in the days after the death of Elizabeth II, 63% said he would do a good job, with just 15% disagreeing.

So far, there is little sign that the country has changed its mind. Almost 60% of people say they want to keep the monarch, with just a quarter favouring an elected head of state.

For some, this has come as a surprise. They expected Charles would be a more divisive figure.

Whereas Elizabeth was always scrupulousPrincipled, or very careful to avoid doing the wrong thing.  about concealing her personal views, Charles has been more outspoken on issues that matter to him, from the climate crisis to architecture.

But some think this has actually been a positive. Charles has come to the throne at a time when the climate crisis has become a much more mainstream concern. Around a quarter of voters now list it in their top three priorities.¹ Charles's long advocacy on this issue puts him closer to the people's own concerns.

Behind the headline figures, however, there is a more worrying picture for Charles. Only 32% of people aged 18-24 are supportive of the monarchy. And a majority of people under the age of 50 think Charles is out of touch with the experiences of the British people.

This suggests trouble for the monarchy in the years to come. As these younger people take over, calls for a republicA state in which the leaders are chosen by the people, and which has a president rather than a monarch. might grow louder.

Some say it is easy to see why. Charles's personal fortune is estimated at more than £1.8bn.² In spite of this, he receives more than £100 million each year from the taxpayer. And the public will have to shell out another £100 million for his coronation. 

What is more, the Crown itself is not subject to most taxes. So Charles is the only person in the country not paying for his own coronation. No wonder, critics claim, some see him as nothing but a rich man living off the work of ordinary people.

Charles also faces a new challenge. The country is increasingly divided between different values. That makes it impossible to be in touch with the national mood.

For example, Charles might have hoped to prove he was in touch with the public mood by opening the royal archives for researchers to examine the monarchy's links with slavery. Instead, some people criticised him for giving in to "wokeness", while others said he had not gone far enough and should apologise for the monarchy's past actions.

Yes: Charles has a job for life purely by accident of birth. He is sheltered from everyday worries about money or work. He cannot understand how people think.

No: Charles has spent his whole life talking to people up and down Britain. He understands them better than anyone. And unlike politicians, who only represent their voters, he knows he has to represent the whole nation.

Or... The problem is that there is no nation to represent. Britain is divided into warring tribes with very different ideas of what the nation should be. That makes institutions like the monarchy more and more irrelevant.