“Never complain, never explain” has been the mantra of the British royal family for more than a century, a useful motto that has withstood all kinds of crises. And this week it has once again demonstrated its durability, after the news that King Charles III has started treatment for cancer.
He Buckingham Palace statement On Monday he did not identify what type or what treatment the 75-year-old king was receiving, simply saying that he had made it public to “avoid speculation” about his health and that he remains “totally positive” about his prognosis.
That statement would have seemed normal at any other time. But the cancer was discovered during treatment for the king's enlarged prostate a couple of weeks ago, a topic about which he was unusually open and received high praise. Having promised to modernize the monarchy, this openness seemed proof of his commitment: the kind of transparency on a sensitive matter that no previous royal figure had come close to.
With this diagnosis, the king will be able to know the limits of the future he imagined. No public figure should be expected to flaunt his woes, but he has already received some positive comments on social networks and elsewhere about how to share your cancer diagnosis. Still, Buckingham Palace's statement was opaque and lacked details about his illness that are likely to become more important in the coming months. It seemed to indicate that his era of openness was rapidly contracting, highlighting the uncomfortable public relations space in which the monarchy resides.
Despite 1,200 years of monarchy government, in terms of health transparency, the king has little to gain from. A biography published in 2022 alleged that Queen Elizabeth II had been fighting myeloma, a form of bone marrow cancer, in the months before his death, a diagnosis that, if true, was not made public. A previous biography, published in 2009revealed that she had been treated for cancer twice: she had a tumor removed from her colon when she was 66 (officially described as abdominal surgery to remove a partial obstruction), and in 1984 she underwent breast cancer surgery (when she He said he was in the hospital for “tests”).
The queen's silence was a learned behavior. Her father, King George VI, had his lung removed in 1951 in a procedure designed to correct “structural anomalies” according to officials, it was actually a carcinoma. He died suddenly five months later of a coronary thrombosis, although it has since been speculated that the cause was complications from the spread of the cancer.
King Charles seemed, at least a fortnight ago, to be doing things differently. At the time of his coronation in May last year, there was much talk of bringing the monarchy into line with current customs, of “reducing” the number of Windsors granted vast birth privileges, and of demonstrating soft power in a less greater than before. . State visits have taken top royals to the United States and France, Kenya, Kuwait, Sri Lanka and beyond in recent months, helping to maintain a continued global presence.
Recent health problems for the king and for Catherine, Princess of Wales, who underwent abdominal surgery last month (around the same time as the king's prostate treatment), have been a cause for concern, but have contributed to its popularity. by new survey, seeing them increase three percentage points each since May. Apparently, publicizing common health problems makes royals seem more popular, or at least more liked.
However, the latest king update introduces more uncertainty. A sustained pause in royal duties, while the king is understandably undergoing treatment, will certainly not be what he wanted his first full year of rule to be. An absent figurehead, even through no fault of his own, is not what the crown needs in the midst of an identity crisis.
The longer Britain continues to pivot without its head of state (which, of course, will happen), the harder it will be to demonstrate the importance of the palace within its country. Other royals, such as Queen Camilla, will take on more roles in the meantime, but a new fragility has been exposed. Reducing the monarchy was an idea presumably designed when there were royals to spend on, but for now, without the king or the Wale's princess (or Prince Harry), retaining his place in public life will be more difficult.
British monarchs have shown surprising resilience to scandal and bad luck over the centuries. But if transparency is going to be part of your future, whether that can be maintained in the face of poor health is, for once, out of your control.
Charlotte Lytton is a journalist based in London.
