The royals - Kitty Kelley [258]
As sovereign, Charles would have to commit himself to uphold the Protestant succession, which also troubled him. He did not understand why Roman Catholics had to be specifically excluded from succeeding to the throne. He said the rule, which also precluded a sovereign from marrying a Roman Catholic, was inherently unfair and discriminated against the 10 percent of Britain’s 60 million people who were Roman Catholic. So he proposed eliminating the 295-year-old ban.
The heir was determined to acquire the throne. Although he had disappointed his future subjects by discarding a young wife and taking up with a weatherbeaten mistress, he would not step aside. Despite growing objections, he soldiered on. “I have dedicated myself to putting the great back into Britain,” he said, “and that’s what I intend to do.” Yet even those who recalled the empire of Great Britain did not think he would become King.
Throughout the country people continued to stand for the loyal toast at formal black-tie dinners. They raised their glasses to salute the sovereign: “To the Queen,” they would say in unison before sitting down. Even respectful republicans stood for the tribute. “No one is recommending a revolution,” said Professor Stephen Haseler, chairman of Britain’s Republican Society. “For most of us heading into the twenty-first century, the sentiment is: ‘God save the Queen,’ and then, ‘Save us from her heirs.’ ”
To the professor, the monarchy looked as if it were ready to be walked to the wall for one last cigarette. He predicted dissension throughout the land if the Prince of Wales ascended to the throne. “King Charles III will split the nation down the middle,” he said. “The only solution, short of anarchy, which no one advocates, is an act of Parliament, agreed to by the Queen, that upon her death or abdication, the monarchy would end and a new head of state would be elected.”
The republicans were asking the Queen to dissolve her dynasty. The royalists were spluttering. They warned that abandoning the monarchy would traumatize the country and cause great upheaval. They said it would require restructuring the entire system of government and creating a written constitution. And they predicted that the class system would disappear and the House of Lords would collapse. The republicans agreed and approved. They argued that the structural moves were necessary to revitalize the country. The national debate had begun, and words once considered treasonous were uttered without rebuke.
Crowded between republicans and royalists, though, was the majority. They wanted to retain the monarchy but bypass the future monarch. “It’s as simple as ABC—Anybody But Charles,” said one MP, recommending that the Queen move to make Princess Anne the next monarch. Polls in 1996 showed great support for the idea. Others suggested skipping Charles and going directly to his older son, as Diana had proposed.
“The best hope is to jump a generation and appoint Prince William as the Queen’s successor,” wrote Paul Johnson in the Spectator. “That solution would eliminate the foolish and unpopular Charles and might prove a winner with the public.”
Americans agreed. For their youth-crazed, celebrity-driven culture, the solution was ideal. People magazine described the young prince as “a looker just like his mom.” Time put him on the cover and asked: “Can This Boy Save the Monarchy?” British commentator Julie Burchill expressed doubts. “I hope for the best for Wills,” she said, “but I would be very surprised if he turns out to be normal, because that’s the maddest family since the Munsters…. We wouldn’t be shocked if he turned out to be a cross-dresser who wanted to marry a corgi….”
Bookmakers began taking bets on whether the monarchy