“At last, my life has been a waiting for the throne.” This is a fantastic statement of his King Charles. The “King Charles III” (2017)a BBC 2 television adaptation of Mike Bartlett’s play of the same name, shows the once-upon-a-time Prince of Wales (played by Tim Pigott-Smith) refusing to sign a law passed by Parliament (which is to happen from in 1708), who, he claims, would harm the British people.

In the most memorable scene of Rupert Goold’s production, Charles makes a surprise entrance into the House of Commons to dissolve parliament. The high drama of the play is far from the first memorable images left to the world by the new British monarch: a 70-year-old struggling with a pen…

Kevin James, historian and professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, shares with “EL PAIS” the expectations and difficulties he believes the public image of the former Prince of Wales faces. “It’s hard to imagine Charles replicating his mother’s style,” she says. “He doesn’t have much time to make his own mark as a monarch, even though he has spent a lifetime making his views known on various subjects.”

The new monarch’s ascension to the throne has sparked speculation about the future of the Crown and questions about its role in modern society. Charles has said that, among other things, he will not live in Buckingham Palace and that in his coronation ceremony he sought a kind of middle ground between tradition and modernity. “Perhaps his enthronement will bring about a difference in style and substance: a less discreet and more accessible crown,” says the professor.

Over 80% of Britons alive today were born during the seven-year reign of Elizabeth II. Charles, on the other hand, was Prince of Wales for 64 years. It is hard to forget the image of Queen Elizabeth. Her face can still be found on coins, holiday souvenirs and even on the cover of the famous ‘Sex Pistols’ single.

James points out that the media served as a tool to shape the public image of the Windsors. “The media has been instrumental in popularizing and spreading very specific ideas about the monarchy,” he explains. “The royal family has used them as a way to control the discourse on their own lives, albeit often unsuccessfully and with unpredictable consequences.”

The professor cites various cases, such as the media coverage when Charles and Princess Diana divorced, or the disastrous interview given by Prince Andrew (Charles’ brother) about his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. A little-known example that speaks volumes about the British royal family’s relationship with the media is ‘Royal Family’, a documentary made to celebrate the coronation of Charles as Prince of Wales in 1969. The BBC’s co-production with the independent its rival, ITV, gave the British public a taste of the daily life of Queen Elizabeth, her husband Philip and the rest of the members of the House of Windsor, with family meals, country walks and more. Critics condemned its frank and intimate portrayal of royal life and the 110-minute documentary has not been broadcast since 1977, although it did manage to leak online in 2019.

For decades, fiction toyed with the idea that King Charles III would be a breath of fresh air for the monarchy. Long before Mike Bartlett imagined Charles III in a power struggle against Parliament, the second season of Michael Dobbs’ “House of Cards” trilogy introduced a monarch who looked nothing like the former Prince of Wales.

“House of Cards” was “born” as a novel by author Michael Dobbs. He later confessed that he wrote it out of anger at Margaret Thatcher when he was working as her chief of staff. However, it is “The Crown” that would shape the image of the House of Windsor for a new generation. One of the most memorable scenes of the fifth season shows then-Prince Charles (Dominic West) breakdancing with youngsters in a nightclub. It was one of those moments that make you pause to Google what really happened.

A major theme of the fifth season, and perhaps of the entire series, is the paradox that characterizes royal power: the years pass, governments change, society evolves, but the monarchy remains the same, but separate (or at least does what can to maintain this illusion). “The longevity of the British monarchy is based on its suspicion of the new and its detachment from popular pressure,” says the historian.

Diana’s ghost (literally, in Bartlett’s work) is an indelible “stain” that marks the life and image of the British monarch, a reminder of his human frailties. Both King Charles III and the second season of “House of Cards” begin with the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II and end with Charles being forced to abdicate and Prince William being crowned British ruler. Friction with the political establishment and the desire to bring a thousand-year-old institution into this century fail for the same reason: The private life and views of Charles the man clash with the expectations and desires of Charles the King.

“I think the idea of ​​a monarch going on a crusade to bring the Crown closer to the people is a romantic idea,” says the professor. “There is an important distinction between the Crown as an institution and the person who wears it: the former represents a millennium of continuity and the latter is mortal, ephemeral.”

Finally, the historian emphasizes the current controversy revealed by the British newspaper “The Guardian” about the royal house’s historical relationship with the slave trade. “I wonder if the dialogue that has arisen about the Crown’s relationship with slavery reflects – in part – an openness to reflection on the institution’s central role in historical structures of oppression,” he speculates. “Perhaps the recognition of these actions is the first step towards a reconciliation process. Carlos could be the right person for this job,” he adds.