King Charles - III or IV&;#063;

The world has just buried the Queen Mother. From the time of her
death until her funeral, London was filled with mourners because of
what her life meant. When her daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, dies,
London will be packed again - because of what her death will mean. It
will bring a rain of questionmarks.

It has already been settled, with considerable arrogance on the part of
all concerned, that the Queen "will" reign for another 10 years. Even
if Old Man Time allows this (she is in her 70's), the problem that
parts of the establishment want the "road-plan" to settle may still
hang over them if the Queen Mother's long life is due to
genetics.

Prince Charles wants to be King.

And he has never rescinded his promise that, should he be king, he will
hold a referendum on the future of the Monarchy.

But this, believe it or not, will not be the establishment's biggest
problem upon his accession. That will be his name. The stumbling block
is one that I - a Scot living in that most English of places, the Fens
- can appreciate.

The last King Charles to sit upon a throne in Britain was Charles II.
But Charles Edward Stuart, "Bonnie Prince Charlie", although he failed
to become King in the Jacobite rebellion of 1745-46, is widely regarded
to have become the rightful King of Britain upon the death of his
father, James VIII, on January 1 1766, instead of the incumbent, George
III. (Check it out, if you have the stamina.)

Whatever side of the debate you're on (if any), this has left a can of
worms. It is no mere historical anomaly like Elizabeth II of England
also holding the same style in Scotland, despite the fact that Scotland
never had an Elizabeth I before the Union of Crowns in 1603.

No, the Bonnie Prince, ineffectiveness aside, thought bigger. Forget
what you see on the biscuit boxes: Charles Edward wanted to be king of
Britain, not just Scotland. If our Prince Charles takes the title King
Charles III, he is a hostage to whichever historians have the best
evidence, and he will have to hope that "his people" are not
double-agents for those who want no referendum. If he becomes Charles
IV, he will be legitimising the claim of Charles Edward Stuart, who,
despite the disinformation, did perpetuate his bloodline. Perhaps it is
a contradiction Prince Charles, one of the more cognitively able
Royals, appreciates.

How relevant is all this? On one level, not very. Look at the
to-die-for column inches given to the marriage of Victoria Adams (aka
Posh Spice) to Manchester United's David Beckham. In the eyes of the
press they are the new royalty, crowns and thrones and all, with the
added bonus that they can be deposed at whim in favour of the New Kids
in Town, whoever they will be.

On another level, it is a ticking time-bomb under the Monarchy, which
is guarantor of the British Aristocacy. Charles Edward Stuart may yet
assume the importance denied to him during his life.

An importance the Queen Mother never had to seek, but which found her
nonetheless. In latter years, when her daughter's family and reign was
under fire from a press which was often hostile and claimed it had
reasons to be so, she assumed the role of linchpin making it work.
Republicans and monarchists alike must agree that she performed that
function with honour.

Elizabeth 1900-2002
Rest in Peace