Charles III has been a very dull monarch, thank God

Great Britain’s queen is a year dead and her son is passing his first anniversary on the throne. What has astonished his subjects, and maybe disappointed royal-watching bloggers around the world, is how pleasantly uneventful and indeed dull Charles III’s reign has turned out to be.

There have been no public tantrums from the man himself, though I hear informed reports of a few private ones. For decades, as Prince of Wales, the king plowed his own furrow, sometimes with chaotic consequences, especially when he sought to interfere in political issues. This became most serious and threatening to his personal credibility when some 15 years ago he pushed government ministers to divert taxpayers’ money from the National Health Service into homeopathic medicine, one of his pet enthusiasms.

Surgeons and doctors protested furiously, publicly and surely rightly, that every pound apportioned to what they characterized as quack remedies was diverted from scientifically proven treatments. Many of us dreaded the consequences if, once crowned, he persisted with such campaigning.

Yet this has not happened. Since the day of his mother’s death, he has toured his kingdom meeting and greeting; conducted a highly successful state visit to Germany; and appeared to cast off much of his accustomed gloom both about himself and the world in which he lives.

Long ago, I was told a story of the old Charles by a friend who had just visited him at his Gloucestershire home, Highgrove. They walked around his beloved garden together in spring sunshine. She enthused about how wonderful the blossom on the trees was looking. Charles responded glumly: "Yes, but it will all have fallen off by tomorrow!” That exchange seemed symbolic of his approach to life — forever seeing the glass as half empty.

But accession, the prize — for which he waited until late in life — has mellowed and cheered him. He appears willing to heed advice, good advice, as in the past he was not.

When his marriage to Princess Diana was failing, he allowed himself to be persuaded by siren voices that he should speak out — to tell his side of the story — which proved as rash as it always does in family breakups, whether those of princes or commoners.

More recently, by contrast, he has responded to the barrage of insults hurled across the Atlantic by his younger son, Harry, the Duke of Sussex, and his wife Meghan by saying ... absolutely nothing. And assuredly, this is the prudent course. Polling evidence suggests that not only are most of the British people supportive of the king and his family against the Sussexes, but that even many formerly sympathetic Americans have grown weary of Harry and Meghan’s deepwater immersions in self-pity. The king can have little more to fear from them.

Charles’ brother, Prince Andrew, still represents a real reputational threat to the royal family. Although Andrew is permanently disgraced because of his relationship with the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, he refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing. The king has attempted to expel him from his palatial grace and favor quarters in Royal Lodge, Windsor, yet he stubbornly refuses to budge.

Last month, widespread publicity was given to Andrew’s arrival at Balmoral Castle to join the royal family’s annual Scottish gathering. He was photographed being driven to the castle by Charles’ older son, Prince William. Since everything done by the royals these days reflects carefully orchestrated public relations, we assume that the king decided it was better for the family to behave generously to this brotherly embarrassment. And that call, too, was the smart one.

Queen Camilla has proved the big success story of the new reign, to the surprise of those of us who doubted the wisdom of crowning the king’s longtime mistress. We may suspect that for this jolly country girl to assume a regal role in her 70s is not an enjoyable burden. Friends say that her happiest hours are spent in discreet sojourns at her private home, Ray Mill in Wiltshire, where she goes without courtiers and flunkies to play with grandchildren, walk dogs and even do a little cooking. She jokes in a way that born and bred royals do not.

I am nonetheless surprised that, a year into Charles’ reign, none of the hard questions are being much asked, especially about royal finances. They remain shrouded in secrecy, while Charles shows no sign of shedding any of his array of houses and palaces, other than a small farmhouse in Wales. With Britain’s economy in the doldrums, it seems extraordinary that nobody is making a fuss about the self-indulgence of the royal lifestyle, which we expected to be curtailed after Queen Elizabeth II’s death.

Nobody wants a hairshirt monarchy, which is a contradiction in terms. But in London, Charles and Camilla continue to live in their former residence, Clarence House, a vast pile almost opposite St. James’ Palace. They like it there and do not care to sleep in Buckingham Palace. Meanwhile, Charles often slips away to Highgrove, with its fabulous garden, or to the Castle of Mey in northern Scotland, purchased by his grandmother Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Defenders of the royals say: "Ah, but some of these properties are financed from their private fortunes.” Yes, but where did those fortunes come from? The basis of the Windsors’ modern wealth was Queen Victoria squirreling away many millions from funds granted to her by the state in the late 19th century. She spent little during her long years of self-imposed seclusion following the death of her husband, Prince Albert, in 1861. None of her successors have paid inheritance tax like the rest of us, nor is the scale of their private wealth disclosed.

The word on the royal street today is that Charles has decided not to alter radically the manner in which the monarchy is conducted, pushing reform off until William assumes the throne. My hunch is that the king simply lacks the energy or inclination to act boldly. Some modest economies in the royal households are being made, with job losses. But there is no sign of a significant downsizing in his property portfolio. Nor is there yet word of shedding any of the expensive family hangers-on — a slimming down of the number claiming royal entitlements, such as police motorcycle outriders when some fringe princess attends a flower show.

So, why no public outcry? It is, I think, because the British people are warmly appreciative that at a time when our political governance is seen to be shambolic, the rail and health services tottering, school buildings crumbling, the ceremonial and dignified portion of the state is seen to be functioning smoothly.

Polls show that as many as two-thirds of the British public think that Charles is doing a good job. He is popular, as he has never been before, especially through the dark years when he was held responsible, at least in part, for the tragic fate of Princess Diana.

Those of us who remember Diana well — and now of course, nobody under 30 has personal memories of her — ask the question: How would Britain’s monarchy look today had she stayed with Charles and lived? Many couples, especially those in grand circumstances, keep poisoned marriages going, "for the sake of the children,” or because they perceive a duty. Diana would have been a disastrous consort for a king whom she had come to hate. She once said to me: "I don’t think Charles can do it” — meaning be a decent monarch.

Had those two today occupied adjoining thrones, headlines would blaze daily about their rows. A stream of media leaks would have highlighted the queen’s view of her husband’s unfitness and, indeed, dottiness.

As it is, Camilla seems to have saved him; to have brought him as close to happiness as he is capable of traveling. For that, not only he but all of us who are his subjects and support the monarchy have cause to feel gratitude.

Two years ago, when Queen Elizabeth II still lived, we should never have dared to believe, first, that the transition to her son’s rule would be accomplished with so little public trauma; and second, that we should have completed the first year of his reign almost without incident. I was among those who once favored Prince William assuming the throne in succession to his grandmother, while Charles and Camilla retired to Highgrove. We were wrong.

William’s relations with his father, never close, remain visibly distant. Anyway, Charles is what we have got now and he is more of a success in the job than anybody expected. For a start, he is the first senior royal since Queen Victoria’s Albert to cherish a genuine interest in culture and the arts — particularly architecture.

When we inhabit a world in such turmoil, what a relief it is to be ruled by a man who is doing almost nothing to frighten the horses. He has fulfilled the principal duty of a constitutional monarch, just by being there. His most famous passion, for combating climate change, a cause for which he was a pioneer, now commands widespread approval and respect.

Next month he will make a state visit to France, which is almost assured of success, and thereafter a wider overseas tour. He is to lead a domestic campaign against food waste, which even skeptics cannot brand as political interference.

Only a quarter of British people profess to want an end to royalty and their numbers seems to be shrinking. "Off-with-his-head” republicans, eat your hearts out. Our monarchy — in this 21st century, Britain’s foremost anachronism — has not for ages appeared so steady on its foundations.