King Charles III, aged 75, is suffering from a “form of cancer”, Buckingham Palace announced Monday February 5 in a press release.
The palace clarified that he did not suffer from prostate cancer.
“During the King's recent hospital procedure for benign prostatic hypertrophy, a separate problem was noted” and “subsequent tests identified a form of cancer,” the official letter read.
To discover
George Clooney: tormented childhood, great love and secret ambitions
Download the Le Figaro Cuisine app for tasty and authentic recipes
Leadership, balance, career, money... A business coaching program for women
According to the Palace, the king “remains completely positive about his treatment and hopes to fully return to his public duties as soon as possible.”
Reached by telephone, Antoine Michelland, senior reporter, specialist in Windsor for Point de Vue
magazine
, reacts quickly to this news which is already shaking the United Kingdom.
Madame Figaro.-
How did the United Kingdom react to the news of Charles III's cancer?
Antoine Michelland.-
It’s a little early to say.
But it's obviously a major earthquake.
The English media are already on the scene.
They are very reactive and are already trying to make assumptions.
Knowing in particular what to do if the king is not capable of fulfilling his prerogatives, which is also what Harry's return to London means.
We imagine that it is either because it is very serious, or to reconcile with his father, or to put himself back at the center of the royal family, even if it seems improbable to me that he would make a 180 turn and that he resumes service with the Windsors.
On the other hand, I remain very surprised by the current transparency demonstrated by Buckingham Palace, it is something very new.
For Queen Elizabeth II, we only knew about her health problems after the fact.
Here, Charles III officially announces his cancer.
Of course, he doesn't say everything but shows a fairly unprecedented transparency.
This contributes to this desire to modernize the monarchy.
When we think of the doctored health reports of our French presidents, it is exemplary.
Given the reassuring press release from Buckingham Palace on Charles' recent hospitalization, can we believe that this cancer is a surprise?
There are many possibilities.
Either the surgeons discovered cancer in the lower parts while operating on the prostate, or the biopsy revealed something.
But I think the diagnosis was unexpected.
A sick king of England, what does that mean?
It all depends on the severity of the cancer, the nature of the king's possible unavailability and its duration.
For the moment, Charles III says it well: he continues to be king.
He does not enter under regency.
He could very well ask his son to carry out his duties during his unavailability, but we are not there yet.
The king remains at the helm, and is always able to perform the minimum service, to exercise all of his prerogatives: sign the royal decrees, consult the
red box
[
this famous red briefcase of the British parliamentary monarchy which serves to transmit confidential documents and notes, Editor's note
]... Even if a State Councilor has the right to sign in his absence.
If his condition deteriorates and the situation were to prolong, he would have to delegate part of his obligations, in particular to William, the main heir to the throne.
He could also send Princess Anne or Edward, Duke of Edinburgh in her place.
But in this case, for official and strategic trips, such as the state visit of Charles and Camilla planned for the fall to Australia, the monarch could be replaced by William.
There are indeed desires there to leave the Crown, while remaining in the Commonwealth, and it is a seduction operation to avoid the referendum which would lead Australians to choose between remaining in a monarchical system or entering a republic .
Apart from William, on the front line and logical number 2, who could be activated by Charles III to fulfill the missions of the royal family?
The royal family is not completely abandoned.
There's also Anne, who has kept an impressive amount of commitments since her brother's ascension to the throne.
Charles III can also count on the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, Edward and Sophie, who are very active in the field.
The possibility of reactivating other members of the royal family cannot be ruled out.
We can imagine that we would call on Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie more.
Although their father, Prince Andrew, is out of the picture with the Epstein affair and will not return, they can be called upon if necessary.
Cancer among the Windsors, is this unprecedented?
No not at all.
Charles III's grandfather, George VI, suffered from lung cancer.
He underwent a pneumonectomy in 1951 and died a few months later in his sleep on February 6.
It was actually unexpected, so much so that Elizabeth II was on a state visit to Kenya at the time.
Does this risk weakening the British monarchy?
A fortiori, the timing is a little stiff.
Even more so with the setbacks of Harry and Meghan who left active life on the monarchical level and Andrew's legal troubles.
So obviously the royal family has, in recent years, seen major players leave the game. This accumulation of defections means that this announcement of Charles III's cancer does not come at a good time.
What role will Camilla play?
Camilla definitely has a role to play.
Already, she is queen and state councilor.
This therefore gives him the right to compensate for certain obligations of the king.
In the field, she was seen carrying out official duties, notably during her husband's hospitalization.
That being said, once again, there is no question of Charles III not fulfilling his prerogatives.
He assured him:
the show must go on
.
Its communication should go in this direction.
On Sunday, the king went to mass at the parish of St Mary Magdalene in Sandringham to show that all was well.