Miguel Ángel Idígoras: "The British monarchy needs a revulsive, and Charles III is not as much of a revulsive as his son William could be"

In the latest edition of "De Cara al Mundo" on Onda Madrid, a programme presented and directed by Javier Fernández Arribas, director of Atalayar, we had the participation of Miguel Ángel Idígoras, journalist, RTVE correspondent in the United Kingdom for ten years, to analyse the current situation in the United Kingdom after the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession to the throne of her son, the now King Charles III.

Miguel Ángel, how many years were you a correspondent there in London?

I was there in two stages. First from 2007 to 2009 and then from 2013 to 2020, a decade, with some interruptions.

The United Kingdom changes its head of state and prime minister in a week, can this be assumed? Is there an institutional reality that guarantees stability

The United Kingdom is a country with an institutional guarantee and a solvency in this sense that is history-proof. Its parliamentary regime and its organisation as a state make it clear that it is a country that is not going to suffer the ups and downs that perhaps another might suffer with the death of a monarch who has been on the throne for seventy years. The UK is perfectly organised in this respect. They carry out the handover quite naturally and the institutions will not suffer, being one of the oldest parliamentary regimes in the world and with a well-established democracy.

And yes, it is true that the fact that the prime minister, Liz Truss, who was recently appointed and then received by the Queen, does create a certain amount of uncertainty from a political point of view, but no more than would be the case under normal conditions. I believe that in this sense there will be a transition that will take place normally, quite naturally, although there may be some uncertainty as to how the so-called Charles III will progress as British sovereign, that is, whether it will be a long reign or not, that is perhaps the uncertainty.

Will he be a king of continuity, will he want to leave his mark or, as some people wonder, given that he is already 73 years old, might he think of abdicating to his son William? An abdication that, for example, took place in Spain and right now the figure in Spain of Felipe VI is a beloved, respected and highly valued figure. 

Yes, I am inclined towards the third possibility you mention because it is true that Charles of England, the new monarch, is 73 years old, and perhaps does not command as much agreement among the British public as his mother. Of course, Queen Elizabeth II was the image of the country's unity for many years. And Prince Charles, perhaps because of his history, his divorce, his subsequent marriage to Camilla Parker, and so on, does not have as much support in British society. His son, Prince William, and Catherine, his wife, do. It is a young family.

And perhaps, although the monarchy is not in question in the United Kingdom, and it is not as questioned as it is, for example, in Spain, it is true that the monarchy needs a revival, and Charles III of England is not as much of a revival as his son William could be. We must bear in mind that, at that time, the European monarchies, whether we look at the Scandinavian, Dutch or Spanish monarchies, are young monarchies, monarchies that look much more to the future than to the past, much more closely linked to society, to the situation of European societies. They are monarchies of advanced countries, of consolidated democracies, and in all of them there are circumstances typical of young monarchies, as I have said, perhaps much closer to what European societies are already experiencing.

In this sense, Charles of England, because of his age and what he represents, is a monarchy that looks more to the past than to the future and I would not be surprised - and this is pure speculation - that it could be a short reign and that there could be an abdication, perhaps the result of a social demand because I don't think British society would take to the streets and much less ask for a change of king, but the fact that the arrival of Prince William, who could be a revulsive for the Crown as an institution. 

Do you think that the press, especially the tabloids, will respect the figure of Charles III? Because a few days ago we saw the publication that he had received commissions from some places that are not at all recommendable. How do you see this?

I think the press is going to put Charles III to the test, because the tabloid press, as you rightly point out, is a press that immediately uncovers everything it can uncover. Queen Elizabeth II herself was already exposed two years ago by the BBC for having significant fortunes, significant amounts of money in tax havens in the Caribbean.

But it is true that the British Crown functions as a business, and the British understand that too, and they almost drew a veil over the issue, something that might not have happened in another monarchy, but was allowed in this one. It is also the case that the Queen has taken great care to be a neutral monarch in all respects, and has never given in to any temptation or provocation from the press. She has always maintained scrupulous neutrality on all political issues in the UK, even at the most difficult of times.

The tabloids are certainly going to test the current King. They are going to see exactly whether he is able to maintain that neutrality, that cool head, that distance and that neutrality that his mother has maintained, and which has allowed him to reign for seventy years.

The British Royal Court has a very good policy of reaching out to society. The series The Crown and other documentary series have been made in some way driven by the institution itself as part of an image campaign and to recover, especially after Lady Di's death, the affection and respect of British society and at an international level as well, although there was a lot of criticism in that series. 

Not so much the Royal Court, but the British Crown is a company in all its dimensions: economic and marketing, and both generate huge profits. It is a tourist image: the Queen appears on mugs, posters, photos, postcards, and this will continue to be the case because they have managed to make the British monarchy not only an institution, the head of state, but also the representation itself. The image of the United Kingdom is the image of the Queen, or the Queen's image is the image of the United Kingdom.

And all the advisors around them have been able to adapt to the times. They have known how to use the series, television, to air their own aspects, always scripted, more or less calculated and controlled, but they have known how to be in the public eye, knowing that this is fundamental for British society to accept them as well. The fact of being in the limelight, which is more complicated and more difficult for other monarchies, they have been able to do it. Those who have not withstood the pressure of being in the shop window, in this sense the figure of Prince Henry and Meghan Markle appears, have more or less had to leave the company, the business. And I believe that, in this respect, the current King Charles III knows this, he has inherited it, he knows that this is his role and he will continue along the same lines.