Reshuffles in Britain's ruling circles loom as King's illness worsens What the future holds for the Firm?

At the beginning of February, Buckingham Palace officially announced that King Charles III was suffering from cancer. The problems were discovered during the treatment of prostatitis. The British authorities did not specify what kind of tumour it was, but in any case, the King would have to undergo a long course of treatment, the outcome of which is not known.

The Buckingham Palace press service said that most of the King's representative duties would be taken over by the heir, Prince William. The king's youngest son, Prince Harry, who lives permanently in California, has also returned to England. In public, however, the royal family is cautiously optimistic. Leading British oncologist Karol Sikora says: "Cancer frightens a lot of people and by making his diagnosis public, Charles III will certainly help to allay some fears. We cure almost half of all cancer patients and I hope he has a long and successful life.

The British royal family has faced the dreaded disease before. In 1952, King George VI had his cancerous left lung removed. Contemporaries believed the monarch would overcome the illness and George let his heiress, the future Queen Elizabeth II, go on an international tour with a light heart. Less than a week after the Princess's departure, the King of England died in his sleep. This prompted the Washington Post to lament that "the House of Windsor has traditionally prioritised privacy when it comes to royal health concerns". Journalist Arianda Rokosowska noted that it was only when Queen Elizabeth II died that Buckingham Palace released a press statement saying that "she was very unwell".

The King's serious illness is likely to lead to reshuffles and a redistribution of power in Britain's ruling circles, which are still reeling from the departure of Queen Elizabeth II. Many people believe that the power of English royalty is purely symbolic, but this is far from the truth. In the late 1970s, a conservative analyst, Ian Gilmore described the British monarchy as the country's most effective political institution, with powers that are significant but not obvious to most people. For example, the British Armed Forces swear an oath to the King, not to Parliament. The use of the army is a prerogative of the Crown. The monarch can, if necessary, declare martial law independently of Parliament and rule through the Privy Council.

The British political system includes "His Majesty's Government" and "His Majesty's Opposition" and these are not just empty phrases. The King approves the appointment and resignation of the Prime Minister. In 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, John Kerr, representing Queen Elizabeth II, dismissed the Labour Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. The leader of the opposition Liberal Party replaced him. This was done by the monarch alone, without any democratic process, and the then Crown Prince, the reigning King of England, Charles III, played a very active part in making this happen.

Of course, in the normal political process, English kings do not abuse their rights. But the privileges of the Crown are "an armoured train standing on the reserve track". Enormous power is concentrated in the hands of the King in an emergency. This is particularly important today, given the difficult situation in Britain. The country is suffering from economic crisis, inflation, ministerial infighting and the effects of conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.

The King of England has considerable financial power in addition to his political influence. Charles III's personal fortune is about half a billion dollars, but the assets at his disposal may exceed 28 billion dollars, according to Forbes. The king owns some of the most expensive properties in central London, seven palaces, ten castles and more than fifty houses and cottages. As in the good old days, the monarch receives income from the lands of the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall, which amounts to around £41 million. What's more, Charles III also controls the seabed. Once only interesting for fish, the seabed now provides a net profit from offshore oil pipelines and drilling rigs off the Scottish coast.

But the story is far from over. The British royal family believes that information about its financial situation should remain "private, as it is for any other person". In the 1970s, Queen Elizabeth II was able to get changes to the accountability laws that allowed her to hide some of her investments.

The economy and finances of the United Kingdom cannot fail to be affected when the vast wealth of the royal family changes hands again in the next few months. In the event of Charles III's death, his eldest son, Prince William, will become heir to the British crown. Many analysts are taking his ambitions seriously and are initially looking at the figure of the current reigning monarch as an intermediate step. Not unreasonably, it was suggested that Elizabeth II would do what Catherine II did not and pass the throne to her grandson rather than her son. According to opinion polls, William was the most popular member of the royal family after the late Queen. Being the son of everyone's favourite Princess Diana, and being a military pilot, all helped to boost the reputation of the heir to the British crown.

Should King Charles III step down, "The Firm", as the royals are fondly known, would be left with serious staffing problems. Traditionally, members of the royal family have been in charge of state affairs and public duties. They are estimated to make up to 2,710 visits annually. However, most of the members of the royal family are over 50 years old and not all of them can engage in public activities. Nowadays, most of the work is done by the King's sister Princess Anne, 73, and Queen Camilla, 76. The king's youngest son, Prince Harry, has been a resident of the United States in recent years.

Once the idea of reducing the number of royals in the British state apparatus seemed progressive, but now it seems time for the ruling house to advertise: "Prince under 50 required for representative duties, five days a week, conditions good, accommodation and meals provided."

The radical left-wing Labour opposition is using the problems of the royal family to raise the question of the abolition of the institution of the monarchy. For them, the monarchy is a relic of feudalism, a stronghold of conservative forces linked to the Tories, a source of endless scandals and too much of a burden on the British taxpayer. Charles III's coronation alone cost between £50-100 million (the authorities refused to publish full cost estimates, apparently to avoid upsetting citizens). Unsurprisingly, the prospect of another expensive coronation makes Britons anxious.

Conservative forces, on the other hand, stress that the monarchy symbolises the unity of the country and is also one of the brands of the United Kingdom, raising the country's standing in the international arena and attracting millions of tourists.