Can Charles engender enough respect to hold the Commonwealth together?

Hateful responses to Queen Elizabeth II’s death were not unexpected, especially from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), whose trademarks include uncouth behaviour. Without irony, the EFF used the epithet “thief”.

This from a group whose leaders stand accused of the same offence in instances such as Afrirent and VBS bank looting. Hypocrisy wears red overalls. However, no one is above reproach, including Elizabeth II and her successor King Charles III, for whom she has set high standards.

Charles has failed to display one of Elizabeth’s enduring strengths: an ability to remain above the fray. As CNN’s Fareed Zakaria writes in the Washington Post: “She very rarely let slip her views about any of the great political and public events over which she presided. She has never even hinted at her views on any of the glittering public figures with whom she dealt.”

ALSO READ: WATCH: Charles III addresses parliament as mourners gather to see queen’s coffin

Some would disagree. For example, she intimated to former UK Prime Minister David Cameron that she was pleased when Scotland voted against independence. And in a 1986 off-the-record briefing, she let slip that she favoured sanctions against South Africa, a position supported by most Commonwealth nations, according to Tim Cohen in Daily Maverick. Such lapses have been airbrushed away.

But Charles has long been controversially outspoken on many issues, including climate change, environment, alternative medicines, politics and architecture. He offended the Chinese government with remarks about the 1997 UK handover of Hong Kong.

In June this year, he criticised the United Kingdom’s government’s policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

On a more personal level, too much sordid detail has been published about the failed relationship where his former wife, Princess Diana, said: “There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.”

Diana was referring to Camilla, who is now Charles’ Queen Consort. In a recorded conversation, Charles once expressed a desire to become Camilla’s tampon. Taken together, all this means that Charles can scarcely emulate the dignity central to the respect in which his mother is held.

ALSO READ: Queen Elizabeth II undid colonialism

Constitutionally, the British monarch has limited authority, unlike the prime minister or elected leaders in other democracies. The king can bestow honours, but not against the will of the elected government. A monarch may advise or suggest changes to draft laws, but only confidentially. The king may not show party political bias.

The “soft power” which a monarch wields derives from the esteem the person brings to the throne. Charles’ esteem is under microscopic scrutiny, where new perceived slights are already pounced upon.

The Commonwealth, of which he is now titular head, is no longer British. It is “a voluntary association of independent and equal sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies”.

The British Empire unravelled during Elizabeth’s reign, not because of her doing, but because of political forces around the globe. She helped keep former empire territories together in the Commonwealth, along with states from outside her realm. She didn’t do this single-handedly. She was supported because she was respected.

ALSO READ: Charles notes ‘heavy responsibilities’ in accession declaration

Can King Charles III engender enough respect to hold the Commonwealth together? Aged 73, he may have been too controversial to be able now to follow his mother’s example.