AN WILSON: With the King and Kate out of action, we are forced to imagine what Britain would be like without our Royal Family – and a President Blair would NOT evoke the same affection

Tragedy is no respecter of class or privilege. But while this is a deeply worrying time for the Royal Family on a personal level, in a paradoxical way, I am convinced there is optimism for the future of the monarchy.

For the past couple of months have powerfully reminded us of how much we value the institution. As two of the Firm’s most charismatic performers have withdrawn from the stage, we have been shown what life is like without them. More than that, we are compelled to contemplate what life would be like if the worst happened.

Worryingly, the temporary absence of Charles and Kate comes when the wider Royal Family is much reduced.

The constitutional functions of the monarchy – the business contained in red boxes – are still in the hands of a convalescent King. The other stuff, however – such as the attendance at award ceremonies or sports events, the opening of hospitals and schools, the hosting of dinners and official visits by dignitaries to Windsor or Buckingham Palace – is now being shared out by the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Anne, Prince William and the Queen. The Duke of Kent, at the age of 88, for example, cannot be expected to stand in for the monarch, as he might have done ten years ago, while Prince Andrew and Prince Harry, for obvious reasons, are out of the picture.

As it happens, I have been at two events recently where royalty was present. One was a charming small reception at Windsor Castle, where about 20 authors had gathered after being asked to write miniature books for a dolls’ house which had been gifted by the nation to Queen Mary after World War One.

The occasion was inimitably jolly, as it was hosted by Camilla who spoke to everyone in the room, remembered the titles of their books and put on a good show of enjoying herself.

The other event was a dinner for the Royal Commission for the Great Exhibition of 1851. Many would have guessed the profits from that era-defining event, which were used to build the Albert Hall and the V&A Museum in London’s South Kensington, had long evaporated. But, such was the foresight of Prince Albert and his friends, those huge funds are still sufficient to pay for science scholarships. The dinner honoured young researchers who have pioneered, among other things, improved screening processes for breast cancer and ways to save the coast of Antarctica.

Numerous duties are being taken on by Princess Anne and the Duchess of Edinburgh

As president, Princess Anne reminded the award-holders that this commission has sponsored more Nobel Prize-winners than some of the greatest academic institutions in the world. From its inception by her ancestor Prince Albert, it became enthusiastically run by her father, the late Duke of Edinburgh, and now it is under her stewardship.

She showed true, intelligent interest as she went from stand to stand, discussing their research with the award-holders, clearly having done her homework.

Both these events reminded me of what we would lose if we did not have a monarchy. Neither occasion would have been quite the same if they had been presided over by a famous actor or a politician. And if that is true of these comparatively low-key events, how much truer it is of the times when we all want to come together as a nation – above all on Remembrance Day, when the whole country focuses its attention on the Cenotaph and those who died in war.

Of course, we could be like other countries and have a president, but such a figure would inevitably be an ex-politician, and President Blair or President May would certainly not evoke the fondness and respect that is felt by most of us for the King and Queen and their family.

This feeling is not sycophantic, it is affectionate.

That is why some monarchists such as myself are especially harsh about royals who let the side down or, by their foolishness, damage the reputation of the royal idea.

We could be like other countries and have a president, but such a figure would inevitably be an ex-politician, and President Blair or President May would certainly not evoke the fondness and respect that is felt by most of us for the King and Queen and their family. (Pictured, Blair with wife Cherie)

The affection, in which Queen Camilla and Princess Kate (whose ancestors include a coalminer and labourer) are held, shows also that we British are not superstitiously or snobbishly impressed by the lineage of the royals.

To be a monarchist you do not have to insist that the Royal Family is all drawn from blue stock. Rather, we see them as people set apart for a particular purpose. They are not ‘celebrities’, though they are famous. They are not political, though the King is at the heart of our political constitution. And they are not without magic, still, despite all the changes wrought upon this country.

That is why so many of us felt such a great sense of shock when we heard of the illnesses of the King and Princess of Wales, and why we realise so vividly, while they are out of action, just how much they are valued.