The future of the monarchy may depend on lying low and staying out of trouble

Martha Gill

- 

As King Charles enters his third year on the throne, he finds himself at the helm of an institution caught between reverence and irrelevance

To mark the second anniversary of his coronation last week, King Charles unveiled a new portrait. Peter Kuhfeld's painting showed a man blurred by late afternoon light, looking rather vaguely into the distance. Royalist newspapers bristled - Queen Camilla's portrait looked the more regal; Charles was adrift in the scenery.

But any review of Charles's two years on the throne must admit it has been difficult - albeit mostly because of events beyond his control. He has suffered from cancer, as has the Princess of Wales. His disgraced brother Andrew continues to bring the family into disrepute, managing to make headlines alternately by his absence and presence at royal events.

Prince Harry has shot arrows at the institution from afar: only last week he told the media that the king does not speak to him, and that he does not know "how much longer my father has".

Even without these troubles, Charles faced a tricky task. His mother was wildly popular - in a recent YouGov poll looking at rulers since 1066, she topped the charts for favourable views (Charles came in third, but gained a greater number of "unfavourable" ratings than Richard III, best known for the suspected murder of his nephews).

The institution has grown steadily less popular since the 1980s, when it enjoyed 80%

The extent to which they are tracked and rated by the media tends to suggests the family exists on a knife edge

approval. Now, according to the British Social Attitudes survey, only 54% think it important that we retain the royal family.