The natural reaction to this week’s news that King Charles III is suffering from cancer has been one of concern and compassion. As the Prime Minister said, consolation can be drawn from the fact that the illness has been caught early and that Charles is continuing with his duties – albeit stepping aside from public-facing engagements for the time being. But it hasn’t taken long for conversation to stray on to other questions: might it be better for him to step back from all duties? And perhaps at some point he should give way to Prince William?

Such an idea is to be resisted. Charles III is the oldest monarch to take the throne in British history, and there are obvious health implications. But the King has long been an advocate of the British tradition of monarchy: that it is not a job from which one retires. The crown comes before the person.

Some of the happiest, most settled times for Britain have been towards the end of long reigns

Abdication has become a common feature in other European monarchies. Margrethe II of Denmark recently decided to step down, having previously ruled out the idea. But in Britain it has happened only once in modern times, when Edward VIII, a fairly young man at the time, put his relationship with Wallis Simpson ahead of his duty as a monarch. Going further back in history, Edward II and Richard II were forced out and James II fled. In more than a thousand years of monarchs, none has simply retired and handed the throne to a younger generation.

Just because something hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean it can’t of course. Pope Benedict XVI broke a convention of 700 years when he resigned due to ill health. Charles III has already broken the rule that forced his great uncle off the throne: he is married to a divorcée, and is himself on his second marriage. Times change, and monarchies change with the times.

To introduce the idea of retirement, however, would diminish the status of monarch to that of a job, reducing it to the level of our here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians. That the British monarchy is so strong and has survived into the 21st century in spite of huge social change and the less than ideal behaviour of some members of the royal family is largely down to the remarkable example of Elizabeth II. Duty, she told us on her 21st birthday in 1947, would guide her whole life, whether it be long or short – and she meant what she said.

There has never been any evidence – no matter what Netflix’s overimaginative writers may have postulated – that abdication was ever on the late Queen’s mind. She kept working until shortly before her death: her last official duty, ironically, being to receive a new prime minister whose brief time in office only served to emphasise the difference between the role of head of government and that of head of state.

In her determination to carry on until the end, Elizabeth II reminded us that some of the happiest, most settled times for Britain have been towards the end of long reigns.

Charles III’s reign is necessarily going to be far shorter than his mother’s, but there is little to suggest that the King sees his role any differently to how his mother viewed hers. He showed that he had little time for the proposition that the monarchy should ‘skip a generation’ and go straight to William. Were he even to mention the possibility of abdication, it would reduce him to a lame duck. Every speech, every anniversary, every doctor’s appointment would lead to speculation: is this the moment when Charles III steps down?

None of this is to say that the King should be forced to make public appearances when he is unwell, or that he should feel obliged to keep to the schedule of a much younger man. In the United States there is understandable concern about an ageing President Biden’s ability to cope with the heavy workload of constant and crucial decisions. But the role of the British head of state is completely unique. Just as Charles himself stood in for his mother at the last State Opening of Parliament of her reign, he has a willing heir who is ready to step into his shoes when he is needed.

The potential back-up is not vast, however. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have opted out of royal life and Prince Andrew has been obliged to relinquish his royal duties after scandal. Buckingham Palace certainly needs to be thinking about how to ensure that the royal family is broad enough to cope with illness, incapacity and any additional withdrawals from life as a working royal. As our politics becomes more divided, the need for the unifying force of the crown – one that crosses borders of race, country and class – has never been greater.

Like everyone else this week, we wish the King a quick recovery. And most of all, we look forward to many more years of the reign of Charles III.