RICHARD KAY: Charles' downsized monarchy is coming apart at the seams – just as Anne predicted

If there was any consolation for the King last night, it was the news that the Princess of Wales is 'doing well' as she recovers from abdominal surgery.

However, his relief at his daughter-in-law's progress is tempered by the knowledge that he, too, will be hospitalized in a few days as he undergoes a medical procedure for an enlarged prostate.

Normally, his son would be able to take on part of the royal duties at such a time. But Prince William has understandably put the well-being of his wife and children first and postponed his official duties.

That the three most important members of the royal family – Charles in his position as sovereign, William as heir apparent and Kate as the monarchy's most recognizable figure – are all absent from the public stage at the same time is alarming enough.

But what is far more striking – and should also be a cause for concern – is exactly what these medical emergencies mean for the House of Windsor's ability to function fully when beset by unforeseen setbacks. Because in any case, these health alarms have exposed the consequences of a downsized monarchy. Stripped of such trusted figures, even for a short time, they reveal how empty the royal closet is.

Queen Camilla will of course remain calm and carry on, even if her mind is reasonably elsewhere. And Princess Anne is, as always, the safest of a safe pair of hands.

Perhaps more telling is how quickly a problem can turn into a crisis.

For decades, the royal family floated serenely through many a problem because there were enough of them to deploy. If one family member was unable to attend, another family member would step in seamlessly.

But the turbulence of recent years, from Megxit to Prince Andrew's Epstein crisis and Queen Elizabeth's death, has put the greatest strain on resources.

Princess Anne is, as always, the safest of a pair of safe hands, but she did warn that downsizing the monarchy was not a good idea

In private moments, Charles certainly wishes he still had Prince Harry's box office draw to call on. That is, the 'old' Harry, the cheerful prince who threw himself into royal duties with a verve and popularity unmatched by any other family member.

But that was before the marriage, the self-imposed exile to California and the bitter estrangement from his own brother.

Coupled with Prince Andrew's forced exclusion from working royals due to the Jeffrey Epstein affair, Harry and Meghan's absence has done more to slim down the monarchy than any tinkering Charles himself could have ever envisioned.

His 1990s dream was based on the belief that to survive (and remain relevant) in the long term, the royal family had to be reduced to a core of the monarch and his (or her) immediate successors.

The peripheral figures, who for so long were part of the ritual in moments of national celebration that graced the balcony of Buckingham Palace, would simply disappear.

Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, has become a reliable and trusted member of the Royal Family for Charles, William and Kate

And as the years passed, that's exactly what happened.

When the late Queen celebrated her Golden Jubilee in 2002, the balcony was full of royal pendants. Fast forward ten years to her diamond anniversary in 2012 and that same balcony was looking a bit sparse. The handful who rose to acknowledge the crowd's cheers were exactly as Charles had advocated: a core of royals representing the direct line of succession.

That same scene was repeated in the summer of 2022 during Queen Elizabeth's Platinum Jubilee, but while the numbers next to her increased due to the presence of William and Kate's children, Harry's absence was noticeable.

Even Charles could never have imagined that this pared-down vision wouldn't include his youngest son, daughter-in-law, and their children Archie and Lilibet. That's why the sudden – albeit temporary – removal of three key figures today exposes the limitations of this new look of the royal family.

Queen Camilla will of course remain calm and carry on, but imagine if the alarm had been raised during a state visit, while the King, William and Kate would have played a central role.

How prophetic the words of Princess Anne now seem when she was asked ten months ago about the new king's plans to reduce the royal workforce. “I think 'downsized' was said on a day when there were still a few people around,” she noted. “It doesn't sound like a good idea.”

Charles' rationale was based not only on the physical presence of a bloated family, but also on confronting the public perception that it is kept afloat by taxpayers. He wants the monarchy to be seen as value for money.

All this can only be achieved by reducing what the institution actually does.

Years ago, Charles concluded that it was unrealistic for a smaller family of working royals to represent as many charities and other voluntary organizations as they had become accustomed to. With fewer royals available, there would have to be drastic cuts in the number of official patronages that could be handled. But at the same time he realized that no substantial changes should take place until he became king.

His intention has not deviated. Take the elevation of his brother Edward to Duke of Edinburgh. It was always Prince Philip's wish that his youngest son would one day achieve his title, even if it would be a gift from Charles to achieve it.

But there was a twist in the story. The title would not automatically pass to Edward's own son, James. So by creating the duchy for one generation, the king demonstrated how his vision of a downsized royal family would work.

This week's events are testing strategy in ways courtiers may not have expected. It is fortunate, therefore, that these medical bombings have come at a time when royal duties are traditionally lighter.

Imagine if the alarm had occurred halfway through a state visit, when both the king and William and Kate would have played a central role.

Despite these dramas, the public has a right to wonder how well Charles's small-scale monarchy will fare. They may also wonder whether the royal family's extraordinary home portfolio may also need to be downsized.