IT has been a good week for monarchists compiling scrapbooks of the lives of the younger Royals Prince William, in a rare TV interview, expressed his desire to be more than an “ornament” who shakes hands and opens buildings; while Princess Eugenie, attended by paparazzi and expensive police bodyguards, matriculated at Newcastle University, in north-east England.

William's desire to be more than a decorative presence in public life is impressive, but probably futile. In palace-creeper cliche, the job of those closest to the throne is to produce an “heir and a spare”, but William endures the burden, until his father's death or renunciation of the succession, of being a spare heir - a double redundancy that Charles, who became next-in-line at the age of four, has been spared.

If I could make one change to newspaper style books, it would be to outlaw the sentimental formula “future king”, as applied to Charles and William. It is in the nature of their tragedy that they may or may not be, depending on numerous factors. The life of a male royal below the throne consists of a bit of soldiering and then a lot of nothing; and, at 27, Charles and Diana's elder son seems nervously to be contemplating the void ahead.

But the difficulty with his desire not to be an ornament is that, in a constitutional monarchy, his current role is no more than trimming. Like his father, he resembles a commuter who has just heard an announcement that the train is unlikely to arrive for at least 20 years, although he should be relieved on his dad's platform, they were warning of delays of up to eight decades.

The other problem lies in the second-in-line's touching desire to combine in his charitable activities the “best bits” of his mum and dad's pro bono work.

— The Guardian, London