ONE retirement met with a reaction not seen since the break-up of The Beatles.

The other is proceeding with all the hush of silk brushing against ermine.

Sir Alex Ferguson, a one-man Fab Four, timed his announcement to tie in with the opening of the New York Stock Exchange. Not many lads from Govan have had to do that. The Queen's plans, having no direct affect on share prices, have not been proclaimed. There has been no beating of drums on this one (no-one would dare while Dame Helen Mirren, queen of acting, was in earshot). Make no mistake, however. What we are witnessing is a measured changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, a very subtle coup.

It is all being done in a terribly well-mannered fashion, with a brief announcement here (Prince Charles will take the Queen's place at the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka in November), and a landmark re-appearance there (Prince Charles attending the State Opening of Parliament for the first time in almost two decades).

Full marks for decorum, then. The only trouble is, I cannot recall anyone asking the rest of us for our opinions. There has been no extraordinary AGM, no vote, no soundings taken on the shop floor. Yet we will all have to live with the consequences, and costs, for generations to come. Whether one is a royalist or not, it is an astonishingly backward way for a modern country to behave. When one considers the man most likely to succeed, Prince Charles, it is even more imperative that discussion should take place.

One has to hand it to the House of Windsor. At a time when other British institutions are on the back foot, it continues to flourish through reinvention and its own brand of rebranding. As part of this process, Prince Harry is on a week-long visit to the US. Among his duties will be continuing the fight to eradicate land mines (a cause dear to his late mother) and championing the cause of injured servicemen and women. One presumes the coverage this visit attracts will be rather different from the last time the prince was in America, when what happened in Vegas at a game of strip billiards certainly did not stay in Vegas.

Whatever publicity results from Harry's visit it will be nothing compared to what is to come when Baby Windsor appears. Before that happens, Prince William, in another sign of the reshuffle taking place, will announce whether he will carry on as a search and rescue pilot or take a more active royal role. It is all going on in the House of Windsor. What is not going on is any debate about the changes.

If the royals were of minor importance it would matter little how the chairs were shuffled. But in the UK, home of no written constitution, the monarch plays a key role. It is Her Majesty's Government, after all, not yours or mine. It is the monarch who signs bills into law, has a weekly audience with the Prime Minister and sees state papers, not you or me. It matters a great deal who sits in one particular chair. The British monarch may play a behind-the-scenes role for the most part, but they arguably wield more influence than any leader of the opposition could muster.

Which brings us to the candidate most likely to take on the role of what is being called, rather inelegantly, the country's "co-monarch". There is not, one should say, an official vacancy. In 1947, though just 21 at the time, and with the coronation six years in the future, the then Princess Elizabeth pledged that her "whole life, whether it be long or short" would be spent serving the country. Though few would begrudge her breaking that promise after a lifetime of service (if an 85-year-old Pope can retire, why not an 87-year-old monarch?) it is impossible to see that happening. Since the days of Edward VIII and the 1936 crisis, abdication remains the act that dare not speak its name.

In place of a formal transition, what we could be left with is a typical make-do-and-muddle British solution whereby Prince Charles will take on more of his mother's duties until the point when enough voices in the crowd cry: "Oi, mate, who made you king in all but name?" By then, however, it will be too late to do anything about it. Charles will have made the position his own.

Whether that is a good or a bad thing depends on how one views the prince and his enthusiastic championing of many and various causes and subjects from hunting to architecture. You can say one thing about Charles – he is not backward in coming forward. Besides making speeches and giving interviews, he has written letters to Government departments. We the humble electorate are not allowed to know the content of these letters because the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, last year ruled against their publication, a decision currently being challenged in the courts.

It has long been accepted that Charles has strong views; it is what he does with them in the political arena that matters. Doubtless the green lobby, or any of the other causes the prince champions, would be delighted to have a politically active monarch but that is against the rules of the game, such as they are. A constitutional monarch has the right to encourage, to warn, and to be consulted.

Lobbying would be something else entirely, and one that any occupant of Number 10, or Bute House for that matter, is likely to have firm views on (an SNP Government under Alex Salmond, remember, would retain the monarch as head of state in an independent Scotland). Nor is it easy to imagine any premier looking forward to a weekly audience with Charles the way they do with the Queen.

The royal reshuffle, unlike independence, is not something on which we will be given a vote. As for a vote on whether the institution of monarchy should exist at all, forget that too.

Unless there are formal moves to make Charles a Prince Regent, or acting monarch, the public, via their elected representatives, will have no say at all. Royal business will carry on as usual, the show will go on and the country will be poorer democratically for it.