King Charles' address to the nation was a promise to stick with tradition.

Although it is early days, there was no hint in his speech of a need for the monarchy to reform.

"Our values have remained, and must remain, constant" he said.

Britain's monarchy and its tradition are bound to come under fresh critical scrutiny from a number of contradictory angles following the end of the 70-year reign of Queen Elizabeth II.

Royals have been attacked for being too liberal when they are seen to interfere in politics, while the monarchy is also criticised as being reactionary and outdated.

Of course, a lot of the power attached to the British monarchy does come from its adherence to tradition and the rituals garnered over the centuries. The pageantry and sense of history in the royal occasions are what make them so impressive.

However with tradition comes legacy. In the Caribbean, there is growing resentment about the British Crown's historic connection to slavery. Barbados removed the queen as head of state and six other countries in the region are considering a similar move. That would leave only eight of the 54 Commonwealth countries keeping the British monarch as head of state.

And in this part of the world the problem with abiding so resolutely to tradition is that it can tie the British royalty to the politics and thinking of 16th and 17th centuries.

Nowhere is this more evident than the crown's relationship to the Church of England, where the monarch is head of the church.

King Charles III stated in his speech that the role and duties of the sovereign will remain, including the "particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England - the church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted".

We are so used to thinking of Britain as a secular state we can forget about how deeply religion is embedded in the crown and, at a time when religious observance is falling, so is personal religious faith.

And when Charles took his oath before the Accession Council in St James Palace he swore: "I shall inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland".

This section was added in line with an act of parliament in 1707 and it was to ensure that the status of Scottish protestant churches would not be affected by the act of union. And it has remained the oath taken by the sovereign.

There is no mention of Catholic religion of course. Given British history and wars over the Reformation, Catholicism was not part of the fold.

For centuries a British royal in line to the throne could not marry a Catholic - that was made legal in 2015. However, a Catholic can still not become monarch because of the crown's ties to the Church of England. This would also apply to people of other faiths.

This issue of religion and the crown still has resonance in Northern Ireland. The belief among some in the Loyalist community over the years that Catholics do not fully belong to the state would have some constitutional basis. The religious divisions in the North did not arise by themselves.

Then there is the issue of the Lords Spiritual - 26 Archbishops and bishops of the Church of England are automatically given seats in the British House of Lords. This right is not extended to clergy from the Church of Scotland or Presbyterian Church.

The equivalent in Ireland would be if Catholic bishops had seats reserved for them in the Seanad where they could amend and delay legislation. It is hard to imagine. The Republic of Ireland did have Article 44 of the Constitution which recognised the "special position" of the Catholic church, which seems quite meek in comparison to the position of the Church of England.

And anyway Article 44 was repealed in a referendum by 84% of voters in 1972.

The Catholic Church did exercise greater power in Ireland in the past than the Church of England did in Britain, but that was because of the religious belief of the population rather than constitutional architecture. Nowadays it could be argued that the Republic of Ireland is more secular than the United Kingdom.

The issue of the Lords Spiritual has been criticised in Britain, unsurprisingly by the British Humanist Society, but also by elements in the Conservative Party.

When the Lords Spiritual collectively condemned the decision to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda one unnamed government minister was quoted as saying they should be expelled from the Lords. "Only Iran also has clerics that sit in their legislature" the minister was quoted as saying.

And of course King Charles, then Prince of Wales, received a torrent of criticism after it was reported that he privately described the Rwanda plan as "appalling."

It is ironic that it is the royalty and the established church that are being criticised for being too liberal or progressive by Conservatives who would be expected to be the ones who want to uphold tradition.

But then British institutions, like the judiciary that are respected around the world, have also come under attack from the Conservative Party. Supreme Court judges who ruled that Brexit would have to be passed by an act of parliament were condemned as "Enemies Of The People" in a front page headline in the Conservative supporting Daily Mail.

Placed in that context defending tradition can be seen as progressive. In his speech King Charles also stated: "As The Queen herself did with such unswerving devotion, I too now solemnly pledge myself, throughout the remaining time God grants me, to uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation".

His mother Queen Eilzabeth also did a lot to help improve relations between Ireland and Britain by her visit in 2011, but those relations are under strain again.

It seems as King Charles in his role as figurehead will have a difficult time reconciling the tradition of the crown with its legacy in the modern world and the contradictory tides of left and right.