home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=94TT1495>
- <title>
- Oct. 31, 1994: Royals:The Prince of Wails
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
- Oct. 31, 1994 New Hope for Public Schools
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- ROYALS, Page 68
- The Prince of Wails
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p> The end draws near as a deeply self-pitying Charles bares his
- soul
- </p>
- <p>By Martha Duffy--Reported by Helen Gibson/London
- </p>
- <p> Last week Queen Elizabeth II was doing the sort of thing a 20th
- century monarch is supposed to do: moving gracefully through
- a state visit to Russia, the first ever by a British sovereign.
- At her side was her consort, the Duke of Edinburgh, elegantly
- performing his task, which is simply to support her. Custom
- and ceremony incarnate, they were national symbols to be proud
- of.
- </p>
- <p> Back on home turf, another royal couple was doing what the world
- has become all too familiar with: the Waleses were slugging
- it out in the headlines. Bitterly estranged for nearly two years,
- both Prince Charles and the Princess of Wales have used the
- press to court public sympathy and approval. In the meantime,
- Squidgygate and Camillagate have become part of trendy patois;
- front-page dramas have been cranked up over crank phone calls;
- and James Hewitt's confessional has redefined the word cad.
- Last week the battle reached what may be the climactic point.
- The Sunday Times printed excerpts from Jonathan Dimbleby's approved
- biography of the prince, to be published Nov. 3. The author,
- a distinguished broadcaster and journalist, produced the documentary
- on Charles shown last summer in which the prince admitted to
- adultery. In addition to conducting long interviews with his
- subject, Dimbleby had access to diaries, letters and other records.
- The portrait he presents is shocking.
- </p>
- <p> Charles, it appears, was never in love with Diana. He claims
- to have entered the marriage under severe pressure from his
- father Prince Philip, who is depicted as a bully with a scathing
- tongue, easily capable, when Charles was a child, of reducing
- him to tears. In having a bride thrust upon him, Charles felt
- "ill used and impotent." His mother was remote and passive,
- usually leaving family matters to her husband. Along the way,
- institutions come in for criticism: Gordonstoun School--picked,
- of course, by Philip--was for Charles a hell of hazing and
- teasing. And the media never knew their place.
- </p>
- <p> In fact the prince seems eager to blame anyone at all for his
- problems. It is bad enough to reveal to the world--including
- his sons--accounts of his wife's mood swings and depressions.
- It is now clear that Charles somehow thinks if he besmirches
- Diana enough, he will be rinsed in the process. He and his advisers
- seem genuinely surprised that the public hasn't turned on her
- as her emotional storms are revealed. It seems lost on them
- that the princess's popularity is genuine, not something he
- can bestow or withdraw.
- </p>
- <p> But Charles' resentment of his wife's success is familiar now.
- What is new is his willingness to disparage his parents. Prince
- Philip had a ready retort, sheathed in a brusque politesse of
- understatement that is totally beyond Charles: "I've never discussed
- private matters, and I don't think the Queen has. Very few members
- of the family have." So there.
- </p>
- <p> Anyone who thinks Charles will "stand aside" in favor of Prince
- William should reconsider. He is hell-bent to secure the throne.
- It was widely reported that he was very cross with the Queen
- three years ago when she announced in a speech that hers was
- "a job for life." The question now seems to be whether his judgment
- is too flawed for him to be an effective King, especially in
- the modern age, when a monarch is expected to mind his ceremonial
- business and stay out of politics, as well as inflammatory religious,
- environmental and especially constitutional areas. To wage the
- image battle, at once vengeful and quixotic, is to endanger
- the fragile institution he serves. If he needs a reminder, it
- came in the Economist. The establishment weekly has called for
- Britain to become a republic.
- </p>
- <p> Charles ought to relax. The constitution is largely on his side.
- As Rodney Barker, senior lecturer in government at the London
- School of Economics, points out, "The monarch has to be a communicating
- member of the Church of England and may not be a Roman Catholic
- or married to one. Beyond that there aren't many constitutional
- constraints. If the prince and princess do divorce, there is
- no reason why the prince should not be King." Most commentators
- agree that Charles can remarry in a Church of Scotland ceremony--the Church of England does not recognize remarriage--and
- still become King, as long as his new wife is not Catholic.
- </p>
- <p> Last week's press coverage--as usual, extravagant in its length--emphasized the line "What could Charles have been thinking
- of?" The Daily Mail summarized what was being repeatedly said,
- from the tabloids to the more intellectual Guardian and Independent:
- "In many ways he has shown himself to be a dutiful monarch-in-waiting,
- anxious to defend Britain's heritage and champion the social
- concerns of...the inner cities. Nevertheless, his royal cooperation
- with this book is one of the worst blunders he has made. He
- was grievously ill advised."
- </p>
- <p> Whom does he turn to for advice? Mainly aristocratic friends
- of long standing like Minister of the Armed Forces Nicholas
- Soames, the Duke of Westminster and, of course, his "confidante,"
- Camilla Parker Bowles. Crucial too is his private secretary,
- Richard Aylard, a brilliant courtier who has a gift for repackaging
- his boss's problems as new opportunities.
- </p>
- <p> The Dimbleby book resulted from two causes. In the mid-'80s
- Charles became interested in what his mentor, spiritual guru
- Laurens van der Post, told him about "getting in touch with
- my soul." Second, he was aghast at the portrait that emerged
- from Andrew Morton's book Diana: Her True Story, which painted
- him as a callous husband and distant father. Charles thought
- by telling his true story he could rescue his reputation. The
- project was undertaken with care; staff members, friends and
- journalists were consulted about a potential writer.
- </p>
- <p> Diana, meantime, has been at work on her public image, newly
- damaged by errant phone calls and Hewitt's tale. The Independent
- reported that press lord Rupert Murdoch, usually an antiroyalist,
- has had drinks with the princess at Kensington Palace. On a
- visit to Washington last weekend, Diana was guest of honor at
- a dinner given by Katharine Graham, owner of the Washington
- Post. She has made it clear that she has not encouraged any
- cooperation with Morton's forthcoming follow-up tell-all, Diana:
- Her New Life, which will appear next month. A pirated section
- of the book, published in a French magazine, projected the divorce
- settlement at more than $30 million.
- </p>
- <p> Some of the issues that both the media and the public enjoy
- chewing on do not really amount to much. One has to do with
- Diana's title after divorce. Can she still be Princess of Wales?
- "It is all a matter of precedence and convention, and there
- is a good deal of flexibility," says Barker. Philip, vindictive
- toward her, supposedly wants her stripped of her title as a
- condition of divorce. Diana, ever the inspired one-upman, has
- let it be known that she might prefer the title to which she
- was born, Lady Diana Spencer. The Economist makes a suggestion
- sure to cause yelps at court: if people question whether Charles
- is fit to rule, then have a referendum on the subject. This
- recommendation is tied to a call for constitutional reform,
- and the Economist quotes Prince Philip's recent remark that
- a republic was "a perfectly reasonable alternative" to a constitutional
- monarchy.
- </p>
- <p> Polls show that 75% of Britons support the continuation of the
- monarchy (down 10% from a decade ago). That is enough for the
- Windsors to work with if they can establish some decorum within
- their ranks. Auberon Waugh, always a mischiefmaker, thanked
- the royals in a recent edition of the Telegraph for "the diversion
- they bring into our humdrum lives as we follow their ups and
- downs, triumphs and disasters...we can honestly say we love
- them all, each in a different way." He has a point. The appeal
- of this unscripted soap opera should not be ignored. But in
- the long run, the royals will lose out by counting on it.
- </p>
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-