Tuesday 9 November 2004

In This Corner, Clarence House...

I recently tried to explain to one of my readers the reasons for my feelings about Prince Charles and how little it had to do with the late Diana, Princess of Wales.  Among the things I mentioned were his relationship with his parents, his extravagance and his creation of a rival royal court. The latter comment came as a surprise to my reader who asked for more information on the matter and explained to me that the press in America often failed to elaborate on the dynamics between the royals, unless of course it involved Charles and Diana.  I thought perhaps some other readers would be interested in the subject, so I’ve decided to make it the focus of this week’s column 

The creation of two, competing, royal courts began long before Prince Charles moved into Clarence Hall in 2003. Although the feud continues to this day, the situation began in the early 1990s, when Prince Charles transferred his staff from Buckingham Palace to St. James Palace. It was the height of the “War of the Wales” between Charles and Diana, when one could not open a newspaper or turn on the television without hearing some sordid detail about their ruined marriage and its aftermath.  

Perhaps the Prince felt he needed a press office devoted solely to his needs or perhaps he felt, as one journalist has claimed, “that his interests were not being served” by the Queen’s press office. Matt Wells, “Palaces seek truce on press infighting,” The Guardian (January 25, 2002) http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,639129,00.html.  The latter may well be true since the Queen’s press office had to deal with much more than a marriage gone sour, no matter how public the ramifications or how much the dirty laundry impacted the Royal Family.  Queen needed to deal with affairs of state, in addition to remaining above the fray of the Charles-and-Diana war.

In contrast, Prince Charles had a far greater – and personal – stake in the situation. After all, he’d been losing the publicity war waged with Diana for much of the early 1990s. Even his attempts to launch a counter-offensive had ended badly; both the television interview with Jonathan Dimbleby and the subsequent book had cast him in a negative light.   He had been the first to publicly admit adultery on national television, but the Dimbleby book cast a far longer shadow. Some of Charles’ statements to Dimbleby were taken as proof that Charles was a whining, petulant little boy who insisted on playing “victim” by blaming his parents for every scar and problem in life. Rightly or wrongly, the impact of the Dimbleby book continues to this day. At the time, however, its portrayal was doubly devastating given the popular image of Prince Charles.  In the public’s mind, The Prince of Wales was either a peculiar, fuddy-duddy-ish eccentric who talked to plants and ranted about architectural “carbuncles,” or a callous reprobate who cheated on his beautiful, adoring, young wife, broke her heart and went on the warpath to destroy her character. As usual, the truth is rarely black or white, but one thing was definitely clear: the Prince’s image was in dire need of help.

"My Lord Blackadder"

Enter Mark Bolland who, as director of the Press Complaints Commission (“PCC”), had handled many of the media stories about Camilla Parker Bowles in a helpful fashion. In 1996, Bolland was appointed as the Prince’s deputy private secretary but his real role was much more than that. As one in-depth profile of him explains,  

Mr Bolland was no careful and punctilious courtier in the mould of Tommy Lascelles, Fritz Ponsonby, Lord Stamfordham or Lord Knollys. He was a spin doctor. He saw his role in life solely as justifying the ways of the Prince of Wales to the wider public, and of boosting his public image. Like all spin doctors, though, he did this as much by disparagement of his master’s opponents as by magnification of the Prince’s virtues and qualities. 

Simon Heffer, “The Queen Must Sack Bolland,” The Spectator (16 November 2002 issue), at http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=2492&issue=2002-11-16.

Bolland launched “Operation PB” (Operation Parker Bowles) which sought to improve the Prince’s image and make Camilla accepted by the public.  The first stage in the campaign involved the young princes, William and Harry, who subsequently nicknamed Bolland, “My Lord Blackadder.” “Charles is believed to have allowed Bolland to feed a stream of favourable stories about the princes and Parker Bowles to the press. The media were tipped off that she would be joining Charles, William and Harry on a 'family' cruise in the Greek islands in August 1999.” John Arlidge, “Charles and Camilla: Will they or won’t they?” The Guardian (July 8, 2001), at http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,518481,00.html.   

There was little furor in the press over the trip, something for which Bolland can probably take credit. For one thing, Bolland had a close relationship with most of the powerful press editors from his days as head of the PCC. For another, “Bolland cuts off without a penny those who do not return his ‘favours’. He also happens to be the inamorato of Guy Black, who succeeded him as director of the Press Complaints Commission, and someone most editors would not want gratuitously to offend.” Simon Heffer, “Court in the Act,” The Spectator (1 December 2001)(hereinafter referred to as “Court in the Act”) at http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=1362&issue=2001-12-01.

The campaign soon moved into high gear, resulting in the Queen’s meeting of Camilla at the Prince’s 50^th birthday party, Camilla’s attendance in the Royal Box at the concert for Queen’s Golden Jubilee, and more.  The couples’ image was improving but, unfortunately, some of that seemed to come at the expense of the other royals, particularly Prince Philip and Prince Edward, Charles’ youngest brother.   

All royals must endure occasional snipes in the media, so I’m not talking about normal criticism but something much more pervasive or intentional. In fact, in the case of Prince Edward and his wife, Sophie, the attacks were so personal, humiliating and degrading that they rose to the level of a deliberate campaign of vilification. In all instances, the vicious comments were leaked by a “senior royal aide,” one who was often – and explicitly – linked to St. James’ Palace.

If my description seems too harsh, consider just a few of the leaks: the Daily Mail was informed that Prince Charles’ attitude towards his younger brother's wife “borders on contempt;” the same paper (one of Bolland’s favorites) was also informed of a senior royal’s opinion that “[t]he arrogance of this man [Prince Edward] is breathtaking;” later, numerous details were leaked about Prince Edward’s humiliation at the hands of his elder brother who, reportedly, refused to even take his phone calls and felt he was a “F*****g idiot;” and when Sophie came to her husband’s defense, commenting that “we live in a democracy,” the harsh retort from the “St. James Palace courtier” was “Fine, if it's a democracy she wants, let's vote the Wessexes out.” Peter Foster, “Has the puppet-master of St. James’ finally pulled one string too many?” The Telegraph (December 12, 2001)(hereinafter referred to simply as “Puppet Master”), at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/01/nroyal01.xml  

Prince Edward and Sophie were not the only ones being used for target practice; so was Prince Andrew. The latter reportedly raised the issue of Charles’ staff to his family’s Way Ahead Group (a gathering of the most senior royals and their closest advisors) after being repeatedly lambasted in the press as a feckless, useless, playboy.  Id.

The conflict reached a breaking point when Prince Charles’ father, Prince Philip, became the next target. In October 2001, The Daily Mail quoted a “senior royal aide” at St. James’ Palace in a story falsely pitting Prince Philip and Prince Edward against Prince William. Specifically, it reported that Prince Philip had accused his grandson, Prince William, of over-reacting when Prince Edward's Ardent Television crew was caught filming on his university grounds. “In essence, it suggested that Prince Philip was so supportive of his youngest son that he was prepared even to attack his grandson.” Caroline Davies, “Denial lifts the lid on a palace in turmoil,” The Telegraph (October 17, 2001) at http://tinyurl.com/4df4m. Making matters worse, the “source” strongly implied that Prince Philip was dismissing Prince William's feelings in the same way that his late mother's had been. Id.   

The report outraged Buckingham Palace.  It made a strongly worded denial of the claims and publicly stated that there was no rift between the Prince and his grandson. As one commentator noted,  

Palace's categorical denial of a rift between Prince Philip and Prince William indicates how appalled he and the Queen are by the allegations.  They believed it was imperative that the unfounded accusations be stamped out immediately before they took root and became seriously damaging. Few can remember such a forceful statement of denial being issued by Buckingham Palace - an indication of the strength of feeling within its walls. �

Senior courtiers at Buckingham Palace believed this comparison between the treatment of the young Prince and Diana, Princess of Wales, to be particularly distasteful.

Id.

Was Bolland behind the leaks? The Wessexes and Prince Philip thought so, and, as I’ll explain further below, they weren’t the only ones.

The older royals weren’t alone in disliking Bolland.  It’s been reported, again and again, that Princes William and Harry loathed him. In fact, as mentioned earlier, they had nicknamed him “My Lord Blackadder.” The princes’ nickname could stem from a variety of causes. Theoretically, the princes could be praising or appreciative of Bolland’s Machiavellian talent at public relations.  Personally, I think it’s unlikely, since the nickname “Blackadder” is hardly a flattering compliment.  

A more likely reason is that each of the young princes was a victim of Blackadder’s machinations. Simon Heffer, a well-connected reporter with an extremely strong monarchist bent, alleged that “Princes William and Harry are said to have a special dislike of [Bolland], not least because conversations they have with their father have a horrible habit of turning up in the press.” See, “Court in the Act,” supra.  In fact, Heffer went so far as to argue that, 

[i]n his concern for the image of his boss, Mr Bolland will stop at nothing – such as, for example, ensuring that he controls any public appearances by Prince William. This is not to protect the delicate prince, but to ensure that he doesn’t upstage his father. If any other royal looks like getting too much of the action, a scheme will quickly be devised to put the spotlight back on the Prince of Wales.

Id. 

Heffer’s allegations can’t be dismissed as the foaming madness of a left-wing journalist hell-bent on the destruction of the monarchy, because, as noted before, he is a conservative supporter of the Royal Family. Furthermore, his claim -- that Bolland willingly sacrificed the young princes-- has also been noted by other royal watchers, many of whom point to the cannabis story involving Prince Harry. 

In that instance, the News of the World tabloid ostensibly scooped the story of Prince Harry doing drugs and a concerned Prince Charles sending Harry to visit a rehab clinic in order to witness firsthand the dangers of drugs. “The paper told a heart-warming tale of sensitive, responsible parenting by the Prince of Wales.” Ian Katz, “What came first for Prince Harry, the clinic or the drugs?” The Guardian (Oct. 27, 2003) at http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1071826,00.html.  There were a few mutterings that, per his usual style, Bolland had leaked the story but he denied it strenuously. The end result was humiliation for Prince Harry through a score of world headlines like “Harry POT-ter,” and endless praise for Prince Charles.  

Then, in 2003, after leaving Prince Charles’ employ, Bolland finally admitted that he had, in fact, engineered the story in conjunction with the tabloid. He also confessed “that the sequence of events in the story was distorted to portray Charles in a positive light and attempt to draw a line under the scandal.” See, Ian Katz, “What came first for Prince Harry” supra. In a separate interview with the same reporter, Bolland also admitted that he was behind the vilification of Prince Edward but expressed no remorse whatsoever. Ian Katz, “It was me what spun it,” The Guardian, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1071542,00.html

Even before these admission, it was always clear that Bolland was behind the stories. It wasn’t only his tendency to lie at the drop of a hat. There is also the fact that his preferred method of handling PR was to work behind the scenes through a system of leaks. During his employment to The Prince of Wales, Bolland employed a:   

commonwealth of royal correspondents who can be relied upon to write about the Prince of Wales in a way that furthers the image of the Prince. These people are briefed privately by Mr Bolland, and in return for their co-operation are kept very well informed. The system is based on everybody doing everybody else favours. It is a million light-years from the stiff, mind-your-own-bloody-business world of the late Commander Richard Colville, for 20 years press secretary, first to George VI and then to the Queen. He regarded the press as a low form of life, and his catchphrase, even off the record, was ‘no comment’. 

Simon Heffer, “Court in the Act,” supra. 

Bolland’s approach led to revelations far more serious than Prince Charles’ opinion of his   younger brother. Thanks to Bolland’s agents, reports surfaced that Prince Charles wanted several members of the royal family, including his own brother, removed from the Civil List. In short, Charles wanted to slim down the monarchy so that it only included him, his heirs and the Queen and Prince Philip. See Peter Foster, Puppet Master, supra.

The suggestion could have a deep impact on the monarchy in several ways. On a practical level, it could strain the royal family in carrying out its duties, which are often a prerequisite for financial support via the Civil List. As Simon Heffer explained back in 2001,  

there is much more demand for the services of royalty than there is royalty available to meet it. There are countless charities that want patrons, there are hospices, hospitals and schools that need to be visited, events that have to be opened and projects that need to be endorsed. The Prince of Wales cannot do everything, and even with the help of all his parents, siblings and cousins, the royal family is still stretched to do all there is to do. If some of them are to be run into the ground as a result of their not being the Prince of Wales, then ‘the firm’ will have serious logistical problems.

Simon Heffer, “Court in the Act,” supra.

However, there were other -- much more serious and possibly long-term-- implications. Bolland’s close contacts with New Labour led to fears within the Royal Family that the Prince’s comments on a shrunken monarchy would be conveyed to Blair’s New Labour government, a government seemingly intent on eradicating every remaining power of the monarch, as well as many symbols of the Crown’s historical role. There was also worries that Bolland’s political stance would “seduce the Prince into embracing a modernising tone so fierce that it un-royals the royal family” and, thus, lead to further eradication of the monarchy’s position.  Id.

Mr. Heffer wasn’t the only monarchist to believe that Mr Bolland's promotion of the Prince took place at the expense of the wider interests of "the Firm". Dicky Arbiter, the Queen’s former press officer, felt the same way.  In late 2002, Arbiter publicly charged Bolland with the “deliberate tactic” of smearing other members of the royal family in order to enhance the Prince’s image. Tom Leonard, “Charles adviser accused of ‘spinning against’ other royals,” The Telegraph (Oct. 26, 2002) at http://tinyurl.com/6rvaw.   

The Queen had long tried to limit Bolland’s influence and to end the rival royal courts by bringing the Prince’s staff back under Buckingham Palace’s control. When she’d first suggestion the plan to The Prince of Wales, he flatly rejected it.  Heffer’s description of the situation --- replete with its own leaks from Buckingham Palace --- demonstrated the increasingly shrill war of words over Bolland:  

One of the Queen’s friends says that she is deeply disturbed by the whole Bolland operation, but her son is as inflexible towards her about it as he is towards everyone else who criticises his man.

In fact, the Queen has tried to exact far more from the Prince than just having Mr Bolland put back in his box, and has failed. […] Although at that stage Mr Bolland had hardly got into his stride, Sir Robin [the Queen’s private secretary] knew that St James’s Palace was a source of conflict, and the sooner it was brought to heel the better. What he and the Queen hoped for was a period of silence while ‘the firm’ did what it was best at – good works, public service, and no ostentation. 

However, when the plan was put to the Prince of Wales ‘he threw his toys out of the pram’, as a courtier put it. He would not be humiliated in this way. … The Queen chose not to pursue the confrontation to its logical conclusion. Rank was not pulled. The separate court, spin doctor and all, remained.

Simon Heffer, “Court in the Act,” supra.

That was then, some years before the height of the smear campaign against the royals. By the end of 2001, the Queen had had enough.  Whether it was Bolland’s cynical manipulation of the Diana factor as a weapon against Prince Philip, or the combined effect of his attacks against the other royals, it’s unclear. Either way, the Queen was putting her foot down.  She insisted that Prince Charles hire Sir Michael Peat, an accountant who had worked wonders with Buckingham Palace’s finances, as his private secretary.  Sir Michael was to officially begin work in the summer of 2002.   Almost immediately, however, reports arose of conflicts between Peat and Bolland.   

In February 2002, Bolland announced his resignation, effective April of that same year.  He insisted his decision wasn’t the result of any conflict but, rather, due to his desire to open up his own PR firm. Prince Charles was so unwilling to give up Bolland’s services that he hired him for �130,000 a year to continue his efforts on behalf of himself, Camilla, and the young princes.  In fact, the Prince and Camilla were Bolland’s main clients.

A year later, things had drastically changed for the worse. At least, “worse” if you were a vicious weasel called Bolland. In June 2003, when his one year contract was up, Bolland allegedly “resigned” his role as Prince Charles’ main PR consultant. According to the Master Spinner’s claims, he had been forced to “turn away” clients because of possible conflicts of interest. Presumably the conflicts were with business entities dealing with Prince Charles’ charitable organization, The Prince’s Trust, since one can’t imagine a ton of public relations conflicts involving the Prince himself. Whatever the rationale, Bolland insisted his resignation was for completely “amicable” reasons and out of a wish to expand his clientele.  Nonetheless, he would continue to represent Camilla in a private capacity as advisor and confidant. Caroline Davies, “‘Blackadder’ keeps close ties to Camilla,” The Telegraph (June 1, 2003) at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/06/nboll06.xml.  

“Bolland maintained his links to Camilla for nine months, until the Burrell trial collapsed… [F]urious at the damage caused by the Burrell fall-out, Bolland publicly alluded to Charles’s weakness.” Mary Riddell, “Blackadder bites back,” British Journalism Review, Vol. 15., No. 2, 2004, pp. 7-14. It wasn’t the only thing Bolland publicly referred to.

In October 2003, he told The News of the World that Sir Michael Peat had once asked him if he thought Prince Charles was bi-sexual. Sir Michael fiercely denied doing any such thing. Nonetheless, Bolland continued to repeated the allegation, always insisting that he did so out of the most innocent of motives. Id. According to Bolland, he thought the question was so ludicrous that he mentioned it in order to squash “preposterous” ideas. Id.   In my opinion, with “friends” like Bolland, who needs enemies?  Bolland’s self-serving, “innocent” facade was soundly denounced, not only by royal advisors and the media, but also by The Institute of Public Relations which sought for Bolland’s PR “Man of the Year” award to be rescinded.  

However, “Blackadder” wasn’t finished yet. The same month in which he wrote about his former employer’s sexuality in the very worst tabloid around, Bolland started revealing inside dirt about his PR machinations on behalf of Prince Charles to more respected publications. Thus, the two articles in the Guardian by Ian Katz (see discussion supra), regarding the Harry/Cannabis spin and the vilification of Prince Edward.  A short time later, Bolland informed the press that Prince Charles had lost the perfect window of opportunity in which to marry Camilla. And, just last month, he stepped up the stridency of his attacks on Prince Charles, while couching it in terms of supposed concern for Prince Harry. See e.g., Mark Bolland, “Harry is gullible… and not very bright,” News of the World (October 24, 2004)(Charles “is a weak and indulgent father who’s hardly ever there when they need him.”)

One could argue that no-one deserves to be on the receiving end of Bolland’s vicious filth, but that would ignore the role which Prince Charles played in dishing out that same nastiness to almost all his family. If his pet adder is now striking back at him, it seems almost like a dose of karmic retribution for what his father, his sons, his brothers, his mother and many others all suffered.

And yes, you didn’t mistake it, I said “his mother.” I really doubt that Bolland would skip over Her Majesty given his deliberate attacks on every other major royal. And, in my personal opinion, Bolland found his opportunity during the crisis over the hoof-and-mouth disease.  At the time, “an unauthorized leak” ended up severely hurting the Queen’s image, as it detailed the Queen’s preference to keep on racing her horses during the outbreak. Barely a few days before,  however, The Prince of Wales was … oh so coincidentally… enjoying great acclaim for his handling of the disease and his financial donations to farmers.  In fact, news of the donations was deliberately leaked to the press by Bolland’s team at St. James’ Palace. Andrew Alderson, “The Prince of PR,” The Telegraph, (March 25, 2001) at http://tinyurl.com/7ykzc 

Although there is no concrete proof that Bolland was behind the story regarding the Queen, I can’t help but question Bolland’s role in the affair. For one thing, the media was, for once, suddenly loathe to guess at the source of the leak and they’d rarely been so shy before. Furthermore, this was back in early 2001, far before Bolland fell out of favour and when he and his lover, Guy Black of the PCC, were taking vacations with Rebekah Wade, a powerful tabloid editor. So was the silence about the nature of the “leak” because the stakes were higher this time with the Queen as the target of attack? Was the curious lack of tabloid digging due to Bolland’s connections to the PCC and the main tabloid editors, who were possibly shielding their friend and source? 

Although the questions may be highly speculative and unsupported by direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence can be quite persuasive. First, there is the fact that Bolland never made an official “leak” which could be traced directly back to him. Second, consider the timing of events: Bolland’s trademark strategy of raising one royal while undermining another, and the proven reports of Bolland’s handiwork just a few days before in the Prince’s favour –  is it such a leap to wonder if he’d seize the opportunity to throw some mud while he could, even if it involved the Queen? It certainly didn’t stop him from doing so when it came to Prince Philip. Third, there is Prince Charles’ often icy relationship with his parents against whom he seems to have some deep-rooted anger. Lastly, there is the fact that Bolland was still very powerful during that period and intimately connected to media.

If attacking the Queen seems a step too far, consider the description of Bolland:

Mr Bolland's capacity for mischief-making is boundless. He is the type of man, according to one former colleague, "who can't resist tossing rocks into a perfectly still millpond. Sometimes he just can't help himself, he loves the destabilised environment. He loves playing the game".

See, Peter Foster, Puppet Master, supra.

How much more destabilizing an environment can you get than by attacking the Queen herself? I think it would have been the ultimate dangerous thrill for a man like Bolland, who probably saw himself as justified due to the problems between his employer and the Queen.

Clarence House

The move to Clarence House did not fundamentally change the situation between the rival courts, although Bolland’s departure greatly eased daily tensions and conflict. To a large extent, that result is due to Sir Michael Peat, Prince Charles’ current deputy private secretary. Sir Michael explicitly stated that he was ushering in a new period of public relations, one without a stream of “undisclosed sources” providing leaks to the media. Bolland’s aggressive, “scorched earth” approach to public relations was also dropped in favour of a smoother, more subtle style.

Yet, the spin still continues. Bolland’s replacement is Paddy Harverson, who works out of Clarence House with the express goal of serving Prince Charles, his sons and Camilla. Stories about Harry’s drinking were countered by a carefully crafted PR campaign showing Harry helping orphans in Lesotho, Africa.

Much as I dislike spin doctors, I recognize that they are a necessary evil in today’s media world. At least, in some ways. An intellectual or theoretical discussion about what constitutes lying, distortion, misrepresentation or artifice is unsuited for this column. More to the point, it would ignore the reality of some serious problems faced by the royals when it comes to the British tabloids. 

In short, I don’t blame Prince Charles for being realistic and employing the necessary evil of a PR agent.  Nor do I blame him for wanting to improve his image.  Polls show that many young people would still prefer William to be king over his father and that their growing indifference to Charles’ relationship with Camilla does not extend to wanting her as an actual Queen.

Nonetheless, I still have difficulties with Charles’ obstinate insistence on following an agenda different from that of the Queen.  As recently as this weekend, he’s said that he will continue fox-hunting until it is banned as illegal. He’s repeated his stance, even though his mother has publicly advised him otherwise. Then too there are the instances where he’s flouted the government’s position in order follow his own personal preferences. The situation with the Dalai Lama comes to mind. One may not agree with Blair or the government’s position but it is still the official policy of the country and, thus, by necessity, of the monarchy. It doesn’t help matters when the heir to the throne cavalierly goes his own way no matter how much controversy it engenders.

The recent fuss about the Grosvenor wedding is another example. The reasons for that mess are complicated and can be traced to Bolland’s handiwork, among other things. However, the bottom line is that Charles should have known when he and Camilla accepted the invitation that they would not be permitted to sit with the Queen.

The Queen’s insistence on strict protocol is well known, regardless of Camilla’s inclusion at the Jubilee concert. In fact, it’s been a longstanding fact that the Queen will not permit Camilla to be at Balmoral when she’s there; just a few weeks before the wedding, Camilla had to wait for the Queen to leave before she could go up to visit Charles and travel with him to Crathie Kirk.

Furthermore, no matter how much Camilla is a part of Charles’ life, she simply is not a member of the Royal Family. So, how could she reasonably have expected to be included with them? Finally, it would have been basic courtesy to reject the invitation ahead of time, due to the obvious (and foreseeable) problems which would arise, rather than wait until the week before the wedding and draw all attention from the bride. 

Charles’ defenders will point to his need to see the families of the Black Watch troops, but I find that argument factually weak.  Saturday was merely the first available day to see the families, who were just a short distance away by helicopter ride in Warminster. It wasn’t the only day to see them.  Furthermore, the Prince was supposed to attend his other godson’s big event, Tom Parker Bowles’ book launch, until suddenly, and most conveniently, he flew out to the U.A.E. to give his condolences on the Sheikh’s death. Given that both Prince Andrew and the Defense Secretary, Hoon, left on the trip, I find the inclusion of the heir to the throne strange timing. When was the last time that two royals, one of which is heir to the throne, and a senior cabinet minister, left for a foreign funeral? There was only one royal, Prince Charles, at Reagan’s funeral or at the 9/11 services in America, a country which is arguably a much more important ally than the tiny Arab Emirates.

No, I believe that Charles’ departure was deliberately calculated to deflect the growing criticism that he was snubbing one godson, the groom, in favour of another godson, who just happens to be Camilla’s son. The Prince may well have been trapped between the competing wishes of Mrs. van Cutsem, the Queen and Camilla, but again, he should never have accepted in the first place; once he did, he should have complied with well-established royal protocol. Whatever the reason for the decision to withdraw, it’s an insult to one’s intelligence to spin it as a sudden, urgent need to visit military families.

Yet, offensive as that may be, the real significance of the wedding is that Charles will put anything before his mother and his family’s best interests.  The mother of the bride is the Queen’s goddaughter and the snub to her was indirectly a snub to the Queen. Adding insult to injury, it once again brought the royals’ dirty laundry for all to witness and discuss. One can only assume that the Queen, who has long preferred quiet and silent dignity to mark the actions of the Royal Family, found it all very distasteful. 

Unfortunately, it’s not the first time Charles has slighted the Queen, indirect though it may be.  In fact, it’s not even the event which has bothered me the most in recent history. That would be a little-noticed event which occurred on September 8, 2004.  On that date, Charles appointed his first Master of the Household, one of the top royal jobs which is normally reserved for the monarch’s court. The equivalent post at Buckingham Palace is the Master of the Queen's Household. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3470333 It is a position which embodies monarchial trappings since it is linked to the powerful medieval post of “Lord Stewart.” See National Archives discussion at http://tinyurl.com/62fpa.

The “Master of the Household” position has traditionally been within the Queen or King’s prerogative to fill, unless they delegate that right to their consort which is what happened with Prince Albert. Since Prince Charles is not yet King, his assumption of the monarch’s right is troubling. It’s bad enough that the existence of two separate courts has become formalized to the point of institutional parallels. It’s even worse that he is starting to assume some of the monarch’s mantle.

In today’s world, all that’s really left of the Queen’s power is ceremonial and symbolic in nature. Blair is already taking the Crown’s symbol off physical structures, while gutting other organizations with historic ties to the monarchy.   Now, the heir to the throne is adopting one of the symbols of a royal court, one which normally only the Queen is entitled to bestow. Clarence House has now become an autonomous, almost self-sufficient royal court, with Charles as rival monarch.

It doesn’t matter, in my opinion, if he is not considered as the King by anyone other than his (increasingly enormous) staff at Clarence House. What bothers me is the nature of the action: it seems, at least to me, like usurpation.  Irrational and illogical as that reaction may be, it’s one I can’t help but feel.

Americans may argue that the position is nothing more important than being a royal equivalent of the President’s “Chief of Staff” and that many senior politicians have such aides.  True, but that would ignore the fact that politicians have always had such positions within the Governor’s mansion, the Mayor’s House, or the Senate offices. In contrast, the royal Master position is one which is reserved exclusively for the reigning monarch and has not been taken over by someone other than that monarch, with the possible exception of the Prince Regent in the time of George III. 

Moreover, the point here is that one of the symbols of highest office has been abrogated by a person not entitled to that position. It would be the equivalent of the American Speaker of the House buying a large 747 airplane and labeling it something perilously close to Air Force One.  The latter is a trapping of power historically reserved for the President, and one which others are not entitled to take for their own.

I fully understand the difficulties of Prince Charles’ position. He is a middle-aged man without a clearly detailed role or serious function. He may be 70 before he ever ascends to the throne but, even then, he will have some incredibly large shoes to fill. He does not have the huge respect or admiration which is felt for the Queen. Even worse, there is always some poll showing that a significant portion of the population would prefer to see the crown skip him entirely and go to his son. For those and other reasons, I have considerably sympathy for his need to carry on with his life.  Obviously, that would entail having his own household along with staff to serve his needs, be they public relations or administrative. 

Nonetheless, the situation at Clarence House -- and at St. James’ Palace before it – has gone too far. It’s no longer just a separate household but a whole separate, rival royal court. It is financially autonomous due to the Duchy’s large income, has a competing or conflicting agenda, uses symbols of royal power, and indulges in greater personal extravagance that that of the Queen herself. Even worse, the court sometimes makes decisions that seem to show no regard for their impact on the monarchy as a whole. They certainly don’t seem to take the Queen’s role into much consideration.  Instead, they serve only the Prince’s personal, and short-term, benefit. 

In the long run, I think he will only lose by it. And, unfortunately, so may the monarchy.

-