Text Only
Articles

« The chosen person

Main

The minister for child betrayal »



 
November 10, 2003
The royal Peat bog

Daily Mail, November 10 2003

The Prince of Wales has flown back from his tour of India and Oman into the very eye of the storm. The claim made by his former servant George Smith about the Prince’s private life is now circulating on the internet, in the Scottish, Irish and Italian press and around the world.

The Prince himself is said to be relaxed, on the basis that the allegation is a lie and that he has nothing to hide or fear. The problem is that he has not told us what the allegation actually is.

Last week, his senior aide Sir Michael Peat made a complete ass of himself when he announced that whatever the Prince was said to have done with a member of his staff, he didn’t do it.

In saying this, Sir Michael thus poured a tanker of fuel onto the very flames he was trying to put out. For everyone was left wondering what on earth this alleged incident actually was.

Now it is only a matter of time before the substance of Mr Smith’s allegation seeps into the mainstream media across Britain.The only people who seem not to have grasped this are the royal household. Their handling of this whole imbroglio has been lamentable from the start.

They should have realised that openness was the best policy. Whatever uproar this would have provoked in the short term, they would have been in control of events. As it is, they have been wrongfooted at every stage, locking themselves into the grotesque cycle of manipulation and prurient speculation.

The impact of the allegations lies principally in their capacity to blackmail the Prince of Wales. This was obvious from the start, when Princess Diana visited Mr Smith and recorded him making his two explosive charges: that he had been raped by a royal servant, and that Prince Charles had been involved in an incident with a royal servant.

The Princess made the tape, it is said, as ‘insurance’ against any moves by Buckingham Palace to take her sons away from her. In other words, had such a move materialised she would have threatened to destroy her ex-husband’s reputation.

In the face of this sordid piece of manipulation, the Royals panicked. It was their desperation to find this tape, which had gone missing from the late Princess’s possessions, that was the real reason for the cack-handed prosecution of the former butler Paul Burrell.

Rather than launching such an obviously flaky court case, the Royals should have openly faced down the blackmail. Prince Charles should have said what these allegations were, that they were the product of a troubled mind, and that they were untrue. There would have been a brief furore, and then it would have been over.

Instead, the royal household ignored the rumours that were steadily gaining currency. Then – disastrously – when the former royal servant Michael Fawcett obtained an injunction against the press, the Prince’s solicitors backed this up with a letter demanding that Mr Smith’s claims should not be published.

More than anything, this gave the impression that there was something to hide, and provoked the ensuing feeding frenzy.

For sure, none of us can know whether or not these claims are true. But it is hard to envisage a more unreliable witness than Mr Smith. Not only has he suffered from mental illness and alcoholism – appallingly, Princess Diana reportedly plied him with drink before he made his claims to her -- but he has admitted to making two quite separate false claims of rape.

He lied about these, he said, because he had been drinking heavily and wanted to be admitted to hospital. He also made several claims that he had been threatened and attacked by a hooded gunman, but the police found no evidence at all to back this up.

Of course, people suffering from mental illness can nevertheless be telling the truth, just as people who are paid by the press to go public with their claims do not necessarily embroider events. Nevertheless, people might reasonably conclude that such outlandish claims, made by someone with this highly dubious history, are inherently suspect.

The strenuous attempts to suppress them was a principal reason why they gained such traction. But that wasn’t all. The apparently endless flow of disloyal backstairs claims about the Wales’s private lives -- not to mention the eye-opening revelation of the regular sale of gifts received by the Prince -- has helped create the sour impression that any claims about his household are believable.

In addition, his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles continues to offend, reviving popular disapproval that he cheated on his wife and reinforcing the willingness to believe any rumours about such an openly irregular private life.

Royal advisers do very well out of working for Prince Charles, which looks very good on their CVs. He is surely entitled to expect a rather better standard of service from them.

For despite all this agony, they are still getting it wrong. To cope with the current crisis, the Prince’s friends are now being wheeled into public to make the case that he is a national treasure.

I have not been approached by anyone from any side in this affair. Nevertheless, I do admire the work the Prince does. He is a tireless promoter of charities and other good causes; he has pioneered imaginative schemes for disadvantaged inner-city youth, who adore him; he has forced insular business people to connect with those on the wrong side of the tracks; he has given voice to the voiceless in promoting issues of general concern, such as education standards. He is the embodiment of public service.

But I also believe that --like the Princess Royal – he should allow these good deeds to speak for themselves. For one of the things that has so poisoned the atmosphere is that he has played the same game as Princess Diana’s rival armed camp, allowing his supporters to brief both openly and anonymously about his virtues, and to put the boot into the other side.

The Prince of Wales doesn’t run for office. The current mess does not imperil the monarchy; nor does it argue for the inheritance to go straight to Prince William. But mud sticks; and the enormous service Prince Charles performs for his country is in danger of being permanently tarnished.

What he should do now is tell people what the allegation about him is, and say convincingly that it is untrue. He should do this on television. Those who say he should remain aloof from the fray miss -- as ever – the point. Just as the Queen averted an incipient revolt after the death of Diana by addressing the nation, so it is only Prince Charles himself who can now lance this particular boil.

Having been thus open with the British people, he should then put his house in order. In particular, his courtiers and friends should no longer be authorised to talk about him. He should disband his armed faction, and trust the public to judge him instead on his public service. He needs to find --and hold -- his nerve. Only then will he rescue his good name, and restore some much needed discretion and dignity to the royal firm.

Posted by melanie at November 10, 2003

Comments

We have the weirdest media, truly bizarre and inconsistent. Page after page of the newspapers pushes a gay agenda and tells us how normal these matters are; then the next thing they blow up self-manufactured scandals because there is a large gay contingent in the royal household; and on the principle of guilt by association, finds an alcoholic with mental problems to recite the mantra he played for the audience.

If the insinuations were true....and for your Website to uphold the injunction I shall only allude to matters - what would it matter ?

I believe they are untrue and a smear however, because of the way the agenda has been played. Really, I would prefer NEWS - real issues that only the Net gives me nowadays because of tabloid-tabloids, tabloid-broadsheets, and tabloid-TV.......I want serious matters, not "What the Butler Saw" in full dreary and repeated soap-opera series.

Why not ask instead why Tony Blair is so wedded to Peter Mandelson; and under what earth-shattering circumstances they could ever go their separate ways ?

I prefer the Japanese Royal Family, discreet, quiet, and not used to fill the empty spaces betwen the adverts in newspapers, or fill the empty heads of journalists wanting gossip.

Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 10, 2003 10:37 AM

It seems that the sleazy tabloid tack has changed from the old ploy of the loaded question - 'when did you stop beating your wife' to 'when did you stop buggering your butler' or 'fellating your footman' or vice-versa; or whatever particular scenario it was that Diana, on her amateur gumshoe missions, managed to persuade an alcholic, paranoiac basket case to put on tape to use as blackmail against her errant husband. That is to say when it became obvious to her that although Charles was destined to become the future Monarch, she was not going to be his Queen. It seems he had a surfeit of queens running around after him, anyway. Diana was about as skilled in choosing the right husband for herself, as the son of the Knightsbridge bazaar keeper was at choosing the getaway driver for a high speed game of catch-us-if-you-can with the paparazzi of Paris on that fatal night. Who was it who said, "How unlike the home life of our Dear Lady Queen?"

Like Peter Williamson I find the hypocrisy of the press tabloids and TV haemarroids breathtaking. Having proselytised the bugger's charter for the past thirty years, they declare an unproven report from a self confessed Peeping Tom (to the effect that a lawful sexual act occurred between two consenting adults in a private closet) a matter of the most grave public concern. And they demand that the 'public' have a right to know the detail of what the allegation was, even if it was, as any sane person knows it was, a complete fabrication. Do not the editors who want to publish this stuff thereby become co-conspirators in the blackmail? It's not just blackmail, it's tantamount to treason. If we had a half efficient Royalty Protection Squad they would be following that up. If it wasn't all so utterly farcical, it would be really serious.

As it is, despite the drip, drip, drip of Republican bile and calumny, the Constitutional Monarchy will survive. Charles, as an old man, will become King (provided they don't harass him into an early grave before his mother). What concerns me most is whether this country's sovereignty will exist in any substantial form, by the time he, or William, succeeds; and just what being its Ruler will be worth. Zilch if Blair has his way.

Posted by: Frank Pulley at November 11, 2003 01:56 AM

OK, I like Prince Charles from the distance of north London.

And I accept all the organisation that he needs around him.

And, as I am 61 years of age, and a researcher, I do hope the Prince is eventually seated upon the Throne and anointed upon the Stone of Scone, now on 'holiday' in Scotland.

Yet, I feel we have little time left, and so those 'sold' anything dated late 2012 and beyond will not acquire their desires.

For the serious business of war looms and events such as the Olympics will be placed on hold.

For we are counting down.

Thanks
John D. Miller

Posted by: John D. Miller at November 11, 2003 07:38 PM

Frank Pulley says Diana went on amateur gumshoe missions, and I've never seen it put so well. The woman was a fantasist and it is too bad that she ever met such a willing partner as Paul Burrell. They clearly egged on each other's fantasies. And how egocentric and calculating do you have to be to ply an alcoholic who was undergoing treatment (largely paid for by her husband) at The Priory and who was known to be mentally vulnerable, with triple scotches and then trick him into recording an "interview"?

Posted by: Caroline at November 12, 2003 03:42 PM

I can only comment Caroline that those who suffer from borderline personality disorder (www.bpdcentral.com) are very persuasive, with a remarkable intuitive understanding of how to manipulate outsiders; and how to create a living hell for nearest and dearest who cross them, or induce 'splitting' by interrupting the fairy tale.......what a pity this one found a real prince and could not live out the fairy tale.

Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 12, 2003 06:18 PM

Truth is a kind and gentle lie.

Posted by: Foong Chwee Sze at December 11, 2003 06:13 AM

Yes, congrats for this site, check those too

Posted by: Rhodes Mark at December 21, 2003 07:53 AM

The superior man loves his soul, the inferior man loves his property.

Posted by: Grindle Alex at January 10, 2004 10:48 AM