A Point of View

By Brian Walden

In his weekly opinion column, Brian Walden muses on envy, love, and the gilded cage of royalty.

I think I would've liked to believe in the magic and legend of kings and queens, princes and princesses if I'd been given the chance - but I wasn't.

A life in the spotlight

At an early age I learnt that royalty was all about controversy and disappointment. I had some formidable aunts, one of whom was an ardent royalist. She presented me with a tiepin and a mug, both of which had been made to commemorate the forthcoming coronation of King Edward VIII. I was allowed to keep the tiepin, but my mother removed the mug from my possession and placed it safely out of my reach on the mantelshelf above the fireplace.

Unfortunately, in that prominent position it caught the eye of Red Harry, a friend of the family, who was a Communist and a republican. Harry scowled for weeks, but then Edward abdicated. Harry was delighted and announced, "that's the end of the lot of 'em."

It wasn't of course, but it thoroughly upset my aunt, who came to regard the tiepin as an inappropriate gift and took it back. The King abdicated because the Establishment wouldn't let him marry Mrs Simpson.

The same thing happened later with Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend, though in that case the Princess accepted official advice and gave up her lover. Authorised accounts tend to stress how unsuitable these relationships were, but a fact that's usually tactfully suppressed is that in neither case did the majority of the people oppose the marriage.

The popular belief that those in love should marry and be happy is the opposite of the Establishment view that duty comes before love.

The myth of Royal romance

Given that the people never support the stuffier objections of officials to royal romance, Prince Charles' marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles would, in normal circumstances, have attracted overwhelming public support. But we all know that the situation isn't in any sense normal.

Finding fault with the Prince of Wales has become a national pastime. Admittedly his grumbling rather invites it, nevertheless much of the carping is excessive and further distorts what's already a confused view of the monarchy.

Take the Princess Diana issue, which is the core of the hostility to the Prince of Wales and has done his reputation great damage. The Charles and Diana marriage, billed as a fairy tale from the start, which probably did it no end of harm, turned out not to work.

Naturally there are differing accounts of what happened, but before fully accepting any of them we need to ask a question. Can any of us claim that we know all about what goes on in other people's marriages?

In the case of the Prince of Wales why can't we leave it at that? What purpose is served by directing at him this constant diet of warmed-up recrimination? If there is some point to it other than malice, then it must be the belief that Prince Charles needs to be punished for having failed his wife. But we only have to use a little imagination to see how he must feel about what happened.

Can any of us claim that we know all about what goes on in other people's marriages?

It's the shadow of Diana that has darkened the wedding with Camilla. We've only to remember the national outpouring of grief at the time of her tragic death to see how intense the loyalty to Diana's memory can be. Not that related issues don't come up to torment the Prince of Wales. In an effort to meet hostile sentiment halfway - rarely an easy trick to pull off - royal advisers suggested that the titles Princess of Wales, or in a possible future, Queen, need never be used.

The suggested alternatives were Duchess of Cornwall and Princess Consort. But if you're the wife of the Prince of Wales you're officially known as the Princess of Wales whether you want to be, or not.

Similarly the wife of the King is termed the Queen. The only reason to draw attention to the problem of titles would've been if an agreement had been reached to have a short act of parliament to change the law.

But there's no such plan at the moment. So anybody who wants to be annoyed by Camilla being Princess of Wales now has their opportunity. Nobody can say Prince Charles enjoys good luck.

"Serves him right," say his critics, who claim he's self-indulgent, bad-tempered, petulant, constantly complaining - in short, a grumpy old man.

The more intellectual critics see deeper flaws. They say he doesn't believe in social equality, that modern society doesn't appeal to him, because he craves a pre-industrial society which would be simpler and more hierarchical.

Make up your minds

All this disapproval strengthens my view that there's confusion about the nature of our constitutional monarchy. Some people seem to think that we're entitled to have a system that's partly monarchical and partly republican.

It should be hereditary, so that the monarch can be crowned and take part in a lot of pageantry. The sovereign should also be Head of the Established Church, so that the religious side of the job is well-covered.

But on top of this, the monarch must be popular and, either have, or pretend to have, high regard for modern taste and opinion. The monarch must give the impression of running for office, just like the Heads of State do in republics.

BBC NEWS: AUDIO Hear A Point of View in the BBC Radio Player

There's nothing wrong with republics if that's what you want, but the great majority of British voters tell opinion pollsters that they prefer the monarchy.

Well, if we opt for monarchy we must accept the personality of the sovereign and her heir. We can't demand that the Prince of Wales becomes a dashing figure, clutching a tankard, tough as old boots, impervious to pain, mental and physical, never complaining always laughing, a ray of sunshine in all our lives.

No, he isn't like that, but he has merits.

Part of the reason why these are less talked about than his faults is that some of us have an unreasonably high expectation of him. Perhaps he doesn't shine in comparison with Nelson Mandela, or the Dalai Lama. But how does he shape up if contrasted with his predecessors as Prince of Wales?

One of his sternest critics has written "the current Prince of Wales is far and away the most intelligent, cultured and cerebral holder of the title." That's an honorable admission that may surprise many people.

Before he married Mrs Simpson

This tense, shy man, who takes life perhaps too seriously and hasn't got the least talent for public relations turns out to be streets ahead in intellect and cultivation of the wildly popular Edward VII and Edward VIII.

We could add that he excels them in charitable donation and constructive social effort as well - witness the Prince's Trust. So why was Edward VIII when he was Prince of Wales so adored, while Charles isn't?

Edward VIII had deference and mystery going for him. In the 1920s and 30s there was more snobbery than there is today. Though unpleasant, it made secure the reputation of princes.

Think of the song about the girl "who danced with a man, who'd danced with a girl, who'd danced with the Prince of Wales." It wasn't just respect or servility, the mystery of royal life played a large role. That mystery was lost when it was decided to make public many royal thoughts and royal habits.

This is in line with the belief that monarchy cannot survive in Britain unless it is popular, and to be popular, it needs to share the secrets of its lifestyle with the people.

The failures, eccentricities and extravagances of the Prince of Wales were, in former times concealed from the public. Now they are thrown in the public's face.

The story is that Prince Charles has a luxurious life which he does little to deserve. We're invited to envy him.

My guess is that most of us will wish the couple well on their delayed wedding day, because generosity of spirit outweighs criticism at such a time.

Unfortunately that won't be the end of the matter.

Little is said about the frustration of his life. The endless decades he has to try and fill while waiting for a position he may never get, or be too old to occupy to his satisfaction.

Monarchy is a cruel system. Do many of us really envy the Prince of Wales?

Add your comments to this story using the form below:

I admire the thought that goes into the Prince of Wales' thoughts and deeds, and his consistency in expressing them and taking action to support them. I do not admire every attribute, but who amongst us is perfect, particularly when under sustained, uninvited scrutiny?
Ted, UK/Canada

I'm sorry, but with the resources available to Charles, there is no way it can possibly be difficult to "fill endless decades". With these two sentences Mr Walden paints the picture of a man locked in a cell with nothing to do but twiddle his thumbs until his mother snuffs it. Since when has having your every need catered for and being able to travel by private jet anywhere in the world been a frustrating thing to do?
David, Wales

Who cares? If being together brings them happiness then thats all that matters.
Nigel, UK

Hear, Hear!
K. Williams, Canada

I wonder how many of us would stand up to such public scrutiny of our lives. I bet you he'd gladly give up his "benefits" for a quiet happy life that so many of us take for granted.
Yvonne, England

Oh how good to read a well written and well argued piece. Thankyou. I'm not sure why this country delights in destroying the good and revelling in the mediocre, but we surely do. Charles may have priviledges that most of us will never know but he's just as flawed and human as the rest of us. Let's give him credit for what he does well and forgive him for being as fallible like you and me.
David , UK

"The endless decades he has to try and fill". Oh gosh, yes that must be difficult. I too would find it tedious to keep on thinking up ways to spend all that money, without the benefit of a monotonous job and worries about how to pay the mortgage this month to make the days fly by.
Kaylie, UK

Without wishing to support the monarchy, surely it must be acknowledged that Prince Charles is in an impossible position and is a victim of an inflexible tradition that strictly circumscribes his role in public life. His frustration and "grumpiness" is surely the consequence of a lifetime of compulsory non-achievement. He has been denied the privilege that other other men of his age have - namely the satisfaction of being able to look back over 3 decades of progressive career and economic achievement. Instead he has been compelled to maintain an appearance of superficiality while his life's work and his great achievement, the Prince's Trust, now goes largely ignored and unacknowledged by the media. Compare his life with that of his riotous great great grandfather Edward VII and we see a responsible, concerned man who is as involved and as useful in society as he can be. Let's give him credit for what he has been able to do.
Angela Barratt, UK

Terms & Conditions