This engagement at the Cenotaph was perhaps the most ‘kingly’, perhaps too the most piquant. It was visually regal without doubt. Charles was surrounded by the political, military and religious establishment and with millions watching the broadcast live on BBC television around the country. What unfolded was an unmistakably historic image, the clearest visual sign to date that the British monarchy was undergoing a seamless transition from its ageing monarch to her eldest son. It is also an emphatic nod to the future, with the ancient institution’s dutiful steward ensuring continuity at the end of her record-breaking long reign.
Prince Charles will in this interim period before his ascension to the throne enjoy playing a dual role, standing in and covering for the monarch where necessary, as well as fulfilling his own public obligations. This dual role was perhaps shown most visibly on this day when he became the first person to lay two wreaths in a single Remembrance Sunday service. As soon as the Duke of Edinburgh’s equerry, Captain Ben Tracey of the Grenadier Guards, had laid the Duke’s wreath on his behalf, Charles was tasked with returning to the foot of the Cenotaph to pay tribute all over again, this time placing his own wreath of his unmistakable Prince of Wales feathers next to his father’s wreath.
Then followed the Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry, turning up to the service sporting a beard amid false claims that he had broken military rules, his critics forgetting he was exempt as he left active service in 2015; and the Duke of York, who had also served in combat in the Falklands conflict. Then came the last of the royals, the Earl of Wessex, the Princess Royal and the Duke of Kent, at eighty-two the only royal on parade of the World War II generation. Prince Philip appeared to be propping himself up as he stood on the balcony, while at other points he seemed to be leaning on a wall to support himself. The Queen appeared to suggest Philip sit back down again during the service. He ignored her. Following the playing of the national anthem, the Queen, perhaps for her husband’s sake, moved swiftly inside to the warmth of the Foreign Office; the duke, clearly feeling the effects of the cold, puffed out his cheeks, perhaps in relief that this public duty was all over. Ever the gentlemen, however, he insisted that his daughter-in-law, the Duchess of Cornwall, go inside first before following on.
The other VIPs withdrew, clearing the path for the Royal British Legion parade. More than 10,000 people from over 260 organisations proudly marched by the memorial. Several old comrades had elected to be wheeled around the same route. Victoria Cross recipient, Grenadian-born Lance Sergeant Johnson Beharry of the 1st Battalion, Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, was there too. The thirty-eight-year-old had been awarded the highest honour for gallantry in 2005 after his incredible heroism helping save the lives of his colleagues on two separate occasions whilst driving an armoured vehicle under heavy enemy fire in the Iraq war in 2004. On this, he elected to parade with Chelsea Pensioners, pushing one old solider in his wheelchair. Charles’s sovereign moment was over in a matter of minutes. He had, as ever, performed his duty with equanimity.
Announcing the decision to entrust the job to Prince Charles a few weeks earlier, Buckingham Palace had said the reason was that the Queen wished to be by her husband’s side on the balcony and had asked her heir to lay a wreath instead. (The Queen does not suffer from bathophobia, but she had privately expressed concern about walking backwards and going up and down steep stairs, and this engagement involved both.) Make no mistake, however, that what we have been witnessing in Charles’s seventieth year is a gradual transfer of monarchical responsibility from the reigning queen to the heir apparent.
Buckingham Palace officials had been for weeks at pains to stress that this engagement should not be interpreted as a transfer of sovereign power. That word ‘power’ rankles with them, and perhaps even with the Queen herself. Indeed, those close to the monarch have made it clear to me that, whilst the Queen lives (and is in good physical and mental health) she remains in full charge, presiding over her people as monarch until her last breath. She is still the authority, they assert.
That may well be the official line and it is true that monarchy has a logic-defying resilience founded on appearances. Appearances, after all, can be deceptive but, as far as the paying public is concerned, seeing is believing. It was clearly a passing on of obligation, if not power. Inevitably, with such designated responsibility – whether Buckingham Palace and the monarch like it or not – comes at least the perception of power and an expectation of a new leader waiting in readiness in the wings.
Chapter Four
‘YOUR MAJESTY, MAMA, MUMMY’
‘She shall be, to the happiness of England,
An aged princess; many days shall see her,
And yet no day without a deed to crown it.’
THE PRINCE OF WALES READ THIS EDITED PASSAGE FROM WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S HENRY VIII ON THE BBC AS A TRIBUTE TO THE QUEEN ON HER NINETIETH BIRTHDAY
The only time she reached for her handkerchief to dab her moistening eyes was when watching the footage of her family aboard the Royal Yacht Britannia. Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales sat in the elegant White Drawing Room at Buckingham Palace watching prepared footage clips of days gone by. As they were doing so, their reactions were being recorded by John Bridcut’s documentary crew for the film Elizabeth at 90.
Bridcut had hit upon the idea of getting members of her family to sit and reflect upon archived and personal cine film, the term commonly used in the UK to refer to the 9.5mm, 16mm, 8mm and Super 8 motion-picture film formats. The royals had always been ahead with technology and been using such cameras long before it was commonplace. The prince liked the idea and Bridcut granted special access to the complete collection of the Queen’s personal cine films, shot by the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen herself, as well as by King George VI and the Queen Mother.
His film was a triumph, not least in demonstrating the warmth that exists between mother and son as they chatted informally over footage that chronicles their life’s journey.
The film might not have made the cut if Charles had not persisted and actively intervened. When the idea was first proposed by Clarence House to the Queen’s communications secretary, Sally Osman, she said the Queen would never do it and rejected it. It was only when the prince was urged to take it up with his mother personally over Christmas lunch at Sandringham that the project was revived.
The film, narrated by Charles, won widespread acclaim, with Sam Wollaston, writing in the Guardian, likening it to a royal version of the popular UK television show Gogglebox. He wrote, ‘Charles says “wonderful” a lot, the Queen says very little… In some ways, as her eldest son says, the birthday girl’s life has defined our age.’ The Daily Telegraph’s Gerard O’Donovan felt that it was ‘a triumph from start to finish. I cannot recall ever seeing a more charming, warm and – dare I say – human portrait of the Queen than this one.’
Occasionally, Charles would jog his mother’s memory but most of the time her recall of what was being shown was excellent. Much of the footage had never been seen publicly before. It was not limited to Charles and the Queen, but various members of the Royal Family were filmed watching the private footage and contributing their own personal insights and their memories of the woman they knew both as a member of their own close family and as Queen, including the Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry, the Princess Royal, the Duke of Kent and his sister Princess Alexandra, who had never before given any interviews.
Two years later, Charles was again leading the tributes to his mother. For when the prince took to the Royal Albert Hall stage the evening’s performers, Tom Jones, Kylie Minogue, Sting, Shaggy and Craig David, joined him to a rousing reception. At first he respectfully and properly called her ‘Your Majesty’ throughout, but then decided to get a little too personal, calling her ‘Mummy’. At that precise moment, Queen Elizabeth’s eyes grew extremely wide, drawing huge laughs from the crowd.
Charles, with his perfect comic timing, knows exactly how to play an audience, and so does the Queen. She may we
ll have anticipated that his ‘mummy’ quip was coming and prepared her response – after all Charles had used it many times before, notably in his speech at the pop concert at Buckingham Palace gardens to celebrate her Golden Jubilee. It always got a laugh.
Despite reams of paper devoted to the apparent frostiness of their relationship, especially when he was a youngster and public duty meant she had to put some motherly duties second, there is indelibly a deep love between them. Charles, of course, deeply cares for, loves and respects his mother. Whenever he hosts an event or dinner to celebrate another milestone in her incredible life and reign, he demands absolute perfection.
On the Queen’s eightieth birthday, for example, he, with the help of the fastidious factotum Michael Fawcett, arranged a magical evening of celebration at Kew Palace, where she arrived to the strains of Bach, Wagner and Donizetti, played by a harpist and flautist. The music played as the light began to fade in the exquisite Royal Botanic Gardens that surround the palace, and the family progressed through the Queen’s Boudoir, known as the Sulking Room, and on into the King’s Drawing Room.
The table was set to perfection too, bathed in the soft light of a myriad candles. Spring blooms brought fragrance and colour to the room; silverware placed with military precision shone; glassware gleamed. Appropriately for a woman proud of her Scottish ancestry, the menu included a starter of timbale of organic Hebridean smoked salmon. There was juniper roast loin of venison from the Sandringham estates served with a port-wine sauce, steamed young cabbage and spring vegetables; and fruits from Charles’s Highgrove estates were used in the dessert.
It was a day and an evening that would live long in the memory of all who were there. It was truly special, exactly as the prince had wanted it.
Change was clearly coming even back then. The cogs of the transition to the reign were turning quietly as the royal machine prepared for a smooth gear change. The key to the monarchy and an effortless passage from one reign to the next is that nobody sees the joins.
Even back then the Queen was making moves into semi-retirement, her place in history already assured. A handover of power is happening right before our eyes; the changes are subtle but seismic. Nothing has been left to chance. It never is. It is no coincidence that the Queen has been spending more and more time with her grandson, the Duke of Cambridge, of whom she is very fond, and his public, statesmanlike roles are increasing both in number and status, such as his historic visit to Israel and the West Bank in June 2018.
What is, however, not so well known is that the Queen and her son and heir, Charles, for some time regularly meet in private. The public impression is they come together rarely, at family events such as Christmas at Windsor or the odd palace balcony appearance. But nothing could be further from the truth as, with no private secretaries of royal aides of any description present, the two – mother and son, monarch and heir, the two most senior figures in the monarchal system – meet and discuss matters of state. The conversations are apparently focused on business and sometimes over dinner or tea. Her Majesty and Charles see these meetings as crucial for the smooth running of the country and succession.
Some years ago the Queen, known around Whitehall as ‘Reader No. 1’, had Charles added to the distribution of the dispatch boxes so that he is seeing everything she is. This was done to ensure Charles is up to speed in the event that something should happen to her such as incapacitation or death. She has likely sought to avoid his being unprepared for the role he is stepping into, much as she was when her father, King George VI, died. Considering her age, this is an altogether smart and sensible idea and in complete contrast to the other great regal matriarch, Queen Victoria, who infuriated her eldest son and heir, Bertie, Prince of Wales, with her inconsistencies.
Queen/Empress Victoria applied rules to other people, her own family included, which she flagrantly broke herself without the bat of an eyelid. This behaviour frequently made her infuriating to her loved ones, her government ministers and her servants. She herself apparently never understood the cause of their irritation or certainly never showed it. She criticised her son Bertie roundly for his bad behaviour after he embarked on a series of adulterous affairs, which she blamed on his laziness and idle mind, yet she was determined to exclude him from royal work or, more importantly, matters of state. She refused to allow him to see state papers and denied him a key to the red boxes, thus forcing upon him a life of aimlessness. Thus, the heir to the throne felt he had been reduced to the role of glorified ribbon cutter, unveiling buildings and statues and having very little influence where he felt it mattered.
In stark contrast to her great-great-grandmother, Elizabeth II recognises a simple, and for Charles painful, fact that the role for which her eldest son was born has all but already passed him by, however much public opinion may have softened towards him. History, fate and his own nature have conspired to place Charles in an unenviable position. For years, his own parents seriously doubted his suitability for the throne. Both Elizabeth and Philip, according to sources close to them, regarded their eldest son as something of a ‘loose cannon’: too quick to anger, given to tantrums and driven by an almost revolutionary zeal to ‘make his mark’ on the country and world with his various initiatives, causes and beliefs that they and many believed teetered dangerously on the brink of quackery.
Charles’s apparent need to be viewed as a shaper of ideas, a pioneer, and to enjoy growing political influence was a serious source of concern to advisers both past and present. Some of these advisers have told me that the prince actively seeks out controversy, because that way he can raise the debate, a debate or subject that would otherwise go unnoticed or be swept under the carpet. His former deputy private secretary, Mark Bolland, has admitted that during his time in Charles’s service he ‘tried to dampen down the prince’s behaviour in making public his thoughts and views on a whole range of issues’.
Mark wrote in a statement that was released to the media as the prince began a High Court case against the Mail on Sunday [for publishing comments allegedly made in his journal about China’s regime] ‘The Prince’s expressions of his views have often been regarded with concern by politicians because we would be contacted by them – and on their behalf. Private Secretaries to government ministers would often let us know their views and, typically, how concerned they were.’ Mark’s views may be tainted by his abrupt departure from Charles’s household with little credit, particularly after important work such as his successful running of ‘Operation Mrs PB’, his carefully managed PR campaign that secured enough public acceptance of Camilla that eventually the royal marriage was possible. He used all the dark arts and even used the young princes, William and Harry, to get public acceptance for Camilla, even claiming they had met and got on when actually they had not and did not.
Mark Bolland’s assessment of the prince should not be taken too lightly. He, after all, did have the prince’s ear at a crucial time and his ability to help shape the news agenda with his close relationships with newspaper editors during his tenure should not be disregarded.
For, in truth, there is little doubt that the prince has achieved much in his self-defined role as the Prince of Wales and raised the debate on compelling global issues such as genetically modified crops, religious tolerance, saving the rainforests and eliminating the use of single-use plastics.
The prince is fully aware that he will have to control his passion on many of these issues, and also ensure, when a constitutional clash may occur when he is monarch, he keeps his controversial views to himself. A campaigning king, after all, no matter how worthy, would leave him and the institution he serves open to damaging accusations of his being an unconstitutional monarch.
‘To suggest that the prince would do anything to undermine the position of constitutional monarch is to totally misjudge and misinterpret the nature and intentions of the Prince of Wales,’ said one senior member of the Royal Household. ‘He is fully aware, more than anyone, of his responsibilities of h
is future role and the importance of those responsibilities.’
That said, I have little doubt that when his time comes he will use his even greater convening power to take a lead in areas to which he has devoted so much of his life. He will not just abandon causes he has championed. Why should he? Much as his mother has done with the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy initiative, begun in 2015 as a network of forest conservation programmes throughout the fifty-three countries of the Commonwealth of Nations, he will be able to bring people with influence together to try to make a real difference. If anything, that ability to assemble leaders in particular areas inspired by harmony and sustainability will increase when he is elevated to the role of monarch. He certainly won’t lose that burning desire just because his will be the head wearing the crown. If anything, that head will be even more uneasy unless he is doing his best to make a difference. His determination to save the planet for future generations won’t just fade because he is sitting on the throne. ‘I don’t want to be confronted by my future grandchildren and them say, “Why didn’t you do something?”’ It is a question that will always drive him to do more.
Many close to him believe that, as King Charles III, he will not only wish to convoke the important meetings, but wish to have a seat at the table, too, where he can make a meaningful contribution. Again, there is nothing wrong or unconstitutional with that. I have witnessed first-hand on my travels with the prince that very often at such meetings he will listen and mentally take note, not in any way to try to cajole the group to his way of thinking. The fact that the meeting is taking place and the subject of choice is being debated at a high level, where change can be effected, is a form of success. The prince more than anyone is well aware that sailing the monarchy into dangerous, potentially unconstitutional, waters would be both irresponsible and self-defeating.
Charles at Seventy Page 7
