AND ANOTHER THING
Time to say to Prince Charming: `Kindly leave the stage'
PAUL JOHNSON
Another source of our infamy is the rep- utation of British newspapers for unspeak- able foulness, not stopping short at actual crime. With Peter Preston's Guardian now happily wallowing in the sewer with Rupert M. urdoch's News of the World, there is little if any moral distinction between the so- called qualities and the worst downmarket tabloids. Indeed Preston's resort to theft and forgery (as well as lying) is the worst case of its kind since the Pigott fabrications of 1886 — and in that instance, be it remembered, the Times was an unwitting Party to the plot. This time, however, Preston, editor of a °nee respectable, indeed revered, newspa- per actually planned the forgery himself in conjunction with Mohammed Fayed, a devious Egyptian gentleman publicly branded a liar by an official inquiry. Pigott had the grace to blow his brains out in a Madrid hotel bedroom three years after his crime. Any plans, Preston? His behaviour reminds me of what the cartoonist Vicky said when he left the ultra-sanctimonious but dishonest News Chronicle to join the rumbustious but then truthful Mirror: 'It's like leaving a lady with syphilis and taking up with an honest whore.' In the meantime, the conduct of our Press, closely followed by the television net- works, in pouncing on any celebrity, howev- er retiring and inoffensive, and wringing him or her dry for the least drop of scandal --- stopping short of no obscenity or trick in the process — is now a real deterrent to people who love this country and might otherwise make it their home. A woman said to me recently, `I adore London but nothing would persuade me to live. there until you guys civilise your press again.' I have heard of cases where foreign- ers have actually felt obliged to withdraw their children from British schools whose own reputation has never stood higher — because they fear to expose them to the monkey-tricks of the tabloids. You may say, 'Oh, who cares what the idle rich think?' To which I reply, 'I care what any- one thinks, and it is the rich (rarely idle, in my observation) who play a crucial role in forming international opinion about our standing.'
However, when all is said about the insignificance of Major and the depravity of our press, it is the royal soap opera which is really hurting us abroad. And whereas the Major problem can be solved at a stroke by consigning him to the oubliette of history, and press inquiries can be gradually curbed by the enactment of a Protection of Privacy Bill, the royal mess is not so easily cleared up. Nonetheless, we must set about doing it, with all deliberate speed.
The publication of the Jonathan Dimble- by biography, with the Prince of Wales's co- operation and consent, has finally con- vinced me that Prince Charles is incorrigible. He evidently will never learn how to conduct himself as a responsible person. So we must remove him from the stage of our public life before he can do any more damage to our reputation, at home and abroad. I find that virtually everyone I talk to, including what I would call the stiffer element in our society — the natural and inveterate royalists — now takes the same view. What is particularly resented is the Prince's decision to publi- cise his criticisms of his father and mother. Most of us think our parents make mis- takes but we do not say so at the top of our voices. It is a hurtful and shameful act of disloyalty, a betrayal. And if a man will betray his parents, what will he not betray? Under the Act of Settlement (1701), Charles is the lawful heir to the throne, and must in due course succeed, unless he with- " draws or Parliament acts. Obviously Prince Charles, who has progressively shown him- self wholly unsuitable to be king, ought now to do the honourable thing, like his great- uncle Edward VIII, and renounce the throne in favour of his heir, Prince William. That would be the best and quickest solu- tion, and he could then retire to the privacy he says he craves. The likelihood is that the Queen will live until Prince William is of an age to succeed, and if she does not, a regency under one or other of those two sensible women, Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra, can easily be arranged. But we have it on the word of Charles's confidant, Jonathan Dimbleby, that he has no intention of renouncing his rights. In that case MPs, will have to see how the monarchy, which the overwhelming majori- ty want to retain, can be saved.
The very mention of the Act of Settle- ment reminds us that our monarchy is not divine-right but parliamentary: that is, Par- liament rather than the accident of birth determines who the monarch is and on what terms he or she serves. As it happens, the Act of Settlement, which has been amended several times already by statute, is badly in need of further revision. Few peo- ple, I imagine, would now support its provi- sion that the sovereign must be a member of the Church of England, and the sooner this anomaly is removed the better. In cor- recting it, Parliament can take the opportu- nity to settle the succession on Prince William.
In practice, of course, it will not be nec- essary. As soon as word gets around that the Government, or the opposition front bench, or even a sizable number of MPs, are unhappy about the idea of Prince Charles reigning, I imagine he will skedad- dle with as much grace as he can command. Then we can set about ensuring that the young prince is left in no doubt about the demands of his future position, and the absolute necessity that he put service to the throne, country and people before his per- sonal pleasures and whims. These are the. only terms on which the monarchy can sur- vive and it is about time they were emphati- cally restated. By doing so, Parliament will reassure the public and make it clear to all our troubled foreign admirers that we know how to put our own house in order.
Previous page
