It is not so much that karma is what we all know her to be, but that she insists on giving such frequent demonstrations of the fact.
Over the weekend I found myself pondering the scene in The Queen in which Prince Charles, concerned about regal inertia in the face of rising popular discontent over the reaction to his late wife’s death, gets his Private Secretary to reach out to Downing Street and point out that his boss, like the Prime Minister, is a “modern man”. Nudge nudge, wink wink, eat me last. Tony Blair, to his credit (it is an unusual film in making one feel a certain sympathy for the Dorian Gray of British politics), does not take particularly well to this blatant attempt to throw his family under the state carriage.
Fast forward a couple of decades and Prince Andrew is in trouble. He probably was when The Queen was released. It is, after all, a reasonable bet that, if the current day’s name has “day” in it, Andrew will be in trouble. The traditional Friday evening press release was issued announcing that he would no longer use the titles he had been gifted. Not that they would be stripped from him, nor that he would give them up, just that he would no longer use them, like a suit he had outgrown. Job done surely.
Apparently not. For it “emerged”, in that most Royal of PR terms, over the weekend that the heir to the throne would be far more “ruthless” with his uncle. There would be no invitation to any future Coronation. Balcony appearances? Forget them. We have not heard, in the subsequent days, any complaints from Kensington Palace about hacking, spying or any such, so we can assume the story appeared in the press because William and his team wanted it in the press. The carriage has trundled on and he has thrown his uncle and, by implication, his father under it. Truly the wheel of fortune keeps turning.
Ruthlessness is, in and of itself, a neutral quality. We need to know what it serves before we can cast judgement. Churchill’s bombing of the French fleet to prevent it falling into German hands was probably ruthless and good (unless you happen to be French), a male passenger lamping an old woman on the Titanic to steal her place in one of its lifeboats would have been ruthless and bad.
William certainly seems to feel a certain distaste for his uncle, his face the last time they were pictured together looking like a germaphobe’s in a pub loo. But William also has a bit of a habit of throwing inconvenient people under his carriage.
You may remember Lady Hussey, the ageing, slightly deaf Royal retainer and, indeed, Princely godmother who had a bit of a contretemps with a guest at a Palace reception. Given her age, her infirmities and the length of their relationship, one might have expected the heir to take her side or, at the very least, display the quality of mercy. Not a bit of it. She had fallen foul of modern etiquette and needed to be cast out of Eden. Nor could this be allowed just to “emerge”. A statement was issued by Kensington Palace. “These comments were unacceptable and it’s right that the individual in question has stepped aside with immediate effect.”
Whether or not William believed Lady Hussey and his uncle deserved to have the boot put in, he knew others did, so made sure he was seen doing it. Like a wimpy kid happy to bully someone else, not necessarily because he enjoys it or thinks it right, but because it means he is not bullied himself.
For someone with such a high profile, William is oddly reluctant to stand out, every public position carefully tuned to the Wandsworth kitchen-supper circuit. He likes football. Just like you. He worries about mental health. Just like you. He cares about the environment. Just like you. Not too much though. Just like you. The answer lies in technology, not hairshirts so he can still have his holidays and skiing trips. Just like you. Not the Prince and Princess of Wales, but Wills and Kate, that nice couple you shared a glass of tepid wine with at the school play. People like you. Monarchy by Mumsnet.
There is, of course, another way. You could agree with the then Prince Charles or you could disagree with him [I did], you can think that, taken to their logical conclusion, his ideas would be deeply unpleasant for any individual not in possession of thousands of acres [I do] but you still have to acknowledge that he had the courage of his convictions. He developed (adopted more likely) a range of positions which were a long way from the mainstream and he advocated for them tirelessly. Raised eyebrows and ridicule did not put him off. He didn’t care what the man or woman on the Waterloo and City thought, he said and did what he thought was right and damned be the Daily Mail.
Monarchies do not survive as long as the Windsors (in their various incarnations) have without developing a certain nose for survival. One of the darker stains on the family’s escutcheon is George V’s refusal to allow a proposed extraction of the Romanovs from the Russian Revolution. Allowing himself to be persuaded that a grant of asylum would lead to an immediate communist take-over of Britain, he decided that, as Paris was worth a mass to Henri IV, so London was worth the lives of many of his nearest and dearest to him.
Perhaps the times have changed. No-one back then particularly expected the monarch to be a good person. George’s father, Edward VII, had spent almost every day of the sixty years he spent waiting to ascend to the throne proving that he was not. “There was never an individual less regretted by his fellow creatures than this deceased King” starts The Times’ obituary for George IV. And it gets worse from there.
But even the current king has led a far from unimpeachable life. And no-one cares. He is King and that is that. No-one suggests he shouldn’t be. No-one is trying to stop him being so. The system carries on because the system carries on.
Perhaps Charles is riding his mother’s coat-tails, criticising him seeming an insult to the shade of that beloved figure. But if we do now want our monarchs to be virtuous, is William? He doesn’t seem particularly loyal. He seems happy to let others take the fall for his mistakes. He cannot tell a lie – Harry did it with his little hatchet. Above the fray while telling his flunkies to don their knuckle-dusters. Too intent on appearing good to actually be good? Profile in Courage or slightly craven compromiser? A virtuous persona expensively maintained by an unvirtuous person.
The problem, wimpy kids discover, is that while you can avoid the bully’s eye for a while, it’s always looking for a new target.
Stewart Slater works in Finance. He invites you to join him at his website.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
The Windsors are all, to varying degrees, bonkers (as in barmy). Likewise most of the Spencers – mix them together and voila. What did anyone expect?
Wills is a WEF advocate and that is enough for me, for most of us the Windsor’s tribulations are of no great interest.
It’s a sinister version of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera and just as irrelevant to the lives of real people.
I’d forgotten all about the case of Prince William’s Godmother, 83 year old Lady Hussey, publicly humiliated by him for having the temerity to ask a black person from whence they hailed originally.
When I lived in England, and people – recognising my Scottish accent – asked me whereabouts in Scotland I’d been born/lived, it didn’t cross my mind to contact the authorities to complain that I had been racially abused. I was impressed that they were remotely interested in me, and did my best to make Glasgow sound fantastic. That’s what they call these days, a “fail” [smiley face here!)
This instance alone, in my opinion, reveals Prince William to be shallow, a follower of fashion, and heartless. I mean, Lady Hussey was 83 years old, for goodness’ sake.
But the racial bus (or carriage – hilarious analogy throughout the article, loved it!) is full, it seems, of heartless people. I remember telling a friend, who was originally from the Caribbean (I didn’t ask, she told me!) that my grandfather, (RIP) would refer to people of colour by a colloquial term best left unwritten here (I wouldn’t survive in prison) but that he had a heart of gold and would never harm anyone, no matter their race or creed, she was dismissive. I told her that, on one occasion when I was a child and my parents were not at home, a Sikh gentleman came to our door selling domestic products, and my grandfather returned to the living room with a pile of tea-towels and dusters – he felt sorry for the salesman and decided to purchase goods that we probably didn’t need (although you can never get too many tea-towels IMHO). Still, my friend was not convinced. It didn’t matter than he had not grown up in the multi-cultural, multi-race society we have come to accept, he was being racist, even if he didn’t know it.
Anyway, although I’m not an avid royalist, I do not want to see the monarchy continue on what looks like a downhill spiral. I do not think that William will make a good king, unless he changes from the woke follower of fashion that he appears to be at the present time, and restores some dignity to the “firm”. Nor do I like the apparent vengefulness that appears to be part of his character. His treatment of Lady Hussey and now Prince Andrew, is disappointing to say the least.
I enjoyed the article – it was very informative and thought-provoking.
‘Green’ King Bonkers 111 has lived up to everyones expectations as our monarch – William isn’t going to be any better. A thoroughly modern wimp.
Seeing so many news items of vengeance against Prince Andrew today has made me realise afresh, that it is the Godless people who accuse Christians of being “judgmental” blah blah, it is they who are judgmental and spiteful.
By all accounts, Andrew is no saint. But none of the people I’m seeing quoted and who are so “concerned” that he might escape with merely the removal of his titles, such as the Duke of York, people who want him stripped of even the inherited title of Prince (which would involve Parliament), none of these sanctimonious types are saints either.
Why is it, I wonder, that people get so angry with public figures such as Prince Andrew that they will almost stop at nothing to humiliate him in just about every way. From what I gather, they would leave him homeless and hungry. It’s all very unedifying. To say the least.