The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Prince Charles

  • Mr Major’s Article on HRH The Prince of Wales – 16 November 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s article on HRH The Prince of Wales, published in The Sunday Times on 16th November 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    These have been dire days for the Royal Family. The “revelations” of a former butler have been followed by wholly uncorroborated – and deeply unpleasant – allegations about an incident involving Prince Charles.

    I have known the Prince of Wales for nearly 20 years and believe the allegations to be inconceivable; indeed, they are so outrageous they should never have been aired without evidence – of which there is none.

    They derive solely from a sick man known to be an unreliable witness; a man whose previous stories have been proved to be untrue; a man suffering from traumatic stress disorder; a man who has received psychological care; a man evidently in a poor mental and physical state who may not appreciate fully what he is saying and the pain and distress it causes. Poor Mr George Smith, the source of these stories, needs medical care not banner headline publicity and I am astounded that worldly-wise media outlets – whilst privately acknowledging the unlikelihood of the allegations – should have created such a storm. Ultimately, it will abate – not least because the claims are so fanciful – but there is debris and damage in its wake, together with further sordid cuttings to be drawn upon in the future.

    Moreover, these allegations have not been confined to our own shores, but have created ever more sensational headlines around the world. As it becomes clear they are groundless, what corrective headlines will there be? Precious little, I imagine: headline material is not re-visited when stories are proved to be wrong; nor is much prominence given to the fact that the claims are discredited as well as discreditable.

    I wonder sometimes at the motives of these tale bearers. What is it – money? The desire for publicity? Revenge? And why are such fanciful stories aired – is it the basic commercial need to create news and sell newspapers whatever the personal cost may be? How is it possible to ignite worldwide interest in something so obviously untrue?

    Are we now in a world in which peep-hole journalism will print anything – true or false, that is said by anyone – sick or healthy, on the grounds that the subject is a public figure and therefore the public has a “right to know”? What sort of “right” is this? A right to know of lies; a right to know of smears and innuendo; if this is the future, it is a bleak one for us all.

    When The Queen referred to 1992 as an Annus Horribilis neither she, nor anyone else, could have dreamt that members of Her Family would still be under sustained, and unjustified, attack a full decade later. Nor could the Prince of Wales have imagined he would still be a favourite target in the shooting gallery.

    The Prince of Wales does not deserve this. Throughout the whole of his adult life, public duty and obligation have been his backbone. Nor is this simply his perception of the role of a Royal: he is a man who cares – perhaps too much – and must be left bewildered over how his best intentions can so often be distorted.

    In areas where the Prince is open to criticism, it has been poured upon him in rich measure. No-one should imagine that his high position protects him: in fact, the converse is true and with each fresh batch of headlines, his critics become bolder and less inhibited by fact.

    Nor is the Prince of Wales the only victim of this on-going feeding frenzy: the pain and distress falls upon wholly innocent shoulders as well. Prince William and Prince Harry have lived through a decade of storms. Notwithstanding their heartache at the break-up of their parents’ marriage – as traumatic for them as for any other children in similar circumstances – they had the added torment of seeing their mother hunted and haunted by the demands of an insatiable media up to the very moment of her tragic death. Now they see the full focus of calumny turned upon their only surviving parent to whom they are so close.

    I have never written or spoken of the occasional privileged access that I have had to the Royal Family – but one small glimpse into their private lives might illustrate the concern I feel for the impact of publicity upon the two Princes. A few years ago, I called on the Prince of Wales early one morning. We talked over the breakfast table. Prince William listened avidly whilst the younger Prince Harry interested himself in the sports pages of the morning press. After a while, Prince Harry put the paper aside and both sons turned towards their father.

    There was not a shred of doubt about the affection on those young faces; even less doubt that it was returned. Here was no dysfunctional unit but a family bonded by the humour, teasing and loving concerns that characterise the very best of family relationships. Perhaps those who have no mercy upon the Prince of Wales might reflect upon the secondary agonies they inflict upon his children? Most especially, perhaps, Prince William. As he moves into adulthood his obligations as second in line to the Throne will become a greater part of his life. Having witnessed through childhood the malicious treatment of those he has loved most in the world, he would have good reason to look into the future with a heavy heart. It is a measure of the man he has become that he does not.

    I wrote earlier of the “right to know”: and there is much the world does have a right to know about the Prince of Wales. They should know he founded his own charity, The Prince’s Trust, to help the least privileged in our society. They should know this is a consuming interest for him and that, as a result, many thousands of young people are helped annually to overcome hardship and achieve their ambitions. They should know the Prince is a redoubtable defender of our Armed Forces; that he has the courage to speak out for unfashionable causes; and that he speaks passionately in private for those who cannot speak for themselves.

    Inside the public Prince is a private man, a sensitive man, a man who hopes for personal tranquillity. Despite a brave outward demeanour, he must have been wounded by recent publicity because – knowing it to be untrue – he will not understand why it has been given such currency. If that is too innocent, too naïve, for a man born to be King, then I much prefer such human vulnerability, to the knowing cynicism that so often masquerades as worldly wisdom.

    One day, Prince Charles will be King: the most visible presence of our Monarchy and the symbol of our Country to the world. To pull him down with false testimony is not only profoundly unjust to the Prince of Wales as an individual, it is also a grave injustice to the interests of the institution of Monarchy and our Nation as a whole.

  • Mr Major’s Article on HRH The Prince of Wales – 17 March 2003

    The text of Mr Major’s article on HRH The Prince of Wales, published on 17th March 2003.

    JOHN MAJOR:

    Over recent weeks, much printer’s ink has been spilled over Sir Michael Peat’s inquiry into alleged misconduct within St James’s Palace. The pursuit of HRH The Prince of Wales has been unrelenting. It is also unjust.

    Some of the wilder comments even predicted revelations that would shake the Monarchy itself. Others pre-judged the internal inquiry, and condemned it as a “whitewash”.

    The reality, as any dispassionate reader must acknowledge, is that – throughout – the report is concise, detailed, comprehensive and critical. It acknowledges mistakes – some of them serious – but puts them in a proper context that illustrates how disproportionate much of the criticism has been. The report is cathartic and should help prevent future controversy. Sir Michael has done his job well and Prince Charles is wise to have accepted his recommendations in full.

    Unlike many of his critics, I know the Prince of Wales. He is a man who cares, sometimes too much. He has a social conscience that can be uncomfortable in an heir to the Throne. His forthright views on architecture and the rural community lead him into controversy but there are as many who share his views as oppose them.

    He does lobby Ministers – and Prime Ministers – but always within the bounds of propriety and, in my own experience, in support of very good causes. His charitable work is not simply a duty but, especially in the case of The Prince’s Trust, a commitment that matters to him greatly. He is not – and cannot be – above criticism. But some critics go too far. Their excessive zeal has wider ramifications than their personal criticism of the Prince.

    There is a scene in the original film of “Goodbye, Mr Chips” in which Chips muses on the habit of exaggeration of one of his pupils: apparently the boy was apt to exaggerate a nought to a nine in his Latin marks. Similar exaggeration is often apparent in the lack of sympathy or understanding offered to Prince Charles with much of it magnified by the belief that an hereditary Monarchy is contrary to the spirit of the times in our egalitarian age.

    Such a belief, though often peddled subliminally, does much to belittle the Monarchy. There is, for some, an agenda here: if Members of the Royal Family are undermined, then the Institution of the Monarchy itself begins to wither in public affection. I do not argue for the Royal Family to be above criticism, nor to be deferred to as a matter of course (having been raised in Brixton, I am myself a product of our egalitarian age) but I do ask for a sense of balance. I ask for any criticism to be just. For it not to be exaggerated. Nor, sometimes, invented. And for shortcomings to be weighed alongside virtues.

    I am a Monarchist and I care for the Institution of Monarchy. I believe our country would be changed immeasurably for the worse if we were to become a Presidency. I see the intellectual case for such a change but reject it absolutely. Its advocacy is most often heard in the Westminster-Whitehall beltway but, like so much of that chatter, it is not an argument that resonates in the towns and villages of our nation.

    One day, Prince Charles will be our King and the embodiment of the Monarchy. Around the world, he will be the symbol of our nation. In due time, Prince William will succeed him. This is the hope and expectation of the vast majority of our nation. There are only a very few who wish to see the unique fabric of our country damaged and the legacy of Monarchy wrecked – chipped away by innuendo and condemned to death by a thousand smears.

    As Heir to the Throne, the role of any Prince of Wales is difficult. If he has views and expresses them publicly he is in danger of infringing his constitutional obligation to steer clear of controversy. Of course, he should not be seen to oppose Government policy – but nor, in a mature society, should every nuance of advocacy be seen as a political statement. If his observations are merely of the motherhood and apple pie variety, he is parodied for being without substance or, worse, ignored. If he remains silent, his critics are all too ready to pounce, claiming he has no purpose. For the Prince himself, it must be frustrating beyond measure.

    Times are changing for the Monarchy: deference to it is out of fashion and so is tolerance of any human failings within it. But we, the public, can’t have it both ways. If we change our expectation of and attitude towards the Monarchy, then we must accept that they – in turn – must be allowed greater freedom of public expression and action than hitherto. Why should they not have the right to the tolerance so freely offered to others?

    Let us suppose, for a moment, that the Prince of Wales were a Commoner. What would we see? A sensitive man, with no malice and much good intent. A man who takes an active interest in several hundred charities to benefit the young, the old, minority groups and the arts. A man who – almost thirty years ago – established his own charity, focused on helping the least privileged in our society: The Prince’s Trust (now the UK’s leading youth charity) has thus far helped almost half a million youngsters to overcome personal hardship or unfortunate circumstance. A man who shares, with so many of his fellow citizens, the pain of a failed marriage but who in the midst of his share of responsibility for that failure has retained the love and affection of his children. A man who has dedicated his life to the country he was born to serve.

    The Prince of Wales has honoured that obligation with compassion, tolerance of human failing and a wish to support those most in need. We, as a nation, should at the very least extend to him a similar courtesy.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Separation of the Prince and Princess of Wales – 9 December 1992

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement on the break-up of the Prince and Princess of Wales, made on 9th December 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Buckingham palace is at this moment issuing the following statement. It reads as follows :

    “It is announced from Buckingham Palace that, with regret, the Prince and Princess of Wales have decided to separate. Their Royal Highnesses have no plans to divorce and their constitutional positions are unaffected. This decision has been reached amicably, and they will both continue to participate fully in the upbringing of their children.

    Their Royal Highnesses will continue to carry out full and separate programmes of public engagements, and will from time to time attend family occasions and national events together.

    The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, though saddened, understand and sympathise with the difficulties that have led to this decision. Her Majesty and His Royal Highness particularly hope that the intrusions into the privacy of the Prince and Princess may now cease. They believe that a degree of privacy and understanding is essential if Their Royal Highnesses are to provide a happy and secure upbringing for their children, while continuing to give a whole-hearted commitment to their public duties.”

    That is the text of the announcement.

    I am sure that I speak for the whole House–and millions beyond it–in offering our support to both the Prince and Princess of Wales. I am also sure that the House will sympathise with the wish that they should both be afforded a degree of privacy.

    The House will wish to know that the decision to separate has no constitutional implications. The succession to the throne is unaffected by it; the children of the Prince and Princess retain their position in the line of succession; and there is no reason why the Princess of Wales should not be crowned Queen in due course. The Prince of Wales’s succession as head of the Church of England is also unaffected. Neither the Prince nor the Princess is supported by the civil list, and this position will remain unchanged.

    I know that there will be great sadness at this news. But I know also that, as they continue with their royal duties and with bringing up their children, the Prince and Princess will have the full support, understanding and affection of the House and of the country.