Charles must ditch the baggage to be a worthy successor to his mother

Sir, – It was with surprise and a certain sadness that I read about Prince Charles bringing almost $3 million he received as a gift from the Saudi ruling family into the country in suitcases. Regardless of any wellmeaning intentions he has for the money, I think it’s reasonable to expect the heir to the throne not to behave in such a manner.

Of course, in a strange way, it could be argued that his method of receiving the money has courted transparency. Had he simply received a cheque or the money transferred electronically into his account the public and the press would be none the wiser. It’s also hard not to think that if Prince Charles really needed money, perhaps to boost his Duchy of Cornwall business interests or his Prince’s Trust venture or even – dare it be mentioned – to recoup some of the money he lent his brother Andrew to pay off the main Epstein Maxwell sex-trafficking witness, then surely he would have long queues of eager donors desperate for some patronage.

That said, it’s only fair not to be too self-righteous in condemning someone who takes money from the Saudis. I personally abhor how they go about their business – executing those with dissenting voices, murdering journalists, and suppressing women – but it doesn’t stop me from travelling down to watch Saudi-owned Newcastle United. I can also imagine how most of us have pensions, be they public or private, linked inexorably with hedge funds and unit trusts which depend on Saudi money for a reasonable return.

It’s not the money that’s the issue here but its method of transfer. There’s just no getting away from the fact that the luggage cash stash is akin to other low-life examples of greed and grubbiness. Most recently, there was the staff at No 10 who thought it a jolly wheeze to use their briefcases to smuggle booze into work to party during lockdown. And, perhaps a tour de force in grubby and greedy behaviour, British football managers – all household names and some with knighthoods – who in the past would slink up and down the dark M6 motorway to meet with agents and journalists in a service station’s greasy spoon to receive brown paper bags rammed with £50 notes – for some favour or other.

If it was you or me bringing money into the country we would rightly expect to be stopped and detained at the declaration desk, and for Customs and Excise to carry out a rigorous investigation into where and how the money was gained, if it was the proceeds of crime or for

“washing” purposes – as is currently the parlance – and how much tax was due. It would be reassuring to think that Charles has not used his power and privilege to circumvent the law here but perhaps we’ll never know.

What we do know is that such behaviour calls into disrepute his office, his royal family, and – whether he asked for it or not – his assumed role as a senior ambassador for this country.

The Queen, the glue which has held her family together and retained a dignity, even in their darkest days, won’t be around forever and it’s all the more reason why Charles, as her heir, should be displaying conduct beyond reproach and worthy of succession.

When the time comes he will have a hard act to follow, but there’s no time like the present to start proving he’s up to the role. Leaving the baggage behind would be a start.