Misunderstood THE Prince
IN OUR exclusive serialisation of a brilliant new biography of Prince Charles, yesterday we examined his encounters with a glamorous Chilean researcher — and a Camilla lookalike who ran his Highgrove gift shop. Here, in the third extract, SALLY BEDELL SMITH exposes the Prince’s petulance when he is crossed — and the poisonous atmosphere among his courtiers . . .
One of the less attractive facets of the driven, mercurial heir to the throne — as I discovered from spending four years interviewing 300 of his friends, officials, family members and acquaintances — is that he doesn’t like being challenged or forced to give ground.
According to many who know him, rather than engage in debate, he will shut it down — or even simply leave the room.
To this day, Prince Charles remains resistant to ideas that contradict his intuition, even when he is presented with compelling new research. Consequently, he has always sought out people — both on his staff and in his collection of outside advisers — who agree with him.
not that this always shields him from aggravation. I also found he used to lose his temper with staff and had alienated some of his most senior officials.
‘He is so hostile to unwelcome advice,’ said Miranda Somerset, the wife of the 11th Duke of Beaufort. ‘A friend who contradicted him was likely to be dropped and never spoken to again.’
During a weekend at Sandringham in the late eighties, the respected art historian John Richardson tried to persuade the Prince there was not a ‘chasm’ between classical architecture and the contemporary buildings Charles so vehemently detested.
‘Oh, Richardson, I have to see to the dogs,’ the Prince replied, and walked out of the room.
Richardson recalled: ‘He didn’t want to discuss it. He doesn’t want to be questioned or be bothered. You can’t budge him.’
On another occasion, Charles found himself in conversation at a small dinner party with a writer known for his incisive analysis and wide-ranging intellect. The subject they discussed was free trade.
‘Have you ever been to Lagos?’ asked the Prince. ‘It is simply frightful. People are living in the most appalling conditions, and it is because of free trade.’
‘Sir, it is because of a lack of free trade,’ the man said. Without waiting for him to explain, Charles said shortly: ‘I disagree with you.’ At which point, the hostess kicked the writer under the table and he wisely shut up.
‘The Prince’s attitude was not “let’s have an argument,” ’ the writer recalled. ‘He was genuinely annoyed within three remarks.’
In this respect, Charles is quite unlike his parents. Philip, who is as strong-minded as his son, welcomes robust argument and is prepared to engage with anyone who intelligently articulates a different point of view. A nD the Queen listens patiently to contrary opinions. To some degree, her approach reflects her aversion to confrontation, but she has a genuinely open mind. Deeply insecure and often unhappy as a child, Charles has sought ever since to make his mark by diving headfirst into controversial issues — such as climate change and GM foods — without properly thinking them through.
In a letter written in March 1987, he admitted: ‘Unless I rush about doing things and trying to help furiously, I will not (and the monarchy will not) be seen to be relevant and I will be considered a mere playboy!’
He is no intellectual: his ironclad positions on a range of issues are largely based on his intuition — and with each passing year, his faith in these original instincts has only deepened.
‘He hasn’t changed really much at all,’ said a man who has known him for decades. ‘There is exactly the same uncertainty and lack of confidence. But he affects confidence a lot.
‘He can be pig-headed. He knows he needs to be more confident, and will stick to something, come hell or high water.’
His speeches — on everything from the environment to homeopathy — have not always been well-received. Tellingly, Charles has had the four words ‘Be Patient and endure’ framed and put up on his dressing-room wall.
His staff have had cause to take these words to heart. As his projects began proliferating in the eighties, it became clear Charles had no idea how to exercise authority as a chief executive.
The difference between the Queen’s efficient and well-oiled operation and her son’s was ‘like two railways on different gauges’, said Sir Malcolm Ross, who has worked in both palaces.
Caught up in his enthusiasms, Charles picked up the phone at all hours, indifferent to time zones or the personal circumstances of the person at the other end.
even his friend Robert Kime, the interior designer, describes the Prince as a lighthouse with a constantly shifting beam that would stop and shine on someone for a concentrated burst of activity before moving on. David Airlie, the Queen’s close friend and long-time senior adviser, considers him ‘a very emotive person. He gets very worked up about things. He can be very difficult to handle.’
Sometimes, Charles would stay up all night to work on something that engaged his interest; otherwise, his concentration would wander. Unanswered letters piled up and important documents went unread.
equally worrying was the verdict of his deputy private secretary Mark Bolland, who worked for Charles for five years until 2002. The Prince’s court, he said, was like a ‘very medieval environment [full of] jealousies and intrigues and backstabbing and plots’.
One senior courtier with reason to feel bitter is Richard Aylard, who was private secretary at the time when the Prince admitted his adultery with Camilla Parker Bowles in Richard Dimbleby’s biography and TV documentary.
There was uproar at the time, and many wondered why Charles hadn’t ducked the question.