Charles must prove he was duped if he’s to survive scandal, says Michael Cole
THESE are very difficult and dangerous days for the Prince of Wales.
The scandal over a letter from his top aide, Michael Fawcett, apparently offering British citizenship and a knighthood to a Saudi billionaire in exchange for further financial donations to Prince Charles’s pet projects, is the most serious crisis to hit the House ofwindsor since Princess Diana’s death 24 years ago.
That tragedy was followed by a week of ferment when, rightly or wrongly, the Royal Family was accused of a heartless lack of feeling and misjudging the national mood.this latest scandal is potentially more dangerous to the very fabric of the monarchy because it reveals actions which, if proved, would be serious crimes punishable by imprisonment.
No wonder a spokesman for Charles rushed to make things clear, saying: “The Prince of Wales has no knowledge of the alleged offer of honours or British citizenship on the basis of donations to his charities and fully supports the investigation now under way by the Prince’s Foundation.”
Responding so promptly and forcefully to newspaper revelations is itself a measure of the gravity of the situation. On matters considered minor or trivial, Clarence House plays a straight bat.this is different.
And it could not be closer to the prince. Mr Fawcett, the aide who allegedly signed the apparently incriminating letter, has “temporarily” stepped down as chief executive of the Prince’s Foundation following decades of being closer to his master than any other royal servant.
The man who started as the prince’s valet, supervising his perfectly boiled egg, became “the indispensable Fawcett”, without whom Prince Charles has said he cannot manage.
If the prince is to survive this scandal, it must be established beyond doubt that Mr
Fawcett was acting without his master’s knowledge or authority and had in effect gone rogue.
If Mr Fawcett had taken it upon himself to offer a knighthood and a British passport to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz, to induce the tycoon to part with further large sums of money, additional to the donations he had already made towards major improvements at Dumfries House, the prince’s personal project in southern Scotland, and at the Castle of Mey, the Queen Mother’s former home in north-east Scotland, it must be proved he acted independently of the prince.
Nothing less will take the heir to the throne out of the frame.
With such high stakes, an internal enquiry will simply not do.the foundation cannot act as investigator, judge and jury and expect its verdict to be accepted. This is a police matter.
The Metropolitan Police has confirmed that it has received complaints against both Prince Charles and Mr Fawcett, alleging a potential offence under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act of 1925. As the Met might feel uncomfortable investigating an alleged felony so close to the throne, the case could devolve to Police Scotland, which is where the letter was signed.
That 1925 anti-corruption law was passed following a major scandal when the son of a vicar called Maundy Gregory was caught selling honours on behalf of the Liberal Party. It tainted the reputation of its leader, David Lloyd George, and brought into question his judgment: did he know what Gregory was doing? And if he didn’t, why not?
Similar questions may now be put to Prince Charles. Again, it’s a question of judgment.
If the police investigate and the CPS brings a case under the 1925 Act, the problems really begin. Mr Fawcett knows all the prince’s secrets.there’s no knowing what he might say.
This matter has a long way to go, and no charges have been levelled. Whatever the outcome, two questions must be answered: was Mr Fawcett acting on the someone else’s instructions? Or was it on his own initiative? Much depends on the answers.
‘It’s a question
of judgment’
Michael Cole is a former
BBC royal
correspondent