🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
We've all done it. Tripped over a suitcase full of a million dollars in cash, gifted to us by a visiting Qatari dignitary. It is to Prince Charles' credit that, in a fit of pique, he didn't immediately go out and buy himself a treat to soothe his bruised toe. The English county of Devon, say. Instead, he handed over the wares to his courtiers for his charity foundation and got on with whatever heirs to thrones do of an afternoon. Open a new hospital, bridge or packet of biscuits, depending on the day.
While there is no suggestion of illegality in these shenanigans, they still raise significant questions. Chief among these: Why this story has appeared now, and who is briefing against the heir to the British throne? Who does it benefit? It is also just as pertinent to wonder how suited Charles is soon to assume the mantle of monarch. My money—used bills, non-sequential serial numbers—is on: Not at all.
To recap: Prince Charles accepted three cash donations totaling 3 million euros ($3.2 million) from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, a former Qatari prime minister, for the prince's charity between 2011 and 2015, according to The Sunday Times. A spokesperson for the prince said the donations were passed to one of the prince's charities which "assured us that all the correct processes were followed."
This is just the latest in a long line of embarrassing revelations about the relationship between Charles' status, his rich visitors and their donations to his undoubtedly good-doing charity foundation. Last year, his most beloved aide Michael Fawcett was forced to resign, following disclosures that he had been willing to lobby for a Saudi billionaire's honor to be upgraded to a knighthood in acknowledgement of the billionaire's generosity to one of Charles' charities. And this wasn't the first time Fawcett had quit. Or even the second.
Nobody doubts Charles' good intentions, from conserving the environment to investing in the future through his Prince's Trust. He was the first person in Britain to have a bottle bank for recycling, he was a vocal champion of alternative medicine before it gained widespread credibility, and he famously talked to his plants long before that was... A Thing. But his judgment is another matter. You could argue that he's naïve or that he's haughty but one way or another, in Charles' life and work, boundaries are definitely... blurred.
This matters more than ever when optics are such a consideration. Ever since the death of Diana in 1997, when the royals felt the full glare of an appalled public, they have, in a way, been more accountable than ever because of how their behavior looks. (Thirty years ago, Prince Andrew would have emerged unscathed from the scandal that has scuppered him. Fifty years ago, we would never have heard even a whisper of that horror story).
Critics have been quick to pounce on the difference between Charles' questionable judgement and his mother's inherent sense of what is right. But this is a false binary as the Queen is no angel. This is the same monarch who recently interfered in the legislative process in Scotland to exempt herself from new laws to protect the environment. She is now the only private landlord in Scotland not required to harness renewable energy.
And, as unseemly or treacherous as it might sound to say, she must also take responsibility, along with her husband, for how their son has turned out. Holding him at arm's length throughout his childhood and sending him away to boarding school—though conventional for their era and class—can't not have negatively affected the youngster. You only need look at the British ruling class—Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for example —to see how the damage they endured as children is now inflicted on the rest of us through their actions.
Moreover, Charles' whole life has been informed by the knowledge that he is God's anointed representative on earth, or the U.K. at least. That is the principle of divine right from which monarchy derives its legitimacy and not a day of Charles' life will have passed without him being reminded of it or thinking about it. And if God is infallible then Charles is infallible, he can do literally no wrong.
In all the years since, and he is now 73 years old, Charles has been the very definition of indulgence and entitlement, because after all, that is what he is. Think of your own life and how you have become who you are through pain, challenges and the hard choices that you've had to make. Charles has never had to make a cup of tea, let alone a difficult decision. He was asked to make a sacrifice once: to relinquish his mistress to save his marriage. He refused.
But the ultimate responsibility for the Charles of today must lie with the courtiers, the lackeys and all those who genuflect before him, and that includes us. We have enabled him. Like Doctor Frankenstein, we cannot now be horrified by the creature we have created.
Gareth McLean is a screenwriter and cultural commentator. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
