An Olympian whinger
Priss Choss is even funnier than I realized.
An unauthorised new biography of Prince Charles paints a picture of a capricious man who is obsessed with the public’s opinion of him, whose lavish spending reveals a royal utterly divorced from the life of ordinary people.
According to Tom Bower’s Rebel Prince, published on Thursday by William Collins, Charles once “shrieked” and “trembled” at the sight of an unknown plastic substance covering his dinner, only to be told “It’s cling film, darling,” by Camilla. On another occasion, Bower claims the prince brought his own mattress, toilet seat, Kleenex Velvet toilet paper and two “landscapes of the Scottish Highlands” when visiting a friend in north-east England.
And he was only dropping in for an hour.
Bower, who has previously written unauthorised biographies of names including Tony Blair, Richard Branson and Mohamed Fayed, says he interviewed more than 120 people for his biography of Charles, who he claims has “resorted to machination and media manipulation to restore his position” since 1997. The prince, Bower writes, “presides at the centre of a court with no place for democracy or dissenting views … like some feudal lord”.
Doesn’t he sound like our own undear Donald.
Charles is obsessed with public opinion, Bower claims, even once hurling a dinner plate to the floor at a dinner party after learning of his low popularity ratings.
Gosh; so like him. Does he give himself extra ice cream in front of guests?
He doesn’t read newspapers, and he throws things at the radio when he hears something that makes him cross.
The book also details a meeting between the prince and Peter Mandelson, during which the Blairite former minister allegedly told Charles that the public thought he was “rather glum and dispirited”, which had “a dampening effect” on their opinion of him.
“After Mandelson had left, he beseeched Camilla, ‘Is that true? Is that true?’ ‘I don’t think any of us can cope with you asking that question over and over again for the next month,’ she replied,” writes Bower.
Still, it makes a nice change from shrieking and trembling over the cling film.
His portrait is of a man discontent with his lot. “Even my office is not the right temperature. Why do I have to put up with this? It makes my life so unbearable,” the prince is quoted as saying to an assistant. Bower quotes one friend describing Charles as “an Olympian whinger”; Charles himself is quoted as saying in 2004: “Nobody knows what utter hell it is to be Prince of Wales.”
Well no wonder he brings his own mattress and paintings of Highland scenery with him wherever he goes.
At least, unlike Donnie Twoscoops, Charlie has the excuse that he is actual monarchy, and they have a grand tradition of being somewhat… eccentric. Also, while the British monarchy technically have some non-ceremonial powers, none has actually tried wielding it in quite some time, and if one of them did then it’s very possible that their role might end up being reconsidered fairly quickly.
Also, I can feel a fair amount of sympathy for Charlie. It’s probably not the best kind of life there is, and it’s not like he chose any of it. On the other hand, if Donnie doesn’t like where he is, he only has himself to blame for being there. He fought, and fought dirty, to be where he is now. For him to whine about it just demonstrates his gargantuan lack of foresight.
I breathe a fresh sigh of relief that his request to become Governor Gerneral of Australia was politely but firmly turned down.
I’d heard some flattering anecdotes and personal attestations on Ol’ Prince Chucklehead’s account from Stephen Fry, someone I respect and admire, that caused me to soften my opinion on the monarch from ‘shallow dislike’ to ‘neutral disregard’. Pieces such as this one have caused me to re-reconsider my position, and even though I swore an oath to Queen Elizabeth, I once again don’t personally like her heir very much.
Here’s hoping the grandkids are all right.
I am not looking forward to seeing his face on our coinage and banknotes. I wonder if/when Charles comes to the throne, Canada will reconsider its relationship to the Crown. If his mum takes after her own mum with regard to longevity, he’s got a few years yet of cooling his heels before I have to worry about that visage haunting my billfold and pocket change.
If only that were true. Windsor has been using his undue influence to meddle in politics for years and those in power have lapped it up greedily. Take the Black Spider Memos, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos
He’s also spent decades (sometimes literally) peddling nonsense about alternative medicine, organic farming and GM. He keeps doing incredibly insulting things like claiming he is a member of the discriminated-against minority group of Cumbrian farmers on the grounds that he owns half of Cumbria. That last one doesn’t have much to do with meddling in politics (although I think it came up in the Black Spider Memos) but it really pisses me off so I’m mentioning it anyway.
I cannot. None of us can help the circumstances of our birth but if anyone has the power to change their lives afterwards, it’s him.
Off the top of my head: The British House of Lords has the power to reject laws passed by the House of Commons, but wisely has not used it since around 1912 (when it generated a helluva hullabaloo by rejecting the Education Act.)
Charles after he becomes King of the UK, is likely to put his foot in it big time and often. I would like to see the Ladbrokes odds on him being the last British king .
Pretty short, I would guess.
@Omar:
The House of Lords can’t veto bills outright (usually, unless it can,) but it can delay them and cause them to be amended or rewritten before they are submitted again. It’s a powerful body. It has prevented lots of things becoming law, even occasionally (and possibly by accident) for the better.
There’s lots and lots and lots wrong with the House of Lords, but it does have significant power as one of these “checks” and “balances” we’re all supposed to have.
That has nothing much to do with the power or putative power of the royals, though. And even those are not particularly relevant to this discussion, I think. Charles Windsor gets one exact mega shit-tonne of access to politicians serving and putative because we are all idiots. And presumably because OBEs and shit.
I, as low-born as it is possible to be, don’t have any such access. OK, I’m a bad example, I salt the bridges and burn the earth wherever I go. But in theory I have exactly as much say on matters political as Charles Windsor but in practice I do not.
That is one of the many things wrong with the monarchy.
We used to feel safe from crazy ambitions on the part of our Chief Executive. With enough inflated self-confidence, and native stupidity, who knows how much mischief a Crowned Head might get up to?
@latsot
I hope that you also make sure that your teas are dotted, and your eyes crossed.
@latsot #5 – yes, he’s certainly tried to wield more influence than he’s supposed to have, which is bad, but a) he’s had to do what he did in secret, b) all he could do was suggest and nudge; he couldn’t actually make anything happen, and c) as I understand it, the amount of influence he did have in the end wasn’t large, and wasn’t about anything particularly important.
I’m not saying that makes it OK, it isn’t, but the UK’s norms and customs appear to be functioning pretty well and protecting them adequately from the attempted meddling. I think my point mostly stands: technically the monarchy have some power, in reality – not so much, and if they openly try to wield it then it’s fairly likely to go badly for them.
latsot, I know that Charles has a lot to do with Cumbrian farmers through the Princes Countryside Trust, but I wasn’t aware that he is a major Cumbrian landowner. I thought his lands were predominantly Cornish. Not that it matters much; most British land is owned by the Crown Estates in one way or another, so which particular member of that anachronistic family has their name on the deeds is neither here nor there.