 |
Charles WindzorPrince of Wales
Date of Birth: 14.11.1948
Country:  Great Britain |
Content:
- Prince Charles: A Controversial Figure in British History
- A Scandalous Revelation
- A Scandal Unveiled
- A Controversy Unleashed
- A Questionable Conspiracy
Prince Charles: A Controversial Figure in British History
An Unlikely HeirAlmost 355 years ago, the English, who did not want Charles Stuart to be their king, resorted to a radical measure: in January 1649, Charles I was beheaded by order of the parliament. Times have changed, and now rumors and gossip have become as effective as the executioner's axe for those who do not want to see Charles Windsor as their king. Charles Windsor has always been considered a man unsuitable for the role destined for him from birth. His father, Prince Philip, despised him for his "unmanly" behavior - from childhood, Charles preferred reading to sports. His mother, Queen Elizabeth II, never expressed her opinion on the matter out loud. The only person who truly loved Charles was his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. The general dislike of Charles came after the crumbling of his marriage to Princess Diana. Newspapers portrayed him as a cold and boring person, who turned the life of the charming princess into a living hell. When rumors of Charles' infidelity to Diana surfaced, public opinion turned against him. After Charles and Diana separated and the prince openly admitted his relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles, doubts about his suitability as king began to arise. However, there were never any direct calls for Charles to renounce his rights to the throne. Instead, articles began to appear in newspapers suggesting that Queen Elizabeth could abdicate in favor of her grandson, Prince William, rather than Charles. These articles were soon picked up by analysts, who talked about a crisis of trust in the royal family and concluded that the monarchy could only be preserved if Prince William became the next king.
A Scandalous Revelation
This summer, Prince William, Charles and Diana's son, turned 21. Many people had high expectations for him, as shortly before this milestone, news emerged that Charles intended to finally give up his position in favor of his son. Charles pretended not to understand the hint. Tired of waiting, his opponents launched an attack. The weapon of choice was gossip, something that cannot be proven or disproven. George Smith is not a reliable witness by any means, but he is the perfect executioner for Charles Windsor. In 1984, Smith, a soldier in the Royal Welsh Guards, was assigned to Prince Charles' household. For Smith, this was a kind of honorary pension: he had participated in the 1982 Falklands War and was on board the Sir Galahad when the ship was attacked by Argentine fighters. He could never fully recover from the war. In Charles and Diana's staff, Smith proved himself to be a reliable worker and was discharged from the army in 1989 to work permanently for them. However, his mental illness worsened, exacerbated by alcoholism. In 1995, his wife left him, and this was the final straw. George, according to those who knew him, became uncontrollable. He constantly talked about being persecuted and envied by his colleagues. He even called the police several times, claiming he was being targeted. The police found no evidence to support his claims. After one of these incidents, which made it into the newspapers, Charles' aides advised him to dismiss Smith. He was given a generous severance package, and Charles arranged for Smith to be admitted to one of Britain's top psychiatric clinics, paid for by the prince himself. Smith became known to the wider public a year ago when he began telling everyone that he had been sexually assaulted twice by "one of the highest-ranking members of Prince Charles' staff." According to Smith, many people knew about the incidents, and the late Princess Diana was the first to know. She once visited Smith in the clinic and had a long conversation with him about his problems. When Smith decided to tell her about the two incidents of assault, Diana immediately turned on her dictaphone and recorded everything. According to Smith, Diana then told her husband about the horrifying accusations, but he did not respond to them.
A Scandal Unveiled
Smith's statement caused a scandal. Buckingham Palace and the police conducted two investigations, finding no evidence to support Smith's claims. However, the newspapers accused Prince Charles of ignoring the information provided by Smith through Diana. According to many, Charles' behavior was due to the fact that the perpetrator of the assault was Michael Fawcett, Charles' trusted servant and valet, whom the prince was infatuated with. Nevertheless, the scandal ended with Fawcett being forced to leave his job with Prince Charles. No evidence supporting Smith's accusations was ever found, and he was forgotten until, in late October of this year, he gave an interview to The Mail on Sunday in exchange for a fee (the amount of which is not disclosed, but rumored to be around £10,000), in which he revealed that Michael Fawcett and Prince Charles were lovers. Everything Smith told the newspaper was repeated in a written statement given under oath.
A Controversy Unleashed
However, the interview with Smith did not appear in the newspaper. Instead, a note was published stating that during the preparation of the article, which was meant to disclose sensational information about the relationship between "one of Prince Charles' former servants" and a "high-ranking member of the royal family," the former servant obtained a court injunction banning the publication of the article, the mention of his name, and the disclosure of any details about the incident. It is quite possible that the story would have been forgotten if it weren't for the former and current press secretaries of Prince Charles intervening. "It is hard to say whether they intentionally or unintentionally escalated the situation, but the fact remains," says one British journalist. The first inexplicable mistake was made by the current press secretary, Sir Michael Pitt. He released a statement saying, "In recent days, there have been reports in the press about a former royal household employee witnessing an incident involving a high-ranking member of the royal family. Speculation on this matter must cease. There are suggestions that the incident involved Prince Charles. This suggestion is false. The incident that the former employee claims to have witnessed did not occur." He went on to explain in detail that the "former employee" was a psychopath and an alcoholic whose testimony could not be trusted. The statement was immediately deemed inappropriate. Firstly, the royal press office usually does not comment on scandalous accusations made against members of the royal family. Secondly, no press office in the world denies information before it becomes public knowledge. In the case of Smith's accusations, this was not the situation: in accordance with a court decision, journalists were not allowed to report any details of the incident or the people involved.
The following day, former press secretary Mark Bolland unexpectedly revealed that a year ago, Sir Michael Pitt had asked him if Prince Charles was bisexual. Bolland categorically denied it. There was no need for Bolland to share this information. Furthermore, Sir Michael immediately stated that he had "never used the word 'bisexual' in his life." Bolland responded by saying that he was prepared to stand by his words.
It later became known that the Queen had approved Sir Michael's statement. It seems that neither the Queen nor the press secretary accurately assessed the consequences of their actions. In any case, the whole world started talking about Prince Charles having a romantic relationship with his servant. However, Camilla Parker-Bowles, Charles' partner, stated that "her prince could never do such a thing." Nevertheless, her words went unnoticed, as one could expect a woman defending her loved one. Simon Solari, another former servant of Prince Charles, who worked for Charles and Diana for 15 years, is seen as a more trustworthy witness. According to him, regardless of how much time Charles and his servant Michael Fawcett spent together, George Smith physically could not have witnessed what he claimed. "Palace rules are very similar to army rules. Each servant and worker has clearly defined responsibilities," says Solari. According to him, given Smith's position, he could not have been in the same room or even the same corridor as Prince Charles when there was at least one other person present.
A Questionable Conspiracy
It doesn't really matter who suggested to George Smith, an alcoholic suffering from manic-depressive disorder, to provide sworn testimony. Nor does it matter how much truth there is in his claims. They cannot be proven or disproven. Either way, it seems that the goal of the conspiracy has been achieved. No British experts dare to say when Prince Charles will officially declare that he will not claim the throne. However, they do not seem to doubt that such a statement will be made and that it will be a direct consequence of the current scandal. It is easy to see government officials as conspirators too: many believe that Prince Charles is the most inconvenient member of the royal family. Furthermore, his relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles would inevitably lead to a constitutional crisis, similar to the one that occurred in 1937 when King Edward VIII decided to marry a divorced commoner.
Finally, the scandal serves the opponents of the monarchy in Britain and former British dominions such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who still acknowledge Queen Elizabeth as their nominal head of state. Among them are influential individuals, such as Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire News Corp. His British newspapers provide detailed information about Charles' relationship with his servant, while his Australian publications publish opinion polls showing a growing number of supporters of a republican form of government in Australia since the scandal began.
Regardless of who exactly proposed that George Smith, an alcoholic suffering from a psychiatric disorder, testify under oath, and regardless of how much truth there is in his claims, one thing is clear: the scandal has served its purpose. No one in the British media seems to be willing to say when Prince Charles will officially announce that he will not claim the throne. However, they do not seem to doubt that such a statement will be made and that it will be a direct consequence of the current scandal.
