Charles the Tragic Figure

People often think I dislike Prince Charles when they hear me espouse my views on him, but it's not true. I don't dislike him. I feel sorry for him. To me, he is like a tragic character in a Shakespeare play because everything we all see so clearly completely eludes him. His heart is in the right place, but his perception is so skewed that he has no idea that his actions continue to prove him self-absorbed and out of touch with the rest of the world. The one person who often helped him sort things out, his great uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, died in 1979 and it seems poor Charles has been unable to get out of his own way ever since.

The most blatant example of his oblivion is his relationship with Camilla Shand Parker-Bowles. Uncle Louis tells Charles that Camilla would be the perfect mistress. He starts an affair with her that has continued for nearly 30 years through both their marriages contributing in great part to their subsequent divorces. Charles continues to have Camilla for his mistress insisting he has no intention of marrying her. He claims that Camilla is a non-negotiable relationship in his life. The rest of us see that relationship as a Chinese water torture, drip, drip, dripping into our consciousness. Every time we think we've put it out of our minds, drip, it's back in. Every time we think we can be no more disgusted by the sordid details, drip, he hits us with another tawdry incident to chronicle.

Two that pop into my mind are his story about his sons wanting Camilla and her children on their summer vacation or having his mother, the Queen, speak to her at a family barbecue. How he can believe that his sons welcome the woman who for years was the bane of their beloved mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, existence? It is beyond me. What I, and most people I've spoken to, see when we look at Camilla is Charles breaking the commandments, thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. We see two selfish people who have disregarded everything and everyone for this relationship. We believe his sons tolerate Camilla for their father's sake. We believe that he had no right to drag Her Majesty into this relationship. Charles is one of the few who don't see it that way.

The papers are always teeming with stories to reinforce my theory about Charles. For example, earlier this month he began a scholarship for an ethnic student to study architecture in honor of Stephen Lawrence, a victim of racial violence who had aspired to become an architect. This seems unbelievable to me because Charles criticizes modern architect's designs and has called them a "tide of uglification that threatens to engulf us all". That same day it was reported that Charles joined visitors on a Buckingham Palace tour where he was quoted as saying, "It's better than going to the dome." A very modern structure that he abhors and has called a "monstrous blancmange" and a "waste of money". What will he say to this graduate when he comes up with an energy efficient building that looks more like it belongs on Mars than in the English countryside? He will be crushed because he is hoping to turn out an architect who will "design buildings and places of quality, interest and beauty". Beauty, being in the eye of the beholder… We all see it coming. He has no clue.

This week the papers have been running articles about Charles turning down petrol to fuel his vehicles in order to carry out his public duties. The reason he gave for refusing the petrol - he was declining special treatment, his visits to farmers were not an emergency service. Again I'm left shaking my head as earlier this month we saw photographs of Charles and his paramour in a borrowed luxury yacht cruising around the Mediterranean. Surely that yacht used far more fuel in an hour than his automobile would use in a day. Was that trip an "emergency service"? The loan of the yacht was an example of special treatment, why didn't he take it in this instance? What thought did he give to all the farmers who were waiting to see him? I'm sure he was trying to set a good example, but again, he doesn't see the contradiction of his behavior.

The other thing I noted in this week's papers is the reemergence of the liberal democrats taking action to end the Monarchs role as Defender of the Faith. They brag that Charles is fully supportive of this initiative. Why wouldn't he be, it is his obstacle to marrying Camilla and becoming King. Does he really believe that we think this is a noble gesture on his part to help modernize the monarchy? Why isn't he thinking Queen Elizabeth who swore in her 21st birthday speech that the whole of her life no matter how long or short would be devoted to the service of her people and who will celebrate 50 years on the throne in 2002? What of the oath she swore at her coronation to Defend the Faith? Why should she lose her position as head of the Church of England? So he can legitimize his relationship without jeopardizing his ascent to the throne? I hope not!

Why not follow the example of another of his great uncles, David, Edward VII, who also had a non-negotiable relationship in his life? He abdicated, as he couldn't speak the vows with what he believed would be a lie on his lips. He wouldn't hear of dragging his feet in a matter, whose resolution threatened to divide the nation, disrupt parliament and perhaps alter the constitution and the monarchy that he so respected. He behaved nobly by doing what he believed, in the end, would be best for all. Charles appears to be oblivious to the divisiveness he is causing and in no hurry to put an end to it. He clearly believes that it's just a matter of time until he is able to do what he wants to do. Supporting such legislation will assure that he does. Drip, drip, drip…

The real tragedy is, if he weren't so clueless he would be proclaimed a Renaissance Man. Just look at the positive things he has accomplished in his life. His Prince's Trust has done much good for the youth of his country, to keep small business and its entrepreneurs thriving. He is a staunch advocate for the environment, natural farming and healthy eating. He has a love of gardening and has earned respect in this area. He is a supporter of the arts. He is interested in the preservation of some of England's historic landmarks participating in the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire of 1992. He is well read. The refusal of petrol is a good example that he does seem to try. If his Uncle Louis were only here to explain it to him we would be calling him just that, Charles the Renaissance Man. Instead, I fear, we will always think of him as Charles the tragic Prince of Wales who couldn't get out of his own way - and that does make me pity him.

Thanks to everyone who wrote about our Bonny Prince Harry - he really is something very special. It is certainly tragic that his mother, Diana, isn't here to see what a fine young man he has grown into. On that note, I'd like to address the many letters I received reprimanding me for not mentioning his mother by name in his birthday column. And - as one particularly exasperated reader noted - not even where I quoted her. It was certainly an error in judgement on my part. I intentionally tried to keep her mention low key as I plan to write a column in the future regarding Diana's parenting and the positive impact it continues to have on the two Princes and I worried about being redundant. Clearly, I went a bit overboard in not mentioning her by name when discussing a life where she has left a most indelible mark. Thank you for setting me straight!

Next week I would like to write about Prince Edward as he has just won the Bette Davis award here in the United States. All the best,