Endgame, p.12
Endgame, page 12
While I was writing this book, a rumor circulated in royal circles that some of these leaks might have come from a party deep inside the establishment who wanted to give Charles a knock before he officially took the throne. Though such rumors are verging on conspiracy theory, the timing makes sense. On June 11, 2022, news outlets revealed that Charles had privately criticized the British government over their plan to deport Rwandan asylum seekers back to their home country. A source (in this case, one of his senior staff) was given permission by Charles to brief The Times and the Daily Mail that the future King “was more than disappointed at the policy” and “thinks the government’s whole approach is appalling.”
For a royal, particularly the incoming King, to comment on government policy or function is strictly verboten (even if his empathetic view on the matter was particularly refreshing to hear from a senior royal). Keeping quiet means rising above, and, in a strange twist that only the British monarchy can produce, rising above provides a clear path to maintaining power. Only weeks after opening Parliament in the Queen’s stead, Charles opened his mouth on a political matter when he shouldn’t have. Sources say he wanted his views on the controversial asylum policy to be heard ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda, where he would represent his mother, later that month.
Charles brings to the throne his deeply held, often vocalized opinions and a lifetime of experience operating outside the rules—written or otherwise—that dictate the life and work of the sovereign. As a successful entrepreneur, philanthropist, and eco warrior, Charles had to play politics, and voicing enthusiastic opinions and generating new ideas that sometimes challenged the status quo were all part of this self-appointed position. The intentions were good, but for someone who should be observing the constitutional rule of not having an opinion on pretty much anything, he should have never entered the conversation in the first place.
His ambitions and dogged persistence have led to some overreach and meddling. During his time as prime minister, Tony Blair complained to the Palace about Charles’s interference on several New Labour issues, including the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan led by the United States and the United Kingdom (the prince famously asked to “halt” the invasion to honor Ramadan, claiming, “But Americans can do anything!”). In 2004, he famously wrote to then environment minister Elliot Morley that protecting Patagonian toothfish must become a “priority” so that endangered albatross could feast on them for survival. In her biography Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life, Sally Bedell Smith recounts how, at the height of her austere measures in 1985, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sternly reminded the prince she was in charge after he complained that because of her Tory policies, he would “inherit the throne of a divided Britain” (like Prince William today, Charles was conjuring up his reign long before it was even close to his turn). The Iron Lady’s riposte? “I run this country, not you, sir.”
Charles’s exhaustive history of interfering in political processes and lobbying was laid bare in May 2015 when his “Black Spider memos” (a reference to his spiderlike penmanship) were released to the world following a ten-year freedom of information battle by the Guardian. From his calls for homeopathic treatments to be made available via Britain’s National Health Service and a 2004 missive calling for Blair to cull badgers to help the country’s “lack of self-sufficiency” in producing meat and vegetables, to lobbying for the replacement of Lynx military helicopters (because U.K. troops lacked “necessary resources” in the Iraq War, he claimed), Charles has had an opinion on everything.
His busybody campaigning tapered off in his final years as the Prince of Wales, but those who pull the levers will not hesitate to remind Charles, overtly or perhaps in underhanded ways like leaks to the press, that he is far from welcome in the government’s legislative process or the establishment’s power-brokering. In other words, as King, there’s no seat for him at the table in the back room. And when he made those comments about Rwanda, there would have been plenty of figures within the political landscape eager to remind him to keep his apolitical beak out of their business—through whatever means necessary. Charles knows the rules but often still appears divided between what he can and cannot say.
Conspiracies over damaging leaks also extended to his own personal bubble. When some details of private written correspondence between Charles and daughter-in-law Meghan appeared in the Telegraph on April 21, 2023, there were worries that the tip-off had come from within. Though fingers of blame are often pointed in the Sussex direction, this was an exchange that both parties wanted to keep confidential—letters addressing Meghan’s concerns about unconscious racial bias in the royal family in the wake of the Oprah interview. The newspaper’s vague reporting, mostly centered on the existence of the written communication, made no mention of the damning details within them, but, said a Palace insider, “there was certainly discussion amongst [the team] that it could be a warning shot from someone . . . something to shake the King up ahead of the coronation.” Though they were personal messages, some Palace aides—one of whom later left on less than amicable terms—also caught sight of the letters as they were sent and received.
Charles had initially reached out to his daughter-in-law in spring 2021 to express his sadness over the huge distance between the two parties and his disappointment that the couple chose to go so public with their words. But what had upset him the most was Meghan’s disclosure that “several conversations” were had in the family, away from herself and Harry, that featured “concerns” over what color their unborn son Archie’s skin might be and “what that would mean or look like [for the Firm].” When speaking with Oprah, both Harry and Meghan chose to refrain from sharing who was involved in this exchange. (A representative for the couple would only go on to clarify that it was not the Queen nor Prince Philip.) “I think that would be very damaging to them,” Meghan said. But in the pages of these private letters, two identities were revealed. Laws in the United Kingdom prevent me from reporting who they were.
The King, said sources, wanted his response to make clear to Meghan that he felt there was no ill will or casual prejudice present when the two people had spoken about his future grandson. “He wanted to clear up something he felt strongly about,” said a royal insider. For Meghan—who had never used the words racist or racism in her descriptions of this event or in the letters—her bigger concern was, added the insider, “the way in which these conversations were had . . . Their tone . . . revealed lingering unconscious bias and ignorance within the family that needed to be addressed.” The letters, described a second source, were “a respectful back and forth” but “serious.” They added, “I don’t know if either saw completely eye to eye in the end, but there was at least a feeling that both had been heard.” Since then, said a source close to the two families, the pair have had pleasant, if occasional, exchanges. “There are no hard feelings about this specific incident, but there is distance, and everything else remains unaddressed,” said the source. For the Sussexes’ part, though communication with Charles—who declined an invite to granddaughter Lilibet’s March 3, 2023, christening in California due to scheduling conflicts—is infrequent, they “still keep him in the loop on their family life, sending new photos of the children.”
* * *
Charles’s divided nature sits at the heart of his many family issues. As a child, he was considered a sensitive soul—a quiet boy who preferred books and art to sports and pranks. The age-old story applies here: because of his sensitivity and dreamy nature, Charles was bullied and teased at the strict and demanding Gordonstoun school in Scotland, where he boarded for five years. As a young man, he emerged from his cocoon a bit of a playboy. He took to the finer things in life, happily accepting the boons that his privileged position afforded him. He cut a figure on the social scene, wearing only the finest clothes—Turnbull & Asser shirts, bespoke Savile Row suits, and Anderson & Sheppard tweed. Not an athlete by any stretch, Charles, in an effort to complete his courtly image, stepped out of his comfort zone and took to the polo fields. It is here where Charles met the love of his life, Camilla Shand.
Enter sixteen-year-old Diana Spencer. A darling of the aristocracy who intrigued anyone who caught a glimpse of her, the on-paper version of Diana was perfect for Charles, who was twenty-eight at the time. The institution got one look at her and quickly decided they could easily transform her into what Dame Hilary Mantel later called a “royal body . . . carriers of a blood line.” The monarchical machine rejected Camilla and slotted Diana into the system to produce a proper princess for their narrative and approved her as the next delivery mechanism for the royal genes.
This sent Charles into decades of internal conflict between matters of the heart and the demands of duty. His heart wanted Camilla, but the heir’s role demanded Diana. The young prince decided to have both. Sometime after saying his “I dos” to Diana at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1981, Charles initiated a decades-long affair with the woman the institution dismissed. The affair became the Firm’s worst-kept secret and everyone knew it was wrong. Charles and Diana’s tortured marriage was front-page fodder, but for all its luridness, it did result in the required heir and spare. Diana’s work was done. Those in power wanted her to step in line, tone down the glamour, and get out of the spotlight. A devoted mother and the “queen of people’s hearts,” she would go on to do anything but that.
Charles’s reputation never fully recovered. Although he has occasionally made forays into the public’s good graces, recent polls still reveal that large swathes of the public continue to have a negative opinion of him for how he treated his former wife during their union and her short life. It’s why his second marriage to Camilla passed by so quietly. No fanfare, no televised nuptials, just a private 2005 civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall in the presence of their families. Because of her dedication to her role as the head of the Church of England (which discourages divorce), the Queen felt it was best not to attend the ceremony. Her one bit of advice to her son ahead of the April 9 nuptials was simple: don’t rub it in people’s faces.
The leaks about his finances and ongoing charity scandals only compound the resentment and disapproval expressed by many about his role as King. As for the institution and the establishment, there are some within it who still see him as a waffler and a dilettante. He remains a question mark to the bureaucrats and éminences grises who privately and publicly run Britain’s economic interests and maintain the country’s social order.
Even though the heir played a role in Prince Andrew’s royal demotion, he is torn here, too. Understandably, he cares for his brother, so much so that a close source said that during the most heightened moments of Andrew’s downfall, Charles was tearful over fears for the shamed duke’s mental health. Charles has long advocated for a slimmer monarchy with fewer working royals, but he didn’t imagine it would become a reality as a result of two things beyond his control: his brother’s public humiliation and his son’s exit. What could have been a powerful opening gambit for the new King now simply looks like a resigned defensive move to protect what’s left on the board.
And what’s left on the chessboard, with the exception of the Waleses, isn’t much of a side. The older generation have less energy, but the bigger problem is their removed air of entitlement. At the helm of the crew of working royals—Queen Camilla, Princess Anne, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, the Duke of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, and Princess Alexandra—is the King himself, who as the heir was saddled with the unfortunate sobriquets “Prince of Wails” and “Pampered Prince.” The latter nickname emerged after staff complained to various journalists about Charles’s outrageous service demands and his extravagant lifestyle. The King lives a life of luxury and comfort that is even alien to other members of the royal family—a throwback to monarchs of the past. Those who know him, serve him, and write about him often compare him to Louis XIV, the French monarch who transformed a hunting lodge into one of the most extravagant palaces in the world. Versailles’s enduring opulence is testament to the Sun King’s commitment to living large. Charles may not own anything to rival Versailles, but Dumfries House (one of six multimillion-pound homes he owns across Britain) is no country cabin.
The details about the cosseted King’s habits and way of life suggest a disconnect. Even his late mother, once one of the wealthiest women in the country, repeatedly complained about Charles’s extravagantly luxurious lifestyle. We all know he’s a man of taste, but some of the particulars leave many gobsmacked. His repair-and-rewear approach to dressing may be the height of eco-friendliness and sustainability, but the multiple changes during the day that four valets prepare for him and help him put on is far from humble. You may have already heard how he likes his soft-boiled eggs just so (four minutes—no more, no less, or they’ll be sent back to the kitchen in infantile fury), but did you hear about the one-thousand-thread-count bed linen (that must be perfectly steamed) he insists on traveling with? There have been reports of temper tantrums at night as well: if the prince’s pajamas aren’t pressed, sources have claimed, there is hell to pay. Every dandy loves his shoes, and Charles is no different. The King has the same environmentally conscious approach to his footwear as his clothes (never throw them out, always have a cobbler bring them back to life), but his particularness about their shoelaces is a little more unique. When laces get even the smallest bit threadbare, a staff member must quickly switch them out with a fresh, ironed pair. There is even a rumor (one that, surprisingly, sources have confirmed) that Charles likes to have someone squeeze exactly one inch of toothpaste onto his toothbrush for him ahead of his bedtime routine. Paging Michael Fawcett! But it doesn’t end there. The cherry on top of this ridiculous extravagance: the toothpaste must come from a “crested silver dispenser.”
In an attempt to lower the chances of further embarrassing coverage, Charles has laid new groundwork for even friendlier media relationships during his reign. Leading up to his ascension, Charles and Camilla never stopped ingratiating themselves to media figures and journalists, leaning on aides to leak stories to maintain a positive image in the press. Hiring a former co–deputy editor of the Daily Mail (and, before that, the Mail on Sunday) to lead the Palace’s in-house media team was no coincidence. Tobyn Andreae may have had zero PR experience before taking the job of head of communications, but with twenty-five years working on tabloids, he quickly ensured that the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sunday Times have had a steady feed of positive stories pumped their way since the beginning of his tenure in July 2022.
Charles has no problem doing the job himself, either. In February 2020, he invited a handful of trusted royal reporters to Dumfries House in Scotland for an overnight stay, a grand dinner, and plenty of schmoozing. With a chance to tour his sprawling estate, Charles hoped the trip would help keep Britain’s most influential newspapers onside during the drama surrounding Harry and Meghan’s exit from working royal life.
As expensive bottles of Laphroaig whisky (from the only single malt distillery with a Royal Warrant) were poured and laughter echoed down the historic house’s Pewter Corridor, Charles winked to one of the media guests and said, “This is all off the record, of course.” Knowing full well this is never really the case when dealing with most royal correspondents (there’s a pattern of sticking it in one’s back pocket and then putting it in a story as a “royal source” after enough time has passed), he went on to pull aside one of the guests to explain his position on the Sussexes, who had moved to North America just a month earlier: “I made sure they were taken care of [when they left] . . . Their stubbornness doesn’t make it easy.” While this was hardly a bombshell, anecdotes like these are just the kind of nuggets needed to court favor and find their way into positive articles about him.
With a series of strategically placed “off the cuff” remarks during that period of time, Charles and his aides did their bit to help ensure he emerged from the public family drama unscathed. Shortly after the media get-together (and no, I was not invited—at this point the Palace was already getting jitterish about the release of Finding Freedom), details about how much money he was giving his younger son and how he had done all he could for the Sussexes made their way into the papers. Mission accomplished.
Charles may be adept at wielding the media to settle his scores, but it’s evidence that he’s bringing old habits and coarse practices to the top job—a refined one that the Queen emphatically insisted was to remain untarnished from such scheming. We may have heard snippets about her life from aides and friends over the years, but it was extremely rare to hear her thoughts and feelings via source quotes. (As a friend of the late monarch once told me, “Many of the ‘sources’ you see in the papers claiming to know her innermost thoughts are clearly made up.”) It also demonstrates a recklessness on the King’s part: a logrolling relationship with powerful players in the media is a treacherous one. Depending on prevailing trends, capricious opinions, and, of course, ratings and viewership, the very same media he uses to prop himself up can just as easily bring him down if it guarantees clicks and views.
This points to a single important issue when it comes to King Charles. While it was never controversial to support the Queen, it’s not the same with Charles. After a long life in the public eye, and one made up of some questionable decisions, Charles was never going to have an easy reign. For much of his adult life, he has been at the center of controversies, both fairly and unfairly. The duplexity of the man intrigues and confounds. His messy trials and tribulations are all too human. The new King, who is supposed to stand above to represent the royal family’s solidarity, is in a heartbreaking war with his own son. The reality is that to many who watched as Charles was anointed with holy oil on May 6, 2023, to confirm him as the head of the Church of England, the man in front of the Archbishop of Canterbury was still a philandering husband and an unwise collector of bags of money.
