| Why We Should All Support William, Whatever His Future Holds |
|
|
|
| Written by Joanne Leyland | ||||||||||||||||
| Tuesday, 17 January 2006 | ||||||||||||||||
 The odd scandal aside such as the release of the 'Camillagate tapes' on this very day in 1993, or the image of Harry dressed as a Nazi (just your usual run of the mill events in any family) January is always a quiet time in the House of Windsor, with the royals usually hidden away for most of the month in their respective homes: the Queen at Sandringham, Charles and Camilla at Highgrove or Scotland, where they're spending increasing amounts of time at the Queen Mother's former home, Birkhall. And, of course, let's not forget poor William, trying his best to adapt to the rigours of Army life at Sandhurst, more of which in a moment.And so it is that, with little fact appearing in the newspapers (some would no doubt muse 'when does fact ever appear in the papers?!'), gossip and speculation is running just a little rampant. The media have become excited by the appearance of a story claiming Buckingham Palace will release a statement in the Spring announcing that, as she reaches her 80th birthday on April 21st (and with Prince Philip turning 85 on June 10th) the Queen will be handing over more responsibility, especially gruelling overseas tours, to her son and heir Charles...a move which would, of course, lead to a significantly greater public profile for his second wife, Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall. This kind of speculation has become cyclical: every time the Queen or the heir to the throne celebrates a landmark birthday, the 'abdication' talk kicks in. Remember November 1998, when Charles felt compelled to release a statement officially declaring that, despite a claim in a seemingly well-sourced ITV documentary, he didn't wish his mother to relinquish the throne in his favour? Almost seventy years after King Edward VIII 'deserted' his duty for "the woman I love", abdication continues to be a heinous crime in the eyes of the Royal Family. Some, myself included, would argue that at least Edward had the decency to abdicate rather than (as some members of the Establishment no doubt wished him to do) marry a woman solely for the purpose of siring an heir, whilst at the same time continuing an affair with his married mistress. However, such a comment would likely fall on deaf ears of many of those within the higher echelons of society. It's also likely to result in a few Comments at the bottom of this page! Meanwhile, William's fate at Sandhurst has already resulted in several stories. The poor lad has only been at the military college a week and already we've been told how he's sleeping on the floor so as to enjoy a few more precious moments of sleep (his reasoning is that if he makes his bed before going to sleep, he doesn't need to rise quite so early for the daily inspection...see, that University education wasn't a waste after all as that's brains for you!).  A rather cheeky minx over at The Internet Forum has already joked that they'd have thought William's girlfriend Kate Middleton would have helped rid him of his habit, which stems from his student days, of sleeping late, the couple having apparently spent most of Christmas and the New Year essentially living together. In all seriousness, though, I mention the situation with William now because I've read on royal boards and heard debate and discussion as to William's future. Some seem to think the young Prince will (in my words) 'do a Prince Edward' and sensationally quit the Army. This in turn would mean Clarence House would have to find a way of removing William from the military without causing any serious damage to his reputation. All of which made me ponder 'what if'... What if William did discover he simply wasn't happy in the Army? After all, he's only human and the restrictions of Army life certainly don't suit everyone. We've been here before with William, the steadying influence of Kate having been the only reason he didn't pack up his suitcase and quit St. Andrews University at the very start of his degree course back in 2001. After all, we've been told William, unlike the far more outgoing Harry, was never keen on becoming a soldier, wanting instead to follow in his mother's footsteps by undertaking charity work. I have to admit, I did find it somewhat confusing, the fact that so close to William's entrance into Sandhurst, Clarence House released three separate statements announcing that the Prince will be taking up senior roles with the homeless charity Centrepoint, the wildlife preservation charity Tusk, Tusk and (not so much charity as a welcome role for the soccer-mad) the Presidency of The Football Association. It did cross my mind (and perhaps you too) as to whether these charity appointments had come about as a kind of safety rope for William to cling to if his Army plans fall through? After all, if he does continue on the military path, when will the Prince have the time (or the energy) to totally devote himself to these causes? Not for the first (or last?) time in his life, one man in particular has been 'blamed' for railroading a member of the family into possibly doing something about which they were unsure the man in question being Prince Philip. The Queen may rule over us, but it is Philip - and Philip alone - who rules over "The Family". Rightly or wrongly and I tend to think wrongly the Duke of Edinburgh has taken the brunt of the blame (in a message somewhat cruelly delivered to the world by his own son in the 1994 Dimbleby biography) for Charles's fateful decision to make Lady Diana Spencer his wife...this despite the fact that, at the time of his engagement to Diana, announced on February 24th 1981 (but feeling only like yesterday) the Prince of Wales was a fully grown, 32-year-old man of the world who surely didn't need or expect his father to make up his mind on this, the most important decision of his life?! Like him or loathe him (me? I quite like him, much preferring his blunt and opinionated manner to the indecision so frequently shown, with disastrous results, by his weaker son), Prince Philip has undertaken over 58 years of often tedious and monotonous work on behalf of we, the public who, to the wily Prince Philip, must often seem so ungrateful. In Philip's case, it quite literally is a thankless task. His death will likely see the the media go overboard with often hinted at allegations surrounding his private life. He himself admitted to his biographer and friend Gyles Brandreth that he's seen the obituaries which the newspapers have prepared and is fully aware that they claim what he assured everyone are inaccuracies concerning his friendships with women other than his wife. Sadly for him, his claim that he couldn't have committed adultery as he's been surrounded by bodyguards since 1947 has been torn to shreds by the activities of his equally well protected son and daughters-in-law. However, years later I have no doubt that the more serious constitutional historians will promote his role as unofficial Consort as having been a success and one reason why the reign of Elizabeth II will go down as one of the greatest (well, up until around 1992 that is!). He may have once bewailed the fact that he's nothing more than "a bloody amoeba" (when his wife initially refused to allow their children to take his name) but publicly at least Philip has been a rock solid support for his much more reserved wife. We are all repeatedly shown the times when the likes of Diana or the Queen Mother enjoyed interacting with the public, but it is rare that we are shown the footage that is often shot of Prince Philip leaning over barriers to help a child climb over so they can get close to the Queen to give her some flowers or a present. The image of an old man in a suit and tie showing kindness to a member of the public isn't as powerful or appealing as the image of a glamorous royal lady showing similar compassion to a child. But I digress ('nothing new there', I hear you say?!). William adores and respects his grandfather, as was signalled by the young Prince's agreement to walk behind Diana's coffin only if the aging Duke walked by his side. Considering the two are so close, maybe the reports are true that Philip sat his 23-year-old grandson down for a talk (or a lecture, depending on which paper you read) on the future direction of his life. Despite his concerns and his request to Harry that he stop reminding him just how tough the first five, closeted weeks at Sandhurst will be, William has indeed now entered the prestigious military academy. However, I sincerely hope it isn't only because of his grandfather's influence that William awakes to yet another day within the undoubtedly gruelling military system into which he has, for now at least, signed away his life. However much good work Philip has done in his life, I tend to believe it's time the new generation of Royals were allowed to find their own feet with regard to their public roles. Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating that William and Harry should be allowed to enter full public life only at their discretion...truth be told, both young men would likely wish they could deter forever the day their names go down on a regular basis on the Court Circular. My own view is that the two Princes were on the right path when, from an early age, they appeared both publicly and privately by the side of their mother as she undertook her charity work. Sadly, following her death we rarely if at all heard of William or Harry undertaking such visits to homeless charities or hospitals.  No doubt some will argue that we didn't hear about the Princes undertaking such work because, after the media-savvy (many saw it as 'manipulative') Diana had gone, details of such 'private' visits weren't purposely divulged to the ever-eager Press. I don't believe this is the case. Of course, it was only right and proper that they should both be allowed to mourn for their mother and spend time away from public life. However, it is a fact that the "seeds" (as Diana explained it in her Panorama interview) which the Princess sowed early into the souls of her children were, for a time at least, allowed to stay buried for far too long. Perhaps this is why Harry, for a time, went off the rails...he simply had nothing to do? But that was then and this is now. Yes, both Princes have undertaken some very high profile charity work. However, it surely isn't enough for them to only do such work every, let us say, six months, at which point the Clarence House spin doctors send e-mails to all the major media outlets inviting them to send along cameras? William and Harry may have the greatest desire in the world to do good works and call me naive if you wish but I do genuinely believe both Princes do want to help wherever and however they can but even as a royalist, I have to admit that events such as Harry's visit to Lesotho can appear rather like a cynical publicity stunt, simply because for around one week we are blitzed with images of the 'caring Prince' (again, I believe Harry genuinely is 'caring') but once the cameras are turned off, we hear no more for another few months until, once more, the Palace spin-machine once more comes to life. It often feels as if the young Princes are themselves manipulated by the Clarence House spin doctors. If there's a 'scandal' surrounding Charles and/or Camilla it can feel as if a Palace aide thinks "oh I know, let's wheel out William and/or Harry!" The Princes sometimes appear akin to the Royal Family's "quick fix" bandage. Personally speaking, although I understand why the older generation of the Royal Family and their advisers continue to believe that a future King has no option but to spend time in the Armed Forces, I had hoped that William would (as was reported late last Autumn) follow his heart and say a firm but polite 'no' to military service and undertake instead a full role as HRH Prince William of Wales, meeting and greeting the very people - us - whose support is essential to the future of the monarchy. As it is now, and for the next goodness knows how long, two of the House of Windsor's brightest hopes (and yes, despite all his troubles, I do believe Harry has the makings of a fine and compassionate Prince, if only someone would offer him some love, support and guidance) are going to be hidden away from public view. It depresses me to think that maybe, just maybe, Prince William has agreed to join the Army purely because it offers him a reason to hide away from the spotlight. If this is true then it could be argued that he is, in fact, hiding from us? So what would happen if William did decide to throw in the towel and return to the comforts (and restrictions too) of Palace life? Would it really be such a 'sensational' story? Personally, I think not. An integral concept of monarchy is that each generation plays a pivotal role in the life of the nation, Commonwealth and its people. I believe it's unwise that the very two people who could help reinvigorate an institution so battered by the scandals that have befallen it in recent years are, for some time to come, going to be out of our reach (and vice versa). Next time the Royal Family are standing on the balcony of Buckingham Palace, take a long hard look and consider how aged the family now look, as seen primarily from the eyes of a young person: we have the Queen (almost 80), Prince Philip (84), Prince Charles (58), Camilla (58), Edward and Sophie (40 and 41 respectively). Surely it has to be a concern that, for the foreseeable future, the younger generation are hugely under represented in official royal life? I say 'official' as, in this instance, I'm not including Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie who are yet to undertake official, Court Circular listed engagements or Peter and Zara Phillips, whose lives look set to take them away from the inner sanctum of the institution into which they were born. Peter and Zara's primary 'royal' role will be as behind-the-scenes supporters of their cousins, William and Harry as they embark on a lifetime of official duty. Remember, it is the wish of Prince Charles that, in time, the Royal Family consists only of the immediate family of the monarch. It would therefore appear that, in around a decade, Peter and Zara Phillips will be as important to the institution of monarchy as, for instance, David Linley or Lady Helen Taylor are today: celebrity more than royalty. However, on the flip side of the question, it has to be remembered that, God willing, Prince William Arthur Philip Louis will one day rule as HM King William The Fifth, a role which will see him become Head of The Armed Forces. The argument goes that surely it wouldn't be good for morale or for simple PR purposes (as let's be honest here, those royals do like to wear their uniforms and medals!) if the military is 'ruled' over by a man who has not served for even the shortest amount of time? Why should the young men and women of Britain and the Commonwealth be willing to give up their lives and go into battle in the name of a King who couldn't handle even a short amount of pain and inconvenience in the prime of his life? Men of William's age and younger are currently bravely serving in such war zones as Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like William, are forced to spend an inordinate amount of time away from their wives or girlfriends. Again, though, I don't think this would be a problem. Has the Queen been any less of a monarch because she didn't serve her country in the Armed Forces (yes, I know she was a member of the A.T.S. but, as worthy as this spell of military service was to the-then Princess Elizabeth, it did take place at the very end of the War and she never was in any danger of going into battle)? If next week or next month it were to be announced that William, "with regret" (a favourite phrase of PR maestros), has decided that his future lies away from the Armed Services, how would you react? Would it be with anger or dismay, as happened in 1987 when the Queen's youngest son quit the Royal Marines, a truly mentally and physically demanding regiment and one which (although they wouldn't admit it) the majority of the journalists who condemned - and, in some instances, still condemn Edward as "pathetic" or "soft" would likely run a mile from (that's if your average Fleet Street journalist could even run a mile, thanks to their overly close relationship with alcohol and cigarettes!). Speaking as a younger person, I sincerely believe the monarchy must start appealing to the modern generation, not by making rare appearances before the cameras espousing the latest charitable cause, and certainly not by simply being seen with a cigarette in one hand and a beer in the other, or coming out of the latest trendy London nightclub. The way to appeal is to get out there and meet and greet the very people who will be there when William ascends to the throne. It is only if William gets out there now or in the very near future that we can make sure that the throne will still be there for William in X number of years. People, especially young people, complain that the monarchy is old fashioned and out of touch. I do wonder whether, in this instance where we're led to believe William was "made" to go into the Army, the Royal Family wasn't once more falling into the same old trap which has already led to so much trouble and, indeed, personal heartbreak? We've already seen what happened when similar orders were given to other members of William's family: when Margaret was "made" to renounce Peter Townsend; when Charles was "made" to marry Diana; when Edward was "made" to join the Royal Marines. Perhaps it's time that, instead of looking to the past for guidance, the Royal Family should instead start living in the present, from which they can then look instead towards the future, primarily the future happiness of William and Harry. Duty is all very good, of course it is it is paramount to the survival of the monarchy that the individual family members have a sense of duty within their very soul but duty isn't everything. If one day you do switch on your television and hear the news that Prince William has "sensationally quit the Army", ignore the apoplectic reactions of the media and just hope the Prince, unlike so many others in his family, has made this decision so as to first and foremost find happiness. After all, only if William is happy in his private life will he be truly happy and content with his official public life. You only need to look at Prince Charles to see this is true: had he initially discovered the kind of happiness we are allowed to discover in our own private lives, wouldn't the Prince of Wales have today been a much more loved future King than he is? And wouldn't he have been a much happier and contented public figure than, for at least 16 years, he was? If William discovers in three weeks time that he can't live without Kate Middleton at his side, or what seems from the outside to be a strong, healthy and happy relationship between this couple, then he as William Windsor, not the Prince should be allowed to quit the Army. If he also decides that he wishes to follow his heart and undertake charitable work, then again, he must be allowed to do that. Prince William is possibly one of the brightest royals of recent generations. We should nurture him, not force him to do something purely because it's what his ancestors did. He should, as Diana wished, be allowed to make his own path in life, to allow his soul to 'sing freely', as was the late Princess's wish. Over thirty years ago, Prince Charles was ordered into the Navy. 'Duty' separated him from the woman we now recognise to have been the love of his life. The old adage of 'duty, duty, duty' is all very well, but look what it did to William's parents. If William ever does wish to leave the Army then he should be allowed to do so with his head held high. Considering what we (collectively the public, the media, the monarchy) have put his parents through, all in the name of 'duty', surely we must hope and pray the same never happens to William and that he is allowed to make his own path to the throne? After all, William may be our last hope of seeing the monarchy led once more into a bright new age. A NOTE: If you've finally reached the end of this (as boy, do I go on!) I'd like you to know that I wrote this opinion piece in the hope that it will initiate some good, hopefully serious (but that doesn't mean we can't have some fun) debate between us all. However, I don't want this site to consist purely of the 'thoughts of Joanne' (not least because I'm probably due to run out very soon!). If you feel strongly about something royal related - anything at all - and would like to write a piece, however long or short, for exposure here on The Royalist website, then please don't hesitate to e-mail me. We'll give a set of region free royal DVDs to everyone who wishes to write a piece for what will be a regularly updated Opinion corner where we can all enjoy some debate on matters royal (that's a polite way of saying 'argue with each other'!). Comment on this article
Leave your comments (Show/Hide Form)
Other Visitors Comments
|
||||||||||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
