| SUNDAY PAPERS: A Royal Round-Up |
|
|
|
| Written by Joanne Leyland | |||||||
| Sunday, 29 January 2006 | |||||||
|
The Mail on Sunday claims the Queen has imposed two key members of her staff —
Andrew Farquharson and Sir Malcolm Ross — on the Prince of Wales. In
light of recent reports, this could be significant, the implication being that the move is a further sign of how much the Queen wants to see Charles (and therefore Camilla
too) take on more responsibility in the day-to-day running of the
monarchy. Such news could also herald a strengthening of the famously bad relationship between
the monarch's household and that of her son and heir. However, on the other hand it could also be argued that it is a welcome sign that the Queen, who is known to bury her head in the sand when it comes to "the family", is at last attempting to bring some control to the chaos that has reigned within her son's often controversial and, at times, scandal-ridden Court.  The article by journalist Sarah Oliver also makes significant mention of one of the Prince's most loyal and controversial aides: Michael Fawcett. It's being claimed that the move of the two afore-mentioned aides to Clarence House could be seen as an attempt to usurp the importance of Fawcett, who it's reported is earning an annual pay packet of around £200,000 from Charles and Camilla (a wage that is, incredulously, far more than the Prime Minister, Tony Blair....and very likely over ten times more than your average, notoriously underpaid Palace servant). However, a Clarence House official is quoted at length dismissing any suggestion that a power shift is underway, telling the newspaper: "Sir
Malcolm Ross and Andrew Farquharson were approached by this office to
offer them jobs without any reference to the Queen’s Household – until
they had accepted them. The initiative was entirely ours, to find a
replacement for Kevin Knott [former master of Charles’s Household] and
to fill a new post which has been vacant for some months. We looked to
the Queen’s Household because they had some excellent candidates with
relevant experience (Sir Malcolm Ross was already retiring from his
position) It is as simple as that."
"Their appointments have nothing to do with speculative reports – which are wrong – about the Prince of Wales taking on more of the Queen’s duties, and there is no link to Her Majesty’s 80th birthday in April. Speculation has always mentioned the Prince of Wales taking on more of the Queen’s duties such as overseas tours, investitures and Government papers – all areas for which the Master of the Household’s department has no responsibility. This department oversees personal and domestic staff residences, gardens and the home farm at Highgrove, social responsibility, energy efficiency, security matters and public and private entertaining." This statement appears to hold no sway with Charles and Diana's former chef. Carolyn Robb, who recently alleged Camilla asked her to make a lunch for her friends on the day of Diana's funeral, foresees trouble ahead: "The
Palace is all about traditional regimes and discipline in sticking to
them. Clarence House is much more about doing a bit of everything. It
has its own style and much more modernity and people are given credit
for their skills. Whereas at the Palace if you sit behind a desk
wearing a tie you are automatically considered superior to someone in
chef’s whites."
"I do think a greater degree of control is required in the way the Prince’s Household is run but people from Buckingham Palace are historically met with resistance because Clarence House staff feel their way of doing things could be under threat. With the new appointments I imagine they feel their lives are about to change immeasurably." Prince Charles will perhaps be relieved to know that the more interesting revelations about his household end there (for this week at least!). The other barely significant story concerning the future King relates to the news in the Sunday Telegraph that the sartorially fastidious Prince has shocked the fashion world by casting aside his four thousand pound tailored suits in favour of made-to-measure versions which cost around half the price. One person who would have taken a particular interest in this news was Diana's step-grandmother, Barbara Cartland, who died in May 2000.  In the mid-1990s, the romantic novelist publicly criticised Prince Charles's wardrobe, focusing on one particular suit, a cream number which Charles repeatedly wore for overseas tours and which Cartland condemned as always looking creased. Suffice to say, society tailors are not happy with the Prince's move, one telling the Telegraph: "I think what has happened is very sad. He was
photographed in November with Camilla and President and Mrs Bush
outside the White House and, almost 20 years ago to
the day, he was photographed in the same place with Diana and President and Mrs Reagan. The change is so apparent. Twenty
years ago — when he was wearing Anderson & Sheppard — he looked so
elegant. But in the photograph two months ago he looked bloody awful in
a made-to-measure suit. To fit the human body is not the hardest job in
the world but character and style — that's the challenge." Elsewhere in the Sunday papers, there's an attempt to cause controversy over the inheritance of the Duke of Gloucester. Sadly, the Duke and his wife, the Danish-born and always dignified Birgitte, rarely if ever make the headlines for the hard work they undertake. However, as is the case with all public figures, the Press are quick to latch onto anything which may be deemed 'scandalous'. And so it is today. In a large article given great prominence on page three, the Sunday Times reports that the Duke — a grandson of King George V, his father having been Prince Henry of Gloucester — has sold off many of his late father's personal possessions in what has been dubbed the biggest royal sale since the February 1998 auction of the contents of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's Paris home. The 'controversy' concerns the fact that only now, 32 years after Prince Henry died, has his son finally paid inheritance tax. This is because complex tax laws means a widow is exempt from tax on any inheritance from her husband. When Prince Henry died in 1974, Princess Alice inherited everything, including the family home of Barnwell Manor in Northamptonshire. Because the Princess (born Lady Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas) only died in October 2004 — having become the longest living royal — present day, lower taxes are placed on the royal inheritance. Therefore, the allegation is that the Duke, who has earned around five million pounds from the auction, has avoided paying the much higher rate of tax in place in 1974.  In a rare comment to the media, the Duke of Gloucester is quoted as saying: "I couldn’t have afforded to pay it {inheritance tax} in 1974. With the sale, the more that is made, the more goes to the government. There can't be many people left for whom those tax rates apply." Meanwhile, there's sad news about a man whose name many royal watchers will recognise from the years of prolonged discussions which took place in the mid-1990s between the estranged Prince and Princess of Wales. The man who guided Diana through the most turbulent and saddest time of her life - her divorce, which was finalised in August 1996 — has died at the age of 90. Lord Victor Mishcon, who enjoyed a distinguished career at the heart of the legal profession, passed away at his West London home on Friday, having been ill for some time. Diana was regularly photographed outside the London offices of the Mishcon de Reya law firm, which the former Shadow Lord Chancellor formed in 1988, having merged his company with part of Bartletts de Reya. Although it was her personal lawyer, Anthony Julius, who was the public face of Diana's divorce negotiations, Lord Mishcon was a close ally and friend of the late Princess and wasn't afraid to offer his support when other members of the Establishment were keeping their distance from the increasingly isolated Princess.  In 1996 — the very year Charles and Diana divorced — Lord Mishcon stood up in the House of Lords and said he believed wayward husbands should not be allowed to abandon their wives for their "little floozies". Rightly or wrongly, the media were quick to suggest the comment was a very public swipe at none other than the Prince of Wales himself. In another Diana-related story, the Sunday Times claims doubts have been cast about the veracity of the blood samples taken from Diana and Dodi's driver, Henri Paul. You'll no doubt remember that Mohammed Al Fayed has long claimed the blood tests taken from the chauffeur were tampered with and that the driver was sober, not as the French investigation reported, high on drink and medication drugs. A source close to the crash investigation tells the paper: "We are re-examining the circumstances surrounding the taking of the blood samples. {Lord John} Stevens is utterly determined to get to the bottom of this." However, whilst we're told the investigation is still very much underway, the paper goes on to claim that former Metropolitan Police Chief Lord John Stevens, who is heading the official British inquiry into the fatal car crash, is still convinced the accident was just that: an "accident". And finally, one of the world's most famous 'love rats' is back in the papers. The Sunday Telegraph's Mandrake gossip column claims James Hewitt is telling people it is because of him that Prince Harry has opted to join his former regiment, the Blues and Royals. According to Hewitt's thinking, as a young child Harry was greatly influenced by his stories about life in the Household Cavalry. Truth be told, though, considering Harry was less than ten years old when Diana's relationship with Hewitt ended for good in the early 1990s, it's questionable whether the young Prince even remembers meeting James Hewitt, let alone having been influenced by him! Please feel welcome to offer your opinions on this and any other royal story by visiting our Royal Forum or via our Comments section below. Comment on this article
Leave your comments (Show/Hide Form)
Other Visitors Comments
|
|||||||
Don't forget even Income Tax was a "temporary measure" introduced, by Lloyd George I expect, in the First World War, and supposed to be stopped after the War.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
