13 SEPTEMBER 1997, Page 18

IT WAS CHARLES WHO SAVED IT

EMERGING from Saturday's historic fes- tival of the emotions inside Westminster Abbey, I had two encounters which remain as embedded in the mind as `that service'. First was the sight of the comedian Michael Barrymore launching into a royal walkabout in Parliament Square. Second was bumping into an impeccably New Labour MP outside the House of Com- mons. `I've just met a Tory colleague call- ing this Tony Blair's Falklands,' he said. `And I think he's right.'

By common consent, the Prime Minister played a vital role in last week's air-sea rescue of the House of Windsor. The man who had coined the phrase `the People's Princess' was the same man who leapt to the defence of the royal family against pre- posterous charges by 'the people' that the Windsors were somehow indifferent to the Princess's death.

There is little doubt that Mr Blair's behind-the-scenes support was crucial in bolstering royal morale. Certainly, those thrashing around for a constitutional angle in all this can point to the Prime Minister's interventions. In advising the Queen that a broadcast to the nation was a good idea, as he did, Mr Blair was acting entirely within his constitutional remit.

We may one day look back on the irony that, for all his election pledges on consti- tutional reform, Mr Blair's real achieve- ment in the early days of office was in shoring up the constitutional status quo.

But the Prime Minister was not the only brick during those dark days. If one must single out a hero of the hour, then there is a strong case for nominating the man whom some would still like to label as the villain of the piece — the Prince of Wales.

Before dawn had risen over Balmoral on that fatal Sunday, the Prince was already drawing up plans for the grim task which lay ahead. Long-prepared plans for the retrieval of a royal body from overseas clicked into action, but there was the ques- tion of who would go. The Prince was adamant that he should travel to Paris, despite the concerns of some royal aides that, as the Princess's ex-husband, he would look hypocritical.

He was also determined that the mother of his children should be accorded full hon- ours at Westminster Abbey. Despite some reports that the Queen was urging a private funeral, it was the Spencer family whose ini- tial wishes, understandably, were for a quiet affair. The Prince, with the Prime Minister's backing, persuaded them otherwise.

As the grumbles started to mount over the original funeral procession route, taken from the blueprint for all major royal funer- als, the Prince led the campaign to have the thing extended — against the wishes of the police and some courtiers. 'Whenever he suggested a change to the plan, someone from the police would say, "If you do that, 150 people will die",' recalled one member of the Lord Chamberlain's committee. `Eventually, it was the Prince who had the clout to get things changed.'

Despite the charge that the royal family was hermetically sealed from the rest of the nation at Balmoral, it was only too aware of the change in public mood during the mid- dle of the week. Royal staff eavesdropping among the crowds outside the three palaces were appalled by some of the vitriol they were hearing. Their findings, reinforced by the ravings of angry flower-bearers on tele- vision, left the family feeling distinctly uncomfortable and wounded.

It was the Prince who decided, in the words of a previous Prince of Wales, that `something must be done'. He formed a triumvirate comprising himself, the Prime Minister and Robin Janvrin, the Queen's deputy private secretary, who was at Bal- moral in the absence of Sir Robert Fel- lowes. Sir Robert remained in London coping with the awkward twin responsibili- ties of being both the Queen's private sec- retary and the husband of the Princess's elder sister (which is why wires may have been crossed over the issue of whether it was the Queen or the Spencers who origi- nally wanted a private funeral).

Having discussed the options available with Mr Janvrin, the Prince contacted the Prime Minister for his advice and found a ready ally. It was Tony Blair who urged the Queen to follow her son's instincts and Tony Blair who contributed the powerful opening section of the Queen's broadcast to the nation which followed. For all the pain of recent days, the episode has certainly served to bring together two organisations which had been a little unsure of each other — the Palace and New Labour. Downing Street staff, many of whom had preconceptions of the Palace as a temple to protocol staffed by aristocratic dinosaurs, admit to being impressed by the Palace's open-minded attitude and shocked by the venom directed against it.

`It was they, not us, who came up with the idea of all those charity workers in the procession, and that sort of thing was a sur- prise,' recalled one of the Blair team involved. 'And, whatever people say, the Queen listened.' The Palace, in turn, feels deep gratitude to No. 10 for its reassur- ance, advice and assistance.

Some courtiers are privately thankful that they were dealing with Tony Blair and not John Major. There is a feeling that Mr Major had been reluctant out of deference to offer badly needed advice. There is also a recognition that, had a Tory administration been in Downing Street last week, then the funeral row might have been politicised with potentially disastrous consequences. A Labour opposition would have accused the Tories of trying to exclude the people from the funeral of 'the People's Princess', and Labour's not inconsiderable republican rump would have been far more vocal than has been the case.

Unlikely friendships have been forged. Sir Robert Fellowes, for example, is now said to be a fully paid-up member of the Alastair Campbell fan club, such is his admiration for the style of Mr Blair's press secretary. But the most enduring and important bond is that which has devel- oped between the Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister. `Last week has taught Tony that the country is really deeply monarchist but not deeply Windsorist, and he wants to get that right,' explained one Blair lieutenant. 'He and the Prince now have a much deeper understanding of each other.'

Mr Blair is particularly keen to halt the succession 'leapfrog' argument, the logic of which goes as follows: the Prince did not get on with the Princess, we all loved the Princess, ergo the Prince should let his son take his place as king.

Aside from the gross impertinence of presuming to know the inner thoughts of two people towards one another, the argu- ment falls down on several other counts. First, cherry-picking a monarch would be a first step towards a presidency. Second, the conduct of the Prince during the week would seem to display precisely the apti- tudes one would want in a monarch — sen- sitive leadership incorporating ministerial advice. Third, the Prince has spent the last 20 years advocating the sort of society over which he would like to reign rather than waiting to inherit whatever Britain hap- pened to be in situ. Fourth, it would be damaging and deeply unfair to impose on a 15-year-old boy the fantasies and expecta-

tions of a nation on the grounds that he looks a lot like his late mum.

A few months ago, the Prince of Wales was being accused of being too close to the new regime at No. 10 for his own good. His- tory may record that such proximity proved invaluable to the future of the monarchy.

Robert Hardman is a correspondent and columnist for the Daily Telegraph.