Koo d'etat
Has Prince Andrew met Mark Thatcher? These two raffish young men would have a good deal in common,
not least a fear of their stern and respec- table mothers. Both are 'an embar- rassment' to their families, yet each assists
his family's public reputation. Only the disappearance of Mark in the Sahara Desert convinced the British people that Mrs That-
cher had a heart. Prince Andrew's Carib- bean holiday with Miss Koo Stark (follow-
ing, perhaps prompted by, months of all- male company in the Falkland Islands) has reassured the nation that its Royal Family is `normal'.
The Prince's conduct is hallowed by tradition. Indeed, the difficulty is in finding a single heterosexual prince in our history who confined himself to the woman he married. Over the past centuries, only King George VI seems to qualify with anything approaching certainty. Like Prince An- drew, King William IV was a sailor (he `swore like a deck hand') and, like him, he visited the West Indies, where he unluckily contracted venereal disease. Mrs Jordan, an actress, bore him 10 children. Similar ex- amples are too numerous, or too shameful, to mention. We have seen it all before.
But we have never seen so much of it, so publicly. Thanks to the inspiration of the Earl of Pembroke, whose Tudor and Stuart ancestors, too, were patrons of the arts, we all of us have the chance to form our own opinion of Miss Stark's charms in his film The Awakening of Emily. And on the BBC and in the popular press we have been given almost every piece of information we could possibly require, even if not all of it has been accurate. (The Daily Mirror's first photograph of Miss Stark last week closely resembled the Sun's picture the day before of 'Andy's old flame' lovely Kim Deas'. According to the Daily Mail, the photo depicted 'pretty American writer Elizabeth Solomon, 27'.) In the 19th century, a custom of discretion in these matters, was established outside the 'the Upper Ten Thousand', which lasted, with lapses, until the 1960s. Today, the public's 'right to know' is circumscribed only by the capacity of security men to stop photographers clim- bing into bedrooms. One cannot pretend that Buckingham Palace has responded well to its growing difficulties. On 8 October, the Daily Ex- press reported a 'Palace spokesman' as say- ing, 'When Prince Andrew said he was bringing Koo and a few other people to Balmoral, that was approved of. One trusted Andrew's own judgment not to em- barrass his mother — and quite clearly he has done just that.' On the same day, the Daily Mail reported another spokesman as exonerating the Prince: `. , . he is 22 and a grown man who is leading his own life'. Apart from the fact that these two remarks contradict each other, they are a long way above and beyond the call of duty. Indeed they are footling and impertinent.
There seems to have been a conscious decision on the part of those who watch over the Royal Family that a democratic age demands an end to reticence. It seems to be thought necessary to keep up the sort of running commentary of explanation, description and gimcrack psychoanalysis of which David Coleman might be proud.
Similar thinking has been forced upon the Royal Family itself, and its younger members are now expected to chat away in press interviews like a footballer or pop
star. During the raising of the Mary Rose, the Prince of Wales spent most of his time
when not submerged in the Solent burbling
into the cameras. A certain divinity still hedges the Queen herself, but it surely will
not be long before Mrs Windsor is asked `how she feels' about the state of her daughter's marriage or her second son's latest amour. Among the Royals, only Princess Anne has got the hang of the thing: give as good as you get.
Some may welcome the change, arguing that this is the century of the common man, and none more common than Prince An- drew. But there is something dangerous in the degree to which the British monarchy has become one of the tackier soap operas of the age. As the Queen herself clearly recognises, the monarchy remains the mainstay of the British nation. Though monarchy involves a personal principle, and depends on the strength of family ties, it also has to transcend the characters of monarchical families. No individual and, indeed, no royal house, has qualities good enough to justify its rule without reference to some more general principle, and deference to a greater judge. The more we know of any ordinary person (and the Windsors are admirably ordinary) the less inclined are we to bow the knee to them. What Prince Andrew gets up to is perfectly `natural', and for that very reason should pass without comment from the monar- chy's spokesmen.
The press might also consider the dangers to its own trade that it risks by its conduct. Apart from the usual diet of crime, pop stars and sport, the popular papers now concentrate their entire attention on the Royal Family. These last two weeks we have wondered whether Princess Anne is preg- nant, seen her take a whip to French photographers, followed the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh round Australia, con- sidered, in an entire page of the Daily Mir- ror, the fashion potential of a tweed hat worn by the Princess of Wales, watched her husband in frogman's outfit, and chas- ed her brother-in-law and his new friend across the Atlantic. The product is in danger of becoming tarnished. The British monarchy has survived worse threats, but it has seldom suffered such indignities.
Previous page
