AND ANOTHER THING
Cheer up, Prince William: history may well prove on your side
PAUL JOHNSON
Many shrewd observers think that Princess Diana's brilliant performance on television, while an immense tactical suc- cess in the short term, will eventually prove a serious strategic blunder for herself and her cause. Among the reasons they give for this view is that Princess's reckless plunge into the deep waters of the media will inflict further serious damage on Prince William. They point, in particular, to the risk that Princess Diana's advocacy of a generation jump, which would eliminate Charles from the succession and make William heir-apparent, is bound to set father against son, with disastrous conse- quences for William's character.
This line of argument assumes that a set- tled, secure, happy childhood is the best possible preparation for a future King of England. That may be true for an ordinary child, even perhaps for a scion of a great landed and ducal house, but it is not neces- sarily so for a king. English history points in exactly the opposite direction. All the heirs- apparent who had 'normal' childhoods turned out losers. In virtually every case, it was the heirs-apparent who had disturbed, anxious and even dangerous childhoods who turned out the winners. And the rea- son for this is clear. For an heir-apparent there is no such thing as a normal child- hood. When times are tranquil, the throne secure and the succession certain, such a child is flattered out of his senses from the cradle onwards. His chances of growing up anything but selfish, self-centred, self- regarding and undisciplined are virtually nil. He is almost certain to become an exponent of the overweening egotism which is the deformation professionelle of the eldest sons of kings.
Let the evidence of English history, from the reign of William I onwards, speak for itself. His eldest son, Robert of Normandy, had one of these normal childhoods. He turned out hopeless and died in prison. The next to fall into this category was Richard I. He proved an irrepressible rebel against his great father, whose heart was broken in consequence, and he reigned briefly and unsuccessfully. Then came Henry II, brought up in the tranquillity which fol- lowed Magna Carta. He proved hopeless too, and much of his reign was marked by civil war, a consequence of his weakness. Edward II, another 'normal' case, was even more incompetent. He was deposed and murdered. Richard II, heir-apparent after the death of his father the Black Prince, had a tranquil upbringing, proved a disaster as king and was deposed and murdered in his turn. Exactly the same thing happened to another 'normal' heir-apparent, Henry VI; he lost us France and was deposed and murdered too.
There were no 'normal' heirs-apparent among the Tudors and Stuarts, unless one counts Edward VI, who died before coming of age. Henry VIII was a second son, origi- nally intended by his father to be Archbish- op of Canterbury — hence his taste for the- ological nit-picking. Charles I was also a second son.
Among the Hanoverians the rule that `normality' for the heir-apparent means a warped character is proved in every case. George II quarrelled bitterly with his father and led the opposition. So did his eldest son, the Prince of Wales; and his grandson, George III, lost the American colonies largely through his obstinacy and self-will. His eldest son, the Prince Regent, later George IV, was as hopeless as Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI and, had he lived in those times, would have met the same fate. As it was, he was hated and despised by virtually all his subjects. Edward VII was likewise a self-indulgent rascal, though hap- pily he did not succeed until he was an elderly man and had learnt a modicum of sense. Edward VIII, another heir-apparent with a normal upbringing, was hopelessly self-centred and irresponsible, but fortu- nately was driven into abdication and exile within a year. George V and George VI were both, of course, second sons who made decent monarchs.
Of the heirs-apparent who proved themselves great kings, every single one had a childhood which, in one way or another, was disturbed, precarious, dangerous or fraught. Despite this, or far more likely because of it, they matured as strong char- acters, forged in the furnace of adversity.
Edward I grew up in the most difficult circumstances — civil war and his father's 'vacillations — and became a superlative law-giver and nation-builder. Edward III grew up against the background of his father's homosexuality and murder, and his mother's treasonable adultery: he became one of the great royal warriors of the Mid- dle Ages. When Henry V was a boy, his father, the future Henry IV, was always in trouble, in opposition or revolt or in exile. The circumstances surrounding his upbringing were difficult and his life was in peril: he survived to become perhaps the most formidable monarch in the whole of English history. Both James I and his grandson, Charles II, had dreadful child- hoods, often in fear of their lives or in exile, and both showed themselves above-average sovereigns who successfully clung to pre- carious thrones which their successors lost: These historical examples prove rules which are paradoxical, do they not? And Prince Charles himself, in my view, shows that the rules still apply. He had a pretty normal childhood in a period of peace, with his mother reigning successfully and his own future as monarch assured. And he has turned out to be a self-centred and self- pitying fellow who blames everyone but himself for his misfortunes. Through his own follies and self-indulgence he may well end by forfeiting the succession, 'and go the way of his uncle David', as Lord Mountbat- ten once sorrowfully predicted.
Prince William, by contrast, has had a much harder time, which may yet grow harder still. Both his parents have made public spectacles of themselves, have con- fessed to adultery (which in Princess Diana's case is also high treason) in front of an audience of countless millions. And their fight to the death, or the divorce court, has only just begun. So Prince William is learning early that life is unfair, disturbing, uncertain and painful. But, God willing, he will grow up with a stout heart, a tough skin and a strong character in conse- quence — and prove, like Edward I, Edward III, Henry VI and other splendid sovereigns, that adversity is the best school of kings.
Previous page
