I heard the author, Jonathan Dimbleby, point out that much
of the hysterical com- ment has attributed to Prince Charles words that are, in fact, written as interpre- tation by the biographer. I studied the Sun- day Times extracts carefully: nowhere does the Prince 'attack' his parents, and nowhere does he say he did not love his wife. That his childhood was far from happy is some- thing that can reasonably be adduced from the evidence, and this, Mr Dimbleby, like any serious biographer, has felt at liberty to do. Very many people enter marriage with doubts about their feelings; it is astonishing that middle-aged media men, in expressing their outrage at this simple human fact, fall into the same romantic trap as the average addict of Mills & Boon. The blunt truth is this: journalists in the 'quality' press seem to twist the truth as freely as their down- market peers, and show about as much human sympathy as an alligator in a swamp.
Reading between the lines of Charles Moore's article, it is clear that he is annoyed that the biography was not serialised in the newspaper for which he works. Had the Sun- day Telegraph obtained this hot property, I wonder if there would have been so much indignant huffing and puffing. Far worse was the extraordinary malice contained in Simon Jenkins's article. Is it humane to describe the unhappy Prince and Princess of Wales as `batty tramps'?
As for the assertion that the Prince's co- operation with Mr Dimbleby 'suggests an unsound mind', all I can say is, if such a thing were said about Mr Jenkins in public print he would certainly sue, and deserve every penny he got. But the Prince of Wales cannot do that, therefore he is exposed to the sort of vitriol that might be merited by the worst enemy of the state. Jenkins suggests the Prince 'likes the publicity'. What nonsense! I have no doubt it makes the Prince thorough- ly miserable. Still, he has been courageous enough to say, 'This is who I am and this is what I do', and millions of ordinary people like myself must be filled with admiration for his honesty, courtesy and intelligence. A 'true aristocrat' indeed, despite his apparent fail- ure to conform to Mr Jenkins's definition of one. I for one will buy Jonathan Dimbleby's biography, and feel sure it will show
Previous page
