Dispatches: The Problem Princes
For readers in the UK, there’s a new documentary airing tonight at 8pm on Channel 4.
Dispatches: The Problem Princes in which the slightly leftwing reporter and newscaster Alex Thomson examines “what the future holds for Prince William, and how the activities of the Princes are shaping the modern Monarchy that he will one day inherit”.
It also promises a look at their love lives, finances and their military training. As a bonus, it asks what lessons uncles Andrew and Edward can offer.
They seem to have spent some money on it and done a good dig around. No doubt the usual C4 coolness to the Royal Family will figure in the show, but Thomson may just winkle out new information on the Kate Middleton cloak of invisibility.
For all our North American friends, this is sure to make it onto YouTube. In any case, I’ll report back on it tomorrow.
Update: In the end the show was just another C4 trashfest dominated by republican talking heads who have never had a good word for the Monarchy in their lives. Total biased rubbish. Channel 4 should have its public-service remit withdrawn.
Oh, dear. I don’t like that title, John. “The Problem Princes” seems to indicate a thoroughly negative slant to the program.
If some misguided media person believes that Prince William and Prince Harry are a problem, I suggest that they cast their eyes upon other royal princes. Prince Albert of Monaco, now the ruling monarch, has never married and has managed to sire a number of illegitimate children. I shall not here detail the manifold peccadillos of his two sisters, which have kept the paparazzi in pin money for years. Let us consider the history of other royal princes of England. Just a few of the misdeeds of the sons of King George III would curl the hair of most of us! They scandalized society with their liasons with women, their illegitimate children, their ever-mounting debts, their drinking, gambling and I know not what all. King George IV was thought to be the worst of the lot and behaved atrociously to his daughter and heir, Princess Charlotte, and to his wife, during the years when he was known as the Prince Regent. If Prince William and Prince Harry are problems, I shall eat my hat, without the benefit of condiments!
By Gigi on February 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Mandrake has a preview of the program(me) in his column today and it doesn’t sound at all positive, I’m afraid:
http://tinyurl.com/byv3sz
Gigi, we may need tea to fortify our nerves!
By Leslie on February 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
William and Harry are fully funded by the Duchy of Cornwall, are they not? As such, they do not receive taxpayer money, do they? (Other than their rightful military salaries, of course.)
Until William takes the throne, he is essentially a privately wealthy individual, and should not be subject to public scrutiny about how he spends his money any more than any other rich man in England.
The contradiction here is rich (pun intended
.) They want William to carry out more engagements, then they decry Andrew for spending money carrying out all his engagements.
I do agree that Andrew often seems over the top in his jet-set lifestyle, but it’s a little premature to christen these as two more “Problem Princes.”
By Dan on February 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Well said, Andrew! I am so sick of the screeching, hyper-critical media! Problem Princes my left foot! I am QUITE put out!
By Gigi on February 23rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
dan & gigi – am with you. william and harry are ‘working full time” from what i understand they have not taken on the “working royal role” so are not on the government payroll..i think all these types just want to continue to stir the pot for their own gain…
By coni on February 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Another typo–how I typed “well said Andrew” I will never know–I meant “well said DAN.”
By Gigi on February 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Gigi, people confuse me with princes all the time
. I’m not sure why, I’m always seated in coach!
By Dan on February 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
LOL!
It is the nobility of your character, Dan, I am certain.
By Gigi on February 24th, 2009 at 1:10 am
I do think that ultimately both PH and PW are held to a different standard because their family “business,” so to speak, is that of being symbolic heads of state of the UK. Whether it is the Duchy of Cornwall or not begs the point: why does the Duchy exist at all???
Having said this, it is also the case that the UK Media make profits off the RF because of their peccadilloes , and not despite them. The constant stream of “exposes” is very disingenuous.
This piece promised to be different… yet I feel it was not.
By Sojourner on February 24th, 2009 at 1:41 am
Sojourner, my recollection is that the Duchy of Cornwall was created during the reign of King Edward III, by him, as a way to create a steady source of income for his heir, Edward, who became known as the ‘Black Prince’, perhaps because of the color of his armour. Always conscious of the contents of his Privy Purse, the King sought to detach the considerable expenses of his heir from his own income stream. The Black Prince had his own court and courtiers, a great expense even in the Middle Ages. It achieved the desired ends so successfully that the custom has continued into modern times, although I must say that Charles and his financial men have made the Duchy produce at truly astounding rates, far more than ever before.
I just viewed the link offered regarding Prince William, and I nearly had a stroke! How dare Mr. Whitaker make such an inaccurate and inflammatory statement about Prince William?! That man is a thorough scoundrel and a bilious blackguard! If he thinks that being a full time military officer is “doing nothing,” let him train on and stand a post. I guarantee you, Whitaker has no idea what he is fulminating about! As for the number of Royal engagements Prince William and Prince Harry undertake, these engagements are made at the behest of the Queen. If the Queen is displeased with the number of engagements her grandsons undertake, believe me, she will communicate this to them and the situation will be remedied. While it may not signify to Mr. Whitaker, the fact that such has not occurred is our indication that such is not the case.
By Gigi on February 24th, 2009 at 2:08 am
My dear John, how that got posted twice, I shall never know. Would you be so kind as to delete the earlier one for me? The second one is my final draft. Thank you!
By Gigi on February 24th, 2009 at 2:11 am
I still can’t quite believe what I watched last night. Channel 4 is a public service broadcaster yet it contrived to produce what was an almighty fit-up of all the British Princes.
If you get a chance to watch it, be warned it’s the most virulent, nasty attack on the Monarchy I’ve ever witnessed on terrestrial TV.
It began with a Monarchist voice, Andrew Roberts, who also appeared fleetingly at the end, topping and tailing the whole sorry affair.
In between, the programme was dominated by two talking heads: Labour backbench MP, Ian Davidson, a man who seems to spend his whole existence seeking sticks to beat the Royal Family with, and someone from Republic, a pressure group to abolish the Monarchy. James Whitaker also spat out a sentence or two, naturally in tune with the others — probably heavily edited to fit.
Not surprisingly, the total lack of balance produced a travesty of an argument, focusing exclusively on minor discrepancies or faux pas to the detriment of the wider picture. I’m sure they’ve taken legal advice on this, but I bet a good lawyer could find something to sue in this documentary. No wonder Clarence House was incandescent.
Very poor show, Channel 4. I’m glad you’re in serious financial difficulties. Why not throw in the towel and give us all a break?
By John on February 24th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Another thing, it didn’t look at William or Harry’s “love lives” at all. I think Kate Middleton was mentioned once.
By John on February 24th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Wow. John, I’ve never heard you speak out so vociferously against something, so it really must be horrible. I’ll look it up on YouTube at some point when I’m not at work…and when I think my blood pressure can handle it!
By Leslie on February 24th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Leslie, one example: the reporter looked into that hen harrier incident at Sandringham when Harry and a Van Cutsem were supposed to have shot two protected birds — although no bodies were discovered.
The presenter drove up to the Sandringham Estate, told the outline of the story and said that Harry was shooting that day.
However, he failed to mention that Harry was exonerated by the police for lack of evidence and doubts were expressed about the veracity of the person who reported it.
It was that kind of insinuation that dominated the show.
By John on February 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
By Gigi on February 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Gigi, only one person in the present Labour government and parliamentary party has served in the military. They are clueless, and it shows.
Davidson, a Labour MP, is almost unemployable and has been sent off to the dustbin of government jobs, the Ways and Means committee, where he idles away his time looking for ways and means of making life uncomfortable for the Queen.
By John on February 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
IMO, the documentary portrays many of the Princes — A, H and W — as belonging to the wastefully idle classes. It is a transparent attempt to capitalize on the growing resentment how the rich and powerful have plundered the assets and the trust of everyday citizens. The comparison does not stand any scrutiny, for reasons John and Gigi have already pointed out, but I think the goal was to engage feelings, not minds.
Not having been around during the last (big) recession (or not paying much attention), I was wondering: have other upsurges in the criticism of the RF occured at the same time as downward trends in the economy?
By Sojourner on February 24th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Sojourner, in the deep recession of the early 1980s, which saw a massive retrenchment of manufacturing jobs in the UK, the wedding of Charles and Diana was an almost ecstatic occasion. So I don’t think there’s any connection really.
By John on February 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I agree with you, John. In addition, the people of Sweden, who yesterday were reportedly depressed and dowtrodden because of the widespread economic crisis, are today reported to be in a state of total jubilation because of the engagement and forthcoming marriage of Crown Princess Victoria. As I have often said, nothing lifts the spirits of the people like a Royal Wedding! A wedding is hope and renewal, and a Royal Wedding is the penultimate!
By Gigi on February 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Gigi, thanks for the tip-off about the Swedish Royal wedding. I’ll ask our Swedish website designer what the mood is like where he is.
By John on February 25th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Too bad. Journalists are in such a good position to write wonderful things and it’s a shame they choose to write crap.
By Meg on February 25th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
You are welcome, John. I will be very interested to hear what “our man in Stockholm” has to say!
By Gigi on February 25th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Gigi, Thord replied: “Oh they’re crazy here! On the day of the engagement, TV4 went live all afternoon, and there were extra reports and everything. Think WTC style, but happy. I trust you saw the YouTube-vid?”
So it seems they’re just as dizzy as we are over a Royal engagement.
By John on February 26th, 2009 at 9:18 am
(I entered my previous post under my user ID at work — yes, long week. It was held up in moderation. )
That said, I saw part of the program on Youtube. It really seemed like they were making a great deal out of nothing. The two princes haven’t done anything bad – so they exagerrated every little hiccup.
IMHO – neither William nor Harry need to be working royals at the present time. With the RF’s extended lifetimes, it is doubtful that William will be crowned before he’s in his 50s — that is assuming Charles dies in his 80s. (Both his parents seem to be healthy at this age!)
Let them enjoy their youth, have fun and develop their own identities. By the time they are in their late 30s, they can start doing the charity and ribbon-cutting rounds. There are just too many long-lived Royals around for their services to be truly needed before then.
Of course, every one loves a young King and Queen. But, that is very unlikely.
By Alicia on February 28th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Well said, Alicia, a very sensible and useful post! I agree with you and only wish the vituperative media and the spiteful Labor government would come to their senses and stop spewing venom. I grow more astounded (and aghast) every day at the depths to which they stoop!
By Gigi on February 28th, 2009 at 2:25 am
I agree that Royals are thick on the ground nowadays and the young ones aren’t yet needed to fill the events in the Court Circular, BUT it is the young Royals whom the public is most interested in. No offense, but TRH the Kents and the Gloucesters do not exactly galvanize the public’s affection for the monarchy.
If all the public sees are the over-60 members, the ho-hum factor becomes a serious problem for the Royal Family’s future. Sadly in our contemporary culture, youth and relevance often go hand in hand.
By Dan on March 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I agree, Dan, that’s why I’ve been saying it’s a mistake for both William and Harry to sign up for long-term military careers at the same time. William, in particular, needs to start building a popularity base for the future.
I also think that’s the reason quite a few seasoned Royal commentators have had it in for him lately. A major Royal wedding would be a great boost for everyone this year.
By John on March 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
No argument here, John. I hope the current trend for frugality does not go too far. True, one doesn’t wish to appear ostentatious, but big joyous events with a worldwide profile do have their benefits.
By Dan on March 3rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I agree with both John and Dan, and since the Queen and Prince Philip are very savy at gauging the mood of the people toward the monarchy, I believe that there are other forces at work here. I honestly believe that Charles wants the attention focused solely on himself and Camilla, and to that end, he has convinced Prince William and Prince Harry to stand out of his light for the foreseeable future. Charles is too old (eight months my junior) to be a supernova for the media, and he and Camilla are too controversial to capture the imagination and the enraptured adoration of the general public. He will be King and she will be Queen in the fullness of time and nothing can alter that, but the reception they receive and the media adulation will be nothing compared to that which Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh received and do so, still, profoundly and deservedly, due to their sterling worth and their tireless dedication to the Kingdom. Unfortunately, Charles perceives what Charles chooses to perceive, and at this time, I do not believe he understands that his attempt to rewrite the story of his life has failed. People have long memories that even the machinations of an army of public relations men cannot erase. This is the case as I believe it to be at this time. I could, of course, be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.
By Gigi on March 4th, 2009 at 12:17 am
What if the freshly-crowned King Charles III and Queen Camilla step onto the balcony for a Royal wave to their subjects…. And there is no one there to wave back?
By Dan on March 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Dan, the Royal magic and the historical nature of the event will ensure a massive turnout for a Coronation.
Also, Charles is better liked than many people suppose. He may not be glamorous these days but he’s part of everyone’s life below the age of 60. He’s almost like a family member for most people in this country. He won’t stand alone on any balcony when he’s crowned.
By John on March 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Yes, John, I was being a tad facetious, but it will be interesting to poll the crowd for their sentiments. I am always shocked at the vituperation expressed in online comments to tabloid stories about the Royals. Such venom! Of course, I realize those e-bombs are often hurled from the looniest fringes.
By Dan on March 4th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Loony is the word, Dan, that’s why I try to ban them from this site.
By John on March 4th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Actually, the term is “lunatic fringe” but it amounts to the same thing.
We have them here, too, John, and they are just as vituperative and venomous as the lunatic fringe that assails the Royal Family in the UK. Perhaps we ought to round them up and exile them to an island somewhere near Pago Pago. 
I am sorry to devalue the real estate near Pago-Pago with the presence of these misfits, but there you have it.
By Gigi on March 5th, 2009 at 4:55 am