Is Charles fit to be King? Maxwell McLeod, who was at Gordonstoun with
him, gives an emphatic answer.
TO everything there is a time.
Today it is my time for telling a story that I have always vowed I
would never tell. Not to family, not to friends, and above all else not
in a national newspaper. But there is a time.
I was, you see, at school with the Prince of Wales.
Working as a freelance journalist this is quite a commodity to have up
your sleeve for a rainy day. Over the years, on many a rainy day, I have
been offered hard cash for ''just a few wee stories''.
''Never, no never'' has been my reply, arguing with conviction that
there would never be a circumstance that would warrant such a breach of
trust.
But there is a time. Having read as much of the prurient rubbish in
the Sunday newspapers as I could stomach, I have decided that time has
come. I do so purely in the man's defence and with a specific request
that I do not get paid for this piece.
First, the facts. I was at Gordonstoun with Charles for perhaps 18
months.
He was a senior prefect living in a house a good two miles away from
mine. I was a wee nyaff four years his junior, so I can hardly claim a
deep intimacy. Indeed my entire knowledge of him is based on a few
conversations and a good deal of observation.
But I did sing in the same choir, act in the same plays, share the
same art studio and very quickly came to admire the man more than any
other and not only for his position.
Today I read and hear in every second house and howff that the boy
whom I so admired has become a man who is emotionally unstable,
cowardly, and incapable, a cold-blooded cheat, and unfit for the throne.
Try as I might I cannot begin to believe any of these accusations can
possibly be true of Charles. I would suggest that, unless a very major
change has taken place in the intervening 30 years, that the complete
converse is true and that he remains both supremely honourable and
brave.
The Charles I knew, no, observed would be better, was far from being
emotionally inept or indeed malleable. Indeed he was one of the most
emotionally together people I've ever met.
He was, though, above all an artist. Gifted as well as trained as a
cellist, trumpeter, actor and potter, he somehow managed to maintain a
quite extraordinary sensitivity in spite of an almost palpable pressure
from all around for him to become the mirror of his brusque and dogmatic
father.
Stories of him being bullied in his earlier years may or may not be
true -- I simply don't know, but the 18-year-old I observed was
certainly no ''broken'' victim but a relaxed and amusing individual.
What made him particularly attractive to my youthful eyes was his
individuality.
He simply refused to behave in the manner that might have been
expected of a king-to-be and absorbed the pressure with a humour and
iron resolve.
Today, 30 years on, even although I've never exchanged a word with the
man since those days, I find the suggestion absurd that such a person
could have in his thirtieth year been bullied into taking a bride.
I find it extraordinary that so few conversations in pubs and clubs
over the last weekend have attempted to celebrate his outstanding work
amongst the young, deprived, and ethnic minorities.
He is in my opinion a man who, against staggering odds, has somehow
managed to create an ambience in which it is perfectly possible that he
can bring off the seemingly impossible by taking the now broken House of
Windsor intact into the twenty-first century and using it for our common
good.
Not worthy of the throne?
He's the only man I know who is.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article