"Getting the Right People"

A Windsor intimate looks at royalty past, present and future

In keeping with tradition, people close to the royal family do not allow themselves to be identified when discussing its private affairs. Last week TIME's Frank Melville interviewed an intimate of three generations of the House of Windsor. Promised anonymity, he provided these insights:

A constitutional monarchy with highly trained, highly respectable and highly admirable people at the top is the best way to run a democracy. The moment you have any form of dictatorship of the right or left, such as Hitler's or Brezhnev's, freedom goes out the window.

The constitutional monarchy also enjoys considerable advantages over America's well-intentioned but badly conceived Constitution. The U.S. simply copied the British colonial charters, in which the Governor represented the King, and therefore was also the Chief Executive. If you take away the King and make the Chief Executive the head of state, you get the trouble the U.S. had with Nixon. In other words, the two don't really go together, because the head of state must be beyond criticism, must be someone that everyone trusts and admires.

In England, with its unwritten constitution, these sorts of difficulties do not exist. You can't imagine having a Watergate affair in Britain. Most certainly, you cannot imagine the Queen herself being involved in anything of that sort. Nor can you imagine any Prime Minister who had done something crooked or unconstitutional getting away during his weekly audiences with the Queen without having his tail screwed right off.

Now if all this is true, it depends on getting the right people to head the constitutional monarchy. Queen Victoria in her period was the right head of state, and she also had Albert, the Prince Consort, who, if he had lived, would have made a big difference because he was a very, very high-class statesman.

George V, who became a much beloved sovereign, never expected to come to the throne. He thought his elder brother would, and was horrified when he found he was going to become King. He then said to an intimate, "It's awful. I have not been trained as King at all." The friend replied, "You've had the finest upbringing a constitutional monarch can have--you've been brought up as an officer in the Royal Navy."

George V was succeeded by Edward VIII, who went around the bend over Mrs. Simpson and very nearly wrecked the monarchy. In came his brother George VI--much less clever, less charisma, but a very solid person.

When Edward announced his abdication, George took a friend to one side and said, "This is the most awful thing that has ever happened to me. I'm completely unfitted to be King. I've had no education for it." The friend answered, "Well, your father said that to my father, and I'm going to give you the same answer he got. You've been trained in the Royal Navy as an officer, and there's no finer training." In the event, George won universal praise as a good and very conscientious King.

Unlike her predecessors, the present Queen has been trained as head of state from the beginning. It is significant to note the difference in the education she got and that Princess Margaret got, and the discipline that the Queen has been under and Princess Margaret has not. I don't say Margaret would ever have made such a good Queen. But she could have been brought up very differently. Elizabeth, thank God, married the right man, himself brought up in the navy, and has an eldest son who is also a professional naval officer.

I've often asked Prime Ministers from Winston onward, and especially Harold Wilson, what they felt about the constitutional monarchy. Wilson said: "The Queen is the most professional head of state in the world. My most precious day was my Tuesday audience with her. At first I thought it was going to be fun to see a pretty woman and talk to her. But, my God, she put me through it if I hadn't done my homework."

Like his mother, Prince Charles has been trained from the beginning to assume a kingship which more and more depends on personal example. Charles has already taken a firm grip at the United World Colleges [a group of private schools that specialize in bringing together students from many different countries].

When Charles went to Latin America a few weeks ago, he met the U.W.C. committees in Brazil and Venezuela and fired them with enthusiasm. He saw the President of Venezuela and suggested we start a U.W.C. agricultural school that would search for ways to produce food on a cheaper and wider scale.

This is a marvelous opportunity, which is going to keep him very occupied. He'll be able to travel around any country not as the Prince of Wales, not with a guard and a band, not with a Foreign Office speech to read, but as the president of the international council of the U.W.C. If he calls on the President of the country, he's got something to talk to him about, not just bromide. He'll be able to get things done.

Another area in which Charles will be increasingly active is representing the Queen and Philip on royal visits abroad, such as his recent presiding over the independence ceremonies in Papua New Guinea. If you want to make an analogy with the U.S., I think Charles will more and more assume the globe-trotting activities--other than political--of an American Vice President. Overall, one can be certain that the Queen, unlike Victoria, who prevented Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales from doing anything worthwhile, will not block Prince Charles. If the Prime Minister of the day has a good job for him to do, the Queen will be delighted.

It's not for Charles to stand up blowing a trumpet declaring, "We must have racial equality." That's not the way to do it. The real way is to be seen flat out to help colored folk in practical ways. This is the importance of his job as head of the U.W.C., which will enable him to meet people from every country, some of them very dark, and actually get things done for them. Charles is completely and absolutely devoid of color prejudice. He just can't understand what the prejudices can be about.

In this respect, the Queen, Philip and Charles are the complete antithesis of the Duke of Windsor. I recall how, when Windsor arrived in the Bahamas as Governor-General in 1940, he savaged the feelings of one of the island's most distinguished colored citizens. Sir Etienne Dupuch, owner and editor of the Tribune [the most influential newspaper in the Bahamas]. had called at Government House to tender his respects. Windsor, who was standing just outside the main gate, dismissed Dupuch with the withering comment: "Colored people to the tradesmen's entrance."

I'll give you a prophecy. Charles won't marry for some time yet. If I were a betting man, I'd put very heavy odds that there's not the remotest chance of his getting engaged for at least a year, and more probably two.

Charles knows the sort of girl he wants to marry, but I would not think he's sure that he's actually met "the one." He does not want anyone who is likely to accept him very readily. If she did, it would be for the wrong reason--wanting to be Queen. The girl he's searching for is the one who does not want to be Queen, who will only do it out of love for him and affectionate desire to help and serve him.

Let's take this nice girl Jane Wellesley, the daughter of the Duke of Wellington. There's a shocking example of the way the bloody press has hounded anyone who has been out with Charles. Jane happened to be in Spain on the property the family inherited from the Great Duke. So she invited Charles for some shooting, and when they came back, he very naturally asked her in return to come down to one of the royal houses. Before you could say knife, the press was marrying them off.

When Jane arrived at the small travel agency in Chelsea at which she worked the morning after the idiotic story had broken, her boss came out and said: "You'd better come in and tell the press to go to hell. Get rid of them and don't come back at all if you can't." The press besieged her physically, and she couldn't get out of the shop. Flash!

Flash! Flash! Question! Question! Question! She finally forced her way out after the police had been called, jumped into a taxi and dissolved into a flood of tears.

Her mother said: "It was as if she had been found guilty of some ghastly sexual crime or murder or robbery." What is more, Jane said she never wanted to see Prince Charles again. It was months before she relented.

I think Charles will prefer to go for an English girl as his Queen because it would make no difficulties regarding the country's acceptance. Nonetheless, there are problems that have to be overcome even in the case of a nice English girl who fulfills all the personal requirements.

Firstly, her family has got to be thought about. Because if the girl is going to be the Queen of England, you can't altogether push her family aside. It's got to be a family that fits. It hasn't got to be aristocratic, it's got to be nice--that's all. The girl doesn't have to have a title. She can be Miss Something-or-Other, provided she's suitable as a wife and Queen.

As for foreign princesses, let's put it this way. There are, for one reason or another, no truly suitable candidates around.

Princess Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg, whom Charles has hardly met, is most suitable, but this was never really on. Charles is prohibited by law from marrying a Roman Catholic. And for Marie-Astrid, a devout R.C., to renounce her faith would not be well received by a lot of people. Princess Grace's charming and amusing daughter is also a Roman Catholic, somewhat headstrong and getting married anyway. Nor do I think Charles will marry a German princess.

There is not the least objection to a girl from the U.S. or the Commonwealth, but I think it very unlikely. How would he get to know a suitable American well enough, long enough, to be able to say yes? Now let's take Grace Kelly, who would be, if she were the right age, admirable as Queen of England. She's beautiful, she's intelligent, she's dignified. She's got every quality. I'm mad about her, and she's the most marvelous professional princess I've ever met. When could Charles have met such an American and seen her long enough to consider marriage? A coup de foudre--this falling in love at first sight--is not the way that royal marriages are made. They invariably require growing together, mutual affection, trust, love, the desire to be together and have children. That is the way Charles looks at it, I know. He has got to know her frightfully well. It's one thing to pop into bed with a pretty girl. It's another to make your life with her.

Let's get one thing quite straight: the Queen is not going to abdicate. What is more, everyone would advise her not to, beginning with the Prince of Wales. This idea of abdication is unheard of in British constitutional history. There's no sovereign except Edward VIII who has abdicated. They've either had their heads cut off or been thrown out--as in the case of James II, who wouldn't give up his Roman Catholic connections.

No one is less anxious to succeed his mother than Charles. He certainly would never wish her to abdicate. Firstly, the longer you're in the job, the better you do it.

Secondly, unlike his mother, who succeeded when she was 25 and, as the wife of a naval officer, was constantly abroad and not in touch with state affairs, Charles is able to talk with Prime Ministers and ministers with considerable background knowledge. Thus he's gradually gaining experience of a sort none of his recent predecessors had.

I think the idea that if in 20 years, when he's 49, he hasn't succeeded he'll become disenchanted is nonsense. If you look at the history of royal families, the average age at which sovereigns have succeeded is about 50. It is much better to have an older King. Prince Charles may be the ideal youth leader now and do it very well. But that's nothing to what he will be able to do at 50 or 60, when he has studied the ship of state all the way through. The Queen is very healthy, very fit and very hardworking, and she's going to be around for a long time yet.

Charles may be expected to tread an impartial but principled road in his dealings with the political parties. He has also got a very highly developed sense of right and wrong. Very important, he can charm an audience when telling them some home truths. Let me give you an example.

On his promotion to Commander, R.N., last year, Charles was elected to the Royal Navy Club, which had been founded in 1775. To be a member, you have got to be a commander, captain or admiral who has commanded one of Her Majesty's ships. At the Silver Jubilee dinner in the splendiferous Naval Navigational School, H.M.S. Dryad, 200 senior officers were around the table when Charles got up to make the keynote speech. He said: "I'm the youngest person here. I've just come from sea to tell you that very few of you, if any, know what my generation is thinking." He went on to deliver an address that was modern-minded and tolerant in its approach, whilst at the same time advocating the retention of the best of the old. Sir Charles Norris, one of the most senior admirals present, leaned over to another veteran sailor and remarked: "What a good piece of luck to have that young man as our next King." The second admiral retorted: "It's not luck at all, it's just a bloody miracle."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.