Even for Prime Ministers, a visit to the Queen’s private estate of Balmoral is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to gain insight into the Royal Family’s inner workings in a more relaxed setting.
Boris Johnson’s visit to the Scottish Highlands at the end of the Queen’s summer vacation in 2019 was, nevertheless, a deeply unpleasant experience for all parties involved.
After meeting the Queen at Balmoral, the Prince of Wales issued an offer to the Prime Minister to visit him at Birkhall, his estate residence.
However, during the meeting with Prince Charles, the Prime Minister’s demeanor caused ‘eyebrows to be lifted,’ which is courtier code for ‘we are not amused.’
Mr Johnson is claimed to have arrived with his then-girlfriend Carrie Symonds in a ‘shambolic state,’ and was ‘obviously not focused’ on the business at hand.
While the Prince of Wales maintained his ‘Sphynx-like’ demeanor throughout, the courtiers determined that the Prime Minister, who had only been in Downing Street for a few weeks, had acted ‘disrespectfully.’
‘Let’s just say,’ remarked a reliable source, ‘that the Prime Minister was not entirely focused on the meeting with the Prince of Wales.’
The Prince of Wales is used to meeting a wide range of people, but there was a strong sense among his advisers that at the Birkhall meeting with Boris Johnson, he wasn’t being treated with the respect that a senior public figure who works tirelessly for the country deserves. The Prince didn’t make a big deal about it. It was the personnel who expressed regret on his behalf.
‘It was sort of quashed the next time they met.’ Things have improved with time, but they have never been the greatest of friends.’
Relations between the two men are thought to have been strained since Mr Johnson served as Foreign Secretary. He’s known for being a slacker when it comes to punctuality, keeping people waiting for meetings and then dismissing the delay with ease.
Prince Charles, on the other hand, cannot stand being late, which causes him ‘irritations.’
According to Whitehall sources, the matter has become less of an issue the longer Mr Johnson has been in No 10 – if only because Prime Ministers are required to stick to a fixed schedule due to stringent diary and security reasons.
Mutual friends have also contributed to the two men becoming closer.
‘They are not of the same fabric,’ the person continued. They have completely opposing worldviews. They have, however, established some common ground over time, particularly on environmental issues.’
Senior Tory politicians, for their part, love playing the game of ‘guess how Charles would vote if he did’, with responses ranging from ‘Liberal Democrat’ to ‘Wet Remainer Tory.’
The couple was spotted together at the Guildhall reception following the Queen’s Thanksgiving Service at St Paul’s Cathedral last week.
A brief but amicable conversation took place between Charles and the Prime Minister. After that, Charles went to meet the Commonwealth Governors-General.
‘Boris seems to have finally realized that he may be having weekly audiences with Prince Charles in the not-too-distant future, and that he ought to treat him properly,’ according to another insider.
The closeness of Mr Johnson’s connection with the Queen, as well as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, is undeniable.
The Prince and Prime Minister will reconvene for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) later this month in Kigali, Rwanda, the African country where the government plans to resettle asylum seekers.
The Home Office policy is causing an unwelcome distraction for people close to Charles during a historic first visit by a member of the Royal Family to the country, which joined the Commonwealth in 2009.
The schedule includes visits to environmental projects as well as a meeting at a church where 10,000 Tutsis were killed during the 1994 genocide.
‘The Palace will endeavour to ensure that Their Royal Highnesses do not appear to be backing the controversial plan in any way, and that they do not come anywhere near any protests,’ a source added.
Mr Johnson will be hosted by the Prince of Wales, who was named as the Commonwealth’s next head in 2018.
‘His Royal Highness will host a reception for Heads of Government who have been appointed since the last CHOGM and that evening will host a dinner on behalf of the Queen for all heads of Commonwealth delegations,’ Chris Fitzgerald, the Prince of Wales’ deputy private secretary, said ahead of the visit next week.
Whether Charles will host a private meeting with Mr Johnson during the week-long event has yet to be determined. None of Charles’ opinions will surprise those who work at the Palace.
The Prince’s dissatisfaction with Mr Johnson over Rwanda strategy first surfaced in the same week that the Government’s proposal was unveiled.
‘Today, millions of people find themselves displaced, weary from their trip from troubled regions, wounded by the past, scared of the future – and in need of a welcome, of rest, and of love,’ the Prince said in a carefully crafted Easter greeting.
‘I have been grieved by the sufferings of innocent victims of violence or persecution, some of whom I have met and who have told me stories of unimaginable tragedy as they have been forced to escape their country and seek refuge far from home,’ says the author.
Despite the Prince’s tight relationship with Home Secretary Priti Patel, many saw it as a statement of sympathy to families displaced by the fighting in Ukraine. Others saw it as a covert riposte to the Government’s Rwanda program.
The Prince of Wales has not disputed calling the refugee scheme ‘appalling,’ but a representative for Clarence House insisted there had been no lobbying of Ministers on the Prince’s behalf.
It remains to be seen whether the Prince’s views being leaked will have an impact on the Prime Minister’s relationship with the heir to the Throne.
Despite Prince Charles’ private description of the concept as ‘appalling,’ ministers are bolstering their plans to put migrants on a one-way ticket to Rwanda.
Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, will launch an advertising campaign aimed at migrants this week, warning them that if they enter the UK, they may be deported to Africa.
The ad comes as she prepares for the second phase of a judicial battle to stop the first flight, which is scheduled to leave on Tuesday, carrying 31 asylum applicants.
According to the Mail on Sunday, Ms Patel plans to alter modern slavery legislation to prevent Left-wing lawyers from using them to prevent future deportations.
She’s also considering whether or not to withdraw funds to UN agencies that take legal action against the British government.
According to the Daily Mail, Charles privately opposed Ms Patel’s Rwanda plan, which he worries may overshadow the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit on June 23 in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital.
Ms Patel was unavailable for comment on the report. She is a frequent visitor to Clarence House and is believed to be friendly with the Prince.
Boris Johnson will join Charles, who will be representing the Queen, at the summit. According to sources, the couple’s personal relationship is tumultuous at times.
On Friday, protesters were unsuccessful in a High Court plea to stop the first Rwandan trip, with Mr Justice Swift ruling that Ms Patel’s policies were in the public interest. Mr Johnson called the decision as ‘good news,’ while the Home Secretary praised it.
Mark Serwotka, the head of the Public and Commercial Services Union, who brought the action along with numerous migration charities, declined to rule out his Border Force employees boycotting Rwanda’s policy yesterday.
Ms Patel thinks that the advertising campaign will assist to halt the migrant influx across the English Channel, which has seen over 10,000 people cross so far this year.
Migrants traveling across Europe will be targeted with Facebook and Instagram ads in their original languages, telling them that even if they survive the perilous journey to the United Kingdom, they may not be able to stay.
‘Arrive illegally in the UK and you could be departing for Rwanda,’ reads one above a photo of an overloaded dinghy in front of the white cliffs of Dover.
Another depicts a migrant behind a metal fence and warns that “new measures will make it difficult for you to access and stay in the UK.”
The campaign intends to refute accusations made by people-trafficking gangs that the Rwanda agreement is nothing more than a “scare technique” or “empty threat.”
Theresa May sponsored the Modern Slavery Act 2015 before becoming Prime Minister, with the goal of addressing what she called the “great human rights challenge of our time.”
It was created to assist the estimated 10,000 persons in the UK who were victims of labor exploitation, sex trafficking, or living in domestic slavery at the time.
However, lawyers are increasingly using it to obtain injunctions against deportation of migrants. An impartial reviewer will be assigned to look into the system’s reforms.
A Whitehall source said: ‘Child rapists, people who pose a threat to national security and illegal migrants who have travelled to the UK from safe countries have sought modern slavery referrals, which have prevented and delayed their removal or deportation.
‘It is imperative that this system is fixed quickly, and for good. Unless we make drastic reforms, the true victims of modern slavery will continue suffer with excessive decision-making periods, and a system that rewards those who seek only to exploit it.’
Britain last year gave nearly £80 million to the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, which gave evidence during Friday’s court case arguing that the Rwanda scheme failed to meet the required standards of ‘legality and appropriateness’ for transferring asylum seekers from one country to another.
The Whitehall source added: ‘Should taxpayers’ money be used to help block Government policy?’
Ms Patel said: ‘Evil criminal gangs are putting profit over people by facilitating dangerous and illegal small boat crossings. We have a duty to warn people of the consequences of these journeys, and expose the lies sold to vulnerable migrants by inhumane people smugglers.
‘People should be in no doubt of our message here: Britain is closed for business to people-traffickers’.
Charles has been branded the ‘meddling prince’ in the past for giving his opinion to Ministers. In 2015, a series of letters he sent to former PM Tony Blair and other Government figures, dubbed the Black Spider Memos because of the Prince’s distinctive handwriting, were published following a decade-long legal battle.
Clarence House insists Prince Charles ‘remains politically neutral’, with sources saying they ‘genuinely did not recognise’ the suggestion he had fallen out with the Prime Minister.
I found Prince Charles to be exceptionally well informed and clear-sighted on the few occasions I’ve met him.
He has a restless and inquisitive mind, which has undoubtedly saved him during the years – if not a lifetime – he has spent in the shadow of his mother.
He’s never been content to merely enjoy the benefits of his position; he’s always been on the lookout for, and finding, a purpose.
He’s also a good listener, which he shares with his mother. I waffled feverishly on about a book idea for the entire second course while sitting next to him at dinner once, rather overwhelmed by the occasion, an agony he suffered with charm and tenacity.
But he’s not a man who holds his mouth when anything irritates him: on another occasion, as we all rose from our drinks, I made the mistake of going ahead of the Duchess of Cornwall by accident. HRH cleared his throat very loudly, and I stood to one side, red-faced, comprehending my blunder. ‘Don’t worry sweetheart, his bark is worse than his bite,’ Camilla said with a reassuring grin.
The truth is that, given the limits of their existence and responsibilities in public life, the Duke and Duchess are about as sane and normal as they can be (I always remember the pair of them on that tour of Canada a few years ago, dissolving into giggles while listening to a particularly vigorous performance by two Inuit throat singers).
Which is why I believe Prince Charles finds it difficult to maintain the Royal façade and remain impartial on the numerous causes about which he is concerned.
He’s been outspoken (and correct) on a variety of issues throughout the years, including education, farming, the environment, and China.
As a result, this recent intervention in the topic of the government’s strategy of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda should not be surprising. If anything, it’s a bit of a throwback.
According to a source, the Prince has expressed his displeasure with the plan, calling it ‘appalling’ and bemoaning the timing, which coincides with the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital, later this month, where Charles is expected to represent the Queen.
I’m not sure if it was his aim to make his feelings known (Clarence House has explicitly downplayed the news). It’s more likely to have come up as a topic of conversation at some point and been leaked by a friend or official with a hidden goal.
But, for me, it’s less about the specifics of the leak and more about the ramifications for the Prince and the potential for harm, not just to him but also to the Monarchy and, in particular, the Queen’s legacy. The obvious truth is that Charles will become King soon — far sooner than any of us would like.
When this happens, it won’t simply be a minor embarrassment; it will become a major issue. Because, as his mother has proved throughout seven decades on the Throne, the Monarch must stay as far apart from individual policy or partisan politics as possible.
The Queen has honed her ability to avoid such situations over time. She expresses her disdain discreetly, as my colleague Robert Hardman demonstrates in his new, impeccably sourced Royal biography, Queen Of Our Times.
‘It starts with an eyebrow,’ he says, ‘progressing in more extreme circumstances to ‘both eyebrows,’ and finally a firm, ‘Are you sure?’ In other words, instead of making a statement, she asks a question. This is a classic elegant solution.
It’s easy to forget that Elizabeth II’s style is the exception, not the rule, because we’ve gotten accustomed to her gentle diplomacy.
For example, Queen Victoria was known for her outspokenness, never shy about endorsing a favorite candidate for a public position or scolding her Prime Minister on her “strongest distaste for the so-called and most erroneous “Rights of Women”.
Even George VI, the Queen’s father, famously waved his shoes at a Labour Chancellor, stating, “I simply don’t see why people should have free false teeth any more than they should have free shoes.”
However, Elizabeth II selected a different approach for whatever reason, and it has paid off, contributing in no small part to her long reign as monarch.
How else could she have endured 14 British Prime Ministers from the polar opposite ends of the political spectrum and 14 changes of government?
She quickly realized that the key to a successful modern monarchy is to keep a distance from daily politics.
Not only because anybody who comes into contact with such a filthy, cutthroat business is tainted by it, but also for the more practical reason that for every person who agrees with you, there will be many who disagree. And that is something a future monarch must consider.
The current row is an excellent example of the dangers. Immigration is a polarizing issue, and expressing any position risks alienating large segments of the society. Many of the 17.5 million people who voted for Brexit hoped that reducing connections with Brussels would help them regulate immigration.
If Prince Charles – or any member of the Royal Family – has a flaw, it is being viewed as out of touch with ordinary people’s concerns.
He, like many members of the liberal intelligentsia who scoff at the government’s efforts to combat illegal immigration, is mostly unaffected by the issues it produces.
There are no overcrowded hostels in the vicinity of Clarence House, and neither Charles nor any member of his family is likely to be harmed by the increased demand on public services such as social housing and healthcare.
Those who are most affected by unrestricted immigration are the ones who most want a solution. They may have qualms about the government’s strategy, but with thousands of illegal immigrants arriving on our beaches every week, people smugglers out of control, and the situation only expected to worsen, they may well believe that taking action is preferable to doing nothing.
Those on the front lines of the problem, in particular, hate being labeled as bigots and racists for merely wanting to keep the numbers down.
Prince Charles dismisses them by calling the Rwanda deal “appalling.” It’s not quite as simple as “let them eat cake,” but it’s close.
The Monarch’s mission is to unite the nation, not to divide it (as we witnessed with the recent Jubilee celebrations).
It is crucial to the Crown’s power, and it is an integral aspect of ensuring that the sovereign serves ALL of the people, not just a few factions. That is not to argue that the Monarch should not have a private view; rather, the position necessitates caution and diplomacy.
That appears to be the point Prince Charles is overlooking. Because, despite representing the Queen at the recent State Opening of Parliament and the upcoming Commonwealth summit, he does not appear to have changed his personal settings from ‘heir apparent’ – a position of importance with plenty of room for maneuvering – to the far more onerous ‘king in waiting’.
It’s a little but significant move, but it’s one he must undertake — not only to honor his mother, but also to pass on her legacy to future generations.