I say this with slight deference to Prince Charles because it looks like he has enough sharp medals to slice my throat: I did not see him emerging as the hero in The Unfortunate Tale of the House of Windsor and Jeffrey Epstein. He may be the heir apparent, but I did not see him as taking control of the rapidly deteriorating situation.
It was Charles who called his 93-year-old mother while he was on an official trip to New Zealand to tell her to strip his younger brother of his official duties following that absolutely disastrous BBC interview about Prince Andrew’s relationship with Epstein. Further, according to reporting by The Times of London, the scandal is on the way to “overshadow the [general] election” later this month. (The election is crucial to the future of Brexit, whether that means another vote or a government that actually approves an exit deal.)
The New York Times reported that Charles has been a longtime advocate (but doesn’t specify how long) for “a more streamlined royal family.” With fewer public royals, there is less of a chance of an Andrew situation, and all the bad publicity it came with, happening again. (And less people pulling from the public pursestrings...)
In an editorial in The Times of London argued that Charles is a “shadow king” and the House of Windsor’s problem does stem from “the proliferation of minor royals” in official duty. “Quite clearly urgent reform of the royal household is needed,” the editorial read. “The Queen, despite her extraordinary sense of duty and her durability, cannot do it alone. It is time for the Prince of Wales to play a more decisive role.”
She has reigned since February 1952, and again, is 93 years old. Let the woman retire for god’s sake. Seriously, what greater dream has capitalism told us to strive for than to be rich enough to comfortably retire? A monarch should be able to retire and lie about her driving capabilities just like her husband has.
Elizabeth’s helping hand could be Charles, according to the British press. He is seen as the necessary force to right the royal house as BBC journalist Emily Maitlis (who conducted the now infamous interview) said the queen herself likely signed off on the interview, according to an essay by Maitlis in the Times. The editorial explicitly stated: “This can only come from Prince Charles. Although he has faced his own set of scandals, he has already taken on a greater role and can do more, in effect acting as king-in-waiting.”
Those scandals include his marriage to Lady Diana Spencer and the end of their marriage, and even the taped conversation joking about turning into Camilla Parker Bowles’ (now Duchess of Cornwall) “knickers” or “god forbid, a Tampax.”
Compared to his brother’s transgressions of showing basically no remorse for victims of child sexual assault, a disastrous first marriage doesn’t seem like the worst thing a royal leader could do!