[Acrylic-bob]

I'm not entirely convinced by all this conspiracy theory malarky. It would be interesting if it were true and I concede that there are many reasons why it might be desireable. But if it were true and it got out, can you imagine the reaction. No, absolute secrecy cannot be guaranteed in this day and age when every cook and bottle washer with an axe to grind is prepared to tell all to the papers. Besides, the principals in the drama, if it ever came out, stand to loose too much.

>>If howvever Charles will be king then surely his behaviour must be one of impeccability? Setting an example for us all? I feel it has not and after Diannas death? Well i feel the ' family' totally mishandled the whole situation.>>

I agree that we should expect the highest standards of behaviour from members of the Royal Family. But in an age when propriety is an old fashioned concept, and The Queen's exercise of it gives rise to howls of criticism, how are they to divine the public mood? And what is it exactly that Prince Charles has done that is so wrong? He entered into an arranged marriage for the sake of the dynasty. Royal personages have been doing that for thousands of years. He followed his heart and maintained a mistress - nothing unusual in that either. Hundreds of thousands of men in this country do exactly the same thing.

That pillar of Royal and Imperial rectitude, Queen Victoria, maintained deeply personal relationships with, at least, two of her servants following Prince Albert's death. Relationships which caused the gravest concern in court and government circles at the time. But no one suggested, or even thought, that because of them she was unfit to rule.

Is the problem with Prince Charles and his relationship with Mrs Parker-Bowles not more to do with the fact that he had the temerity to ruin the fantasy of the perfect fairy tale royal marriage, and having done that, declined to appear in public in sackcloth and ashes?