DOES THE Prince pause to consider what effect such a dismissal of Britain will have, what outmoded stereotypes of a crabbed, cobwebbed and unenterprising nation his words will perpetuate? It is not as though the Prince's own television work has done much to acquaint American viewers with the strengths of modern Britain. Castle Ghosts of England and Edward on Edward are not the best vehicles to dispel an image of Britain as a heritage isle, incapable of reinvention and reduced to trading on nostalgia. Instead of indulging in self-pity because these productions are not lauded to the skies, perhaps the Prince, if he really wants to be acclaimed as a success, should concentrate on quietly extending his range beyond home movies.
EDWARD'S TALENTS, to put it gently, have yet to manifest themselves. But while there is certainly something rather sad in his self-delusion, Edward has been playing a foolish game. By running down his own country abroad, Edward has reminded the public of what it likes least about the trappings of royalty. He has done the institution of monarchy no favours. If he really is as desperately sorry as he is said to be, he should now commit himself to a lengthy - a very lengthy - period of silence.
IF EDDIE Windsor turned up in Hollywood hoping for stardom, he would be lucky to get a job washing dishes in a hamburger joint. But Edward Windsor, former Prince and now Earl of Wessex, is different. He has no more talent, yet producers and TV executives clamour to talk to him. They are overawed by his credentials - not as a film-maker but as a royal. You might think that would make Edward show a bit of humility. Not at all. While in America trading on the family name, he takes the opportunity of attacking this country. His country. According to him, we sneer at success. How would he know? He has had as much success as Eddie the Eagle. .
EDWARD CANNOT possibly understand what it is like to start from nothing. He represents privilege. He represents class. He represents much of what is wrong about this dear old country. But he is right about one thing - America is where the money is. They have the freedom and drive to succeed unencumbered by the class system he embodies. A freedom born the day, two centuries ago, when they threw off the yoke of Edward's forebear, George III, and had the guts to stand on their own. Maybe Britain should have got rid of the royals too. Certainly the tactless and talentless Edward does not help their case.
ONLY TWO explanations of Edward's remark that we "hate anyone who succeeds" are possible. Either he really believes it, hasn't a clue that he's more of an embarrassment than a success and genuinely doesn't realise the reason he has got anywhere is because of the three words - His Royal Highness - which precede his name. In which case we should feel a bit sorry for him. He must be more stupid than he seems. Or he's a cynical twister without an ounce of loyalty to the country that gave him his title, wealth, contacts and life, happy to take pounds 155,000 a year from the Civil List and then bitch about his countrymen. Make up your own mind. (Stephen Pollard)
CHARLES HAS some saving graces, such as concern for the environment. Andrew at least learned to fly a helicopter and had the sense to dump Fergie. But Edward is an unmitigated big girl's blouse. He is an ungrateful and arrogant dimwit who bites the hands that feeds him, and does not even know he is doing it. Edward is a true Windsor. He believes WE owe HIM a living.Reuse content