The pretensions and pretence of an absurd family

`It's a funny sort of mum who carries on working long after retirement age so that her son can remain part of the long-term unemployed'

THE MODERNISATION of the Royal Family appears ever more absurd. The heir to the throne is worried about the public relations activities of his youngest brother's wife, and is understood to be particularly alarmed by plans laid by the Countess of Wessex for a two-week promotional tour of the United States next month.

Meanwhile, he has been intimately involved in the arrangements for Camilla Parker Bowles's own promotional trip to the United States. Described as "a family holiday to see old friends", it is a four-day trip which includes in its entourage such intimates as Mark Bolland, Charles's deputy private secretary and Michael Fawcett, his trusty ex-valet.

Camilla will spend her days attending lunches and cocktail parties with "members of the east coast elite" and her evenings going to dinner, to the theatre, and to receptions being held "in her honour". It all sounds like a public relations exercise to me, but maybe that's because as loyal subjects we're all part of Charles and Camilla's family saga now.

This trip, apparently, is an important development in the "battle" for public acceptance for Camilla, which according to royal watchers sympathetic to Charles, is being spearheaded by none other than Prince William. It was he who urged his dad to invite her on this summer's pounds 500,000 freebie Mediterranean cruise, he who wanted her at his dad's 50th birthday bash, and he who requested a meeting with her over tea and sandwiches at one of the family piles.

Much has been made of William's willingness to accept Camilla as his father's consort. If Diana's boy has the maturity and generosity to do this, goes the argument, then who are we to stand in the way of these star-crossed lovers, a pair of free and single divorcees who have been seeing each other on and off for 30 years?

But though William Hill offers the odds on Charles and Camilla marrying at 2 to 1, we all persist in referring to Camilla as Charles's mistress. Why is she still his mistress? While even in these post-nuclear family times, we find it a bit weird to describe couples in their fifties as boyfriend and girlfriend, it would seen obvious that Camilla is surely now at least Charlie's "partner".

And since constitutional experts assure us that there is no formal bar to her becoming Queen, one can only assume that the "battle" going on here is either for Charles and Camilla to carry on forever as they have done henceforth, with Camilla a perpetual mistress and Charles eventually the King whose mistress is public property, or for the nation to join with Charles and Camilla in supporting their marriage and eventually their joint rule.

It's all so bizarre, because one thing is for sure. It will be over our dear Queen's dead body that Charles ensconces Camilla in Buckingham Palace, whether as his wife or his mistress. It's a funny sort of mum who carries on working long after retirement age just so that her first born son can remain a member of the long-term unemployed.

Equally it's a funny old lover who won't pass up the possibility of taking over the family firm at some unspecified time in the future, just so that he can potter about in unrestrained loving bliss without the need to win the approval of millions. Such approval, it need hardly be pointed out, did nothing to ease his first marriage, so it seems quite insane to subject his great love to the unforgiving light of the public scrutiny which drove Diana round the twist.

If only the Queen went in for car chases in Paris with reckless playboys, royal-watching life would be so much more interesting. One of the most irritating aspects of the Queen Mother's much celebrated longevity is the reminder that primogeniture's most dull status quo may continue for another 20 years or more. For those among us who don't want a Royal Family at all, the prospect of decades more of Elizabeth's stodgy throne-squatting and decades more of Charles and Camilla's coy insinuations into the public's affections, is appalling.

The worst thing about it is that despite all the mess and emotion that has been generated by Charles's failed marriage, and despite all the ludicrous hopes that Diana would "bring down the monarchy", public support for this washed up family business remains so strong. I was astounded the other day to read in this very newspaper Fay Weldon's plea for the Queen to abdicate and allow Charles to take over as King, not because I don't agree with her that this would liven things up admirably, but because she really seemed to think that this would "revitalise" the monarchy at a time when our need for such an institution is great.

What need is this? The need for moral leadership or the need to prove that you can combine twin careers as a tampon and as a King? It's all simply absurd. How can Charles, whose conduct of his own life, let alone the life of the nation, has been so disastrous, be expected to revitalise anything? His own life, and the lives of all of his family, serve only to prove how ludicrous the idea of inherited privilege is.

Not long ago, when divorce in this country was rare, a man could not expect to marry a divorcee and still be King. Now he can have a long affair with a married woman while he is married himself, divorce his wife and preside over her funeral arrangements after she has tragically died, then get it together with the now-divorced mistress and prepare her for public life by his side. Where does the ancient tradition of the monarchy fit in here? Where is the duty and self-sacrifice we are told are the hallmarks of rule in this package?

We are expected to accept all this dubious behaviour because Charles is only human. Why then, if he's just like the rest of us, does he refuse to live like the rest of us? Why, at 50, does he still cling on to the frankly stupid idea that it is his destiny to be King when even - especially - his mum doesn't think he's up to the job?

I'd like to firm up Fay Weldon's plea a little and call for not only the Queen to abdicate, but also for Charles to throw in the towel, William to fall on his sword and for everybody who has a place in line to the throne to just say "No". Okay, so they wouldn't be the Royal Family any more, but they'd be extremely modern and more popular than ever. Since these twin aims seem to dominate their every move, the trade-in seems one they'd all be happy with.

Sadly, this will remain my fantasy, while the fantastic notion that some people are born with the right to preside over nations, continues to attract currency as something that is real and precious. So long live the Queen. Long live Charles. Long live his Mistress. And long live the subjects, who prove each day that they are willing to subject themselves to anybody.