Entry 6:

Dear Sarah,

Fewer "x"s on the bottom of your letter this morning, but it's no longer Valentine's Day, so that's only to be expected. I thought you took excessive pains last night to explain that they didn't mean anything anyway, and were just your routine way of ending all letters. You should allow a man his dreams--particularly a shy, repressed Englishman. Talking of which, I see you are interested in Prince Charles. I hadn't read the story in the Express until you drew it to my attention, but I have now, and although your suspicions about its authenticity are wholly understandable, I think it has the ring of truth about it. Nobody in government ever goes on the record when criticizing the royal family, because it still enjoys bewildering popularity, and it is very easy for journalists to make things up and get away with it, as I suspect they often do. But in this case, I would trust the Express.

Two reasons. One is that Tony Blair is pained by dissent of any kind, especially, one presumes, when it comes from such a prominent source. The other, which is really just my own gut feeling, is that he doesn't really like the monarchy and dreams secretly of its abolition. He ought not to like it, for it stands in the way of his great project to turn Britain into dynamic, meritocratic society that Americans will admire not for its thatched cottages and quaint traditions but for its modernity and creative energy. He has already declared war on the hereditary principle by abolishing it in House of Lords. How can he therefore condone a hereditary head of state?

He has said, when asked, that he thinks the monarchy is better for Britain than a presidential system, but he has never said why. He has never rooted for the monarchy in a positive way or used any of the traditional arguments in its defense, that it is a force for stability and a focus of national unity. If he really is harboring the treacherous thoughts that I suspect him of, it would be perfectly logical for him to oppose any plan for the queen to stand down in favor of her eldest son. The time to declare a republic would be after the queen's death. ­ It is almost unimaginable before that,­ and it would be very difficult to do so if Prince Charles were already in situ. (The queen, Sarah, is 75, not 100, but everyone dies in the end.)

The Express claims that the government is incensed by Prince Charles's "ill-advised forays into politics" and regard him as a "loose cannon" who would be a troublesome king. This is not a persuasive claim. Under our unwritten constitution, it is understood that the monarch shall never express a controversial opinion or say or do anything remotely interesting. The queen has been a model of constitutional propriety in this respect, which has led many people to believe that she doesn't actually think anything interesting, either. There is something about her face that suggests to me that they are wrong. I think that she is probably highly opinionated in what is probably a most politically incorrect way, but that she also possesses almost superhuman self-control. Anyway, the constitutional restrictions that apply to the queen do not apply to any other member of the royal family, not even to the heir to the throne. It is assumed--and there is no reason to think it will be any different with Prince Charles--that the gag is applied only when somebody accedes to the throne.

Of course, the prince of Wales has to be careful. An earlier prince of Wales--Charles' great-uncle Edward, who later abdicated to marry a divorced woman, the American Wallis Simpson--created one hell of a rumpus by saying that "something should be done" to get unemployed Welsh steelworkers back to work. This was taken as an attack on the Conservative government of the time (1936). But Charles hasn't said anything even as controversial as that. His criticisms of Blair's pet project, the disastrous Millennium Dome, were "leaked," not stated publicly. And how can he seriously be accused of political meddling by joining in the national debate about genetically modified foods? Cool it, Mr. Blair.

I've been going on too long, so I'd better not broach the interesting question of the Afghan hostages' choosing to go home because of the British weather and our disgusting food. Perhaps later.

Love,
Alexander xxxxx