Royal tax breaks are more dangerous than saga of Charles and his mistress

I SUPPOSE we should be used to it by now - public figures betraying the secrets of the rich and famous to pep up otherwise insipid life stories. When it comes to promoting their latest book, everyone from Jordan to Edwina Currie seems prepared to kiss ’n’ tell.

Even so, it came as a bit of a shock to find the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey indulging in a bout of Royal name-dropping last week as he promoted his autobiography, Know the Truth. You would think that if one person could be relied on to be the soul of discretion vis-a-vis their pastoral duties, it would be the leader of the world’s Anglicans. But there he was, raking over the dying embers of Charles and Diana’s marriage, and unveiling the details of a clandestine meeting he arranged with Camilla Parker Bowles shortly after the death of the Princess of Wales.

In a move guaranteed to reap him the front page in half a dozen national newspapers, he said he believed it was "natural" for Charles to marry Camilla and described the heir to the throne as "a man as much sinned against as sinning".

The current Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who has opposed the remarriage of divorcees when their former partner is alive (as Andrew Parker Bowles is) except in exceptional circumstances, was also - shock, horror - said to have cleared the way for the pair to be wed, but only if they expressed repentance for past wrong-doing in the presence of their priest.

No doubt Carey sees this stance as progressive. But why on earth is such theological navel-gazing necessary to determine the future of two people whose devotion for each other has been tested time and time again?

Not that Prince Charles seems to give a whit about what the Archbishops have to say on the matter. According to well-placed "sources", he has sworn he will never marry Camilla because he doesn’t want to "betray Diana’s memory".

The idea that he should be fretting over his ex-wife’s dignity more than a decade after he inadvertently told the world how much he’d like to be Camilla’s tampon is risible. What he is really worried about is how such a move would be received by the general public, but his reputation is now beyond besmirching.

This is a man who, at the time of the Paul Burrell and Michael Fawcett affairs, was portrayed as a louche, indolent incompetent who employs an army of flunkies to do his bidding; a man who, if you believe the Royal gossip, is scarcely capable of squeezing his own toothpaste, never mind ruling the country.

It is difficult to see how marrying Camilla could further dent his standing with his subjects, who have become inured to relentless Palace scandal and are in any case less hung up than previous generations about who marries into Royalty. One need only look at countries such as Denmark and Spain, whose Crown Princes chose commoners to be their brides, to see how little such things matter to anyone any more, other than constitutional nitpickers such as Lord St John of Fawsley.

A recent poll suggested more than 50% of people now believe it would be acceptable for Charles and Camilla to marry, and those who don’t would simply regard their union as one more symptom of an irreversible decline in social values.

To my mind, Charles’s love for Camilla is one of his few redeeming features because it marks him out from your average male adulterer: while most men leave their middle-aged wives for a younger, more beautiful model, he has remained true to a woman whose physical attributes are, let’s be honest, not manifest.

It is to be commended that - despite huge pressure on him to abandon her in the hysteria over Diana’s death - the Prince of Wales insisted Camilla was a "non-negotiable" part of his life.

Almost seven years on, however, Camilla’s public appearances at her partner’s side are still few and far between, while Charles often seems embarrassed by the very mention of her name.

It would surely be better - both for the Church of England, which wants to reinforce family values, and for what remains of the dignity of the monarchy - if the couple formalised a partnership which is a marriage in all but paperwork.

Of course, the endless mulling over of the moral and constitutional implications of their future union (would it be morganatic or would Camilla actually become Queen? etc, etc) - ignores one crucial question: is marriage what both parties actually want?

Commentators tend to take it as a given, assuming the delay is caused by a desire to get the timing right: that Charles wants to wait until the end of the Paul Burrell trial/John Stevens’ inquiry into Diana’s death/the inquest is over, or that he simply lacks the courage to make it official. But is it not possible that Camilla has reservations about becoming a fully-fledged member of the most dysfunctional family in the country? After all, she knows the Queen remains implacably opposed to the marriage and she has seen at close quarters how the House of Windsor treats those who fall foul of its expectations.

If Camilla failed to support public causes, she would be portrayed as distant; if she endorsed them - as she has the National Osteoporosis Society - her people skills would constantly be compared with Diana’s. Who could blame her if she decided to reject Royal status in favour of freedom from the burden of civic responsibility?

Diverting though Carey’s revelations about Camilla’s secret visit to his son’s "less-than-salubrious" house in Peckham are, the monarchy has a few more fundamental problems to address than the couple’s love affair.

Polls carried out at the time of the Burrell trial suggested only one in three Scots support the monarchy as it stands, and it is not the Prince of Wales’ marital status but the Royal family’s perceived profligacy that most vexes the dissenters.

Charles and Camilla should wed if they want to, and not if they don’t. But the heir to the throne shouldn’t allow the speculation surrounding that decision to divert his attention away from far more important issues.

After all, it will be the House of Windsor’s ability to tackle anachronisms such as the Queen’s exclusive tax breaks (she doesn’t have to pay stamp duties on property transactions and capital gains tax on investments) and a lack of transparency over spending of the Privy Purse, rather than Charles’ relationship with his mistress, that decides if the monarchy ever regains the popular standing it once enjoyed.