PRINCE Charles was in Singapore last week causing no end of consternation while he vacuumed his trousers. I never imagined using all those words together in a single sentence. The perennial heir to the throne was over visiting the Dyson Technology Centre based in the principality; obviously when it was suggested that the king-to-be-who-may-never-get-there employ the suction skills of the world-leading British designed cleaner, breaths were bated.
Does his Royal Highness know what a vacuum cleaner is? Does he actually do any housework? Will he make an ill-judged joke like his dad?
Onlookers were surprised as the Prince joked about his dirty trousers and gave them a right good seeing to, so to speak.
I always find this royal fascination fascinating. I’m a leftist, socialist who believes in 1. wealth being redistributed, 2. our utilities being nationalised and 3. the abolition of the monarchy. I’m prepared to discuss and debate points 1 and 2. You may well influence and enlighten my viewpoint on how best to create a fairer society while diminishing the gap between the haves and the have nots. You may bring superior knowledge to the question of how best to return our once state-run industries to more effective public service. But when it comes to point 3, I simply cannot see a compelling argument for maintaining an archaic system built on a birthright, a system that fights every impulse every parent has in telling their child that – with talent and hard work – they can be whatever they want to be. While we have a class born into aristocracy by sheer dint of DNA there will always be a massive ceiling upon what us “mere mortals” can achieve.
And while I am far from alone in holding such views, there is a unique point of difference for me. Let me explain ...
I am ambassador for London-based charity, The British Asian Trust. The trust works predominantly with young girls across the subcontinent, helping them to get on in life and attain their full potential. It does some great work and, given my heritage, it’s an incredibly easy charity to be involved in. Prince Charles, a famous Indophile, set up the trust a decade ago and takes great personal interest in its work. Last year I found myself invited to the annual gala dinner thing. As a guid Scot, I popped on my kilt, tied a fresh turban and found myself surrounded by the great and the good at Guildhall in the City of London.
We ambassador types were gathered in grateful expectation of HRH and Camilla arriving for handshakes and photos. There’s an obsequious obsession around the royals that I abhor, an obsession they themselves never seem to want or expect. Charles came down the line. I, of course, won’t bow or curtsy. Instead we shook hands and I asked him where his kilt was. I have met him a few times before and I really like him. He has a quick, dry wit and is passionate about food and architecture. Hands shaken, the Prince leant in conspiratorially and asked in a lowered voice.
“Are you doing anything for us this evening?”
“Not tonight, Sir. I’m just here for the free champagne.”
He laughed and moved down the line. I thought nothing more of it. I was having an all too rare night off; here I was at a fancy dinner with plenty of free booze and I had nothing more to do than drink the booze and not make a fool of myself. Not unchallenging, but hardly impossible to pull off. An hour and a half and a bottle and a half later I was three-quarters cut as I saw two rather anxious organisers making for my table.
“Is there a problem?” I asked.
“His Royal Highness would like you to do some jokes. Please.”
I have never sobered up more rapidly.
“What?”
“Apparently you’re his favourite comedian and he wants you to do some comedy.”
I was as surprised as the harbinger. Me? Of all the funny folk, surely I can’t be Prince Charles's favourite comedian. But apparently so. I strode towards the stage, passing the Prince’s table on my way. He looked excited as he said: “You will do a Sikh joke…”
It was the jangliest 15 minutes I’ve ever done; and I managed to remember a joke about Sikhs. Not so much a Sikh joke as a sick joke.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here