Charles's Press and the Freemasons: A Question

[loonytick]

He definitely pissed off architects and the agriculture industry in very, very big ways which also made people in other sectors wonder whether he might have a public beef with them next. I'm not sure the people he offended had to be part of a secret/semisecret society in order for their discomfort to have ramifications in the way Charles was treated in the press or by the public.

 

[Lady Nimue]

He definitely pissed off architects and the agriculture industry in very, very big ways which also made people in other sectors wonder whether he might have a public beef with them next. I'm not sure the people he offended had to be part of a secret/semisecret society in order for their discomfort to have ramifications in the way Charles was treated in the press or by the public.

True, but a society as being suggested has this idea of helping out 'fellow brothers', and closing ranks. Murdock may have been gung-ho regarding dissing the BRF, but he would have had to have support across a wider net to make it fly, and fly it did in spades. (With Charles, not The Queen, or any other Royal).

But when did that shift happen? When did Charles become a negative target? It wasn't before he married, and it wasn't after he married. The writer is suggesting that the bad press for Charles started after the carbuncle speech, and instead of Diana being the issue ('What is wrong with the Princess of Wales?') it became a scenario where Charles was the fool, the one 'out there', the one with 'strange ideas'. Curious, not so?

And Diana? She became the the easily groomed tool. Totally unwitting.

We all assume that the Morton book was Diana's idea (or I have). But was it?

And who cobbled together all those broadcast phone conversations? Again, targeting Charles, but throwing off the scent by having a tape of Diana, too. Though the Diana/Squidgy tape makes Charles look foolish, the cuckolded husband. It's always Charles made to look in the worst possible light.

From the outside it looks like a 'poor beleaguered Diana' story (which the public soaked up because that was the soapy drama that caught at the heart-strings), when in fact it may have been Charles who was the target (because of his activist ideas). It was Charles who was being de-balled. Pretty darn effective, with Diana as the unwitting tool.

Had Charles not been relegated to public ineffectiveness, imagine the power (backed by his royal status) his activism might have accomplished in Britain. Just some ideas.

 

[Osipi]

When Charles made his famous "monstrous carbuncle" speech (May 17,1984), the marriage and its problems were still pretty much blanketed from the public eye. Harry hadn't been born yet. In fact, if I remember right, even before this speech, Charles was ridiculed for "talking to his plants" and that's something that he says he still does to this day.

So, with this information, actually Charles was denigrated for an opinion before the marriage problems even became widely known. The first Morton book didn't come out until 1992 and that's 8 years after the carbuncle speech and problems in the marriage were becoming more and more apparent. Charles most definitely had returned to Camilla by then and Diana was pursuing her own interests at the time.

So, in my eyes, Charles was a target before anything else to discredit him ever came about. The war in the marriage added fuel to the fire. Perhaps Charles was even more vilified as previously, they had picked on certain aspects of him such as his ears, his odd fashions and outdated clothing, talking to plants and daring to have an opinion of his own. Mix into that a beloved fairy tale icon that the people loved being rumored to be very unhappy with her husband and blammo.... Charles is the perfect scapegoat.

The best thing that Charles ever did with all the nastiness is just keep on keeping on and lo and behold, things that he told of years ago are gaining in strength because there is actual intelligence and science behind it. People scorned and accused Galileo of heresy for his thoughts and he wasn't "pardoned" by the church until some 350 years later.

I seriously doubt that any organized group or even publishers with an "agenda" other than raking in the money singled out Charles for any specific reason. There just was so much about the man back then that was deemed "off the wall" or "different" that made him a natural target.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Osipi, please read Miss Whirley's post above. Her information does not jive with yours. It's important to be precise in this before assuming one has correctly challenged a view. However, this is not a debate of assertions. I'm trying to nail something down.

Mentioning the Morton book in the context you did is not relevant. Read the thread to get the sense of the conversation. Not interested in memory. Interested in verifiable sequence of press and events. Hope you understand. Many thanks.

 

[Osipi]

OK. To clarify (with a source) about the statement that the carbuncle speech was before any real warfare had started in the marriage. At the time, Diana was pregnant with Harry (about 4 months before Harry was born). I have read this in many sources and will provide a reliable source for the part of an article I am going to quote.

"Prince Harry was born on September 15, 1984 after 9 hours of labour. Although their marriage had already started hitting rocky patches, Diana considered her pregnancy time with Harry among their happiest as a couple. "

Princess Diana Biography: William & Harry

I don't think my observation clashes at all with Miss Whirley's. What she states is very much along the lines of how things were. At the time of the "monstrous carbuncle" speech though, there was a period where as the article states, they were happy together.

That work for you?

 

[Lady Nimue]

The point is that there were articles about the marriage hitting rough patches as early as a year into the marriage. It was not, however, an issue with Charles. He was not being demonized or made to look foolish. That came later.

BTW talking to one's plants was described as strange by the press. That's a choice. But doing such (talking to plants) has been a known positive for growth way before Charles. In a land of gardeners that would be known. The decision to set it up as 'loony' came from the press. Why? Why would the press start to impugn Charles' ideas? It's a question.

 

[Osipi]

The point is that there were articles about the marriage hitting rough patches as early as a year into the marriage. It was not, however, an issue with Charles. He was not being demonized or made to look foolish. That came later.

BTW talking to one's plants was described as strange by the press. That's a choice. But doing such (talking to plants) has been a known positive for growth way before Charles. In a land of gardeners that would be known. The decision to set it up as 'loony' came from the press. Why? Why would the press start to impugn Charles' ideas? It's a question.

That is the big conundrum and I really don't have any answers for it.

Perhaps it all stemmed from Charles being totally different from any previous Prince of Wales? He's basically said that he had to find and define his role himself much like his father did as the Duke of Edinburgh. Perhaps the press and those that listened to his speeches thought that he would be a clone of his mother and put on a "prince" face and just go with the flow on things without an opinion? Charles was basically a Prince of Wales like none anyone has seen before and he still is. Not many Princes of Wales have 56 books accredited to his authorship.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/249898.Charles_Prince_of_Wales

I do think you've hit on something with Charles perhaps being the first in a very long line to not be a Mason. Maybe you'll find these files of interest?

http://freemasonry.london.museum/it/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/English-Royal-Freemasons.pdf

The royal connection: John Hamill examines the link between masonry and royalty

Doing a little bit of surfing, I've also come across a couple of links to articles that state that a Masonic lodge has been formed at Buckingham Palace. One was the Daily Fail so that got a "ignore" real fast. The links I have provided though are pretty credible from what I can see.

I definitely agree with you in regards to talking to plants. Charles was way ahead of his time with that for most people. One of his books that I enjoy and I really think reflects Charles the man is his book "Harmony: A New Way Of Looking At Our World". Its simply amazing.

ETA: One thought came about after taking time to thoroughly read the links I provided. If, by any chance, the Freemasons were in any way behind any kind of bad press for Charles, it would mean that they've disrespected several of Charles' family who hold very high rank (including Grand Master). Of course in any organization, as we've seen, there are people who serve it for the good of the organization and those that are members for self benefiting purposes so who knows?

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, Osipi. Will read your links.

If, by any chance, the Freemasons were in any way behind any kind of bad press for Charles, it would mean that they've disrespected several of Charles' family who hold very high rank (including Grand Master). Of course in any organization, as we've seen, there are people who serve it for the good of the organization and those that are members for self benefiting purposes so who knows?

That's my point. There's no need to go after the Freemasons as an organization, but any society that requires fraternal support, etc., chances abuses by individuals. I would posit that, rather than a group-think regarding Charles.

 

[Curryong]

However, Freemasons aside, I think we have to look, don't we, at when the Press coverage and/or public view of Charles began to change and whether that impacted (and I think we agree that it did) during the years of the Wales's marriage, divorce and what came before and after.

I admit that the following comes from a biography, not directly from Press reports, though these, I'm sure would be easy to look up. Sally Bedell Smith in her biography of the Prince of Wales 'Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life' examines, primarily in the chapter Naming and Shaming, some of the causes Charles has taken up, and I think the dates are interesting.

In 1982 the fairytale marriage narrative was still very much in place in the media except for a few random articles. My observations. Diana was however soaking up much of the attention in the tabloid press.

At the end of 1982, beginning of 1983 Bedell Smith notes Charles set about delivering a series of contentious speeches. On December 14th 1982 Charles made a keynote speech to the British Medical Association as its new President. In it he lambasted the medical profession for an over-reliance on surgery and powerful drugs and spoke up for alternative medicine.

There was a debate among the medical profession as a result and the speech was widely reported in the Press which was not sympathetic to the Prince's aims, though sections of the public supported Charles.

At Cirencester a few weeks later, addressing a conference at the Royal Agricultural College (Jan 8th 1983) Charles attacked modern farming techniques, the use of herbicides and pesticides and misuse of fossil fuels. This continues in the next decades and in 1996 (the year of the divorce from Diana following all that had gone on before) he gave a widely reported address on what he felt were the dangers in genetically modified food, and the advantages of organic produce.

However, as far as Charles's public image goes, the Cirencester address was widely attacked in the Press as following 'fringe ideas'. I believe that the Press reaction to the two speeches in late 1982/early 1983 were the beginning of the image portrayed by them of Charles as a crackpot divorced from reality and peddling airy fairy ideas.

The public, as I've stated, did support some alternative medical ideas, acupuncture, chiropractic etc but some sections didn't, and the Press in general didn't. Charles recognised this. Following the Cirencester address Charles secretly stayed at a Devon farm for some weeks learning what it would be like to be a farm labourer.

He was rapturous about it all, according to Bedell Smith. He wrote to a discreet fellow fox hunting friend, Charlie Douglas-Home, (a great mutual pal of Laurenz Van Der Post,) who happened to be then editor of The Times newspaper, philosophising about the labouring experience. However, Bedell Smith notes that he (Charles) was stung by Press reaction to his Cirencester speech and wrote in his letter that if his thoughts became public on his time in Devon it would cause him to be branded 'in unkind circles as a goat freak'.

Then came his speech on architectural design in May 1984, which caused a furore, and on which SBS has much to say, including the views of many architects that he had caused great harm to their profession.

Now, in a way, whether Charles did or didn't doesn't really matter. However, the views of many leading voices in architecture, in design, in medicine, in science and agriculture, that he didn't know what he was talking about, does.

The Press latched on to this and to the reaction of many of these leading lights. I believe this played a part in the evolution of the image of the Prince in the media as a loony, as a meddler, as a person who dabbles and can cause harm by his opinions.

I also believe this enabled the portrayal of Charles as an unsympathetic figure during the War of the Wales's to be widely accepted by the general public at the time.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, Curryong. Interesting, and thank you for the Bedell Smith link. She does a great journalistic job with back-up. She will be a primary source on much of all this years hence, as she already is.

Charles was angering the entrenched power structure, a very complicated amalgam of monied interests and for-profit status-quo thinking. Amazing that someone like him was so forward looking and capable of thinking outside-the-box, but actually much comes from his father I have discovered (who was the ultimate outsider to the British elite, not inclined to wholly take on the thinking and trappings of the status quo as evidenced with his luke-warm snub of Freemasonry), and Charles has indicated that Gordonstoun (as much as he suffered there as a sensitive boy) taught him about changing the world (the Prince's Trust was a direct inspiration from out of what he learned there, he has said).

Charles, the outward symbol of the most exclusive 'club' in his society/culture, was (ironically) the outsider, by upbringing by a father who saw himself as such himself, by educational influences that were unique to his class, and by his own sensitive, intellectually astute, introversion.

I think you've given the details of a pertinent moment upon which things turned for Charles. What's interesting regarding the author I quoted is that he is placing an added element: that Charles, with the carbuncle speech, had (whether witting or unwittingly) 'attacked' Masons, which set in motion (sustained) bad press.

Whatever was taking place I am convinced (through circumstantial evidence) that there was a many-layered event unfolding, which gained momentum with the Rupert Murdock tabloids, all focused on Charles. Diana was just the cherry-on-top for the tabloids, and when she started turning on Charles - what fun for them! What's amazing is how witlessly the British public followed along and swallowed the spin the tabloids painted of Charles, who in actual fact was a singularly unique advocate for the 'common man' (counter to Thatcherism).

I suspect a full appreciation of Charles and his times will not be possible until farther in the future, though his prescience is being noted. Charles will be the lost opportunity for Britain imo. While a public dithered over the salacious details of "adultery and betrayal", mesmerized by Diana, the larger context was lost regarding the heir to the throne, and with it, some significant social change.

What also fascinates me is the vehement belief that members of the BRF must not have political beliefs, or if they do, must not voice them (and the current British public goes along with that idea). It seems to me that this idea is fairly new, coming into play with Elizabeth, because it wasn't in play prior to her. David is dissed because of his apparent Nazi sympathies, but he was actually very much for the 'common man', angering the for-profit elite.

Anyway, it's interesting to see the other layers potentially in play in something that looks like just a bad marriage. The bad marriage takes up all the oxygen in the room, when in fact something far more important was taking place using the marriage as smoke-screen, with Diana gleefully, unwittingly, feeding the frenzy.

My question now is: did Diana really come up with the Morton book on her own? Was she that clever? Because it took an awful lot of cleverness to devise it all, and follow through with it. Who whispered it into her ear? Or was it all her?

 

[Lady Nimue]

A note about Philip and freemasonry - he promised George VI that he would join and did so, in 1953. The King had been dead for over a year when he joined but believing that having made a promise he had to keep it he decided to join. He went to one meeting - his initiation and hasn't been since.

Charles was more influenced by Mountbatten who was very anti-Freemasons - one reason I have heard was that he was blackballed from joining a lodge and so turned anti although his father and brother had both been members. Not sure exactly how true the story about the blackballing is but it is certainly one I have heard from my masonic friends.

From a Masonic website -

HRH The Rt Hon. Lord Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Viceroy of India, Admiral of the Fleet, KG, PC, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO

On 5 December 1952 His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, consort of the new Queen Elizabeth II, as yet uncrowned, was initiated into the secrets of Freemasonry by the Worshipful Master of Navy Lodge No 2612. He joined against his will. His uncle, Earl Mountbatten of Burma, was - in the words of an impeccable source close to the Royal Family - 'fiercely opposed' to Freemasonry, and had strongly advised Philip to have nothing to do with it. But in 1947 when Philip became engaged to Princess Elizabeth, his future father-in-law King George VI had made it plain that he expected any husband of his daughter to maintain the tradition of royal patronage of Freemasonry. George was an ardent Mason and finally extracted a promise from Philip to join the Brotherhood. George died before Philip was able to fulfil the promise, but despite his own reservations (he regarded the whole thing as a joke) and his uncle's hostility, he felt bound to honour his promise to the dead King.

But having been initiated to Freemasonry as an Entered Apprentice, Philip felt honour was satisfied and he was free to act as he chose - which was to forget the whole business as quickly as possible. And while still nominally a member of the Brotherhood, the Duke has taken no active part for thirty years and has refused all invitations to climb the masonic ladder and achieve grand rank.

Stephen Knight
The Brotherhood
Grafton Books, London, 1983
​

 

[Curryong]

Actually, I don't think that the statement outlined in red is from a Masonic website, or if it is it is perhaps to debunk Knight.

I'm a longterm true crime buff and Stephen Knight, if it's the Stephen Knight I'm thinking of, wrote a book on the Jack the Ripper murders and linked them with a Dr Gull, a very well known Victorian physician, who had treated some of the BRF. Dr Gull was a prominent Freemason and in Knight's book 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution' (it wasn't) he proposed that some of the JTR murders were committed according to Masonic ritual. They weren't.

I believe Knight, who has been dead now for many years, became fascinated with Freemasonry after he wrote on JTR (The Final Solution' was a bestseller) and subsequently produced the book on Freemasonry, The Brotherhood.

I have no evidence to present on whether Knight's assertions about Prince Philip and Lord Mounbatten are true or not. However 'The Final Solution' was replete with errors, leaving out factual information that went against his theory, etc, and in fact the book was debunked by research undertaken by ripperologists in the years afterwards.

 

[Denville]

Charles isn't a mason is he? I thought he didn't like the whole idea nad didn't join it.

 

[Curryong]

No, he's not, and Prince Philip only attended one meeting, his initiation into the Order. However, Lady Nimue is investigating as to whether some Freemasons may have become involved with Charles's life and image in other ways. See first post.

 

[Denville]

I just saw this thread crop up as a new one.. and looked at a post or 2.
just had a look at the first few posts.
Not at all. The whole thing was mostly to do with newspaper sales, and it exploited the very bad marriage of C and Diana. but nonsense to think that freemasons were trying undermine him. And C and Diana were boht foolish enough to try and use the press, which "used them".

 

[Osipi]

This may or may not fit in and mesh with the ongoing discussion but when reading Curryong's very precise and detailed post about Charles' activities in the early 1980s from Sally Bedell-Smith's biography, something hit me.

It seemed that from 1982 through 1984 Charles was quite a busy man. He was championing and learning about various different things from organic farming to agriculture and architecture and putting his thoughts together on them. I do have to chuckle when it was stated he was "out there" when it came to genetically modified organisms. Go into any store today and "GMO free" is a label frequently seen on packages. I guess back then, people regarded Charles as more of a visionary than someone to take seriously. But I digress.

This time frame was also the time frame where Diana's unhappiness in the marriage started to manifest itself. She often complained that Charles was "too busy" for her. He not only had his role of The Prince of Wales but also was very deeply involved in his own pursuits as we're seeing. Cause and effect. Could it be that these alternative ideas and interest were actually at the root of the problems in the marriage?

Now, back to the Freemasons. I've seen it stated a few places that Philip was initiated into the society but also stated that he didn't participate in their activities. Perhaps it was Philip's ideas on the society that influenced his son to not want any part of it? We'll never know.

Another aspect that I'd like to bring up is that, as I've mentioned, there are scores and scores of books and opinions that have been written about the Freemason and their lodges and their activities and even their "intentions". A lot of where an author will get his opinions and what information he or she seeks out and publishes is reflected in their own lives and biographies. In the first post, Renate Riemeck is listed as the author. Now this is one lady that has had a very interesting lifetime. I'm not going to get into it here but a quick search for information about her could be a real eye opener. It helps to understand why the information she presents is important to her. Its the same with Charles and his book "Harmony". The views presented in Harmony reflect the man and his visions and his beliefs.

 

[Lady Nimue]

In the first post, Renate Riemeck is listed as the author. Now this is one lady that has had a very interesting lifetime. I'm not going to get into it here but a quick search for information about her could be a real eye opener. It helps to understand why the information she presents is important to her. Its the same with Charles and his book "Harmony". The views presented in Harmony reflect the man and his visions and his beliefs.

Renate Riemeck is the author of a history (which I cite) on events leading-up to the First World War. My quotes are taken from another book whose title and author I did not identify. I was given the un-identified book to read after a conversation in which Renate Riemeck's history book was being discussed.

Thank you for the heads-up about Renate Riemeck. I will google her.

Osipi, I see what you mean about Renate Riemeck. Very unusual. What to make of it? It would make the second book I was handed (and which I have not identified) even more puzzling. Do not see the connection. Oh well. The bit about Charles and the bad press was what got me going, and continues to be a fascination for me since I've been around PR and public image stuff most of my life. Discussion remains valid regardless of beginnings. IMO.

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renate_Riemeck

 

[Osipi]

Oh I agree. This is a very interesting topic of discussion and I'm enjoying it immensely.

One thing that I did pick up from looking through things is that although Freemasonry is a international brotherhood, each lodge is independent with their own charters and such and each has its own Grand Master. I'm sure there are things that they do that represent the society as a whole but like all Catholic churches are their own parish, yet headed by Rome, a lodge in England may be vastly different from a lodge in Scotland (in fact they have two separate rites. Scottish Rites and York Rites). There's a Scottish rite temple in D.C. here and theres a York Rite temple here in D.C. also.

I think it would be tough to actually pin down just where Freemasonry would have had effect on Charles' publicity as there may have been one lodge with a grudge against Charles because of a member or certain percentage of membership. We'd have to dig to find it. There are masonic lodges solely for law enforcement even if what I read is replaying in my mind right. There's even been headlines made about law enforcement and masonic membership recently.

Sadiq Khan refuses to make London police declare if they are Freemasons after Hillsborough questions raised | The Independent

With Freemasonry continuing to remain a very closed knit and closed mouth organization its pretty hard to pin down Freemasonry as a whole behind something.

I did have an experience once where, for some reason, my email address got confused with a Mason's. I started getting emails from a lodge with information on meetings, minutes and all kinds of things I knew I shouldn't be getting. Figuring it was a mistake, I just deleted them After they had continued for a while, I replied to one stating that they very much had a wrong address and I was not in any way, shape or form connected to Freemasonry. The reply was kind of curt and demanding that I make sure that anything I had received was properly destroyed and was not to be passed on to anyone. They really don't cotton to outsiders too much at all.

I've met many masons that found it to be a good old boy's club and I've met masons who insist the higher degrees are the Illuminati dead set on bringing in a New World Order and have extensive power and influence. The thing about it is that with it being so "secret", its easy to pin almost any kind of an opinion on it.

Exploring Freemasonry, its history and what it is and what it isn't and who thinks what about it could take a lifetime.

 

[Denville]

Osiipi I don't know mcuh about Mason though I did once visit a Masonic hall years ago. I think many people are in it for the contacts and maybe a few take it more seriously, but frankly it is ridiculous ot think that they are goig to give bad publicity to the future king. Charles got bad Publicity in the 80s because of the combination fo his own stupidity, the newspapers' desire for profits and the accident of his bad marriage. Charles was less popular in the 80s because his marriage was goig south, and at the tiem Di was mega popular and the press were going to praise her and rubbish him. And he did act stupidly as well. When Di began to act more stupdily, SHE got more bad press...

 

[Curryong]

I had relatives who were masons. At least one was a deeply religious Methodist. He was a businessman in a large country town and he and his colleagues became Masons because it gave extra business contacts.

From what I've read the vast majority of Scotland Yard officials were Masons at one time. However, I've never read that it affected their work.

There was also a famous classic murder case in England in which the accused, a Mason, gave a secret signal to the Judge hearing his case on a capital charge. The judge was upset but still sentenced him to death.

I have never heard of Masons colluding together to bring down a prominent public figure. Nor do I believe that they would want to do so as far as Charles was concerned. He has no real power. I think Charles's 'bad' image in the Press in the 1980s and 1990s was a combination of a number of factors, some of which has been discussed.

 

[Osipi]

If Charles' press was ever controlled by a Mason, it was controlled by a Mason or a group of Masons for their own agenda. Maybe a few of them were architects that were furious with Charles about the "monstrous carbuncle" speech, took it personally and put suggestions into other Masons that just happened to be in the press or tabloid business.

It would work that way with a bunch of Catholics, a bunch of Starbuck's punch card holders or any organization where birds of a feather flock together. We see the divisiveness of how different groups of different people work against each other everyday. One just has to look into the political arena to see prime examples.

 

[Denville]

oh come now. Lots of architects and people in the building world were annoyed at what charles said. Polticans were annoyed at what he said at times.
Scientists were annoyed at his attacks on conventional medicine or GM crops. He shoots his mouth off too much. He did not need a masonic bunch of people to rouse up annoyance.. against him. And As Curry has said there's no evidence of Masons ever "conspiring to bring someone down"...

 

[Osipi]

oh come now. Lots of architects and people in the building world were annoyed at what charles said. Polticans were annoyed at what he said at times.
Scientists were annoyed at his attacks on conventional medicine or GM crops. He shoots his mouth off too much. He did not need a masonic bunch of people to rouse up annoyance.. against him. And As Curry has said there's no evidence of Masons ever "conspiring to bring someone down"...

Exactly. Charles ruffled feathers. His ideas were (and still are) visionary and many have proven to be right on the money.

That's exactly my point I was trying to make in my post. No specific society or organization was "out to get him".