Cometh the hour, cometh the Prince of Wales. At least, that is what Prince William and those around him will be desperately hoping the result of his trip this week to Rio de Janeiro will be: a reset for the royal family after weeks of terrible, existentially damaging headlines, mainly but not entirely revolving around the Andrew formerly known as Prince. Whether he will be successful in this – especially given the current actions of his estranged younger brother – is another question altogether.
William’s trip to South America has been with the worthiest of purposes in mind. He has headed down there both to hand out the Earthshot Awards tonight and to attend the UN’s climate conference COP30. As such, the visit has been arranged both with seriousness and more light-hearted activities in mind.
Yesterday, the Prince addressed the United for Wildlife conference, in which he sternly railed against gang-driven deforestation activities and said:
Whatever the plan, something is always there, waiting to overshadow it
We must stand alongside those who everyday are standing up and defending nature…we must recognise and celebrate these protectors, not just in words but through our actions. And we must act together.
He also found time to visit Sugarloaf Mountain, to be given the keys to Rio and even to indulge his love of football with a kickabout at the city’s Maracana Stadium.
The Prince’s tour is a tightly choreographed series of days that combines stunts typical of the royal family for time immemorial – of course, William was photographed hugging an oblivious but photogenic baby – with a new focus on environmentalism and the climate. When the Prince makes his speech at COP30 tomorrow, it is expected not only to dominate headlines but also to show him as a globally engaged figure, a politician in all but name. This is what he and the Firm have been planning ever since his grandmother’s death – a smoothing of the legacy so that when he eventually becomes king, he will be seen as a truly modern monarch.
This is all wholly commendable, even if some may wonder if the Prince’s concerns tend towards the performative rather than the practical. However, there are also other issues at stake. While the King’s decision to strip Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor of all his royal titles and privileges, and to throw him out of his home to boot, may have been the nuclear option, it has also had the desired effect of cauterising that particular wound for the time being and therefore not overshadowing William’s efforts. Reports that Charles made these decisions entirely by himself should be set in the context of his heir being especially keen that decisive action be taken before his trip to Rio. The timing, therefore, should not be regarded as a coincidence.
Instead, it is William’s brother Harry who may be a greater distraction. In what the Duke of Sussex’s camp insists is mere coincidence, he has headed to Canada for a series of Remembrance Day events, which is also a reminder that he, rather than his elder brother, is the royal most closely associated with the military.
Despite Harry’s relative unpopularity compared to William, many might prefer for a member of the royal family – even a semi-detached one – to spend their time remembering the armed forces rather than discussing the deforestation of Latin America. Certainly, although Harry claims that Buckingham Palace was informed of his movements, it feels like a deliberate attempt to draw attention in his own direction, and, once again, it might succeed in doing so.
William might be forgiven for a sense of justified irritation at the show-stealing antics of his family when his own intentions are so transparently worthy. Yet any veteran royal-watcher could tell him that whatever the plan, something is always there, waiting to overshadow it. And with the prospect of a whole tranche of Jeffrey Epstein emails still waiting to emerge – as well as whatever Harry does next – this will not be the last time that a royal visit runs the risk of being relegated to the ‘in other news’ column.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.spectator.co.uk ’
