The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Monarchy

I'm trying to resist snarking about Prince Charles and his current straits (though I can't resist a pun or two). After all he's been the butt of more jokes than Ben Affleck. It's bad enough that his whole kingdom knows about the conversation Charles had with his paramour, wishing to be her tampon. And now the rumor of having a "compromising sexual encounter," as The New York Times put it. The current scandal has less to do with Charles's libido than with the hoops the media have gone through to avoid stating the obvious.

Of course, he may be innocent of this unnamed allegation. The man who says he saw the fearsome act is a traumatized Falklands vet whose prior complaint of being raped by a palace aide was never substantiated. Still, it's an ominous sign that Charles is being photographed among girls. This is the tactic Arnold Schwarzenegger used when he was accused of groping.

My guess is that any number of British scions have been serviced by their valets. If Charles is a member of this company, it doesn't mean he's gay or even bisexual, as one London tabloid insinuated (while debunking its own speculation on an inside page). Generations of British schoolboys have put up with the custom of "fagging" for upperclassmen, and it's widely believed that these duties often included more than making tea. There are many ways to behave queerly, and the idea that merely having sex with another man constitutes an identity is a modern invention. So it's possible that Charles was simply practicing a time-honored tradition.

Let's get to the heart of what makes this ruckus so absurd. In Britain, where truth is not necessarily a defense against libel, no less a queen than Liberace once sued a tabloid for calling him a homo -- and won! So it's no surprise that the British press has been enjoined from fully describing the speculations about Charles. The result is titillation by omission. To make matters even weirder, he has chosen to deny the allegation without saying what it is. This looks about as suspicious as the bulbous crotch of George Bush's flight suit. But the most apparent things can be ignored if decorum is maintained.

Perhaps that's why, in America, this story has been driven by the Internet, where outrage is only a flame away. CNN has paid it much ado while saying almost nothing, and the print press is observing an uncanny indirection. According to Matt Drudge, The New York Times posted a candid item on its website last week, only to pull it 20 minutes later. (A subsequent dispatch was the model of amused innuendo.) Meanwhile at the Post, which never met a gay shock-horror it didn't exploit, this one was ignored until it became unavoidable and then confined to the outermost news pages. In an age when Bill Clinton couldn't get a blowjob in peace, why this odd discretion?

The most obvious explanation is the legal concerns of American publications and networks that circulate in England. But why were the Americans so much more restrained than the Brits? The reason may lie in what the British monarchy represents for us. It embodies an archaic and very fragile order. With WASP supremacy being challenged on many fronts, there's a need to maintain the symbolic value of this ancient institution. The bond of Anglo ages still stands for social coherence. Charles's love life doesn't shatter that image; if anything it recalls another smitten, needy Windsor. But it's not considered proper to dwell on rumors that the king-in-waiting has been dipping his sword in the wrong scabbard. After all, someday he'll be the head of the Anglican Church, which needs every het it can get. Even worse than the image of a sovereign who expects to be serviced is the idea of one who returns the favor. That thought inspired the Post to dub him "Princess Charles" (making sure to put the slur in exculpatory quotes).