Prince Charles has put throne ‘in jeopardy’ with donations from foreign leaders, author says

Even before Prince Charles’s courtiers rushed to do damage control this weekend over revelations the future king had accepted $1.2 million for one of his charities from the family of Osama bin Laden, a royal author said Charles had already put his reign in jeopardy over his habit of accepting donations from controversial foreign businessmen and politicians.

In June, Charles biographer Tom Bower addressed revelations that the Prince of Wales had personally accepted three separate bundles of cash, totaling $3.6 million, from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, a former prime minister of Qatar.

“The revelation that he took bags stuffed with 500-pound banknotes exposes Prince Charles to accusations of appalling bad judgment,” wrote Bower in a Daily Mail column in June. But more than Charles showing bad judgement, Bower said, “It is no exaggeration to say that his succession to the throne could be in jeopardy.

“There is no doubt the future success of the monarchy rests on its probity. Any suspicion of cash for favors involving Prince Charles and his charities raises such issues.”

In Charles’ defense, the donations from bin Laden’s half-brothers and from the Qatari sheikh never benefitted Charles personally. Instead, the millions were donated to the Prince of Wales Charitable Fund (PWCF), a nonprofit the prince uses to give grants to environmental and educational causes. Officials with the fund have said the organization uses due diligence in accepting donations, and in the cases cited, it was the trustees who made the decisions, not Charles.

Bower authored “Rebel Prince,” a highly critical 2018 book about Charles, in which he wrote that the prince is fond of finery and lavish spending, unlike his more frugal mother. Bower also has been in the news recently with his scathing new biography of Meghan Markle, Charles’ American daughter-in-law.

Bower said that Charles “has repeatedly exposed himself to accusations that he has taken ‘cash for access,’ and worse, used his influence to promote those who donate to his favorite causes.”

He pointed out that Charles’ closest aide, Michael Fawcett, was forced to resign last year as the head of the Prince’s Foundation when it became known that he had used his position and influence to help secure an honorary title and British citizenship for a Saudi businessman in exchange for donations. The Prince’s Foundation is an umbrella organization for Charles’ various charitable projects.

The Sunday Times first reported that Charles had accepted the money from bin Laden’s half-brothers in 2013, two years after the architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks was killed by US special forces at a compound near Islamabad in Pakistan.

The Times alleged that Charles held a private meeting with Bakr bin Laden, the 76-year-old patriarch of the Saudi family, at Clarence House in London in 2013. He agreed to accept the money from Bakr bin Laden and his brother, Shafiq, despite the initial objects of his advisers.

Sources told the Times that at least one trustee of his charity pleaded with him in person to return the money. One of Charles’ household staff said “it would cause national outrage if it became known that he had accepted money from the family of the perpetrator of the worst terrorist attack in history.” Charles reportedly was reminded that 67 Britons died alongside thousands of Americans in the 9/11 attacks.

“The fact that a member of the highest level of the British establishment was choosing to broker deals with a name and a family that not only rang alarm bells, but abject horror around the world … Why would you do this?” one source told the Times. “What good reason is there to do this?”

In response to the Times story, a Clarence House spokesperson acknowledged the donation, but disputed two main issues raised by Times report.

First, bin Laden was disowned by his family in 1994 and there is no suggestion that his half-brothers had any links to his terrorist activities.

Second, Clarence House told the Times it had been assured by the PWCF that “thorough due diligence” had been conducted, and the decision to accept the money lay with the trustees, not with Charles.

“Information (was) sought from a wide range of sources, including government,” Sir Ian Cheshire, chairman of PWCF,  told the Times. The donation was “carefully considered” by the five trustees at the time. “Any attempt to suggest otherwise is misleading and inaccurate,” he said.

Despite the explanations from Clarence House and the PWCF, the bin Laden donations have once again brought negative publicity to the royal family and to Charles in particular.

“Prince Charles continues to show a serious lack of judgment about whom he will accept money from,” Norman Baker, a former Liberal Democrat minister who has written about royal transparency and accountability, told the Times. “He never seems to ask the question as to whether he should turn money down. Is this really appropriate behavior for the heir to the throne?”

Baker and others also have raised concerns about whether the Charity Commission, which regulates UK nonprofits, has been giving Charles and his nonprofits preferential treatment, the Times reported. The regulator previously decided to not investigate the PWCF over Charles accepting the bags of cash from the Qatari sheik. The commission declined to say over the weekend whether it would take action against the PWCF over the bin Laden donations.

“I think the Charity Commission appears to be far too close to Prince Charles and is not doing its job properly,” Baker said.