I came across a book titled "Ever the Diplomat: Confessions of a Foreign Office Mandarin" written by Sherard Cowper-Coles and printed in 2012. He had been the British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Afghanistan in the 2000s, and most relevant to this discussion, the head of the Hong Kong Department of the Foreign Commonwealth Office in 1993. In Chapter 7 "Chinese Takeaway", he mentioned that after the sudden death of the incumbent Hong Kong Governor Sir Edward Youde in Peking in 1986, the Foreign Office made a list of replacement candidates at the request of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Interestingly, Charles, then the Prince of Wales, topped the list, followed by Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster. David Wilson, a Sinologist and diplomat, was eventually chosen and held the office until 1992 when Chris Patten succeeded him.
But what if Prince Charles was selected as the Governor instead? Having royals hold colonial government positions is not something new, for example, Louis Mountbatten, the last Governor-general of India, was the uncle of Prince Philip, while Edward VIII was appointed the Governor of the Bahamas in 1940. In the 1970s, the Queen had discussed letting his eldest son assume the role of Governor in Australia with the incumbent John Kerr (Check this article to find out more). She rejected it ultimately because Charles had not married.
By 1986, Charles had married Diana and fathered two sons, William and Harry. So it was possible that the Queen might not object to the plan, and this appointment would bear historical symbolism as he would be the last Governor of the last British colony, marking the end of the British Empire. The foreign office had a tradition of choosing Chinese experts as Hong Kong Governors for obvious reasons, yet the appointment of Chris Patten in 1992 showed that this may not be the case. Of course, the royal family is expected to be politically neutral and refrain from active governance, but if so I wonder why Thatcher had recommended him in the first place.
So is this scenario ASB or not? I think that Charles may pursue a more active policy in promoting democracy, as in private he has expressed distrust of the Chinese leadership and supported Chris Patten's OTL proposals. He may push for electoral reforms in the late 80s or early 1990s rather than 1995 in OTL. China's reaction to this would not be positive, to say the least. He may not start the reforms immediately but I feel he would be compelled to do something after the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre. The most plausible option would be working with like-minded liberals like Martin Lee from the United Democrats and subtly pushing for change. In this way, he could avoid meddling too much in politics and maintain a good image for the royal family.
Alternatively, if he refrained from decision-making and become nothing but a figurehead, then I could see him delegating power to the local administration. Here I see two possibilities, one is that British businesses like Jardine and their pro-Chinese friends in the Foreign Office continue their political dominance in Hong Kong so no political reforms were enacted until 1997. This means that there were fewer quarrels between Britain and China about Hong Kong in the 1990s. Another way is that the Chinese exploited Charles' inaction and the political vacuum to slowly assert themselves before the handover, like Macao after 1966. This will undoubtedly prompt a bigger wave of migration in the 1990s.
Charles' reaction to Tiananmen would be interesting. As a Royal Member and Governor, he might very well be expected to respond for the sake of the royal family's public image. David Wilson in OTL was quite quiet in the aftermath of the massacre and hoped to appease China. Could he in any way change the perception of China in British political circles (not directly lobbying the British government, but his opinions could trickle down gradually)?
Finally, how will this appointment affect his marriage with Diana and the evolution of the Royal Family as a whole?
I may be wrong, this scenario may totally be ASB but I still want to ponder the possibilities.
This proposal was mentioned in The Times by the way: https://archive.ph/jA3AT.
Here is an excerpt from the book:
But what if Prince Charles was selected as the Governor instead? Having royals hold colonial government positions is not something new, for example, Louis Mountbatten, the last Governor-general of India, was the uncle of Prince Philip, while Edward VIII was appointed the Governor of the Bahamas in 1940. In the 1970s, the Queen had discussed letting his eldest son assume the role of Governor in Australia with the incumbent John Kerr (Check this article to find out more). She rejected it ultimately because Charles had not married.
By 1986, Charles had married Diana and fathered two sons, William and Harry. So it was possible that the Queen might not object to the plan, and this appointment would bear historical symbolism as he would be the last Governor of the last British colony, marking the end of the British Empire. The foreign office had a tradition of choosing Chinese experts as Hong Kong Governors for obvious reasons, yet the appointment of Chris Patten in 1992 showed that this may not be the case. Of course, the royal family is expected to be politically neutral and refrain from active governance, but if so I wonder why Thatcher had recommended him in the first place.
So is this scenario ASB or not? I think that Charles may pursue a more active policy in promoting democracy, as in private he has expressed distrust of the Chinese leadership and supported Chris Patten's OTL proposals. He may push for electoral reforms in the late 80s or early 1990s rather than 1995 in OTL. China's reaction to this would not be positive, to say the least. He may not start the reforms immediately but I feel he would be compelled to do something after the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre. The most plausible option would be working with like-minded liberals like Martin Lee from the United Democrats and subtly pushing for change. In this way, he could avoid meddling too much in politics and maintain a good image for the royal family.
Alternatively, if he refrained from decision-making and become nothing but a figurehead, then I could see him delegating power to the local administration. Here I see two possibilities, one is that British businesses like Jardine and their pro-Chinese friends in the Foreign Office continue their political dominance in Hong Kong so no political reforms were enacted until 1997. This means that there were fewer quarrels between Britain and China about Hong Kong in the 1990s. Another way is that the Chinese exploited Charles' inaction and the political vacuum to slowly assert themselves before the handover, like Macao after 1966. This will undoubtedly prompt a bigger wave of migration in the 1990s.
Charles' reaction to Tiananmen would be interesting. As a Royal Member and Governor, he might very well be expected to respond for the sake of the royal family's public image. David Wilson in OTL was quite quiet in the aftermath of the massacre and hoped to appease China. Could he in any way change the perception of China in British political circles (not directly lobbying the British government, but his opinions could trickle down gradually)?
Finally, how will this appointment affect his marriage with Diana and the evolution of the Royal Family as a whole?
I may be wrong, this scenario may totally be ASB but I still want to ponder the possibilities.
This proposal was mentioned in The Times by the way: https://archive.ph/jA3AT.
Here is an excerpt from the book:
Last edited:
