BRIAN READE'S COLUMN: CHAS'S LACKEY BREAK.

Byline: BRIAN READE

JUST as your brain tells you that the theatre audiences watching TV's Reborn In The USA have been bribed, hypnotised or dragged off the streets to stare gobsmacked at those woeful dinosaurs, so you instinctively know the truth behind a few other porkies.

If all that lay under Iraqi soil were cabbages, the world would be at peace. The people who shout loudest about the need to create humanitarian chaos in Iraq will be the same who whine loudest when the refugees head for Britain.

And the most vociferous critics of Prince Charles's Kensington Palace cover-up are the same fawning royalists who will wave flags during the next House of Windsor love-fest.

I find this non-stop patronising by monarchists the most tragic aspect about being British. Nothing is more depressing than hearing commentators bicker over the irrelevant issues that surround this troubled family while refusing to accept the obscenity of their role in an advanced 21st-Century democracy.

Sir Michael Peat (knighted for services to royal anus-licking) produces a whitewash report into the mildly shambolic, possibly illegal, goings-on at the Court of Prince Jughead, and mass apoplexy is feigned.

Let's look at the charges. He gave away, or possibly sold, thousands of gifts from his subjects. That's not a scandal. But forelock-tugging buffoons handing costly trinkets to a multi-millionaire businessman who lives off the fat of the land, is. Rather than send Charles to court, shouldn't we send the donors to a shrink?

His "fence" gets a golden pay-off for keeping quiet the secrets of The Troubled Tampax and there is uproar. What's new? We have an Establishment, laws and 30-year rules to keep their real skeletons in the closet. Just try finding out about every royal's relationship with Nazi Germany.

Charles presided over a world of freebies, deceit, black markets, alleged anal rapes, and instead of facing the music, allowed lackeys to take the rap.

But instead of a fresh bout of Camilla-baiting and polls asking who we'd prefer on the throne, can't we come up with something different?

Surely the question is not whether he is fit to rule because he is a self-pitying waste of space. But, do we deserve to be ruled by any of these arrogant accidents of birth?

Clearly we do.

CAPTION(S):

RULE OF FLAW: Charles