It turns out that, after suddenly fleeing to South Africa last year, Princess Charlene demanded a king’s ransom from Prince Albert to return to royal life in Monaco. And Albert reportedly feared the longer he waited to pay it, the more tabloid reports, about her becoming his runaway princess, would resonate. So he obliged.
Of course those reports harkened back to similar reports about her becoming his runaway bride. Back then, tabloids suddenly became replete with reports about Albert’s promiscuous past – complete with the discovery of a son he fathered with a Black woman.
Those stories reportedly caused her so much stress that, much like Lady Diana, she seriously considered calling off her fairytale wedding to her purported prince charming.
That melodrama inspired me to write such commentaries as:
- “Prince Albert II of Monaco Renounces the Birthright of his Black Son!” July 7, 2005
- “Prince Albert’s Getting Married! No More Babies Out of Wedlock…?” June 30, 2010
- “Monaco’s Prince Albert Captures His Runaway Bride,” July 5, 2011
Credible reports indicated that Charlene demanded a king’s ransom from Albert to go through with their wedding. And Albert reportedly thought no price was too high to squash rumors that she was planning to become a runaway bride. So he obliged.
Why I apologized to Albert
Except that this then obliged me to finally publish “I Apologize to Prince Albert (and his wife) … Reservedly,” January 15, 2013. I think you’ll find this excerpt comprehensive and prescient in equal measure:
________
The Times of London is to the United Kingdom what The New York Times is to the United States: the de facto national newspaper of record. Therefore, when the Sunday edition of The Times of London published a lengthy article – salaciously headlined “The Full Filthy Monte” – on the antics of Prince Albert’s reluctant bride, I had no reason to doubt that the facts reported were true.
Except that I had already written numerous commentaries damning Albert for his shameful, deadbeat treatment of children he fathered out of wedlock. Here, for example, is how I spewed indignation at him long before his private life became tabloid fodder even for a staid paper like The Times:
Regular readers know that I’ve been unsparing in my criticism of Prince Albert II of Monaco – not only for living a notoriously promiscuous lifestyle, but also for fathering children (2 that we know of) out of wedlock. … He incited my most indignant ire when he renounced the birthright of his Black son in favor of vesting it in his white nephew.
(“Prince Albert Getting Married; No More Babies Out of Wedlock?” The iPINIONS Journal, August 4, 2006)
And here’s how I paid homage to that Times article – with the unvarnished intent of making him look more like a frog than a prince:
I could not have been more cynical [in previous commentaries] in observing that Albert is no prince charming and woe betide the woman who marries him. This is why I suggested that only a gold digger would consider him a great catch, implying of course that Charlene had to be one.
Well, it turns out I was right about him, but only partially right about her. Because reports are that she ‘tried to flee three times’ to avoid having to go through with her three-day royal wedding, which began on Friday. …
But it hardly reflects well on her that the only thing her attempts to escape reportedly accomplished was to force Albert to renegotiate the financial terms of their prenuptial agreement; i.e., to make them more lucrative for her.
(“Monaco’s Prince Albert Captures His Runaway Bride,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 5, 2011)
Well, after all that, Albert sued The Times for reporting that his wife was a reluctant bride and that he had to pay her a princely prenuptial sum to get her to marry him. And, much to my chagrin, he won:
Prince Albert of Monaco has accepted a high court apology and substantial damages from The Times over ‘seriously defamatory allegations’ that he had entered a sham marriage with Charlene Wittstock.
(London Guardian, January 15, 2013)
Of course, I’m sure Albert couldn’t care any less about the defamatory things I might have written about him. Nonetheless, I feel a moral duty to apologize for my defamatory comments that were based on this now-discredited report in The Times.
But, apropos of what incited my ire in the first place, I make no apology for this:
Unfortunately, Albert has decreed that his son’s royal birthright will be neither conferred nor recognized. This is Europe after all. And, despite their cosmopolitan pretensions (and the predilection of their men for sex with Black women), the Hohenzollern, d’Orleans, de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias, Windsors and other European royals remain so provincially racist that the prospect of a Black prince in their midst is simply too scandalous even to countenance. (Of course, inbreeding or consorting with Nazis is fine… But this? Perish the thought!).
And so, by issuing his decree, Albert eagerly assured his peers that, while he acknowledges his bastard son, this black boy will have no chance of sitting on his throne. Hell, he’ll be lucky if Albert lets him use his royal name, Grimaldi.
(“Prince Albert of Monaco Renounces Birthright of His Black Son,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 7 2005)
Incidentally, Albert sired this ‘unsuitable’ heir during a seven-year affair with an Air France flight attendant from Togo named Nicole Coste.
_________
Why it seems no apology was warranted
But then came this latest twist in their fairytale marriage. It began a year ago this month when she disappeared, effectively abandoning Albert and their two children.
She reportedly flew to her native South Africa in May 2021 to support her wildlife foundation. But, while there, she had surgery for a sinus infection that caused all kinds of mental and physical complications, which made flying (back home) prohibitive.
Here is how the Daily Mail reported yesterday on developments after Albert showed up earlier in the day at a stadium in London to watch a soccer match:
__________
The father-of-two made the surprise appearance solo, apparently leaving his wife Princess Charlene and their children Prince Jacques and Princess Gabriela at home in Monaco.
It follows her return following a long period of illness that included almost a year away in her native South Africa and then months of treatment in Switzerland.
Major French outlets that specialise in celebrity news said Charlene’s sudden re-appearance at the weekend was welcomed by all Royal watchers. ‘But the Princess did not return at any price,’ magazine Voici reported. ‘She would have had her husband sign an ultra-confidential contract.’
Conditions include Albert paying Charlene ’12 million euros [£10.2m or $12.5m] per year’, the outlet claims.
The revelations were followed up by rival publication Paris Match Belgium, which writes: ‘Prince Albert would himself pay a tidy sum to the princess so that she appears at his side at public events.’
________
This clearly vindicates my decision to append “Reservedly” to the title of that 2013 commentary, in which I apologized for denouncing their marriage as a high-paid sham. The question now is will Albert have to apologize to The Times.
In fact, he should have to not only return the “substantial damages” that paper paid for allegedly defaming him, but also pay it a substantial sum in damages and costs now that we know the story was in fact true.
But, even if you don’t blame Charlene for extracting a king’s ransom from Albert – not once but twice, you have to wonder about a woman who would abandon her 7-year-old twins the way she did.
After all, she claimed her sinus surgery in South Africa prevented her from flying. But everyone in Monaco, the de facto world capital of super yachts, knows the princess could’ve chartered one home … if she really wanted to. Indeed, the ocean air might help clear up her mysterious sinus infection.
Related commentaries:
I apologize…
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.