Several members of the royal family have come under fire for questionable deals. Photo / AP
Several members of the royal family have come under fire for questionable deals. Photo / AP
Their titles bring entitlement, but how much should the British royal family be allowed to exploit that privilege?
That's the question that was probed by Channel 9's 60 Minutes show on Sunday night, which delved into a number of alleged "dodgy deals" that have rocked the royals.
Prince Charles, PrinceHarry and Meghan Markle, Prince Andrew, Prince Michael of Kent and Sarah "Fergie" Ferguson, Duchess of York all came under fire in the scathing segment, with accusations the Windsors can – and are – being bought casting the latest shadow over the family.
It's been a sad and tumultuous time for the royals, with the loss of their patriarch, a transatlantic rift and calls for the heir to the throne to face police questioning.
What's more, the timing is not great, with increasing fears for the 95-year-old Queen's health.
That the future King of England could be embroiled in this latest "honours scandal" appalls but doesn't shock republican and former MP Norman Baker.
"Charles is seen as slightly weird, to be honest with you," Baker said. "Obsessed by architecture, talking to plants, that sort of thing, seen as out of touch."
Charles is under intense scrutiny amid allegations he was involved in selling honours to raise cash for his charities.
It's alleged Charles accepted £1.5 million in return for recommending an honorary title for Saudi tycoon, Dr Bin Mahfouz, which would help in his quest for British citizenship.
This arrangement was confirmed in a letter signed by Michael Fawcett, the head of Charles' charities, However, Charles denies any knowledge of the deal.
When asked by host Tara Brown about what he hopes police will do in regards to investigating Charles, Baker said: "If there is evidence, sufficient evidence, that there has been an attempt to sell an honour for cash, which is what I believe has happened, then that should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution."
Baker has reported the alleged breach of the Honours Prevention of Abuses Act to Scotland Yard.
"I don't expect to see him behind bars, and I'll tell you why I don't expect that," Baker said.
"Because whenever Prince Charles is cornered on something, someone else falls on their sword.
"Here we got Michael Fawcett. Michael Fawcett is a man who squeezed toothpaste on Prince Charles's toothbrush for him, who held a urine bottle from him to pee into.
"Those two are very, very close indeed.
"And the idea that Michael Fawcett would carry out work to solicit money contrary to the law in my view, without Prince Charles knowing, seems to be highly unlikely."
Fawcett has temporarily stood down from his position while an investigation takes place.
However, journalist, author and royal biographer, Angela Levin says that because the cash was for charity, it's all been blown up.
"None of it, and everybody agrees to that has gone into Prince Charles' pocket," Levin said.
Meanwhile, this isn't the first time Charles has raised eyebrows for accepting donations, as previously some of the donors have turned out to be questionable characters, accused of money laundering.
Several members of the royal family have come under fire for questionable deals. Photo / AP
Norman: "If Prince Charles is associating with dubious business people, then that reflects on the royal family adversely, it affects on the reputation of the UK, and it's also a matter which would not be allowed for elected politicians.
"They would have to pay a price for that. So, he needs to be more careful where the money's coming from. It can't be money at any price.
The show then detailed how the Queen's cousin, Prince Michael of Kent, was caught on camera in May this year, seeming eager to trade on his royal status for money.
Britain's Channel 4 had created a fake South Korean Gold Investment company, called House of Haedong, who offered him $200,000 to present his speech, spruiking gold.
On camera, they asked if it's normally in line with what he'd charge for a speech like this.
Michael responded: "Yes, indeed so. I have no questions for you on that. I am very happy with your suggestion.
"It's very good and generous."
Upon agreeing to record the speech at Kensington Palace he said: "Yes, I'm sure we, we can bring the building in.
This infuriated Baker: "Now, I just think that's a bit shabby, to be honest with you apart from anything else, and what he's been doing, quite clearly, has been using his royal personage to secure funds for himself.
" … He has a right to earn an income, but what he doesn't have a right to do is to use his royal links to trade on that for his own personal benefit."
There were also alleged connections with the Russians, including Vladimir Putin, according to the Prince's business associate and friend, Lord Reading.
Lord Reading allegedly said: "If I can say this, this is kind of slightly discreet, we're talking relatively discreetly here because we wouldn't want the world to know he's seeing Putin for business reasons only, if you follow me."
Ultimately, Baker said of the royals: "They're arrogant. They think they can get away with it and they think they have an entitlement, and they carry on regardless. They sail on.
"If politicians behave that way, they could be sacked. You can't sack the royals. They're there. This is part of the problem."
