WI Charles III once became the last governor of Hong Kong in 1986

[King Alexander]

I am not making this up, but I recently came across a book and a news article saying that in 1986, Prime Minister Thatcher and the British Foreign Office considered appointing Charles III, at that time still the Prince of Wales, as the last governor of Hong Kong.

To understand this better, in the early 1980s, the British government was concerned about the future of the colony after 1997 when a lease to rent the New Territories, which made up more than half of Hong Kong's land area, was set to expire (the Island and the town of Kowloon was technically ceded to the Crown in perpetuity according to the Treaties of Nanking and Peking). Deng Xiaoping had said early on that Hong Kong must be given back to China. As a response, Thatcher appoint Edward Youde to become the new governor of Hong Kong in 1982 in order to take part in negotiations. His tenure saw the signing of the Anglo-Chinese Joint Declaration which finalised the status of Hong Kong after 1997 -- which is to become Chinese territory, although admitted into China as a Special Administrative Region rather than being annexed into the Guangdong Province. Youde, however, died of a heart attack during a visit to Peking in 1986.

The interesting part is that according to Ever the Diplomat: Confessions of a Foreign Office Mandarin, a memoir written by the ex-British ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel Sherard Cowper-Coles in 2012, he said that in wake of Youde's unexpected death. Thatcher ordered the Foreign Office to prepare a list of candidates to replace him as the new governor of Hong Kong. The candidate on top of the list was Prince Charles, followed by the Duke of Westminster. However, Thatcher eventually chose David Wilson to become the governor as he was more familiar with China. He became the governor untill 1992 and was succeeded by Chris Patten.

You can find more information here:

South China Morning Post

Ex-governor David Wilson 'clueless' why he got job over Prince Charles

David Wilson 'clueless' as to why he got the job over prince after the death of Edward Youde

www.scmp.com

The Sunday Times

Ever the Diplomat: Confessions of a Foreign Office Mandarin by Sherard Cowper Coles

Sherard Cowper-Coles had a distinguished and varied 33-year Foreign Office career that allowed him to observe and shape numerous diplomatic dramas that are detailed here. After tours in Cairo and

www.thetimes.co.uk

There are more information and sources on this yet they are all in Chinese.

A few thoughts:
1. How will this affect his relationship with Diana, as this happens before their separation?

2. How will he respond to Tiananmen 1989?

3. How long will his tenure be?

4. How will his stay in Hong Kong affect his reputation back home?

5. Will Sino-British relation will much different?

6. Most importantly, how will Hong Kong be changed?


NOTE: Sherard Cowper-Coles was also the Officer for Hong Kong in the British Foreign Office in 1994, this means he may have access to documents on this matter.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Oh lord Prince Charles responding to Tiananmen is going to be a sight.

Overseeing Hong Kong probably gets rid of the "he will suck as king" talk, as being governor means we get an early look (unless he sucks at that)

Maybe the move to Hong Kong keeps him and Diana together longer, as they're removed from their usual pressures and it'll be harder for him to sneak off to Camilla. That could work put, it could equally just make them miserable for longer and they break up anyway, now later on (butterflyinh her death).

William and Harry spend their childhood in Hong Kong, that surely impacts on them

 

[SenatorChickpea]

It'd make the past week's conversation about the monarchy and empire even more delightful.

 

[Elektronaut]

This sounds like it fits into an ambition Charles had long possesed to have, you know, an actual job. He'd been interested in being governor-general of Australia in the seventies. But the reaction then had been very much that they didn't want him. I think - though it probably wasn't expressed explicitly - that they just didn't want a royal near a hint of anything political/constitutional or even quasi-so.

The Foreign Office might have put his name on the list (even the top of the list) as a courtesy but Wilson professing to not know why he was chosen ahead demonstrates how worthless that positioning actually was.

The civil service (and not to say also what used to be euphemistically called "the Palace") I imagine probably had extremely firm views on this kind of thing.

 

[Makemakean]

This sounds like it fits into an ambition Charles had long possesed to have, you know, an actual job. He'd been interested in being governor-general of Australia in the seventies. But the reaction then had been very much that they didn't want him.

My understanding is that Malcolm Fraser was the person who initially suggested it when Charles visited, so it wasn’t Charles going over and trying to apply for a job without any one on the ground being interested. Rather it was Fraser just talking off the top of his head, like, he had had an idea, ”hey, wouldn’t that be interesting?” that Charles understandably misinterpreted this as there being support for the idea elsewhere in Australia, only to find out there wasn’t, and it ended up awkward for everyone.

Oh lord Prince Charles responding to Tiananmen is going to be a sight.

I dunno. I mean, Charles would have been entirely right in condemning the utter tyranny of the Chinese government in slaughtering its own citizens for daring to speak up for freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, the right to vote in free and open elections, etc.

But at the same time, it would have made it so much easier for Deng and his cronies to frame it as British imperialism and London trying to tell China once again how to conduct their internal affairs, and to bring up the Opium Wars, and all that jazz.

 

[Nyvis]

This sounds like it fits into an ambition Charles had long possesed to have, you know, an actual job. He'd been interested in being governor-general of Australia in the seventies. But the reaction then had been very much that they didn't want him. I think - though it probably wasn't expressed explicitly - that they just didn't want a royal near a hint of anything political/constitutional or even quasi-so.

The Foreign Office might have put his name on the list (even the top of the list) as a courtesy but Wilson professing to not know why he was chosen ahead demonstrates how worthless that positioning actually was.

The civil service (and not to say also what used to be euphemistically called "the Palace") I imagine probably had extremely firm views on this kind of thing.

I can see not wanting a royal in a political position where people might start asking how symbolic the monarchy really is if it takes this kind of postings. If it somehow happens I expect the appointment be a political storm, even before he actually gets there and try to do things, which also could go well or badly.

I dunno. I mean, Charles would have been entirely right in condemning the utter tyranny of the Chinese government in slaughtering its own citizens for daring to speak up for freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, the right to vote in free and open elections, etc.

But at the same time, it would have made it so much easier for Deng and his cronies to frame it as British imperialism and London trying to tell China once again how to conduct their internal affairs, and to bring up the Opium Wars, and all that jazz.

As much as that condemnation would be entirely warranted, there's probably better people to do it than a royal from the local colony, for that reason. On the other hand, being right there and staying quiet while people talk about it from Europe would also be very awkward.

 

[Makemakean]

As much as that condemnation would be entirely warranted, there's probably better people to do it than a royal from the local colony, for that reason. On the other hand, being right there and staying quiet while people talk about it from Europe would also be very awkward.

Precisely. Don’t put a person whose credibility and legitimacy depends on him staying silent in a position where strong words need to be said.

Having Prince Charles in Hong Kong as governor is like having Taylor Swift in my bathroom to fix the plumbing of my clogged toilet. Nothing against them, but they won’t solve any problem, and in the end, they’re just going to get shit all over themselves and everybody else.

 

[King Alexander]

This sounds like it fits into an ambition Charles had long possesed to have, you know, an actual job. He'd been interested in being governor-general of Australia in the seventies. But the reaction then had been very much that they didn't want him. I think - though it probably wasn't expressed explicitly - that they just didn't want a royal near a hint of anything political/constitutional or even quasi-so.

The Foreign Office might have put his name on the list (even the top of the list) as a courtesy but Wilson professing to not know why he was chosen ahead demonstrates how worthless that positioning actually was.

The civil service (and not to say also what used to be euphemistically called "the Palace") I imagine probably had extremely firm views on this kind of thing.

Wilson was at the near bottom of the list, and the Governor of Hong Kong had more power compared to the Governor of Australia since Hong Kong never had a elected parliamentary government. The Governor is the person in charge alongside with the Hong Kong's local civil servants. So it is not a worthless position after all, especially in the late 1980s Hong Kong had more than 5 million inhabitants and it was one of the four Asian tigers.

I think the most challenging times of being a Hong Kong Governor is that after 1989 the British government need to formulate an effective response to China. Chris Patten in 1995 tried to reform Hong Kong's election laws to encourage more democratic participating to sort of "protect" Hong Kong from an authortian Chinese government. I remember that Charles wrote in his diary after the handover in 1997 that he had supported Chris Patten's effort. So would we see Charles pushing similar democratic reforms a few years earlier, perhaps before the Hong Kong legislative election of 1991?

 

[King Alexander]

Precisely. Don’t put a person whose credibility and legitimacy depends on him staying silent in a position where strong words need to be said.

Having Prince Charles in Hong Kong as governor is like having Taylor Swift in my bathroom to fix the plumbing of my clogged toilet. Nothing against them, but they won’t solve any problem, and in the end, they’re just going to get shit all over themselves and everybody else.

I think the reason the Foreign Office put his name on the list in the first place is that they believe that it would he a good idea if Charles could get to learn how to govern before becoming king in the future.

Besides, having royal members as governor aren't that uncommon. Mountbatten was the governor of India in 1947 and Edward VIII was the Bahaman governor after his abdication.

 

[Elektronaut]

Wilson was at the near bottom of the list, and the Governor of Hong Kong had more power compared to the Governor of Australia since Hong Kong never had a elected parliamentary government. The Governor is the person in charge alongside with the Hong Kong's local civil servants. So it is not a worthless position after all, especially in the late 1980s Hong Kong had more than 5 million inhabitants and it was one of the four Asian tigers.

That's not what I said.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I dunno. I mean, Charles would have been entirely right in condemning the utter tyranny of the Chinese government in slaughtering its own citizens for daring to speak up for freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, the right to vote in free and open elections, etc.

But at the same time, it would have made it so much easier for Deng and his cronies to frame it as British imperialism and London trying to tell China once again how to conduct their internal affairs, and to bring up the Opium Wars, and all that jazz.

Yeah, that's what I mean: if he takes the correct stance in public, he's causing an international issue and probably messing with the government's own stance (since he is Literal Monarch ruling a colony). That'll be a mess. And if he doesn't, "why didn't our future King/the new King condemn this?"

 

[Makemakean]

I think the reason the Foreign Office put his name on the list in the first place is that they believe that it would he a good idea if Charles could get to learn how to govern before becoming king in the future.

I have no idea why the Foreign Office thought this was a good idea, seeing that it obviously was very much not a good idea. I mean, the job of a monarch in Britain is to be a figurehead, not an administrator.