Thanks SkyDragon and AgnesK.
I personally like Charles and I think he does a good job as the Prince of Wales. He's of course made mistakes here and there, but he is human, and that is precisely why I like him: His gaffes have mostly been the result of his sincerity and trying to make things right as he thinks they should be. His gaffes aren't malicious in their intent, but driven by his intentions and his heart.
And I think it's a great show of disloyalty and disrespect by Bolland and Goodall to have taken advantage of their position as employees of Charles and to have sold him out to the media for a few hundred pounds.
At the end of the day, regardless of what Charles had to say about Tony Blair, about China or anything else, this event reflects more badly on Bolland and Goodall than it does on Charles frankly. Charles was honest with himself, in something that was supposed to be private and was never for public eyes. That Bolland and Goodall saw an opportunity to make a few hundred easy pounds by exposing Charles private thoughts speaks volumes about the kind of people they are, and at the end of the day, the only regret Charles should have over this matter is that he hired either of them in the first place.
It's a cheap shot at the Prince of Wales as far as I'm concerned. Just as I thought that it was a cheap shot when a reporter from the News of the World posed as a Sheik and tricked Sophie into revealing details about the royal family when he tried to hire her PR company.
Somewhere as public consumers, we need to draw the line about what we will buy and what we won't. I don't mean just in terms of buying as in "believing" but when we refuse to buy newspapers or magazines with such scandals in them. When these sort of stories no longer translate into dollars for media sources, they will stop raising the stakes to invade the privacy of royals (and other public figures) in order to sell newspapers to make money.