In the world in which we live, truth is an ancillary virtue, but it shouldn’t be. Prince Charles cannot but tell the truth. I have never met anyone in public life who is quite like him in that sense. I first met him in 1994 in the garden at Highgrove over tea. Quite by chance, I had been asked whether I would like to make a film about him, and had accepted. He was wearing a summer suit, even though it was a chill May afternoon. I immediately liked the fact that he was open and forthcoming. In the television documentary that followed, I felt I had to ask him about his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, which was the subject of intense speculation, rumour and gossip. So I asked the question and he answered in the words that are now familiar. [The prince admitted he had committed adultery after his marriage to Diana had “irretrievably broken” down.] It lanced a rapidly growing boil. My own view is that it was right for him to answer it, otherwise the speculation would have gone on and on. Imagine what it would have been like for them both today. Even now there will be people who condemn him over his relationship with Camilla, but I think they will be in a very small minority.
When I went on to write the biography of Charles, true to his character, he gave me complete freedom of access to friends and documents. It was very soon clear to me that they had loved one another from the start. I strongly believe that until the breakdown of his marriage he had been true to his wedding vows. Now that they are free to be happy together I know that they will be. So like many others, I rejoice at news of the wedding.
It is both a private decision and a public one – and perfectly timed. After the death of the Princess of Wales, the sleuths with cameras were making their lives a misery and they had to endure a great deal of calumny. Today, it is clear that most people – partly as a result of some astute media management – recognise that they are now a genuine item. So much of the furore has gone away.
Charles’s sense of public duty is overwhelming, as is his sense of honour. I have no doubt that he would have consulted widely but discreetly to ensure that his family and the principal institutions of state would welcome their decision to marry. It is clear that No 10 and Lambeth Palace were privy to the decision and welcome it.
As I see it, there are no constitutional impediments at all. When he becomes king, she will not be queen. The essence of her role is not constitutional but personal, as a partner in his public and private life. Think of Victoria and Albert, whom the prince reveres. His role as future supreme governor of the Church of England will not be affected by his marriage. It is to be a civil affair, though clearly blessed by the Church of England through the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury at the service afterwards. This has neatly resolved what would otherwise have been tricky for some members of the Anglican communion. The marriage recognises that we live in the 21st century, that they love one another, and that they will be good for one another. I think that for once we can all rejoice, unequivocally.
· Jonathan Dimbleby is Prince Charles’s biographer and presenter of ITV’s politics show, Jonathan Dimbleby. He was talking to Stuart Jeffries.