Some families fall out over money, others over
the washing up, but how many are
passionately at odds when it comes to
genetically-modified crops?
Yet that is the issue currently dividing the
loyalties of the Royal Family.
While there is no shortage of pressing issues to
occupy the thoughts of the Windsors - the
"Camilla question" being one - it seems they
are most caught up with what's on the dinner
table.
The Duke of Edinburgh is the latest member to
speak out on the GM crops issue, and take an
opposite stance to that of his son, Prince
Charles.
The duke has delivered
a wholehearted
endorsement of GM
foods, on the basis
that manipulation of
nature has been going
on for years.
"Do not let us forget
we have been
genetically modifying
animals and plants ever
since people started
selective breeding," he
said, in response to a lecture by the chief
rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks.
His comments fly directly in the face of his
eldest son's high-profile campaign against what
he once called "Frankenstein food".
Charles has long taken a tough stance on
environmental issues. Last month he issued his
strongest condemnation so far of scientific
interference in nature.
In a BBC Reith Lecture
he warned humankind
"to use science to
understand how nature
works - not to change
what nature is, as we
do when genetic
manipulation seeks to
transform the process of biological evolution
into something altogether different".
But Prince Philip was not the first to draw a
family battle line in the debate. In a recent an
interview, the Princess Royal accused those
opposed to all GM foods of a "huge
simplification" and that organic food production
is not an "overall answer".
OK! magazine's royal editor, Judy Wade, is not
surprised to see the Royal Family feud over
this esoteric subject. "After all they are all
farmers," she says.
"The Duke of Edinburgh has run the
Sandringham and Balmoral estates, there is a
farm at Windsor and Charles has his farm at
Highgate."
Put down
While Prince Philip's comments could be seen
as a father putting his son in his place, Ms
Wade says it could have been an effort to
balance the debate started by Charles and
warn him off further outbursts.
"That they take such
diametrically opposite
views is symptomatic
of the fact they are
such a dysfunctional
family and that Anne
has always sided with
her father. She's a
daddy's girl and a real
Tom boy."
Charles has always
been different from the
rest of his family,
preferring to take a more intellectual approach
to life, she says.
"He and Princess Margaret are the only ones
who would actually go to the opera or ballet
out of interest, rather than commitment."
Political slant
The latest outburst also lays the Royal Family
open to claims of interfering in politics. After
all, the GM crops debate is a
politically-charged issue.
Britain's constitutional settlement means while
the monarch is the head of state, she must
not betray political leanings. By implication and
convention, this has extended to the rest of
the Royal Family.
Yet Prince Charles has been outspoken on a
range of matters including farming, education
and unemployment.
Ms Wade says the heir to the throne is making
best use of his relative freedom.
"What else is he to do? He does not have a
proper job, he cannot look like a social security
scrounger. He has an intelligent approach to
life and he feels that he has a contribution to
make."