PRINCE RAINIER of Monaco has told France to stop meddling in his tiny
state's affairs, after French officials accused it of being a haven for money
launderers.
Relations between Paris and the Mediterranean tax
haven have been deteriorating since French
government reports this summer criticised Monaco
as a "non-cooperative state" in the fight against
recycling suspect cash.
"I don't want to declare war on France, but France
no longer respects us and hasn't for many months,"
said the 77-year-old prince in an interview in Le
Figaro. "The principality wishes to regain its full
sovereignty."
Paris and Monaco are bound by a 1918 treaty
which evokes the "friendly protectorship of France".
In effect, that and subsequent agreements have
siphoned off all real power to Paris.
The head of the Monegasque government is a Frenchman chosen from Paris,
and France keeps a close eye on Monaco's customs and justice departments.
Even Monaco's firemen and policemen all have to be French.
The Prince said: "We are a sovereign state. For too long, we have accepted
that our sovereignty be limited." He called for the treaties binding Monaco to
Paris to be "dusted off". "Monaco should be returned to the Monegasques,"
he said.
But Rainier's call to arms is unlikely to resonate with the foreign nationals,
sports stars and celebrities who make up the vast majority of Monaco's
residents. Of 30,000 people in the resort, only 7,000 thousand have
Monegasque nationality.
The two French parliamentary reports said that Monaco's lax financial
regulations were designed to prevent "a flight of capital which would result if
there were more rigorous laws".
The Prince also said yesterday that, despite his failing health, he would not
hand over the principality to his son, Albert, until he produced an heir.
~*~
Fayed's Diana appeal rejected(BBC)
A French appeals court has rejected a request
by millionaire businessman Mohamed al-Fayed
to revive criminal charges against news
photographers over the death of Diana,
Princess of Wales, and Mr al-Fayed's son Dodi.
A Paris judge last year accepted the
investigating magistrates' recommendations to
blame limousine driver Henri Paul and clear 10
paparazzi.
They had been charged
with contributing to
the deaths of Diana,
her companion Dodi
al-Fayed and the driver
by chasing the car and
failing to help the
victims.
Diana died when her
limousine smashed into
a pillar in a central
Paris underpass on 31
August 1997.
Egyptian-born businessman Mohamed al-Fayed
and Henri Paul's family insist that the pursuing
pack of photographers forced the driver to
speed through Paris and should therefore bear
some of the blame.
Recommendations
The state prosecutor recommended at the
closed door appeals court hearing last month
that the appeal should be rejected and that
Henri Paul should bear the blame, after being
found to be drunk and under the influence of
anti-depressants at the time of the high-speed
crash.
But Tuesday's ruling by no means spells the
end to marathon legal proceedings over
Princess Diana's death.
Mr al-Fayed may still appeal to France's
supreme court to have the original ruling
annulled on a technicality.
He argues that the two magistrates who
investigated the accident committed a
procedural error by both signing their final
conclusion.
Normally only the chief investigator should
have done so.
He is also suing the French Government for
what he alleges was a failure to investigate
the crash properly.
The Harrods boss is convinced that "evil and
racist forces" working through Britain's security
service killed Diana and Dodi.
He also has said he will file a lawsuit against
US authorities to release documents he says
may prove the couple were murdered.
~*~
Prince's TV firm racks up £2m loss (The Guardian)
Steven Morris
Pigeons flutter around the three-sided
stable block which is approached by a
winding drive lined with rhododendrons.
Cows graze in fields opposite, only
occasionally disturbed by the arrival of a
car.
It is not a scene typically associated with
an organisation with sets itself up as a
cutting-edge television and film production
company. But Ardent Productions,
operating from The Stables, Bagshot
Park, Surrey, is not a typical limited firm.
It is the company set up by the Earl of
Wessex which has over the years
attracted both ridicule and harsh criticism.
Prince Edward's financial standing is in
the spotlight because Ardent's latest
accounts, available for inspection at
Companies House, show that its fortunes
are in the doldrums. Since it was formed
seven years ago it has racked up losses
approaching £2m and survives thanks to
the patience of a raft of wealthy investors.
Some outsiders, however, have suggested
that the inland revenue ought to take a
close look at a company that has never
paid corporation tax and which continues
to trade despite such results.
There is also a row over refurbishment on
the prince's 50-room mansion, near The
Stables. Any day now receivers for
builders who claim that they went under
because he owed them £600,000 are
deciding whether to take legal action.
Questions have even been asked about
the refurbishment in the House of
Commons.
Puzzle
Then there is the puzzle of how the prince
can afford the lease on Bagshot Park.
And there is unease at how he and his
wife Sophie, whose PR company R-JH
seems to be doing far better than her
husband's project, continue to trade on
their connections.
All in all, as the prince returned to British
soil on Monday after a royal trip to
Malaysia and Brunei - where he met the
Sultan, one of Ardent's investors - he had
a few business problems to tackle.
When Ardent was created with the help of
the likes of Kwik-Fit founder, Tom Farmer,
and TNT group managing director, Alan
Jones, the prince said that he hoped that
by 2000 it would be one of the country's
top independent production companies. A
glance at the accounts tells how for off
that ambition still is.
Turnover was down and operating losses
up substantially. One of its subsidiaries
also made a loss and another a profit of
only a few hundred pounds. The value of
its assets was down and the bottom line
figure, showing accumulated losses of
£1,920,463 would make grim reading for
the most steely businessman.
Ardent chairman, Malcolm Cockren,
however, yesterday preferred to describe
the figure as "thoroughly disappointing"
rather than worrying. He said that there
were a number of projects which would
result in Ardent making a profit next time
around. Among them is Brainwaves, a
six-part science series for British
television. It is also involved in a third
series of its best known work Crown and
Country. The latter shows up the prince's
vow not to use his royal connections.
Mr Cockren said: "Even if it's just one
penny, I am sure we will make a profit this
year. Our shareholders are understanding
of the situation and are prepared to look
long term."
Dismissing the idea that Ardent is little
more than a rich man's plaything, Mr
Cockren said: "This is totally a
commercial enterprise, not a toy for
Prince Edward." And he insisted that the
move from Ardent's previous base at the
hub of British television life in Soho two
years ago to leafy Bagshot made perfect
sense even though the prince charges
£50,000 a year for The Stables. The
company was in the process, he said, of
building post-production facilities there, a
move which would be impossible in
central London.
Rise in salary
To observers the prince's role seems a
little curious. Despite the losses his
salary in 1999 rose from £59,000 to
£61,500. Mr Cockren admitted that it
"amazes" him that the prince combines
his role as a businessman with that of a
working royal.
It is estimated that in 1999 the Prince
carried out 85 engagements in the UK and
a further 22 during royal tours abroad.
Shareholders of few firms would
countenance a director being away so
often.
Bagshot residents do not see the prince
spending a great deal of time at The
Stables. Paul Hayhurst, landlord of the
Kings Arms pub, said: "You can set your
watch by the sound of the helicopter
coming into land on a Friday. That's him
coming home for the weekend."
Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for
Lewes, said: "The firm is either
incompetent or has money to burn. If a
firm makes losses for so long it is
investigated by the inland revenue. I'd
expect them to treat this firm like any
other."
Buckingham Palace will not discuss the
prince's finances. What is known is that
under the terms of the Civil List Acts
Prince Edward and other royals are paid
annuities from government funds to meet
official expenses. Since 1993 the Queen
has reimbursed the Treasury for most of
the royal family's annuities. The prince's
share was increased from £96,000 to
£141,000 on his marriage in 1999.
Quite how he affords the rent for Bagshot
Park when he has such relatively small
amounts remains unknown. His wife's
estimated salary of £200,000 must help
but the sums still do not add up. One
source who knows Bagshot Park well
claimed the rent was as much as
£750,000 a year.
Edward's privileged position, however, did
not spare him a clash with the builders
which could yet end in an undignified
court case. Refurbishment work began at
Bagshot in the summer of 1998.
Respected London firm CJ Sims won the
job with a tender of £1.8m. The firm
alleges that the prince's "dithering" cost
time and money and they submitted a
final bill of £2.4m which they claim the
prince refused to pay. The firm
subsequently went into receivership and it
is believed that the receivers Leonard
Curtis, had given the prince until the start
of this month to settle before it begins
proceedings.
The storms which swept the country this
week left Ardent Production's telephone
lines down. For the moment, Prince
Edward might prefer it that way.