Chuck is a spoilt baby
I pretty much never link to the Daily Mail – but just this once…
‘We spend our lives here educating a new generation to understand that rational behaviour requires us to reach conclusions and make decisions by examining evidence.
‘Yet now we have the heir to the throne demanding — not in a throwaway remark, but in an entire book to which he has just put his name — that we should reject science and evidence in favour of following our instincts. This is surely disturbing.’
Then a bit from that book shows how and why it’s disturbing:
‘Having considered these questions long and hard, my view is that our outlook in the Westernised world has become far too firmly framed by a mechanistic approach to science.’
He continues: ‘This approach is entirely based upon the gathering of the results that come from subjecting physical phenomena to scientific experiment.’
As opposed to just looking into one’s heart; yes, so it is, and so it should be.
Some of his phrases are messianic: ‘I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to point this out and indicate possible ways we can heal the world.’
Obsessively convinced of his own rightness, he views his critics with the weary resignation of an early Christian martyr: ‘It is probably inevitable that if you challenge the traditions of conventional thinking you will find yourself accused of naivety.’
As if he knows “possible ways we can heal the world.”
Charles insists upon addressing a range of issues wider and deeper than any mortal man — unless he has a mind of genius, as the Prince certainly does not — can sensibly encompass. Some of his book reads like the ravings of a Buddhist mystic.
I once incurred princely wrath by suggesting to him that he would be judged by what he is rather than by what he does — that being heir to the throne is not a government office.
…
Rural grandees such as himself may have enjoyed times past, but peasants certainly did not.
The industrial growth which he hates has brought huge benefits to mankind. He seems oblivious to the tension between his grand vision about how others should live and his personal financial profligacy; his enthusiasm for using helicopters and keeping every light blazing in Clarence House at all hours.
He thinks he’s genuinely Special, as opposed to being just notionally Special by an accident of birth. It’s very silly of him to think that.
Charles is a twit to write those things. It’s such a shame because in other ways he does good work.
A good friend of mine worked in Clarence House. He told me that Charles spends lots of his time trying to get wealthy people to part with their money for charity, huge sums by his accounts. He also has the Prince’s trust: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/
It’s a bit like a lot of these figures hailed as doing great good – like the Dalai Lama, Julian Assange, Prince Charles – they do immense good in some ways but also muddy the waters with nitwittery or sordid, harmful ideas and practises.
Johann Hari in his book God Save the Queen? had this to say about Charles: “Charles has been surrounded by sycophants all his life. They have indulged his every whim, including the strange delusion that he is an intelligent man…Charles is as profoundly unintelligent his mother and grandfather. The difference is that they at least seemed to know that they were hardly Stephen Hawking and acted accordingly.” – Who could disagree with Johann? Except perhaps the awful royals themselves.
For a moment, I thought you were talking about William. I guess I had already written off Charles. It must be troubling problem for the Brits.
Well to be fair, it’s not just the Daily Mail, which is notorious for its appeals to the fears of the white Christian British middle classes, it’s Max Hastings who is an entirely different kettle of fish. I seldom agree with Max but he has his head screwed on and often has something sensible to offer.
The man is a buffoon. England has a history of dealing with idiot King Charles’. I believe that the sharp axe is still on hand.
I went caroling today (ssh, I know), and one of the things that at one point struck me was all the references to Jesus as being “the Lord” and “our King” (obviously common Christian phrases, but especially so at this time of year). It occurred to me that, while obviously such phrases are meant to be complimentary, those words have if anything a neutral-leaning-negative connotation to me. I think of monarchy and aristocracy as being related to decadence, undeserved privilege and power, nepotism, caprice, anachronism, dictatorship, wars for power, and corruption. Reminded of Christianity being an essentially monarchical worldview, I couldn’t think of whether monarchy or Christianity should be the more insulted by the association.
Of course, the British monarchy is not what it was, but there are occasional reminders that that house has definitely become more restrained rather than more sane.
The only good thing about him becoming king eventually is that he’ll have to shut up – firmly-established constitutional precedent will demand it.
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight. All a person has to do is consider difficult complex questions long and hard , and then, even if you don’t know anything new and you’re still below average in the brains department, then. . .you can go on ahead and to tell people what to do.
That is a very very silly system.
“The focus of this book is a call for a revolution from the Heir to an ancient throne against some of the more damaging faults of the modern world. For my part I might revolt, I might even buy a Smart Car.” – one of the somewhat sycophantic comments in the Amazon reviews: Charles of course travels by limousine, helicopter or specially chartered train. Somewhat reminiscent of Bhagwan Rhajneesh, who ordered his disciples to relinquish all possessions, but had 50 or so Rolls Royces for his own use . . . ‘But I’m Special’; yes Charles you certainly are ‘special’.
Sean – interesting point about the monarchical worldview of Christianity; it’s worth noting that Philip Pullman made the overthrow of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ and replacement with a republic for all a central themein His Dark Materials.
More on topic now, Charles is a bit of an idiot, and provokes a fair number of defences to various irrational practices, along the lines of: “Well, Prince Charles [or insert other celeb of choice] supports it, therefore it must be true…”. This is especially noticeable from homoeopaths.
Adam,
I actually have read that trilogy, and (apart from mixed, but leaning positive feelings about the plot and its execution) I found the themes quite notable in a “young adults” book. I’m afraid I spoiled it for an evangelical Christian friend, however, because she had managed to be quite pleased with the first book (which seemed only to parody Catholicism, after all), but then I came along and told her to look into the rest of the series.
“A good friend of mine worked in Clarence House. He told me that Charles spends lots of his time trying to get wealthy people to part with their money for charity, huge sums by his accounts. “
Charles is able to engage in charitable works, and persuade others to join him, because he was born into privilege and wealth. One of his sons has just been given an award for his charity work. So, the UK public is subject to swingeing cuts in welfare and other services; those who still have a job continue to pay taxes; those taxes are in part used to finance the monarchy and Charles and his spawn flaunt the money around doing ‘good works’ to earn themselves kudos and gongs. Why not cut out the middle man and give the money directly to the charities?
The most infuriating thing is that Charles is using the UK public purse to promote pseudoscience and ‘woo’.
Works for Ratzinger,
Although he’s probably not below average in the brains department, just above average in the evil department.
Does anyone really think that he will keep his thoughts to himself when he ascends to the throne?
Remember: heir today, goon tomorrow.
like the header said : it is dangerous not silly
‘Does anyone really think that he will keep his thoughts to himself when he ascends to the throne?’
He’s as likely to ascend to heaven.
Every time Chuckles Windsor opens his mouth, I feel obliged to say that the prospect of having this clown as my (ie. Canada’s) titular Head Of State makes me badly want to cut the last apron strings and become a republic (except our implementation of a Presidency would probably just imitate the worst aspects of our southern neighbours’).