Thank goodness for Prince Charles

[thirdcrank]

If I think it through, and it's not something I dwell on, it's his personal ambition that niggles with me. It can't be easy spending a lifetime as the permanent deputy. He's already 63 and might easily be 80 before he gets the yellow jersey. That "goes with the territory." Anyway, every so often the usual suspects start spinning that the queen should call it a day to give him a go, before it gets too late.

I'd round them up and corral them all inside the railings at Buck Ho. I'd have the massed bands of the Brigade of Guards playing the royalist signature tune and Chas could lead the communal singing, standing in front of a big hoarding with a pointer

".... Long to reign over us...."

Every passing day must make the future less certain. A popular younger generation is already emerging and talk of the Queen standing down in his favour must be increasingly likely to backfire. The press will stir up controversy over this at every opportunity.

[horizon]

Thank you for the replies. I just want to clarify that this wasn't a post in support of the monarchical system in general or even our Royal Family in particular, though I'm not a republican. Nor was it a motion of support for the office of Prince of Wales. This was simply recognition of a particular person (Prince Charles) who is using (or abusing) his privileged position to favour causes that he personally supports and which, in my view, are unlikely to survive in our political system.

I don't intend to put forward a watertight case for this but I would suggest that our competitive political and economic system favours self-advancement and personal achievement over a genuine concern for others and our planet. Politicians and managers must, by the nature of the system, be backstabbing, cold hearted, self-driven winners to get to where they are and be prepared to sacrifice the wealth of the community and the natural world for their own advancement.

This means that the sort of architecture, healthcare or farming that emphasises profit, status, personal wealth, individualism and achievement is probably the sort that they favour. The rest of us probably want something else. In my view, Prince Charles is a bit of a loser and identifies at a personal level with the rest of us. 50,000 local people (apparently) were opposed to the Chelsea development: he took a lot of flak to tip the balance in favour of a more democratic outcome. The utterly undemocratic processes by which ATMS (Asda, Tesco, Morrison’s and Sainsbury's) get planning permission dwarf any kind of royal over-stepping of the mark.

I do by the way accept that not everyone agrees with his alternative health stuff (though you are welcome to watch the NHS sink inexorably into oblivion under the weight of the ever increasing drugs-that-don't-work-but-make-huge-profits bill) and I appreciate that you may not warm to him personally. As a cyclist however and one who values traditional buildings and the survival of at least a few bird species, I think he deserves a passing nod of thanks.

[thirdcrank]

horizon

It seems you mainly like him because of your shared views - an excellent reason if ever there was one. But we are only discussing this because of the way he uses his position as a platform for his views. The ethical objections to this include the likelihood that in our class-divided deferential society, the very fact of an aristocrat espousing a view can give it credibility and respectibility; if somebody's eminence comes from being an expert in their field, that's quite different. Then, if ordinary people want to lobby politicians, their options are limited. In this sense,he's no more than a one-man lobbyist for his personal interests.

This raises a practical objection. Part of the job description for the promotion to HM from HRH is to have the wisdom of Solomon, but the ability to bite one's tongue and spout whatever garbage the prime minister of the day (or their speech writers) comes up with - eg monarch's speech at opening of Parliament. (I can see reasons why, this too, is open to criticism, but that's how we do it.) I'd suggest he's spent the last forty years or so, demonstrating that he doesn't meet the job spec. I suspect that some of this is is an attempt to be the cheer leader for ordinary people by somebody whose whole life has sheltered him from experiencing their concerns.

[blackbike]

I think Prince Charles is a buffoon.

[horizon]

I think Prince Charles is a buffoon.

blackbike: this sentiment was inherent in the original reason for the thread.

[horizon]

horizon

It seems you mainly like him because of your shared views - an excellent reason if ever there was one. But we are only discussing this because of the way he uses his position as a platform for his views. The ethical objections to this include the likelihood that in our class-divided deferential society, the very fact of an aristocrat espousing a view can give it credibility and respectibility; if somebody's eminence comes from being an expert in their field, that's quite different. Then, if ordinary people want to lobby politicians, their options are limited. In this sense,he's no more than a one-man lobbyist for his personal interests.

This raises a practical objection. Part of the job description for the promotion to HM from HRH is to have the wisdom of Solomon, but the ability to bite one's tongue and spout whatever garbage the prime minister of the day (or their speech writers) comes up with - eg monarch's speech at opening of Parliament. (I can see reasons why, this too, is open to criticism, but that's how we do it.) I'd suggest he's spent the last forty years or so, demonstrating that he doesn't meet the job spec. I suspect that some of this is is an attempt to be the cheer leader for ordinary people by somebody whose whole life has sheltered him from experiencing their concerns.

I do stand on very shaky ground. My justification for defending him is that, as I said above, our system predisposes against his kind of views being represented. As someone who shares his views I can tolerate the constitutional impropriety. I thought perhaps as cyclists we could feel a little smug but this forum is split at best 50/50 on whether we actually agree with him anyway. But as I intimated to blackbike, at the very least I wanted to point out not only that not everybody thinks he is a buffoon and indeed there is at least one (and it appears perhaps two or three) on this forum who share his views.

[blackbike]

At least I hope he's a buffoon.

He does give the impression of a man who has no real knowlegde of or connection with real, everyday life for most people.

If he does have such knowledge then he's not a buffoon but something far worse.

But I tend to look on the bright side so I'll stick to my original estimation of the man.

[thirdcrank]

.... I do stand on very shaky ground. My justification for defending him is that, as I said above, our system predisposes against his kind of views being represented. As someone who shares his views I can tolerate the constitutional impropriety. I thought perhaps as cyclists we could feel a little smug but this forum is split at best 50/50 on whether we actually agree with him anyway. But as I intimated to blackbike, at the very least I wanted to point out not only that not everybody thinks he is a buffoon and indeed there is at least one (and it appears perhaps two or three) on this forum who share his views. (Emphasis added.)

Horizon

I'm glad you have returned to this, if only so I can discharge the other barrel.

To answer the bit I've highlighted in red - which seems to be the crux of your post - I think it's worth looking backwards towards the future. The last Prince of Wales was eventually compelled to abdicate because he put his personal happiness before complying with the moral standards required from the ruler of the Established Church. It's almost an inconsequential footnote that he is reported to have been in favour of appeasement (as was the PM of course) and something of an admirer of Herr Hitler, as he used to be known when he was still respectable. I've seen it alleged that Churchill threatened him with a court martial when he indulged in some freelance diplomacy during the war. Be that as it may, I suggest it is unlikely that the monarchy would have survived the surge of socialism after the war had Edward VIII remained king.

As it was, George VI regularly appeared in public in uniform, despite his physical frailty and now widely-reported lack of self confidence. Staying put when invasion seemed inevitable (as we now know Keep calm and carry on posters were stockpiled ready for distribution) probably helped avoid panic in the civilian population. I was only seven in February 1952 but I can easily remember the national mood of a fresh start at a time when some things were still rationed. It's often reported that the televising of the coronation the following year was the first big boost to the telly.

The Queen has stuck to it ever since.

The relevance to the present Prince of Wales is that he has benefited immeasurably from the way his mother and grandparents rehabilitated the monarchy and then modernised it. But he has chosen to exploit his prominence to promote his own points of view, which seem largely based on privilege. He's an aristocrat in a constitutional monarchy. In cycling terms, he's spent a long time sitting on his mother's wheel.

It's none of my business who he marries or divorces and it's ironic that this attitude is probably widespread amongst republicans. I can only presume that it wins little genuine support amongst constitutional monarchists. There's no Third Reich this time round, of course, but conspicuous consumption is a no-no in the current straitened times. IMO he's simply not the one for the next round of modernisation. I suspect that populist monarchists will increasingly fall in behind "Wills and Kate."

[blackbike]

If we are to have a monarchy where the monarch can say nothing at all remotely controversial about anything then it seems daft to allow others in the 'royal' family to air their views.

We should amend the law so that all 'royal' people have to keep quiet as part of their terms of employment.

[Mick F]

+1 TC
-1 BB

I doubt the present Prince of Wales will be king for very long - if at all. HMQ is in her 80s and if her longevity mirrors her mother, she has perhaps another 20years on the throne. PC will be how old? Born in 1948, he could be nearly 90 by then. You never know, he may not make it.

Will and Kate are more likely to be successors.

[DavidT]

I doubt the present Prince of Wales will be king for very long - if at all. HMQ is in her 80s and if her longevity mirrors her mother, she has perhaps another 20years on the throne. PC will be how old? Born in 1948, he could be nearly 90 by then. You never know, he may not make it.

Will and Kate are more likely to be successors.

That's my view, and I hope they are the successors. Prince Charles seems to have developed something of a niche role and image (as has been discussed), and I can easily imagine that in the interests of the Monarchy he may be by passed. Regarding our Queen, she'll surely be at least holding out to beat Victoria's record in the next few years?

[horizon]

Just to say that I started this thread in response to this one:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58518&p=513038&hilit=charles#p513038

The question of the succession was brought into that discussion as a result of someone's signature so it was all a bit off topic. The whole point of this thread was simply to put the balance in. My assumption was that Charles is universally thought of as a buffoon and going beyond his constitutional position. I didn't want to present Charles' actions as a good thing per se, merely to point out that for some people (2.5% of the population maybe?) his views are a welcome relief from the social consensus. I also didn't intend to fight on two fronts: I don't wish to stand up for the Royal Family, for monarchism, for wealth and priviledge, for Royal influence in politics. All I was saying is that I appreciate the fact that Prince Charles holds the views that he does because it is unlikely that anyone in politics ever will. As a mere mortal, I cannot help but be pleased (if politically inconsistent) that he expresses them publicly.

[Mike Sales]

His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Royal Knight Companion of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Member of the Order of Merit, Knight of the Order of Australia, Companion of the Queen's Service Order, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty
aka Citizen Windsor
is of course entitled to just as much of a voice as M.P.Sales in the policies of the government of U.K..

[thirdcrank]

... M.P.Sales ..

Having gone to some length to spell out the full monty, you've only provided your initials. Are you hiding something embarrassing in the middle such Parsifal (or even Pinafore - as in Reginald Iolanthe Perrin?)

I took in a parcel for next-door's daughter the other day and discovered her initials are NAG - who does that to a new-born baby?

[horizon]

Leaving aside his personality, his constitutional position, his priviledges, the existence of monarchy, his accent, his forebears and the Ruling Class and whether he should publicly speak or act, what do people think about his views?