1. Comment #113657 by Thurston on January 20, 2008 at 9:57 am

He is, like his social position, an accident of birth. "Proper fundamentalism"? "Western misrepresentation"? To be fair, however, the letter was written before September 11 and he has a point about the press.

Other Comments by Thurston

2. Comment #113662 by Animavore on January 20, 2008 at 10:03 am

Worship technology? I've never heard of someone going to war over an i-pod.

Other Comments by Animavore

3. Comment #113668 by Vinelectric on January 20, 2008 at 10:13 am

he understood the "frustrations" Muslims experience "as a result of apparent Western misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

That was certainly true, before the muslims eventually lost the plot and tipped the balance.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

4. Comment #113670 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 10:16 am

Well, he's right about the lamentable state of the press in the UK and what seems to be the impossibility of achieving even moderately nuanced reporting.

But what exactly is "proper fundamentalism"???? What is "proper" about saying "this is how it is and no, I don't have any evidence for that, but you still have to follow it"?

On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that such an approach has its appeal to someone whose position in society ALSO "just is". You can see why he might prefer us to simply accept ancient decrees without asking too many inconvenient questions! :-)

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

5. Comment #113671 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 10:16 am

Charles really needs to put a tampon in it (or morph into one or something).

Other Comments by epeeist

6. Comment #113672 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 10:18 am

Comment #113670 by Paula Kirby

But what exactly is "proper fundamentalism"???? What is "proper" about saying "this is how it is and no, I don't have any evidence for that, but you still have to follow it"?

Another guy called Charles insisted he had a divine right to tell people what to do ;-)

Other Comments by epeeist

7. Comment #113673 by suffolkthinker on January 20, 2008 at 10:18 am

We have deposed monarchs in England (and Scotland and the rest of what is now called the United Kingdom) for less evidence of joining a foreign faith than this.

Time to give up all pretence of Defender of the Faith being a role suitable for the head of state. Let alone allowing him to become Defender of Faith (or is it Faiths? I lose track of his idiocies) as he seems to want.

At the very least we need a real campaign for Disestablishment and proper separation of church (or mosque) and state in this country. But why stop there? Can anyone give me a good reason why utterances such as these are not good cause for scraping the whole Monarcy and replacing it with a modern republic?

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

8. Comment #113675 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 10:20 am

epeeist - if that was a "Camillagate" ref it may be lost on our American friends.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

9. Comment #113678 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 10:23 am

Comment #113675 by Peacebeuponme

epeeist - if that was a "Camillagate" ref it may be lost on our American friends.

Good spot. Alternatively, you might just want to consider Charles to be a twat.

Other Comments by epeeist

10. Comment #113689 by bertie wooster on January 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

I fear the day when my daughter or hers would be forced to wear a veil, or sit on a separate area on a bus. If we in "the West" continue to bow to Islam for fear of "offending" its adherents, such a day may not be far off. Perhaps we should start by commemorating "Salman Rushdie Day" and the Dutch. "Theo Van Gogh Day". Islam and Muslims are the greatest hypocrites.

On the one hand they enjoy far greater rights in Europe than they could ever dream about in their countries of origin, yet seek to impose their Islamic shackles on the rest of us, with European governments bending over backwards to accomodate their every whim.

With their higher birth rates and uncontrolled immigration, they are now obtaining far too much influence on timid, spineless politicians, who pander to them in order to cling to power.

The secular world needs brave leaders, yet I cannot see a Churchill in our midst, only Chamberlains, or worst still, Galloways.

Other Comments by bertie wooster

11. Comment #113690 by dialector on January 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

"proper fundamentalism"

I am not sure if the word "fundamentalist" is contaminated beyond the phrase "religiously conservative" in terms of being prone to the negatives of religion. But I can say that it is possible to have very conservative religious people who are very positive in their relations to the world. I live near an Amish population in the US who are very conservative religiously (by todays standards). They are some of the most peaceful and respectful people I have ever met. I trust them to be decent people more than I would trust the average secular person. Perhaps they are the exeption that proves the rule.

Other Comments by dialector

12. Comment #113695 by Mitchell Gilks on January 20, 2008 at 10:50 am

Bring it down to the level of the absurd? As I once said to someone that complained that I did not offer a proper rebuttal to a ludicrous argument. Somethings cannot be reduced to the absurd, they are already there.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

13. Comment #113696 by Phoenix42 on January 20, 2008 at 10:51 am

It's wierd how we've rejected the principle of hereditary power in just about every area of our society apart from this. I'm not sure how many people in the UK accept that someone is 'better' than them because of who their parents were! Perhaps we should run some kind of 'Monarch Idol' to choose a replacement monarch every 10 years or so. I'm sure the broadcasters would pay millions for the rights. As long as there were ballroom dancing elements of the contest....

Other Comments by Phoenix42

14. Comment #113697 by IanG on January 20, 2008 at 10:55 am

…..proper fundamentalism is in the best interests of the future of our world.

There is much to be done……..!

Great! Nothing like the enlightened musings of an hereditary ruler. It seems that we have a particularly penetrant selfish gene or meme mapping through a particularly identifiable phenotype and resulting in a particularly self-interested carrier-robot behaviour.

Despite the fact that this article refers to a letter written in 1996 I think it's still relevant because:

Firstly, Mr. Windsor is still the next in line to be Head of State in the UK and has not, so far as I am aware, repudiated his stated views on this topic;

Secondly, it appears that this letter is now current news, having just been published in Malaysia in the memoirs of a man who has apparently claimed that the Jews, "rule the world by proxy";

Thirdly, far from supporting secularism, (i.e. neutrality on "Faith" issues and a separation of Faith and State), Charles Windsor repeatedly affirms that he will be a champion for the elevation of all faiths in public life, when he becomes King. It's pretty clear that he doesn't mean that he'll champion Atheism as well. The opposite, in fact.

The good news is that many of those who are not amongst his most ardently faithful disciples regard him as a severely intellectually-challenged, self-important, petulant hypocrite, who is away with the fairies. He never troubled the scorers much, academically.

This is the man who, on a visit to the US, asked for a cup of tea. When it arrived it was a cup with the tea-bag in hot water on a string. He didn't touch it throughout the whole of the meeting. When asked, "Why?", afterwards, he said he hadn't known what it was or what the custom was for dealing with it. He was socially embarrassed by not being aware of this particularly arcane ritual. He also reputedly has someone to put the toothpaste on his toothbrush each morning. He really knows how the rest of us live………….not,………….. as Bill and Ted would say.

The bad news is that there's nothing worse than a fool with a platform: he meddles incessantly and incontinently, thinks science has taken us away from our roots in Nature, and emits naïve, utopian blatherings that can be capitalised upon by folks who are far smarter than he. He really does seem to believe that the world was a better place hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago.

You will note that he has the laser-like perception to see that any anti-Islamic sentiment is down to the Tabloid Press, not the people who treat women as either domestic pets or agricultural livestock, who believe that homosexuals should be slaughtered, (and necessarily more unpleasantly than the way we slaughter sheep or pigs), who threaten to kill anyone who does or says things that they don't like and, ultimately, who fly planes into buildings and blow other people into bits of dead meat or into living grotesques. And then go off to enjoy their manly rewards of heavenly rape.

Wonderful. More of this really would be in the best interests of the future of the world. Go, Charley, go!

Charles is a theocrat, which is not surprising if one accepts that nurture and nature both play a part in the development of the individual. Communism, Fascism, Islam and Christianity are all theologies aspiring to the establishment of theocracies that will bring about the end of history. It is merely the case that the first two are secular theologies. They are all Utopian visions requiring only that the appropriate faulty aspects of human nature be eradicated – at any cost, in pursuit of the greater good.

The failed Islamic states and movements such as Iran, (and the Taliban), know for certain that the problem is the insufficiently rigorous, (i.e. fundamentalist), application of Islam, rather than the espousal of this mediaeval philosophy in the first place. Entirely reasonable, of course, given the detail of this charming world-view, if you are completely self-interested, lack any perspective of a bigger picture and are heterosexual male.

Charles understands this to the very core of his being.

He does get one thing right, although it is, characteristically, by accident: he is, albeit unwittingly, correct when he says that, "Important issues are reduced to farce": he is the Prince of Farce, (a quasi-homonymic nod towards his late wife's self-chosen soubriquet). It is not by coincidence that he cultivates the endearing habit of imitating the characters in a mid-twentieth century BBC radio show called "The Goons".

To all those outside the UK, please be assured that the peculiar views of our own unwanted, national domestic pet do not necessarily reflect those of the wider community, although I do have to say that our family cat, Skippy, has more coherent intellectual processes than does Charley W.

Other Comments by IanG

15. Comment #113698 by Geoff on January 20, 2008 at 10:56 am

We Brits should perhaps explain the regard in which Charles is held over here; something akin to a rather dotty old relative that you want to hide in an attic to avoid embarrassment...

The guy talks to plants. And, apparently, they listen.

Edit: found an interview with him from 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture6.stm

Some of the quotes sum him up pretty well:

"The idea that there is a sacred trust between mankind and our Creator, under which we accept a duty of stewardship for the earth, has been an important feature of most religious and spiritual thought throughout the ages. Even those whose beliefs have not included the existence of a Creator have, nevertheless, adopted a similar position on moral and ethical grounds. It is only recently that this guiding principle has become smothered by almost impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism."

He goers on, essentially, to blame atheists for global warming...

"It is because of our inability or refusal to accept the existence of a guiding hand that nature has come to be regarded as a system that can be engineered for our own convenience..."

Other Comments by Geoff

16. Comment #113702 by AllanW on January 20, 2008 at 11:08 am

I am reluctantly forced to tend to agree with a poster above; if it were not obvious before it is now that we need as a nation to think hard about the separation of church and state when and if this numpty succedes the throne.

I'm not a republican. My balance on this view while Liz is monarch falls firmly on the side of 'not what we would do now but not worth the hassle of changing it. Brings in net tourist dollars rather than not so let sleeping dogs lie'.

However Charles is a very different kettle of fish. No discernable intellect to bring to bear; is the most influenced by the supernatural 'woo' trends in modern society of all the royals from what I can see; has a penchant for trying to 'make a mark' by intruding into matters in which he is plainly not equipped to meddle. In short, dangerous to our stability as a nation.

Other Comments by AllanW

17. Comment #113730 by Enlightenme.. on January 20, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Maybe it was bad translation, presumably this has been translated twice, surely?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

18. Comment #113739 by Alkal on January 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm

"Comment #113662 by Animavore on January 20, 2008 at 10:03 am
avatar: Worship technology? I've never heard of someone going to war over an i-pod. "

you obviously have NOT seen how MAC vs PC users react in a discussion....

Other Comments by Alkal

19. Comment #113756 by The Energist on January 20, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I don't worship technology, but I find it significantly more worthy of worship than that imaginary sky bully. For one thing, it exists and is really quite awesome.

Other Comments by The Energist

20. Comment #113765 by Logicel on January 20, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Just think of the extra perks resulting from doing away with the British monarchy--no more nauseating, despicable, professional 'Royal Watchers!'

When an elderly British relative explained that she loves to read about the doings of the Royal Family because they represent continuity to her, I advised her to spend some time in front of a mirror and realize that she, herself, being the offspring of successful ancestors, is proof of the continuity pudding, with no need to stuff herself gluttonously with servings of the Royal version.

Other Comments by Logicel

21. Comment #113771 by notsobad on January 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

This is a good reminder what happens when people have influence only because they were born in the right family.

History taught us that these people think that the best way to defend faith is to attack everyone who doesn't have it.

Other Comments by notsobad

22. Comment #113774 by AshtonBlack on January 20, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Oh dear..... I suppose that's another 'comming out' I've got to do....


Yes, I am a republican. (of the English type, not the American meaning.)

1) Cut off state funding to the Windsor family.
2) Install an elected Head of State.
3) Get a decent secular constitution in "black and white." to prevent more monachistic twaddle.

Not a popular view I suppose, but then neither was atheism (in the broader sense) not that long ago.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

23. Comment #113776 by Steve Zara on January 20, 2008 at 2:02 pm

However Charles is a very different kettle of fish.

Indeed. Mention Charles to even the most convinced Monarchist and you will usually see them develop a sad stare while a gentle sigh escapes their lips.

I disapprove of the monarchy, but for a different reason from most republicans. It is cruel on the children. Imagine being in Royal family. Having everything you do watched by the press. You can't go to a party without pictures being taken, and without gossip. Life must be hell. I mean, poor Harry couldn't even put on a Nazi costume without criticism. Poor chap! These children are being forced to learn how to horse ride, how to shoot animals. How are they ever going to go through the normal Punk or Goth phase that most teenagers seem to require, when you are provided with only the finest clothes? You can hardly have a serious sulk in a bedroom that is the size of most people's houses.

It is cruel, dammit.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #113787 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Brings in net tourist dollars rather than not

Monarchists often say this, but its not exactly easy to prove. I don't think tourist numbers would reduce all that much - we would still have the history and the palaces and the parks, just not the scroungers who inhabit them.

However, this is not really an argument for this site while Brenda still sits in the chair. Should Dumbo ascend though, we really should worry about the effect on religious influence in this country.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

25. Comment #113819 by Cartomancer on January 20, 2008 at 4:58 pm

If this is the best "defender of faiths" the opposition has to offer, I can't really see what we offenders of faith have got to worry about...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

26. Comment #113826 by Duff on January 20, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Epeeist,
Oh, you British, you are sooo arrogant! You have the nerve to refer to The Prince of Wales, probably the next King of England, as a " twat"! I"ll have you know that we here in America are appearantly far more respectful of British Royalty than the British themselves.

I'll have you know he is not a twat, but a twit!!

A "twat" has sexual connotations that I assure you do not describe a person of his....gender, or....station. A "twit" is, however, a perfect description of the long nosed person you refer to.

Other Comments by Duff

27. Comment #113831 by Ian Bamlett on January 20, 2008 at 5:34 pm

It is very much my hope that when the current monarch finally pops her clogs there will be a referendum in which the British people can choose whether or not they wish to continue with a monarchy.

If Charles had any balls he would insist on this himself.

I fully expect her maj to go on for a good decade or two more though; like her mother, the force is strong with that one.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

28. Comment #113904 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 1:30 am

Brings in net tourist dollars rather than not

Peacebuponme - Monarchists often say this, but its not exactly easy to prove.

That's because it's complete bollocks. France has been a republic for some years - and indeed several times - and still manages to be the principal recipient of US tourist money.

Who comes to England to see the Queen? The pomp and ceremony, Buckingham Palace and the Changing of the Guard, possibly. You could have all these without a monarchy, as you said. The monarchists know their position is unsupportable morally, so they have to come up with bogus economic arguments.

Though it must be said that if there were a presidential election, I would probably vote for Brenda. With all her faults, she still seems rather better than the alternatives.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

29. Comment #113911 by Guy on January 21, 2008 at 1:54 am

As long as there were ballroom dancing elements of the contest....

I suggest that we pitch the "The Any Strictly Come Monarch Idol On Ice Factor Will Do" project to the broadcasters at once.

We can make a fortune from the telephone voting, and the self selected calling voters of the great British viewing public are absolutely guaranteed to carefully choose someone who isn't bonkers after calm reflection, rather than indulging in a frenzy of emotion driven expensive repeated calling based on a whim.

Oh yes.

Other Comments by Guy

30. Comment #113917 by Acleron on January 21, 2008 at 2:09 am

About the only constitutional reason for the UK monarchy is the right of the head of state to dismiss the government. As this will never happen, there is no further reason for this institution to survive. It would be an appropriate time to elect either a second house with teeth or a president.

Other Comments by Acleron

31. Comment #113936 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 3:15 am

Duff

A "twat" has sexual connotations that I assure you do not describe a person of his....gender, or....station. A "twit" is, however, a perfect description of the long nosed person you refer to.

Nah, cunt, I'd say.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

32. Comment #113938 by AdrianB on January 21, 2008 at 3:31 am

11. Comment #113689 by bertie wooster on January 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

I fear the day when my daughter or hers would be forced to wear a veil, or sit on a separate area on a bus. If we in "the West" continue to bow to Islam for fear of "offending" its adherents, such a day may not be far off. Perhaps we should start by commemorating "Salman Rushdie Day" and the Dutch. "Theo Van Gogh Day". Islam and Muslims are the greatest hypocrites.

On the one hand they enjoy far greater rights in Europe than they could ever dream about in their countries of origin, yet seek to impose their Islamic shackles on the rest of us, with European governments bending over backwards to accomodate their every whim.

With their higher birth rates and uncontrolled immigration, they are now obtaining far too much influence on timid, spineless politicians, who pander to them in order to cling to power.

The secular world needs brave leaders, yet I cannot see a Churchill in our midst, only Chamberlains, or worst still, Galloways.

It should be noted that in the UK, parents of Pakistani origin (which is the best I can do for guessing Muslim birth rates) are having on average 4.7 children, whilst for the rest it is somewhat less than the average of 1.8.

Just a few more years before the majority that practice a faith is Muslim, and a couple of generations before the absolute majority is Muslim. So you are correct to worry about your grandchildren.

I just want to add, "Aaaarrrggghhh, I'm sounding more like a BNP supporter ever day. Stop it, stop it, stop it!!"

Other Comments by AdrianB

33. Comment #113939 by Johnny O on January 21, 2008 at 3:48 am

Whilst those comments are alarming, I'd like to read the whole letter to see the context in which they were used. We've all seen how RD is quoted as saying Religious Education is child abuse, by paraphrasing him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for one moment defending the inbred, jug eared fuckwit, I'd just like to see the complete letter.

Other Comments by Johnny O

34. Comment #113945 by epeeist on January 21, 2008 at 4:12 am

Comment #113826 by Duff

A "twat" has sexual connotations that I assure you do not describe a person of his....gender, or....station.

As has been suggested, look up "Camillagate" and some of the letters that Charles wrote Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles.

Other Comments by epeeist

35. Comment #113948 by Philip1978 on January 21, 2008 at 4:26 am

I actually quite like some of the work Charles has done for the environment and charities etc His Royal clout has pushed a lot of crap out of the way and helped people in need when they really needed it. But then he goes and wiffles on about stuff like this, its just odd and all shades shapes and sizes of wrong. Its not like he hasn't got some modicum of intelligence, I know folk who have met him and he comes across as quite knowledgeable about a lot of things. Why does he talk such wiffle? Islam has never been that fluffy so why bother insisting it is?

Plus I agree with Steve, Harry and William should have had the chance to Goth it up and be proper teenagers! Its such a waste of a life if you haven't moshed at least once! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

36. Comment #113951 by AllanW on January 21, 2008 at 4:37 am

Hey! Quite irrationally I'll not hear a bad word said about William since I learned he is a fellow Villa fan. So having got the future King as a fan along with the Governor of the Bank of England and Ozzy Osbourne we should be set for global domination soon :)

Other Comments by AllanW

37. Comment #113958 by Johnny O on January 21, 2008 at 4:50 am

I'm not sure what's worst.

Charles being a Religious Fundamentalist or William being a Villa fan...

Other Comments by Johnny O

38. Comment #113964 by notsobad on January 21, 2008 at 5:07 am

Sarkozy warns on intolerant religion

Mr Sarkozy triggered a political furore in France this week when he suggested on a visit to Saudi Arabia that religion should hold a bigger place in the social and political life of his own, officially secular country.
In a speech in Riyadh, he mentioned God 21 times, and on a visit to the Vatican last month he celebrated France's "essentially Christian" roots. Mr Sarkozy's declaration prompted his political opponents to accuse the president of failing to respect the constitution, which prohibits public displays of religious affiliation.

Other Comments by notsobad

39. Comment #113967 by Jonathan Dore on January 21, 2008 at 5:23 am

"Proper fundamentalism": My guess is that at some earlier point in the letter Charles had proposed some special, probably rather anodyne, definition of fundamentalism, which he's referring to here as "proper". I doubt that he's advocating literalist readings of religious texts -- we'd need to see the whole letter to get the context.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

40. Comment #113973 by Bueller_007 on January 21, 2008 at 5:49 am

In response to this, I would like to quote something Richard said in an earlier post.


==
Comment #82960 by Richard Dawkins on October 28, 2007 at 11:06 am

...For the benefit of non-British readers, there are all sorts of things the queen nominally does. She dissolves parliament and calls a general election (but if she tried to do it without being told to by the Prime Minister of the day, all hell would break loose). And after an election, she appoints the Prime Minister (but if she appointed anybody other than the winner of the election, she would precipitate the mother of all constitutional crises). The queen is really a kind of animated rubber stamp. That is one of the problems with Prince Charles: he shows signs of having ideas above his station: of wanting to be more than a rubber stamp; wanting to impose his dopey homeopathic, spirits-whispering-in-the-trees ideas on the country. If he tries that on when he is king, it could (should) be the end of the monarchy. With a bit of luck, the Queen will live to 100 like her mother, so we might not have to face that problem. Long may she live!

Richard
==

Other Comments by Bueller_007

41. Comment #113979 by bamboospitfire on January 21, 2008 at 6:12 am

I agree that Britain requires a written, secular constitution.

I disagree with the Monarchy in principle, although the only problem I have with it in practice is the fact that Charles is plainly a born idiot. His comments on alternative therapy may well prove lethal, if they have not done so already. Elizabeth has been fine, IMO.

I would welcome a referendum. The only valid government is one which derives its authority from the consent of the governed. If we agree to keep the Monarchy, fine. It has no real power anyway. I just wish Charles would put a sock in it. He is just another man, and far less able than his position might suggest.

Disestablishment of the C of E is an absolute necessity. The Bishops must be removed from the Lords as soon as possible and the point must be made that religion has no place in politics.

If Charles wants to change the title of "Defender of (the) Faith", he should change it to "Defender of Freedom". I would welcome that change. Would he welcome it? Could he?

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

42. Comment #113980 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 6:13 am

Just to add to RD's point, quoted by Bueller_007, the Queen did actually raise eyebrows after the 1974 election.

The result was inconclusive. Harold Wilson's Labour Party had the most seats in Parliament, though not an absolute majority. Brenda ignored this and invited the previous PM, Edward Heath, to form a government. Heath refused because he didn't think he could muster enough support, so the constitutional issue died away.

The point is that there are circumstances where it really does matter who is Head of State. And I don't much fancy it being Charles.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

43. Comment #114084 by ryanbooker on January 21, 2008 at 10:46 am

Why is it that we continue with Monarchies? They contribute nothing except to the depletion of our coffers. Pointless. 'Nobility' is such a misnomer. Some inbred twit's ancestors happened to be the most cunning or thuggish people of the era, so he gets to prance about doing nothing? Please.

Other Comments by ryanbooker

44. Comment #114091 by Paula Kirby on January 21, 2008 at 11:03 am

I don't like monarchies either. If it weren't for the fact that republics seem to fare even worse when it comes to their leaders, there'd really be nothing to be said for them :-)

The present queen has been really rather remarkable, though. Hard to see Charles ever achieving the same level of public approval. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he turned out to be our last monarch. Will may get his turn too - but I don't think the institution will last beyond that. And it's probably right that it shouldn't.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

45. Comment #114092 by Diacanu on January 21, 2008 at 11:09 am

Limeys, go read some Tom Paine until you're in a good revolutionary froth, and then overthrow these fuckers.
Get it over with.

Other Comments by Diacanu

46. Comment #114095 by Diacanu on January 21, 2008 at 11:17 am

bamboospitfire-

the only problem I have with it in practice is the fact that Charles is plainly a born idiot.

That's all the reason you need to know hereditary rule is wicked.

Us 'muricans hurled lead for less.

Cast 'em off. Kick 'em out.

Other Comments by Diacanu

47. Comment #114099 by Paula Kirby on January 21, 2008 at 11:24 am

Cast 'em off. Kick 'em out.

Hmmmm. Elizabeth II vs George W. Or Nicolas Sarkozy! No nation admires its politicians as consistently as the Brits (taken as a whole) admire the current queen. I'm not at all sure that a referendum really would result in a vote to replace her.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

48. Comment #114101 by Richard Morgan on January 21, 2008 at 11:26 am

Paula Kirby :

...I don't think the institution will last beyond that. And it's probably right that it shouldn't.

I suspect that you have to be a born-and-bred Britisher to understand that: "probably right."
That is so cute.
For most other people, Queens and Lords and Counts and all that aristocraptic stuff belong to history books or fairy tales. It is somewhat difficult to condemn the Indian caste system while defending the social divisiveness inherent in a social system that supports a "Royalty".

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

49. Comment #114104 by Diacanu on January 21, 2008 at 11:31 am

Paula Kirby-

Hmmmm. Elizabeth II vs George W. Or Nicolas Sarkozy!

Difference is Dubya will be gone soon, wheras you could get stuck with Charles until he's a fuckin' hundred.

Other Comments by Diacanu

50. Comment #114120 by Radesq on January 21, 2008 at 11:56 am

Charles' letter is from 1996 right. Do we have evidence that he still holds these views regarding "proper fundamentalism" or a favorable view of Islam? I truly don't know the answer, but certainly a lot has changed since that time.

As far as the Monarchy supporting religion in general it seems like a fairly wise move if you consider yourself possessing divine hereditary rights. The comparison of W to Elizabeth II is an improper one; W to Tony Blair would be a more direct comparison. I don't know if anybody outside the UK really cares whether you keep the Windsors in their ceremonial position or not. Finally, yes we Yanks get the Camilla hygiene product reference - just because we can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map doesn't mean we're entirely self involved and not aware of what is going on beyond our borders. :)

Other Comments by Radesq