As has been widely reported, Prince Charles has co-authored a Ladybird book promoting the climate catastrophe narrative. What should we make of it? After all, the guy is heir to the throne and ought to have easy access to good advice on any subject he cares to explore.
A natural and obvious reaction is to ridicule his lack of insight, but as the digital world evolves there is more to add. Charles is a man of his times and his weird political position. He is just as limited as the rest of us and just as likely to go astray whenever he is unwise enough to have a bash at thinking. Not only that, but he has probably been trained from birth to take advice from official sources.
A fascinating feature of our evolving digital world is how the limitations of human nature have become too obvious for mystique to survive. Yet the veils still fall and Charles' Ladybird book misadventure is one such veil. Yet again the guy is exposed as well-meaning but hopelessly shallow. Not his fault - we are all shallow but the shallowness of human nature has become more obvious and more obviously universal. Hierarchies are losing their mystique and Charles never had a strong grip on it in the first place.
We may be shallow but we also have the capacity to be creative and this seemed to be the core of our supposed intelligence. Yet in a cohesive and complex society not everyone has to be creative which implies that not everyone has to be creatively intelligent. In his position Charles is not required to be particularly intelligent at all and does not come across as sufficiently creative to breach that barrier. We all retain the potential but are not necessarily required to use it. That is what holds Charles down.
However the digital world seems to be breaching some of the barriers by enhancing our ability to be creatively intelligent. Thinking beyond the mystique has become easier and more widespread and not reserved for leaders. It is probably too late for Charles and the monarchy, but we’ll see.