A cogent reminder of what we already know. Charles has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to spotting and avoiding bonkers ideas. Or bonkers people for that matter.
As the late Christopher Hitchens made clear, our new monarch was always attracted to the most abysmal piffle.
Difficult not to agree with him, yet we have such a paucity of talent in the political classes that a republic is not something currently to look forward to, the image of any of the Prime Ministers since Margaret Thatcher, and she was not without fault, becoming a president, is no different to having the useless Ursula von der Layen as President of the EU thrust upon us.
Yes, Charles has been the Prince of Credulity, but any attack by the likes of Hitchens makes me warm to him, I'm afraid. A Balliol PPE degree doesn't make Hitchens an expert on science, nor does a successful media Trot ridiculing monarchy amount to much.
Sam - even so, I think he was right. Charles is committed to an environmental outlook which is clearly political. He cannot live up to it personally, but presumably we are supposed to. The organic farming is nowhere near as extreme - he could have stayed with that but still seems unaware that he should have done so.
I don't know much about Chris Hitch, but it's hard to disagree with this article. The problem as AK says is that there are so many other vacuous people around to contend with. What to do?
Tammly - yes, it's what we've always known about Charles, he is clearly attracted to piffle which seems to have a spiritual element. Not difficult to understand, but he should know better.
Let's face it, the alternative to King Charles is probably some dodgy ex-flatmate of Tony Blair's, or even worse, of Cherie Blairs. Or someone like Meghan.
Faced with those possibilities, I say "Long Live The King!"
Peter - yes, it's the killer argument. It doesn't say much for our democracy, but we have to face it. Charles is very unlikely indeed to be worse than President Blair.
8 comments:
Difficult not to agree with him, yet we have such a paucity of talent in the political classes that a republic is not something currently to look forward to, the image of any of the Prime Ministers since Margaret Thatcher, and she was not without fault, becoming a president, is no different to having the useless Ursula von der Layen as President of the EU thrust upon us.
Yes, Charles has been the Prince of Credulity, but any attack by the likes of Hitchens makes me warm to him, I'm afraid. A Balliol PPE degree doesn't make Hitchens an expert on science, nor does a successful media Trot ridiculing monarchy amount to much.
Wiggia - that's the problem. It's easy to criticise Charles, but is he any worse than the kind of president we are likely to end up with?
Sam - even so, I think he was right. Charles is committed to an environmental outlook which is clearly political. He cannot live up to it personally, but presumably we are supposed to. The organic farming is nowhere near as extreme - he could have stayed with that but still seems unaware that he should have done so.
I don't know much about Chris Hitch, but it's hard to disagree with this article. The problem as AK says is that there are so many other vacuous people around to contend with. What to do?
Tammly - yes, it's what we've always known about Charles, he is clearly attracted to piffle which seems to have a spiritual element. Not difficult to understand, but he should know better.
Let's face it, the alternative to King Charles is probably some dodgy ex-flatmate of Tony Blair's, or even worse, of Cherie Blairs. Or someone like Meghan.
Faced with those possibilities, I say "Long Live The King!"
Peter - yes, it's the killer argument. It doesn't say much for our democracy, but we have to face it. Charles is very unlikely indeed to be worse than President Blair.
Post a Comment