PRINCE CHARLES
and family
FEB
10th 2005
ROYAL MARRIAGE
We have a monarchy now for the same reason that monarchies arose
in the
first place: to provide a head of state who has prepared for the job,
who can take the role of the previous leader without a physical or
metaphorical electoral bloodbath, who has been in the public eye for a
long period so that the public and their staff really know who they
are, who does not have any hidden agenda, and who has sufficient wealth
to make them independent and free from bribery. The alternative is to
elect a president. That works very well for e.g. Ireland but it would
not have advantages for the United Kingdom, where the functions of the
head of state and the knowledge and the authority required to carry
them out are very, very considerable. America is aways in search
of a Dynasty for the same
reasons but the half-and-half process they end up with is much worse
and in America the Head of State is also the Prime Minister, so has to
be a member of a political party. Most people recognise the really
serious downside to that, so we
remain a monarchy. Now perhaps we can move on and discuss the Marriage
of Charles and Camilla.
It would hardly help Prince Charles to ask him to do his job
without the support of Camilla, nor would it make sense to prevent them
from getting married. Nor would be a good idea to suggest that the
monarchy should skip a generation when it is a job that needs all the
experience you can get before taking it on. However, because there is
not a majority in the country in favour of her taking the title if
Queen, it makes sense for her to be Princess Consort and Duchess of
Cornwall.
There are no problems for the Church of England that could be resolved
without giving rise to worse ones. The Church recognises their civil
marriage ceremony and approves it. There are no constitutional problems
either.
That about sums it up. They deserve all the support we can possibly
give them.
UPDATE Feb 22
There are those who claim the law is not clear and may technically not
provide for a civil marriage of members of the royal family. If that is
the case, and it matters, then Parliament wll presumably amend the law.
The whole point of the law is facilitate and legalise what we
collectively agree is in the best interest of society. The glory of the
Anglican faith is that it can move with the times while holding fast to
the essentials. That is what makes it the greatest church of the
profoundest religion. Whether its own leaders understand this or not I
have no idea*.
APRIL 9th 2005 - Wedding Day
* re the doubt expressed in the paragraph above, I suspect
on reflection that they do.
I write this witnessing with much pleasure the service of
blessing in St George's Chapel, thanks to he excellent TV coverage (at
this particular moment) of our national public service broadcasting
corporation. I wish I could say the same of the coverage in the weeks
leading up to the event. Almost beyond the limits of credibility was
the reporting during the week that the General Confession, a text
that has been read aloud every Sunday by all church-going Christians
not subjected to the appalling modernised versions or hog-tied by
Catholicism, was a special and personal repentance for Charles and
Camilla's personal previous intimacy. The increasing level of religious
illiteracy and ignorance that infests the ranks now privileged with the
power of microphones that reach billions is offset, to a small degree,
by such intelligent programmes as the best of "Beyond Belief" (BBC
Radio 4), though how many tune into that is not easily measurable. As
for Charles and Camilla, they have nothing special to apologise for to
any of us and require no special forgiveness from God that I know of.
The General Confession is, therefore, just fine. The service was great,
the music was great, the vocal participation in the memorable hymns was
uplfting. The contrast with the Pope's funeral, which should have been
a celebration of his life but was the most uninspiring event in spite
of the massive attendance, could not be more evident.
MARCH 12th 2007
"THE MEDDLING PRINCE"
The cost of a Royal Train forms the subject of complaints today in this
programme on the UK's Channel 4. But hold on - was this a cost that
that went somewhere not helpful to the economy or to the railway system
and its employees? Is it not part of his function? I am not convinced
that the royal train causes worse service to the general public for the
total taxpayer's annual input to the carrier or network rail, or worse
times for their staff.
The burden of this programme was, however, the Prince's influence on
government policy, which he wields in secret as well as openly. I have
to say here that I have some sympathy with the presenters. Prince
Charles has access to everything and everybody. That is a very good
thing in my opinion. Every nation should have the equivalent of
national ombudsman to whom no doors are closed, and the heir to the
throne in a monarchy is as good a way as any, in fact far better than
any other, of making the appointment. But it does mean that the holder
of this position must be very careful not to push his own opinions in
secret as well as in public on matters that are disputed science or
disputed opinion.
I think the programme makers were right to pick up certain abuses of
power, even though these are greatly outweighed by his positive
actions. It is also true that if and when he becomes monarch his role
will change. That is probably why he is making the most of his time now.
The main contributors to this prgramme are notable for their resentment
of anybody who wasn't born on a council estate and who claim royalty
have no rights. It is true they have few if any, and a lot of duties,
but Charles has given the impression to Amanda Platell, before whose
opinions we should bow and scrape for some reason that escapes me along
with those of the rabid-appearing Johann Hari, that he is extravagant
in his lifestyle and in the performance of his duties because he
employs too many people.
It is up to Prince Charles now to make his play and convince the people
of Britain that he is not the spoiled meddler that this programme has
depicted. Some points made need rebuttal, if not by him then by others
who are in a position to do so. It is beyond doubt that in some very
important areas, notably the failure of our primary education in
reading, writing, speaking, listening, history and geography.
APRIL 14th 2006
Prince William and Kate Middleton are now the subject of press reports
that they have 'split up'. Strange, since they were never married or
engaged. We are told that the intrusion of the media has been the cause
of this, and this gives the tabloids an excuse for more stories based
on less than nothing, usuing old pictures so they can't be accused of
further intrusion. Commentators have suggested that William does not
intend to get married in the near future (quite probably not) and that
this is because of his army career (that's reasonable) and then that
"he doesn't want to make the same mistake as his father". That last is
the stupidest comment yet. His father did not make a mistake in
marrying Diana Spencer. The idea that William could think it was a
mistake is a logical impossibility unless he regrets his own existence
and he seems, on the contrary, well up to the challenge. The only
thing to be said about William and Kate is they certainly do not wish
to have their lives run by the media, their engagement assumed by the
media, their future planned by the media and their thoughts and acts
misreported by the media.
nnnn.