Sunday 3 July 2011

The Prince Minister?

I profoundly hope so.

It is time to get over the strange idea that Prince Charles is unpopular. He may not always be right, but what really annoys those who insist that he is disliked, that his expressions of opinion are somehow improper, or what have you, is that he is of the same, increasingly elderly, generation as themselves, yet he dares to hold and articulate views and values other than their own.

Most people younger than they, the mere existence of whom enrages them to distraction because they were supposed to remain the gilded youths forever, are either indifferent towards him or actually rather fond of him, and his long decades of solid charitable service, rather than his late ex-wife's glorified photo shoots, have given plenty of them cause to be grateful to him. Not a few of them share some or all of his views, putting him ahead of the field rather than behind the times.

So those who talk about abolishing the monarchy only "once the present Queen dies" are in fact saying "never", and probably know it, as much in Australia or Canada as here. Succession happens instantly. And by then, who would want abolition? Even fewer people than do so now.

Talk of personal fitness negates the whole concept of monarchy, and it is a complete fantasy that the monarchy is supposed to be neutral in all matters. What would be the point of that? If, for example, it could not intervene to prevent the despoilment of our built environment, then there really would be no purpose at all to it. But such is not the case.

Leaving aside the mistakes and misfortunes of his own life (which have absolutely nothing to do with the institution as such), Prince Charles is either on the wrong track or just plain wrong when it comes to syncretism, and Greenery, and the Dalai Lama. But he is right about an awful lot more.

And that makes him the voice of huge numbers of people who have none in the supposedly more legitimate parliamentary process, of which the monarch is properly, but not currently, an integral part, complete with a power of veto in the defence of certain interests now impossible to defend by means of voting because not exactly dear to the hearts of New Labour or the Coalition.

Give me Charles over them any day.

4 comments:

  1. Thirtysomething rising political force with no mandate recognises that hung parliaments are going to be more common and next monarch a lot more activist. Charles has been using public money for decades to create a Court Party, an alternative centre of power and patronage in London. Look who wants some of that power and patronage.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Monarch before President4 July 2011 at 00:16

    I must admit I would much rather have King Charles (or minister Charles) than President Blair, Brown, Kinnock, Thatcher, et al, although I wouldn't have minded President Callaghan. Despite his shortcomings, I always thought that Jim Callaghan had the best interests of this country at heart which is more than can be said for the other names on my list.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Callaghan is very underrated. I might do a post on that at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just finished reading AN Wilson's (incomplete) history of the reign of Elizabeth II, and passed it on.

    He comments very favorably on Prince Charles and absolutely hates Callaghan, more than any other politician. Only Thorpe comes close in terms of politicians and only Heath comes close in terms of PMs in terms of what the writer dislikes. But I don't remember his coverage of "HeathCo" being so relentlessly negative.

    Now this is someone who doesn't have too much time for politicians, and the main point of the book is that in the last sixty years the British gained in creature comforts and lost more in terms of their identity. But though Churchill's senility, MacMillan's and Blair's opportunism, Wilson's and Major's strangeness, Thatcher's divisiveness, Brown's Scottishness are emphasized, and prominent politicians who didn't make it to Downing Street are either portrayed as too weak or too eccentric, he has some favorable things to say for each. Not Callaghan.

    But I did not live through the time and have no idea, so I am also awaiting a defense.

    ReplyDelete