Prince Charles may not always be right. On Greenery, Tibet, and what
seems to be a sort of syncretism, he is wrong. 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. Except, I suppose, on
Greenery, Tibet, and what seems to be a sort of syncretism.
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, Canada or Jamaica 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, I say again, either on the wrong track or just plain wrong
when it comes to syncretism, and Greenery, and the Dalai Lama, all
issues on which his fiercest critics actually agree with him. 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. And remember that the monarch
would not be there to give parliamentary effect to public opinion in the
nation at large at the given time, any more than MPs are there to hold a
referendum on the EU merely because their constituents might happen to
want one, or Lords Spiritual are there to vote through the assisted
suicide apparently supported by the majority of Church of England
churchgoers.
To suppose such a relationship between the monarch and the nation, or
between an MP and his or her constituents, or between the Lords
Spiritual and the Christian basis of this State, is spectacularly to
miss the point. Prince Charles understands that. King Charles will
understand that. But does anyone else?
"......or Lords Spiritual are there to vote through the assisted suicide apparently supported by the majority of Church of England churchgoers."
ReplyDeleteI could genuinely credit that the C of E has been subject to an act of entryism against it from the likes of the BHA and other secular, atheistic or anti-religious factions these last couple of decades.
It seems otherwise impossible to account for the likes of Giles Fraser, or those members who responded in that infamous survey to the effect that they rejected the reality of the Resurrection.
Which makes me suspect that Rowan Williams hasn't actually been the failure he is routinely presented as. The Anglican communion holds, for now. It won't forever, which might be a good thing for them, but the Archbishop succeeded here, at least according to his own terms......