Prince Charles denies likening kingship to prison


#1

[Permalink]


#2

You’re never going to get the colonies back with that attitude, bub!


#3

I’m surprised you think we’re interested in your opinion of the British Royal Family. Did Time specifically state you had to generate discussion via controversy?


#4

I think this probably reflects his honest opinion. Too bad public figures aren’t supposed to have those.


#5

I’m surprised you’re reading and commenting on a blog that you’re not interested in.


#6

Is the link supposed to lead to the article? Because when I click on the red print, I’m taken to a picture of the magazine’s cover, which is already visible next to the blurb…


#7

More than anything else, his endorsement of homeopathy (rumored to have some connection to its presence in Boots Pharmacy) gives me the willies. But I hear he’s still surprisingly popular within England?


#8

The existence of of the British Monarchy represents an unfair trade subsidy to the British tabloid industry and should be eliminated as per WTO rules.


#9

I’m always baffled that people are surprised that a group of inbred people artificially given high standing turn out to be fairly ordinary dimwits like everyone else. It’s because they’re . . . just like everyone else. I propose a new system. If people really like the idea of royal figureheads, let’s have parliament nominate candidates for the position from the general population, and everyone can vote on them.


#10

Forget parliament - get Simon Cowell! You could have X Factor - Extreme Monarch Edition. Or So You Think you Can Reign. Or Britain Doesn’t Need Talent.

Keep the masses entertained, get a new monarch every year - what’s not to like?


#11

Or It’s A Royal Knockout.

And conveniently, given where Stuart Hall is currently residing, they really could liken kingship to prison by getting him to do the presenting.


#12

Canada’s head of state is The Queen of Canada (Queen Elizabeth II), but because she’s rarely here, we also have a Governor General as her national representative and a Lieutenant Governor in each province. In theory, the Queen appoints them on the advice of the Prime Minister, though in practice she just rubber stamps the Prime Minister’s choice. I don’t think electing them would actually give better results.

There’s a benefit of having someone non-partisan in a ceremonial position. Any time the King of a Middle East nation shows up in the US, the media points out that President Obama bowed down to him or President Bush kissed him on the cheeks and held hands. When you have someone appointed who doesn’t have to worry about looking stupid because they don’t have an upcoming election, they’re free to do all that ceremonial bullshit.


#13

Yeah, but wouldn’t you want someone non-partisan in a ceremonial position who can be counted on not to say embarrassing things in public?


#14

Dude, NOBODY can be counted on not to say embarrassing things in public.


#15

Funny, I came in here to ask if anyone had read Ben Elton’s Chart Throb.

He writes a great Prince Charles. Calls himself ‘old buggerlugs’.


#16

You don’t vote for kings.


#17

Actually, Elective Monarchies have historically been relatively common, even if the electors tended to be nobles rather than the general population.


#18

So like the US then? All the fancy made up traditions, symbols, transports, titles, powers, rituals etc. surrounding the US presidency seem like the US have/had a desire for a ersatz-monarch. You even have different noble dynasties reaching for the throne/presidency: Kennedy, Bush …


#19

It was a joke.


#20

Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;

(Wordsworth, Ode on Intimations of Immortality,)