February 22, 2006

THE NATION'S CONSCIENCE:

Charles the political dissident, as revealed by his former aide: Witness statement tells of prince's furious letters to ministers (Stephen Bates, February 22, 2006, The Guardian)

Mr Bolland's 10-page statement said: "The prince used all the means of communication at his disposal, including meetings with ministers and others, speeches and correspondence with leaders in all walks of life and politicians. He was never party-political, but to argue that he was not political was difficult ... These letters were not merely routine and non-controversial ... but written at times in extreme terms ... containing his views on political matters and individual politicians at home and abroad and on international issues.

"He often referred to himself as a 'dissident' working against the prevailing political consensus."

It added: "I remember on many occasions seeing in these day files letters which, for example, denounced the elected leaders of other countries in extreme terms, and other such highly politically sensitive correspondence."

Among matters on which Mr Bolland said the prince made his views known were GM foods.

He also alleged that he refused to attend a banquet held at the Chinese embassy in London in 1999 during a state visit by the then president, Jiang Zemin, and made sure that his boycott was leaked to British newspapers.

Mr Bolland said: "He did this as a deliberate snub to the Chinese because he did not approve of the Chinese regime and is a great supporter of the Dalai Lama whom he views as being oppressed by the Chinese ... The Prince of Wales was delighted at the coverage."


Being above pary politics, the monarch advocates for what is morally right, not the merely expedient.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 22, 2006 8:37 AM
Comments

Being above pary politics, he hasn't accomplished anything either.

Posted by: Mike Beversluis at February 22, 2006 8:53 AM

Except of course when he doesn't.

Posted by: Daran at February 22, 2006 9:16 AM

Mike:

They did though. It's been downhill for Britain since they eliminated the monarchy's role.

Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 9:46 AM

I wonder what his views on GM foods were? Hopefully not with the usual anti-globalist's reflexive hostility to "genetically engineered" grains, etc.

Posted by: Twn at February 22, 2006 10:04 AM

Or he could advocate for that which is morally abhorrant. There is no guarantee that the monarch is going to have a moral spine.

Posted by: Mikey at February 22, 2006 10:25 AM

They always have.

Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 10:30 AM

Charles is knucklehead, and it's a good thing that he's supposed to keep quiet, even if he doesn't.

He's spoken out many times against GM foods.

Posted by: H.D. Miller at February 22, 2006 10:51 AM

He's spoken out many times against GM foods.

Twit.

Posted by: Twn at February 22, 2006 10:53 AM

Nothing wrong with being an anti-genetic engineering absolutist.

Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 10:59 AM

Nothing like having our moral compass be an ill-educated twit. Might as well have King Richard Gere.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 22, 2006 11:06 AM

Education is a bane.

Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 11:12 AM

Ill educated or not, the problem is they have the Monarch for life, whatever he/she turns out to be.

Posted by: Genecis at February 22, 2006 11:47 AM

I think one of the conditions imposed by the Queen before allowing Charles to marry Camilla was he that agreed to be passed over in favor of his son and will never be King.

Posted by: erp at February 22, 2006 11:49 AM

The best available argument for a monarchy is the person who is monarch right now. The best argument against it is her son.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 22, 2006 12:07 PM

I say, sorry about the off topic post and all that, but what the devil is a "Track Back?" Sounds rawther ghastly.

Posted by: King Charles III at February 22, 2006 12:07 PM

joe: If you're going to have a monarchy, it shouldn't be hereditary. One of the amazing things about reading history is finding out how many monarchies throughout the ages were not in fact hereditary. Who knew? Certainly not anyone who learns all their history in school...

Posted by: b at February 22, 2006 12:29 PM

Poland probably wishes that their kings had been heriditary.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 22, 2006 3:03 PM

Poland's problem was certainly too weak a king, but the monarchy oughtn't be hereditary.

Posted by: oj at February 22, 2006 3:08 PM

Charles III will be as old and as relevant to British politics as William IV was in the 1830's.

Posted by: Dave W at February 22, 2006 6:26 PM

Term limits for an elected monarch? Now that's a twist on the title.

Joe, if Elizabeth is the best argument for... Argument over.

Posted by: Genecis at February 22, 2006 7:39 PM
« IF THE NATIVES WERE WILLING TO WORK THE PLACE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SUCH A DUMP TO BEGIN WITH: | Main | A PARTY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF: »