One tries - by God one tries - to be supportive. The alternative to the monarchy is too awful to envisage. But I'll try: the popular vote would give us AntanDec, or Julie Walters, or Simon Cowell. Maybe Beckham. Joanna Lumley if we were very lucky. Stephen Fry if we were slightly less lucky. Tony bleeding Blair. You get the picture.Better by far to have a settled succession. There will be a wrong 'un every now and again but not often.
I wouldn't call the Prince of Wales a wrong 'un, but he does have some rum views. Sometimes, these will carry the prospect of policy enactment, additions to the statute book, and massive prospective cost to the punter in the street, be he royalist or republican.
His views on man made climate change are a case in point. He runs a great danger of being on the wrong side of a deeply divisive debate. I think we know that he starts with his heart in the right place (unlike the politicos and scientists who have so much power and money to gain by blowing the Armageddon trumpet), but the implications for economic growth, employment, living standards and shared socialist misery are significant if he has got it wrong. The best place for him in this argument is as an honest broker with strong eco credentials, not as cheer-leader for the Big Government, Big Tax lobby.
What he certainly should NOT be doing is excusing the ratbags at the Climate Research Unit who cooked the books and destroyed evidence. A huge misjudgement, and deliberately cheeky, I would say.
What a target he makes of himself sometimes. I wonder if he arrived in the Bentley?
14 comments:
Idle the fundamental problem with the Windsors is that they are thick.
Chas means well and his retreat into 'New Age' is a cover for a shortage in the grey matter dept.
He does love his country.
With you completely, Idle.
I'm afraid he's already past it Iders.
Unfortunately, he's always been made out to be clever, (he's not)but that's not the point. I agree that any alternative to royalty would be bad for UK Inc, hence his diversions into 'green' issues etc., just to keep him in the limelight, but not noticed very much - rather like his brothers and sister these days.
I reckon Wills is written in for next in line and Charlie boy will vanish into the ether like his Uncle.
Do Y'all think Anne would have been better?
Anne is sound and lacks her elder brother's vanity, but I fear she would be hard to love.
The Greek says she's the best man of all of them.
The perennial problem has been that after a long run of "golden age" with a good monarch some loony comes along and tears the country apart. That risk is lessened with electoral politics but after QEII wilL KCIII be an unmitigated disaster? I fear he may be.
He's one of the worst hypocrites when it comes to environmentalism.
That's all you need look at - what they do, not what they say.
scrobs - the beeb-wallah covering Wills recent NZ trip dropped a classic freudian bollock, saying that the Maoris were honoured to be meeting 'their next King'
out of the mouths of beebs ..
Off topic: Idle, I registered for voting today due to our discussion. I made that sound Marge makes in the Simpsons.
I'm with El - Kevo. Pure and simple.
Anne is now next in line after the Spencer boys and would make an excellent monarch but why bother with a succession?
Have done with the irrelevant farce that is the monarchy and move on.
Well said idle, he's far from perfect and ideal, until one starts considering he alternatives.
Idle, you are spot-on.
The alternative would be some old flat-mate of TB's, too ghastly to even think about.
Anne at least has the advantage of being a yachtswoman!
Did I split an infinitive there?
God but the world is going to the dogs these days. Harumph.
Post a Comment