You are here:   Civilisation >  Screen > A Marriage of Convenience
 

Conservative readers who think that Prince Charles will be on their side should study his recent writings. He is "conservative" only in the sense that he is a true reactionary who regrets every improvement in man's control over nature and advance in human wealth and knowledge since the Middle Ages. "Nature has been completely objectified — ‘She' has become an ‘it' — and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo's scheme," he told the doubtless appreciative audience at Oxford University's Islamic Centre, as he explained that the scientific worldview was an affront to the world's "sacred traditions". 

The prince has immersed himself in the deep twaddle of deep greenery, an ideology that would reduce the population of the world by billions if it could, and treat with respect every crank, mystic, shaman, fakir and bigot.

He will also be our unelected head of state, and as he has explained, he will not hold his tongue. Schama said the British monarchy may no longer engage in the mergers and acquisitions of the powerful but he could not bring himself to add that it is about to become a highly politicised and crushingly embarrassing institution. Hints of our future were on public display at the royal wedding. But journalists did not want to talk about them because they did not want to be spoilsports. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
jb
June 3rd, 2011
3:06 PM
The fact that some ambassadors were there is irrevelant-it was not a state occasion. If it was then where were Sarkozy,Obama,Merkel etc.They would have all been invited ( and would have attended) if it was a state occasion. You seem to be taking the lack of invitations to Blair and Brown very personally.In your Observer column you said that former Labour prime ministers were banned from attending when you know perfectly well that not being invited to something is not the same as being banned. I would also refer you to the excellent columns you have written about Brown in the past.The idea that anyone not closely related to this hate-filled grotesque would invite him to what is supposed to be a happy occasion is absurd!

Andrew King
June 2nd, 2011
8:06 AM
I’m guessing that, if Prince Charles had any input on the guest list, he was overruled. As an outspoken cheerleader for the counter-enlightenment, I’m sure the ‘Defender of Faiths’ would have found plenty of common interests to discuss with the brains behind the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and he could have cheerfully chatted to Cherie about coffee enemas, crystal healing or whatever quack fads they’re respectively into at the moment. The sticking point was probably the notoriously media-unfriendly Mr Brown. You can imagine the usual wedding invitation negotiations: ‘If we invite your friend Tony, we’ll just have to invite Gordon and you know he doesn’t get on with anybody. After a couple of drinks he’ll start going on about post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory and before you know it he’ll call Philip a bigot or something. No, I’m going to have to put my foot down…’

ollie wright
June 1st, 2011
9:06 PM
Nick, excellent article. I find it deeply offensive that anyone thinks they have the right to become my head of state by inheritance. Wen that perosn is nonsense spouting, fascistic loon, its even more galling. Please, please keep on writing about him.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.