Prince Charles' letters reveal a quirky, old-fashioned brand of conservatism

The Week ^ | 19th May 2015 | Michael Brendan Dougherty

[MHT]

I was disturbed when he said that he would be Keeper of the FaithS... plural. I know that he must tread lightly, but how can he lead the UK (even as a figurehead) without being concerned that the increasing Muslim population and push toward Sharia from common law will destroy the essence of western civilization and Britain as we know it. He’s the ultimate infidel no matter how much he gives in to them.

[naturalman1975]

You have to understand the context of that statement and that often is not explained. He made the statement in one interview in 1994. What he actually said was: "I personally would rather see it as Defender of Faith, not the Faith"and what he was talking about was the idea of protecting people's right to freedom of religion, as opposed to an idea where Anglicanism (not Christianity in general, but particularly the Church of England) had a special position of privilege in the United Kingdom. Was he talking about Islam? Only in the same sense that he was talking about Judaism and Catholicism and Buddhism, and a whole host of other faiths. And Islam was not at the forefront of his mind at the time.

He is concerned about the impact of fundamentalist Islam in the world as well as in the UK. This is an extract from a speech he made in 2013:

For myself, I have for some time now been deeply troubled by the growing difficulties faced by Christian communities in various parts of the Middle East. It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants. Christianity was, literally, born in the Middle East and we must not forget our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ. Their church communities link us straight back to the early Church, as I was reminded by hearing Aramaic, Our Lord's own language, spoken and sung a few hours ago.

Yet, today, the Middle East and North Africa has the lowest concentration of Christians in the world – just four per cent of the population and it is clear that the Christian population of the Middle East has dropped dramatically over the last century and is falling still further.

This has an effect on all of us, although, of course, primarily on those Christians who can no longer continue to live in the Middle East: we all lose something immensely and irreplaceably precious when such a rich tradition dating back two thousand years begins to disappear. It is, therefore, especially delightful to see such a rich panoply of church life here to-day, including the Antiochian, Greek, Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox Churches, the Melkite, Maronite, Syrian Catholic, Chaldean, and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as the Church of the East, and Churches established, dare I say it, somewhat more recently, including the Anglican Church!

In saying all this about the difficulties facing the Christian churches in the Middle East I am, of course, conscious that they are not the only faith community in this region suffering at the moment, nor is the Middle East the only part of the world in which Christians are suffering, but, given the particularly acute circumstances faced by the church communities in the Middle East to-day, I felt it worthwhile to draw attention to their current plight.

How much publicity did that speech get compared to his other comments? Not much, unfortunately. And how many other world leaders have spoken out in such clear terms? How many dare?

To the extent he constitutionally can, he will oppose the dilution of English Common Law, and he will oppose the introduction of anything like Sharia - because the latter is actually opposed to his idea of being a Defender of Faith - he would defend the rights of non-Muslims to suffer the oppression of fundamentalist Islam. How far would he go in that? I'm not sure - it would depend on whether or not those who were trying to make changes were acting within consitutional law or not. I can't see any way widespread Sharia could be introduced in Britain by any constitutional process but while I have a very good laymans understanding of the British Constitution, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but if somebody found a way, it would hard for a Prince (or a King) to oppose. They can only intervene in very specific circumstances.

[elcid1970]

All right, so Prince Charles isn’t a bad sort, though he can be a bit of an odd duck on topics such as Islam & I wonder what HRH thinks of Anjem Choudary and the Rothenham horror.

I wish the bloody tabloids would leave him and Camilla strictly alone; they make each other happy & that’s all that should matter to anyone.

The issue of succession is up to Parliament and not the Queen, so let that matter rest until the time comes. There are far bigger fish to fry especially concerning the Islamics so let’s attend to their shenanigans first.

Deporting at least half the muzzie bastards would be a good start; off topic, but if Charles wishes to back a cause that would rally most of England behind him, that’s where to begin, surely.

[fireman15]

I am sorry but it is sad that he is all in when it comes to the Global Warming scam. You would think that he would have the ability and common sense to look into why satellite data shows that the Earth hasn’t warmed for nearly two decades despite rising CO2 levels.

[naturalman1975]

I disagree with him on the climate change issue and I've told him that, but I have to say he is very well informed about a lot of the research. One advantage of being who he is is that people talk to him. He gets to talk to some of the top experts in any field he is interested in. His approach to climate change though is quite different from a lot of other people involved in the issue. I have to be careful not to say too much but I think it's fair to say that HRH has problems with the fact that most of the proposed 'solutions' to this issue tend to revolve around socialist, or at least left-wing policies. Perhaps that he feels that some of these proposed ideas are more about using climate change as an excuse to implement 'progressive' and anti-capitalist ideals rather than truly trying to fix the problem. I would say that he would argue that (assuming there is a problem which he does believe) that the best way to fix that problem is through conservative, capitalist approaches - that for most of history, problems have been solved by people who saw a business advantage in doing so and developed new technologies to fix the problems. And that's what he supports and puts his efforts behind. Take a look at this page on his official website:

University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership

The group is focused on the changes necessary to ensure long-term economic prosperity, competitive advantage and corporate sustainability at an EU-wide level.

The discussion was based on four key themes: how to maintain European leadership internationally; the low carbon policy and market fundamentals; innovation, jobs and growth; and resource efficiency and integrated approaches.

I think the Prince would argue that the approach he is advocating is one that is in the long term interest of the business community whether climate change is real or not. He does believe it's a real threat - that's certainly true - but he's not interested in the left wing, socialist approaches to addressing it, because those approaches rarely fix anything significant.

I wouldn't call him a conservative on environmental issues - he is generally one, but on that issue, he isn't. But nor is he the typical lefty on it.

[Steve Van Doorn]

WOW! You give me new hope for Great Britain. you have any idea his views on Islam? Thank you

[Cronos]

thank you for this. i always thought of him as a wanker, but your personal experience means I must re-evaluate

[naturalman1975]

Check my comment #21 in my thread. It includes an extract from a speech the Prince made in 2013 about extremist Islam.

I think I would say that the Prince has no issues with anybody who doesn’t want to hurt other people, whatever their religion. But he’s very well aware that the are Islamists who do want to hurt people, and he has no time for them, and would gladly see them defeated by any means necessary. He fully understands that sometimes people have to be defended, and enemies have to be defeated, and that sometimes religion is a factor in that.

[ottbmare]

Thank you!

[BfloGuy]

The latter assumes that the possessor of a property is entitled to extract all its market value, even if it destroys the use of that property and its goods for all posterity.

No capitalist would destroy the use of his property and its goods. A socialist would be much more likely to do that. Since he doesn't own it, what would he care?

[ops33]

I read somewhere that when he is crowned he will chose George as his name.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Thank you very much for showing us this. i have been very worried Great Britain was a complete loss in a few generations.

Is this you're statement or his?

"He fully understands that sometimes people have to be defended, and enemies have to be defeated, and that sometimes religion is a factor in that."

I have been studying Islam with kind of a passion in the last few years.

My only question was, "what's the difference between average Muslims and the extremist?" I couldn't get an answer. I went to all the site and books but no clear answer. I had to learn it on my own.

It took me years understand phrases and concepts in Islam.

Islam isn't a factor it's the whole issue of why they think of us a enemies. They use other issues as excuses. Such as bombing their lands and not enough money.

For a quick over view of Islam (45 minutes) I found this only yesterday. I would have stressed what Dar ul Islam (house of Islam) means to Islam. Other then that it's by far the best I have ever heard.

Introduction to Islam with Dr. Tony Costa

Again, thank you for posting what you know about Prince Charles.