Posted on 04/03/2005 4:54:31 PM PDT by quidnunc
"What? Just because some watery tart threw a sword at you? That's no basis for a system of government!"
He could do like his relative Edward VIII and resign the throne for the love of his life.
But then Prince Charlie ain't king yet, is he? I don't believe he will ever be.
Speaking of Edward VIII, I was younger in those days, but I thought Edward VIII must be blind. Wallace Warfield Simpson? Ugh!
The press never lets up on Charles.Anything to his interest in Islam and the Saudi Royals?I haven't run across anything on the net regarding his politics,just gossip type stuff.
=== I can’t bear that man. I mean he’s so awful, he really is.
What a Clymer, so to speak.
I disagree.
They've been carrying on the tempestuous "forbidden fruit" affair (the Queen wouldn't allow him to marry commoner Camilla earlier) without having the non-drama of day in and day out life of responsibilities.
I'm sure we'll be reading all about their fights in due time.
There's this article "Prince Charles of Arabia":
Few VIPs have appeared in more exotic garb over the last few years than the Prince of Wales.
He has worn colourful hats and robes across Central Asia and the Gulf, he has been presented with a fez in Fez and has been garlanded with flowers and face paint at a Hindu temple in Neasden. For the Prince, meeting the leaders of different faiths is an enjoyable and necessary duty for one who will one day be King of a multi-faith society.
Similarly, his keen interest in spirituality, philosophy and the beliefs of other faiths is in keeping with a man who talks constantly of the need for partnership, a holistic approach to problem-solving and tolerance. He sees no inconsistency in keeping an open mind on the values of other religions and calling for "a sense of the sacred" while subscribing personally to the faith to which he was born.
The public perception, however, is somewhat different. To the Prince's dismay, he is often seen as something of a religious butterfly, flitting from faith to faith and veering, increasingly, towards Islam. After all, pop stars and prominent celebrities of his generation have converted to Buddhism and Islam so why should he not be tempted towards a temple, mosque or ashram?
The sight of the Prince in yet another prayer shawl only compounds the image of a well-intentioned eccentric seeking divine inspiration. "He is fed up with people suggesting that he is about to convert to this or that," says one friend. "As soon as he sets foot in a mosque, people think he is heading for Mecca."
The Prince was also upset by Lord Runcie's recent assertion that he was "disenchanted" with the Church and should love it "a bit more". His disenchantment with certain clergy and his views on the Church as a whole are very separate issues. Hence, his decision to associate himself more strongly with the Church. There is no prospect of Prince Charles abandoning his interest in other faiths but rather a new emphasis.
While the Prince is due to make further visits to the Middle East this year, at the request of the Foreign Office, it should be a long time before we hear any more "keynote" speeches on Islam's lessons or the spiritual void in Western society. Nor will there be any rostrum-thumping addresses on the future of the Church of England. The Prince is likely to let people absorb his deep-held beliefs on the Church of England over a period of time rather than through noisy declaration. He can hardly be surprised that his views on spirituality or religion have been misconstrued. These are complex issues ill-suited to digestion by a society whose interest in religion is dwindling.
In January, when the Prince wrote at length of the need for a more spiritual approach to millennium celebrations, many critics were quick to pick up on a reference to religious buildings. "Prince wants lottery cash for mosques" was the general thrust of the headlines.
When, in his 1994 television documentary, he said he would rather be seen as "Defender of Faith" than "The Defender of the Faith", his remark was widely interpreted as a call for the disestablishment of the Church. In future, his sense of the sacred is more likely to manifest itself through his presence in the pews rather than his words from the pulpit.
(Robert Hardman in The Telegraph, December 28, 1996))
To Read This Article Click Here
I believe that you and I agree: The man gets paid WELL for his position of paid pet. If he doesn't like the job, step aside. If he chooses to keep it, he should quit complaining.
nothingnew, THAT was hilarious! You do a very good Doolittle.
And Mary, Bertie's Queen, allowed Mrs. Keppel time with Bertie, when he was on his death bed. As a matter of fact, I think that Mrs. Keppel was with him when King Edward took his last breath.
I know, I know, you're going to bring up morality and adultery, but almost ALL royal marriages have been for reasons other than love. I'm making no moral judgments here; just stating facts.
Who the freak cares?
I almost felt sorry for him. The press never leaves him alone. I wouldn't like that. But if he wants to give up the spotlight, he has to give up the privileges. He is supported grandly and never has to do a lick of real work. He could choose; privacy or money and privilege.
Good articles.Sounds like Charles has some issues.Charles of Arabia?
So did George W. Bush when he coined the word "Clymer" as a synonym for a body orifice.
Isn't technology wonderful?
LOL!
LOL! You got that right.
How would any of us common folk react to having our future mapped out for us; having to wait indefinitely to get the job we were destined to have and above all being told who to marry.
Life in a goldfish bowl is not all beer and skittles.
Mary of Teck was the queen of George V.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.