I am lucky enough to be a friend of the Prince of Wales, and he's not an idiot.
The Prince is, on most issues, a staunch conservative. Because of this significant sections of the mass media does its best to try and make him look a fool - as they typically try to do with most conservatives.
It surprises me to some extent to see people on Freerepublic falling for such tactics, because they seem all too aware of them when they are applied to American figures - and the British press is, if anything, for the most part even more left wing than the US press.
People also don't seem to understand that virtually every speech made by the Prince of Wales is written for him by British civil servants acting on the instructions of British politicians. The nature of the constitutional monarchy means that it is important the Prince is never seen to be in significant conflict with Her Majesty's Government on any major issue. One reasons the Prince has made so many speeches in recent years on environmental issues is because it represents one of the few areas where he does tend to agree with the 'progressive' line of British governments. They don't want him speaking on issues like gun rights (which he supports) or stronger sentences for criminals (which he also supports) or a wide range of other conservative issues.
The Press also tends to highlight these speeches, while paying much less attention to cases where he is meeting with and supporting troops and veterans (which he does regularly, and which is also largely supported by the current government - but not necessarily by the media).
He's a good and decent man, who is unfortunately not really in a position to defend himself. I'm his friend and I will do so. And when he becomes King - assuming he does - he will do his best and do his duty to his country, and to the Commonwealth - as he has all of his life.
Thanks for sharing this info. You would never know that by what you read in the press.
If he is not an idiot, why does he act like one? If His Royal Highness was an American citizen, he would be an Obama-boosting liberal Democrat. If he ejects all the Muslims from Great Britain and stops calling himself Defender of the FAITHS, I might reconsider my opinion of him.
When speaking in reference to other countries, an American is well advised to be cautious about the meaning of the term, “conservative.” this reply on an old thread is one of my favorites, on the topic of American conservatism and its relation to conservatism in other countries.Because of this significant sections of the mass media does its best to try and make him look a fool - as they typically try to do with most conservatives.
My take on American conservatism (which may be relevant to Britain) is that Theodore Roosevelt nailed it in his famous speech to the Sarbone in Paris in 1910:It surprises me to some extent to see people on Freerepublic falling for such tactics, because they seem all too aware of them when they are applied to American figures - and the British press is, if anything, for the most part even more left wing than the US press.There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement.Clearly, “the press” is guilty of functioning as “the critic” in TR’s posited scenario. It is only natural that they should tend to do so; they don’t do anything which makes them accountable for, you know, actual results - but they can criticize like nobody’s business. And - crucial point - journalists behave precisely as Adam Smith predicted:A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Since all major journalists work for members of wire services, and since wire services function as virtual meetings of “people of the same trade (of journalism),” nothing else can be expected but that journalists will go along and get along with each other - to the detriment of the public. Especially do they do so by claiming that all journalists are objective, which in effect is a claim by each journalist that he himself is objective. Say what you will of the virtue of diligently trying to be objective, arguing from the assumption that you actually are objective serves the same function, and is no more justifiable, than claiming superior wisdom. Either amounts to mere arrogance in service to an attempt at censorship.
Considering how “our” journalists strain at gnats (in Chris Christie’s “Bridgegate”( and swallow camels (in reference to all things Benghazi, and ObamaCare, and Fast and Furious, and . . .) that is quite a strong claim you make about the British press.But then, I can match your friend Charles’ “Global Warming” credulousnes with that of a friend who is legitimately a scientist but who claimed to me that “the science” (of global warming) “is good.” So why should we wonder that conservatives are sometimes gulled by press reports?
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
Why even bother responding to people whose intellectual depth expresses itself in calling others names, in defining them as this or that single word? We are the PEOPLE Magazine nation, obsessed with personalities, incapable of grasping ideas.
Well said!
Although I have never met the Prince, my friend worked for The Prince's Trust and was very impressed with both Charles and Camilla.
They are both gracious and very knowledgeable.
I have no doubt that, when his turn comes, Charles will be a good king.
Having said that.....Long Live The Queen!