Replies

It's not easy defending someone born to such wealth and privilege. However, I've long thought that Prince Charles has gotten the same sort of press treatment as, for instance, GWB. We simply don't know the man.

When he was married to Diana, he suffered by comparison; because she was the quintessential fairytale princess and the media loved her (whether she was playing the role of slut or saint). Diana was a Paris Hilton style bimbo; while she was probably quite intelligent, she never really showed it. In her saint role, she did various charitable works, including visiting AIDS patients -- laudable enough, but nothing that any Hollywood airhead couldn't also do. The one serious, controversial political cause she got involved in was the prohibition of land mines. The U.S. didn't ratify that agreement; because it would have cost too many servicemen their lives. It was an emotion-driven policy that was too extreme for even the Clinton administration.

By comparison, Charles has been involved in several substantive issues over the years. Most Freepers would disagree with his positions on most of them -- but he was no dilettante. He strives to live up to the role he was born into.

Unlike Kerry; Charles was, and is an extremely wealthy man in his own right -- he didn't have to play the gigolo to get the money. Unlike other rich, powerful men; he ditched the trophy wife, to marry the older, plain looking (I'm being kind) woman he always loved.

Unlike McGovern; when Charles dons military garb, and sits in military hardware; he's earned that right. He did 5 years of military service -- which included parachute training, helicopter pilot, and fighter jet pilot. While he never saw combat, his training and service was real, and there were real dangers involved. His service was at least on par with that of GWB (and I believe that GWB served honourably).