Posted on 02/08/2003 4:40:22 PM PST by Pokey78
A SERIOUS rift has opened up between Prince Charles and the government because he is seen to be AGAINST a war on Iraq and AGAINST America.
Whitehall also believes the prince is sympathetic to the view of his Arab friends that war on Saddam Hussein is a bid by the US to grab a stake in the Middle East's oil.
Yet despite being colonel-in-chief to 17 regiments, Charles has shown little public support for the soldiers, airmen and sailors who are about to risk their lives in a Gulf conflict.
There are also worries that he makes no secret of his anti-American views in conversations with members of Arab royal families and their leading officials.
A Whitehall source said: "Downing Street tries not to involve the prince in anything— because they have concerns over how he will react.
"He has this lunatic view he is the voice of the people."
Formal
And a diplomatic insider said: "It would be very unhelpful if the prince were to indicate anything other than unswerving support for the government."
The prince's stance was illustrated last week when—in his role as colonel-in-chief of the Paras—he said a stiff, formal farewell to his men as they prepared to leave for the Gulf.
His visit to the Parachute Regiment barracks in Colchester does not merit a single line on his official website. It was not announced by his own office.
Yet his opening of an Islamic education centre in Leicester two weeks ago is reported on the website with 19 paragraphs, two pictures and a full transcript of his speech.
Charles is rightly feted for his pioneering work creating understanding and tolerance between Islam and other faiths.
He also holds many honorary military positions, including chief to the Welsh Guards, the Paras and the Gurkhas. He is Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy, Air Marshal in the RAF and Lieutenant General in the Army.
Critics say the prince likes to cut a dash in the Paras' coveted red beret—strutting around with a chestful of medals on his tunic. But they ask how the men of the Parachute Regiment would feel if they knew their colonel's true feelings on the war.
The prince's views have led to a worrying split with the American leadership. Two months ago, Charles had to abandon an official visit to the US because the White House made it clear he wasn't wanted.
The snub—directly from President Bush—came after security sources advised that Charles's presence in America would be "very unhelpful".
Washington diplomats were concerned the prince would show his disapproval during meetings with President Bush.
Charles—who reads the Koran every day and often adopts Islamic dress at home—spends long hours discussing the Middle East's problems with Saudi royal family members.
One of his closest friends is the former Saudi ambassador Ghazi Algosaibi who wrote a poem in praise of the first woman suicide bomber.
Algosaibi said that the "doors of heaven are opened for her". He once described the Israelis as worse than Nazis and he was a regular guest at Highgrove—Prince Charles's country home—before he was recalled by his government last year.
Charles is also close to King Abdullah of Jordan. His glamorous wife Queen Rania is a close friend of the prince's partner, Camilla Parker Bowles and is a regular guest at St James's Palace.
In private the prince talks about "Americanimperi-alism" collapsing the whole of the Middle East.
"Of course Saddam is an evil man, but American imperialism will not solve the problem," he said in one discussion.
He sympathises with his Saudi royal friends when they talk about their fears of America's true intentions in Iraq.
One close friend said: "They believe the US intends to collapse the whole Gulf economy and take control of oil.
"Once that happens the tensions in Israel and Palestine will explode."
Fraught
Charles's meeting three days ago with French President Jacques Chirac was fraught with diplomatic concerns.
Before the meeting the Foreign Office asked the Prince of Wales's staff if he would promise not to discuss Iraq.
They said yes, but Charles would feel free to give an opinion if Chirac raised Iraq first.
Downing Street is understood to have washed its hands of winning Charles's support.
"At such a sensitive time his views are wrong, wrong, wrong," said a Whitehall source.
"Unfortunately he is making them a little too widely known."
No, the Battenbergs were from the next castle down the road - the descendants of a morganatic marriage of the Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt.
They jump in and out of the British royal family tree too, of course. Victoria's granddaughter married Louis of Battenberg. He changed his name to Mountbatten in all the foolishness surrounding German names in WWI, and Lord Mountbatten of Burma was one of their children.
WTF?????? Sheesh! All that stuff about Prince William being the anti-christ might be true!
Ok, that's just sick and wrong.
Phillip, of course is a German Greed, also a Battenberg, who changed his name to Mountbatten in England.
What a rum lot. I'd almost take the Stuarts over them. (Almost, but not quite -- even after one Stuart beheaded and another deposed, I don't think the Stuarts "get it" to this day.) If the Brits want to keep the monarchy, I do wish they'd find some decent genetic stock.
Lineage of the House of Windsor: For lineage of earlier Houses, see previous edns.GEORGE V ‘By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India', GEORGE FREDERICK ERNEST ALBERT (probably) WIPPER (but possibly WETTIN) later WINDSOR (to which changed 1917 on the advice of officials, the dominant influence among whom was Lord (1st and last Baron) Stamfordham (see 1931 edn), despite the existence of (a) the Earldom of Windsor as one of the subsidiary titles of the Marquess of Bute (qv) and (b) the Viscountcy of Windsor and (c) Barony of Windsor, both subsidiary titles of the Earls of Plymouth (qv), whose family name had been Windsor till 1833, after which it became Windsor-Clive), previously of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha but from 1917 of the House of Windsor
The surname of the House of Hanover, although not used, was Guelph. Victoria was the last one.
But the kings in those days had so much more REAL power than nowadays. I think that the present Queen has a lot of sense and has done extremely well in the limited sphere that the current government allows her. But it must be like being "the bird in the gilded cage" - everybody blames the monarchy, but the sovereign has no power to DO anything, so she gets all the blame and none of the credit.
While it may be the inbreeding, it could as easily be the bizarre upbringing their situation forces the kids into.
Your assessment of the Stewarts (Stuarts) strikes me as perhaps overly fond, they were indeed inveterate believers in the Divine Right of Kings, all of them, from James VI/I on. I think that goes beyond political tone deafness to a fundamental inablity to understand the English character. To the Jimmys and Chucks, it was as if Runnymeade never happened. Even the Tudors -- even Bloody Mary -- had better sense than that.
The royals have been bred like Irish Setters, with similar results (except that Irish Setters are cute).
I really should be more careful. The continental side of my family were supporters of the Waiblingen/Ghibelline emperors from the middle ages. The English side various lines pretty strongly Whig back to a couple of the barons who stood surety for Magna Charta. Several of them had the good sense to come to These States to avoid the English Civil War.
But it was not an invidious concept at that time, otherwise Eikon Basilike would not have had the tremendous popularity and sales that it did long after Charles I's death. Of course, Charles I ignored the flip side of "divine right", his obligation of service to his subjects, to his peril and destruction. It's very like those folks who get all exercised and upset about the text in the Bible about the husband being the head of the wife . . . and not reading the corollary that the husband must serve, sacrifice, and even die for the wife. I guess it's human nature to want the glory without doing the work.
My Lowland Scot and English ancestors were sea captains, craftsmen, and such like, as such probably Whig given their time (1790s and thereabouts) but their surviving correspondence indicates absolutely NO interest in politics.
My Highland Scot ancestors were cattle thieves and protection racketeers, mostly MacGregors, but as they are all too quick to tell anybody who will listen, of the blood royal. ("'S rioghal mo dhream", "Royal is my race", is the MacGregor's motto. They are allegedly descended from one Gregor of the Golden Bridles, who supposedly was a brother or nephew of King Kenneth Mac Alpin.) Our ancestor changed his name (the entire family was actually proscribed at one point and the name itself was banned) and jumped to Virginia one step ahead of the law.
While I'm thinking about it, my Latin is awfully rusty but I thought it should be "Carthago delenda est" - or Mesopotamia as you say. My grasp of tenses and moods in Latin doesn't go much beyond the simple present indicative . . . . ???
I was conflating the two sources. My only excuse is that I had dropped Latin to take up German in high school and started on Greek as well as continuing the German when I got to college (thus totally confusing myself). I took a couple of Latin classes also but was just a little short of enough credits to get my Classics major. Wound up majoring in history instead.
Still like Latin though.
LOL! I thought there were essentially two strains of Irish Setters now - the show line and the field line - and that the field line still had a modicum of sense.
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.