.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sundries
...a sweatshop of moxie

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Up-Chuck

(I would've welcomed Tim Worstall readers earlier, had I had stable internet! Sigh. Even later but still happy welcome to The Politburo Diktat readers!)

Tuesday marks the start of an official 8-day tour of the United States, by H.R.H. Charles, Prince of Wales, and his newest consort, H.R.H. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.



It's been erroneously reported on MSM outlets like CNN and Fox News, that this visit marks the first time in 20 years that Prince Charles has visited the US.

Not true.

It's been 20 years since his last STATE VISIT to the United States, but as an example, he was here only last year as part of the UK's official delegation to President Ronald Reagan's funeral.

That's not even counting the numerous informal visits he has paid to the US, especially whenever he used to come for the polo in Palm Beach, to cite one typical sojourn to America of his.

Mrs. Parker-Bowles, as she was then, has likewise visited the US frequently, often en route to the Chilean farm she keeps near Valparaiso, that British ex-pat enclave.

And a few years ago, the doyennes of British opinion-makers, Tina Brown and Anna Wintour, buried their hatchet long enough to throw an exclusive Manhattan party for the Prince's future wife, keenly dumping the memory of Princess Diana (their former chum), to cosy up to the new state-of-affairs.

They allegedly even gave her much-needed fashion tips, such as what to with her hair. The Duchess declined, saying that the Prince likes her hair that way. Can you imagine the late Princess ever doing the same? And now you see why Prince Charles left his wife, cruel though that is to mention.

To coincide with his visit, even possibly to drum up popular support for what will be the most trying of tour debuts for the Duchess, the Prince of Wales gave an exclusive interview to CBS flagship newsmagazine, 60 Minutes, via Steve Croft, which aired just this Sunday, 30 October.

Allow me to mention that I am not a Monarchist. I would prefer my country of birth to be a republic, like I suspect the majority of my compatriots would, too.

But our character is such that nothing truly revolutionary is easily accomplished in Britain, especially that which would mothball one of our more distinctive features -- the Royal Family.

Yes, they may not have the élan of the Danish Royal Family, or the popularity of the Spanish Royal Family, or the coziness of the Norwegian Royal Family, but Elizabeth II is universally respected, and even the Prince has his supporters far-and-wide.

Sure. He's seen as a bit dotty, if well-meaning.

In fact, rather analogous to how we each of us perceive ourselves, and well, you don't get rid of that, do you.

So it was with wry interest that I saw the 60 Minutes interview.

I had forgotten how plummy his accent was.

He's aged mightily, going terribly grey, even since his recent wedding, to my utter surprise.

He's still dapper, in his own creaking Saville Row way, and I was amused to see how, unlike Mr. Croft, who put down his brolly on the grass unceremoniously, the Prince handed his umbrella to an hovering aide, a gesture which was intrisically royal and yet, ever so pathetic, all in one.

(It did, however, remind me of that famous Queen Victoria anecdote, which had her accompanied to the opera once, by the Empress Eugenie of France. The Empress, born an aristocrat, but not royal, was careful to look down before plopping down on her seat. The Queen was observed to sit down without so much as a glance behind her. She knew that there will always be a chair there for a Queen)

The interviewer was not allowed to ask any personal or family questions, but could ask away about the Prince's view of his role, and of Britain today.

As everyone knows, the Pragger-Wagger, to use his green-wellie crowd nickname, is a leading organic farmer in Britain.

In fact, he was amongst the very first to consciously adopt more environment-friendly approaches to farming, and his jams, ciders, biscuits and various edible goodies, are sold at all royal palaces open to the public.

(In fact, one of the funniest moments I ever had was being at Windsor Castle once with a visiting German cousin, and overhearing a crowd of American women astonishingly pick up the Prince's organic products in the souvenir shop. "OH MY GOD, Mildred! Will you look at this -- wait 'til I tell the girls back home I ate Chuck's jam for breakfast!")

So when quizzed about his farm, he was all too happy to natter on about that for hours.

Same with his model village, Poundbury in Cornwall, which looks exactly like Celebration, the Disney World planned community, only as envisaged by a highly-nostalgic, Edwardian hippie, which is exactly what this man is.

Look at it.



You could eat off its pristinely cobbled pavements.

Like Walt Disney, who sought to recapture idealised Americana in his various theme parks, the Prince has created an impeccable reproduction of the traditional English village:

One with its inviting High Street shops, its horse-and-carriage narrow streets, and above all, its lack of crime, pestilence, and grim architecture, sadly such a modern-day feature of the English landscape today.

But if you're tempted to think he's a dreamer, yes, he is, but hold on -- he's also a doer, as this village is very testament to. We can give him that, at least.

But frankly, just looking at this planned community and watching him during that interview, reminded me why his own father is reputed to have called him "wet", that untranslatable slang word which includes being weak, dreamy and utterly boring.

One is at a loss to know what to make of him.

Is he relevant, or irrelevant? Is he mature, or immature? Is he philosophical or simply confused?

Frankly, I don't know and not until today, did I really care.

But some rather disturbing news has reached me today, that would put his personality in question, in a fashion that isn't derisive, but actually rather sinister.

Before divulging this news, one further preamble.

The Prince has long been considered a fighter of lost causes, as you can see above.

He also has very strong beliefs, which almost unlike all members of his unremarkable family, with the possible exception of his father, he is not charry to voice on occasion.

His rebuke to the British architects society of which he is President has long been remembered with chagrin by the assembly, who thought he would give a decorous royal speech of encouragement, like his mother would have done, and instead he ended up escoriating modern architects for their abominable buildings which are pockmarks all over London (his phrase, not mine).

Fighting words, right?

Well, by expressing them publicly, he was able to save a few old buildings from being condemned, as well as making sure other more modern ones would not go up, blighting the traditional face of the capital.

But when I found out that he would come to the United States, and in his private meeting with President Bush, he would take the time to express his genuine concern at the US' "confrontational" treatment of Muslims around the world and the lack of understanding given to Islam by America, I confess, I flinched in horror.

The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.

The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

How dare he.

How dare he presume to bring up this political matter to a sitting President of a country, when his role is that of a royal cipher -- a goodwill Ambassador, the face of Britain, and NOTHING MORE.

Did he mention to Nicolae Ceaucescu, when the latter paid Britain a State Visit, saying at Buckingham Palace, about his concern of Securitate tortures, or his razing of entire Transylvanian villages, or his anti-birth control measures, which left thousands and thousands of babies orphaned?

Did he turn around when seated near Robert Mugabe, at the recent funeral of John Paul II, and reproach him for his inhuman treatment of all people, and maniac reprisals against any opposition?

You better believe he didn't, and the answer he would give as to why not, is that royalty never are supposed to express political viewpoints in public.

Oh really, now.

Yes, it's true. Like most people, I have heard many rumours of the Prince's alleged fondness for Islam, and that he is said to share what has been called by Paul Johnson, the "intellectual disease" of anti-Zionism.

(In rebuttal, he, and his supporters will say he has many Jewish friends, like Lord Montefiore. I'm sure he does. And that retort is not meant to be sardonic. He's not a bigot, in that awful base way of epithets and slurs. But he is very much taking sides, there is no doubt now)

As long as he doesn't make these notions of his public, I can tolerate them, but when the entire premise of the Royal Family is based on them being a neutral force in British society; moreover, it is one whose very existence is above politics, we emphatically do not have to tolerate his half-veiled political utterances, when he goes public with them.

Take this excerpted address to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, almost exactly 12 years to the day, on 27 October 1993 (coincidentally falling on Ramadan).

"Unlike many of you, I am not an expert on Islam - though I am delighted, for reasons which I hope will become clear, to be a Vice Patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. [...]

Islam is all around us. And yet distrust, even fear, persist. [...]

I remember begging General Schwarzkopf when I met him in Riyadh in December 1990 to do his best to protect such shrines [ed. he referred tot he Holy Shrine at Karbala] during any conflict. [...]


He begged, if you please.

How about this:

For example, people in this country frequently argue that the Sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric and unjust. Our newspapers, above all, love to peddle those unthinking prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex. My own understanding is that extremes, like the cutting off of hands, are rarely practised." [...]


Or this:

"Extremism is no more the monopoly of Islam than it is the monopoly of other religions, including Christianity."


And then there was this:

Women are not automatically second-class citizens because they live in Islamic countries. We cannot judge the position of women in Islam aright if we take the most conservative Islamic states as representative of the whole. For example, the veiling of women is not at all universal across the Islamic world.


When reading these passages, I have to tell you, I feel a deep sadness overcome me.

It's one thing to know your future King is a well-meaning, if crankish figurehead.

It's quite another thing to think this man will be using his Privy Council powers one day, since no matter what Constitutional historian-economist, Walter Bagehot said about the monarchy being a rubber-stamp institution, it is in his words too, the sovereign who has a right to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn the Prime Minister still.

Not to mention, he or she appoints the Prime Minister, which hasn't always been as straight-forward in the past, as it would seem.

The Prince's own mother had a hand in choosing Alec Douglas-Home as Prime Minister in 1964, and his great-grandfather, George V, did likewise with the National Coalition government led by Ramsay MacDonald, in 1932.

They weren't perfect monarchs, let alone perfect people, but they stayed out of politics, expressing any reservations to their intimates only.

(In fact, George V, encouraged by Queen Mary, chastised the maharajas and khans of India on their treatment of their women, which both found deplorable. But he did so without uttering a peep publicly, as his royal position warranted. Old, bluff King George would be APPALLED at his great-grandson's views today)

Let me be absolutely crystal about this topic:

If the Prince were expressing a pro-Israeli sympathy to President Bush, or had spoken at length at the poor, misunderstood quality of Judaism around the world, I would be no less shocked.

It may be the current US administration's recent positions he is condemning, as he sees them anyway, but since the United Kingdom is the United States' number one ally, and has seconded the US in Afghanistan and Iraq through thick-and-thin, it is a very well-aimed dart at the foreign policies of Tony Blair as well.

And that, my dear readers, is unconstitutional.

As I wrote all this above, I could not help but to remind myself of the Kazuo Ishiguro novel, and later film, Remains of the Day, coincidentally also in 1993.

Do you remember it?

Christopher Reeves, in one of his last roles before his dreadful accident, played an American Senator Lewis, who attends a British nobleman, Lord Darlington's, private world peace conference, during the heady days leading up to World War II.

As the Nazi-German representatives, and other international guests declaim their speeches, full of goodwill and friendship, hoping to cement a more mutually respected dialogue between the cultures then on the brink of war, the brash young American politician gets up to say these amazingly brutal words.

You are, all of you, amateurs.

And international affairs should never be run by gentlemen amateurs. Do you have any idea of what sort of place the world is becoming all around you? The days when you could just act out of your noble instincts, are over. Europe has become the arena of realpolitik, the politics of reality. If you like: real politics. What you need is not gentlemen politicians, but real ones. You need professionals to run your affairs, or you're headed for disaster!


I cannot tell you, what a feeling of deja-vu I had, when I read what Prince Charles said in his Oxford Islam address, and what he proposes to bring up with the US President.

But I no longer think he's well-meaning.

Like the fictitious Lord Darlington, he's an amateur and a fool, but he's real, and he's a doer.

And amateurish fools who are doers, I'm very much afraid, are dangerous people.

UPDATE: Here is the Prince and Duchess' official schedule.

Note this: The Prince of Wales will attend a Seminar on “Faith and Social Responsibility”, Georgetown University, Washington DC.

And this, The Prince of Wales, accompanied by The Duchess of Cornwall, will give a speech at a Seminar on Environmental issues, The Ferry Building, San Francisco.

And finally this, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will meet people being helped by a project to tackle homelessness, Empress Hotel, San Francisco.

I may be wrong, but I think they have homeless shelters. I don't think he'll find many at the sumptuous Empress Hotel.

Lastly, there is this, which I urge you to take with a grain of salt. It claims the Prince converted to Islam in the 1990's.

That's ludicrous.

But like a moth who strays too close to a fire, sometimes its wings will get singed.

Today, Prince Charles is ablaze.

IN THE THE COMMENTS: A reader brings up a point about farming that the Prince may have overlooked, and would be extremely embarrassed to read here. If you believe in the theory of Globalwarming, as Prince Charles alluded to in the 60 Minutes interview that he does, organic farming may not be the way to go.

17 Comments:

  • It may be more than "fondness"...

    By Blogger JSU, at Tue Nov 01, 05:11:00 am GMT-5  

  • Prince Chuck - hard to respect him, because he is a royal and I am like you, a republican (not in the dubya party sense of course). He does talk some sense and then a load of tosh.

    Thing is - the Prince's Trust is really excellent, does great work, to be congratulated. I know a fair bit about it and fair play to the man.

    But he is a meddler in politics as you say and that is not his job. But he is also wet too, and no-one really takes him seriously enough. That's his problem - that's why he talked about leaving a legacy. but his legacy should be something he is good at and appropriate at - e.g. delivering help to young people through the Princes Trust, and some other things.

    the thing is his weakest legacy is his meddling in political issues - as you reminded us - he is an amateur, and not particularly gifted, and he is too opinionated.

    but f*ck him really. let's get rid of all the royals.

    By Blogger Angry Economist, at Tue Nov 01, 06:27:00 am GMT-5  

  • As fine a writer as you are Vic, this comes across as a rant based on the faintest grain of a rumour regarding what Charles may discuss with Bush.

    And I think that is the problem with the blogospere, it's full of people ranting for the sake of ranting. They have a blog, they have to blog, they must produce an entry.

    And another point. Are you objecting to his attempt to understand Islam? We have a multi-faith community in Britain and many of his subjects will be Muslims when he ascends to the throne. It is his duty to embrace those citizens and try to understand their faith, just as he's embraced the communities of all faiths in Britain, Jews, Hindus, Christians and Goonites.

    You quote this:

    "For example, people in this country frequently argue that the Sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric and unjust. Our newspapers, above all, love to peddle those unthinking prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex. My own understanding is that extremes, like the cutting off of hands, are rarely practised." [...]"

    If instead of Sharia Law and Islamic World you susbstitute the death penalty and the USA wouldn't those words similarly apply? If yes, why are they being used as a bat to beat Charlie boy?

    "Allow me to mention that I am not a Monarchist. I would prefer my country of birth to be a republic, like I suspect the majority of my compatriots would, too."

    Sadly you seem to be out of step here. Sadly as I'm a fellow republican I should add. Surveys of the populace regularly throw up less than 20% in favour of abolishing the Monarchy. A Gallup poll in 1969 found 18% favouring a republic. A Mori poll on the Queen's 50th Jubilee in 2002 found 19% favouring a republic.

    The respected polling organisation Mori even has this to say:

    "Support for the Monarchy is probably the most stable trend we have ever measured at MORI in the third of a century we have been polling; every poll MORI has published has found support for the Monarchy at 72% plus-or-minus 3%, and for a republic at 18% plus-or-minus 3%."

    Perhaps this stability arises from the Monarchy being "living" rather than "originalist" in nature.

    Steve

    By Blogger block108er, at Tue Nov 01, 07:39:00 am GMT-5  

  • Very informative post, but for me the best was the title! Great use of the language Victoria! To think of his appeasing comments about Islam makes me want to upchuck; or at least to say Up Chucks!

    By Blogger Jose Aguirre, at Tue Nov 01, 08:52:00 am GMT-5  

  • I am reminded of a 1995 story about a school in Easterhouse, Nr Glasgow whose shale pitches were being used as a helicopter pad for Chuck's entourage who were visiting Easterhouse.

    Someone wrote in the shale (visible presumably by helicopter) "F*ck off Charlie!"

    Now this is amusing. Can't verify the truth of it, but I wouldn't put it past folk up there.

    By Blogger Angry Economist, at Tue Nov 01, 10:26:00 am GMT-5  

  • Quoting JSU's link:

    Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam? In a 1997 Middle East Quarterly article titled "Prince Charles of Arabia," Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman looked at evidence that Britain's Prince Charles might be a secret convert to Islam. They shifted through his public statements (defending Islamic law, praising the status of Muslim women, seeing in Islam a solution for Britain's ailments) and actions (setting up a panel of twelve "wise men" to advise him on Islamic religion and culture), then concluded that, "should Charles persist in his admiration of Islam and defamation of his own culture," his accession to the throne will indeed usher in a "different kind of monarchy."

    I have rarely expressed myself pro-or-con any modern writer today on this blog, but I will admit to you all, I have two men, two authors for whom their word to me, is nearly sacred.

    One is Jean-François Revel, of whom I will be blogging later this month.

    The other is Daniel Pipes.

    I admire them not only their individual scholarship, which is considerable, but also for their intellects, which are acute.

    It's not that now that Daniel Pipes is tracking this story, that it is suddenly legitimate in my eyes. No, it's not that facile.

    But I am comforted that he is keeping chronicling details of the story, and posting each further step in the Prince's special relationship to Islam.

    When you read a blogpost, like the one I asked you to take with a grain of salt, of the Prince having converted to Islam, it sounds like it comes from left field, as Americans say.

    The important bit is when you see the linear progression, and can put that story into context accordingly.

    That's what Pipes has done, and for which I am grateful to him.

    And to you, JSU, for linking to it.

    (I hope everyone clicks on that link)

    It doesn't show that the PoW is a Muslim, at all. But it's keeping an eye on him vis-a-vis that topic.

    And that's a good thing.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Nov 01, 02:16:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Prince Chuck - hard to respect him, because he is a royal and I am like you, a republican (not in the dubya party sense of course). He does talk some sense and then a load of tosh.

    I'll come back to the first point about republicanism further down.

    Thing is - the Prince's Trust is really excellent, does great work, to be congratulated. I know a fair bit about it and fair play to the man.

    I couldn't agree with you more.

    Also, I have to mention that our Royal Family were the world leaders in heading/establishing/promoting charities, organisations and other do-go causes, since the year dot.

    It was Queen Victoria's vast family that led the way, including a cousin of hers, Marie-Adelaide, who championed any kind of cause, no matter how disreputable at the time (like a "Home for Fallen Women" - prostitutes. Unheard of royal behaviour in Victorian England).

    Most people think of Princess Diana being the very first Royal to exhibit kindness towards others in public, but that, with respect to her memory, is so much twaddle.

    Since I know the history, that was always one of the reasons which prevented me from truly liking her.

    But he is a meddler in politics as you say and that is not his job. But he is also wet too, and no-one really takes him seriously enough. That's his problem - that's why he talked about leaving a legacy.

    Oh my Lord...I didn't know that.

    Beware, beware of men who talk of leaving a legacy. They are frightening.

    but his legacy should be something he is good at and appropriate at - e.g. delivering help to young people through the Princes Trust, and some other things.

    Without a doubt. And I don't think there would be one person in Britain, republican or not, who would not give him his fair dues if he did.

    the thing is his weakest legacy is his meddling in political issues - as you reminded us - he is an amateur, and not particularly gifted, and he is too opinionated.

    Yes. He's like a more feeling version of his father -- who, again like most people in Britain, I have a sneaking liking for, because he's so bloodyminded.

    (And yet, I generally dislike him for exactly those reasons too...go figure)

    but f*ck him really. let's get rid of all the royals.

    See, this is the problem.

    After having read Bender's reply, it seems not too many people are anti-monarchical (or truly so, at least) in Britain, despite my own Oxford millieu being unanimously anti-royal.

    But unlike you, Steve, I don't have particular feelings of hate, or shall we say, revulsion with the concept of the monarchy or royalty.

    I come from a good family background, I admit to you slightly awkwardly.

    A lot of the arguments many anti-monarchists use somehow end up being so elastic, that they come close to class warfare.

    They run the gamut from hating the propertied, to the Oxbridge set, to the Boodles and Whites elites -- all of which hit too close to the knuckle for me.

    But there are many people who are not in my position, who find themselves put off by this rhetoric too.

    And that's basically why we still have a monarchy in Britain today -- because it may well be, we don't have the national personality needed to hate an institution SO, that we just boot them all out.

    You need something visceral inside you, or a catastrophic event, like wars, to unseat royalty.

    It's not the British "way".

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Nov 01, 02:30:00 pm GMT-5  

  • (First, apologies for calling Angry Economist #1, Steve. It's Bender who is Steve!)

    As fine a writer as you are Vic,

    Secondly, thank you so much for this fine compliment. It made my day.

    this comes across as a rant based on the faintest grain of a rumour regarding what Charles may discuss with Bush.

    Usually, I would demur and admit to a responder, I went too far.

    But not this time, Steve.

    I presented a sedate introduction.

    I lauded the Prince for at least his efforts, despite my general attitude of mirth towards him.

    And I also made sure I put everything I said, into as much context as possible.

    I don't think it was a rant. If so, then every time one writes an ultimately negative piece, then it is a rant.

    That would include 99% of all articles in news media.

    And I think that is the problem with the blogospere, it's full of people ranting for the sake of ranting. They have a blog, they have to blog, they must produce an entry.

    Again, with respect, I understand what you are saying, but this time you're lumping me in with the "what I had for lunch today", "I hate so-and-so" blogs.

    That's unfair.

    And another point. Are you objecting to his attempt to understand Islam? We have a multi-faith community in Britain and many of his subjects will be Muslims when he ascends to the throne. It is his duty to embrace those citizens and try to understand their faith, just as he's embraced the communities of all faiths in Britain, Jews, Hindus, Christians and Goonites.

    I'm tempted to say something about Gooners here, but it'll pass.

    I suppose at heart, I want a traditional future King.

    Someone who doesn't favour or disfavour anyone particularly.

    I want to know he's that kind of person, above it all, like his mother.

    And part of my disappointment, is that he's not.

    If instead of Sharia Law and Islamic World you susbstitute the death penalty and the USA wouldn't those words similarly apply? If yes, why are they being used as a bat to beat Charlie boy?

    I'm not going to get into a long argument about the merits of Shar'ia law, versus the death penalty, sorry.

    I'll merely say that to me, they are so different in feel, as to be representative of the fundamental differences between the Eastern mind, and the Western mind.

    Sadly you seem to be out of step here. Sadly as I'm a fellow republican I should add. Surveys of the populace regularly throw up less than 20% in favour of abolishing the Monarchy.

    I tell you, I've gone far and wide in the UK, and I have yet to find many people very pro-monarchy.

    They are pro-Queen, yes, but down deep, they'd prefer to have a republic. I'm sure of it.

    Perhaps this stability arises from the Monarchy being "living" rather than "originalist" in nature.

    That was very clever.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Nov 01, 02:44:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Very informative post, but for me the best was the title! Great use of the language Victoria! To think of his appeasing comments about Islam makes me want to upchuck; or at least to say Up Chucks!

    Before I even wrote the piece, I had the title.

    In fact, that's usually how I operate -- I can't put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard, in this case), before I get a good juicy working title.

    Sorry to mention juicy after alluding to upchucking though. ;)

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Nov 01, 02:47:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Someone wrote in the shale (visible presumably by helicopter) "F*ck off Charlie!"

    Now this is amusing. Can't verify the truth of it, but I wouldn't put it past folk up there.


    Amusing yes. Contrarian, as is our passive-aggressive wont, yes.

    But republic-wisher that I am, I probably would've laughed, then thought, oh dear, how rude, and scrunched my face in disapproval.

    You see. It's hard to express hate with such a personality.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Tue Nov 01, 02:49:00 pm GMT-5  

  • The Queen is at an age where you'd expect her to consider retirement. Perhaps what we're seeing is the reason why she doesn't seem to be considering it at this time.
    Maybe she'll have better luck with the next generation?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Nov 01, 05:06:00 pm GMT-5  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Meade, at Wed Nov 02, 12:05:00 am GMT-5  

  • I wonder if the Prince is aware that organic (till) farming, creates far more greenhouse gases than does modern (no-till) farming. Someone should tell him. Perhaps George Bush will explain it to him. link

    Cheers,
    LMeade

    By Blogger Meade, at Wed Nov 02, 12:25:00 am GMT-5  

  • The Queen is at an age where you'd expect her to consider retirement. Perhaps what we're seeing is the reason why she doesn't seem to be considering it at this time.

    It's not that, although you're thinking along the lines most normal human beings would.

    The thing is, the British monarch is the only sovereign who is actually MARRIED to the State.

    Quickie Explanation:

    The coronation is an important religious celebration, not just a chance to dress up and swank about in tiaras.

    During that ceremony, the monarch undergoes a kind of religious alliance to the State -- complete with specially created holy oil, which allegedly has a fragment of the True Cross mixed inside, and has Holy Water culled from the River Jordan sprinkled on their person.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury is a central figure, as you have seen in historical footage.

    It is in every sense, a marriage to the State.

    This Queen is said to be quite Christian, which not many people know, because she's an old-fashioned lady -- where you don't talk about such things at all.

    But she takes those vows she made in 1953 very very seriously.

    I do not know her mind, nor am I an intimate of the Royal Family, to put it comically, but I can tell you this sovereign will NEVER step down, abdicate, or raise her son/grandson or anyone to the Throne.

    It's well-known the RF always derided other continental kings and queens, for the eager abdications when they reached a certain age.

    They just swore an Oath when they ascended the throne. They didn't do it in Church before God.

    Maybe she'll have better luck with the next generation?

    It won't happen. Young William has loads of ceremonial duties to undergo.

    This isn't a popularity contest. You can't chuck away, erm, Chuck, just because he's a duffer.

    If you're going to have a hereditary monarchy, for goodness' sakes, stick to your guns, and do it right.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Nov 02, 01:02:00 am GMT-5  

  • Quoting Lmeade's link:

    Agriculture plays a major role in the global fluxes of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. From 1991 to 1999, we measured gas fluxes and other sources of global warming potential (GWP) in cropped and nearby unmanaged ecosystems

    Heh! That is excellent. I will place that in the frontispiece, Lmeade. :)

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Wed Nov 02, 01:07:00 am GMT-5  

  • God save the Queen!

    By Anonymous Holly, at Wed Nov 02, 10:35:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Stop me if I seen to be flogging a dead bio-dynamic horse, dear Victoria, but I couldn't help noticing this story about HRH and his royal consort touring that hotbed of organic American hippiedom: Bolinas, CA

    By Blogger Meade, at Sun Nov 06, 11:27:00 am GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Who linked Here:

Create a Link

<< Home


 




Advertise on blogs
British Expat Blog Directory.