Prince Charles Rings the Death-Knell for the British Monarchy

So the British people are going to get a president after all. He will "speak for the nation and to the nation." He will rule over us with his "knowledge and contacts and unique ability." How do we know? Because Charles Windsor has just announced -- via his biographer, Jonathan Dimbleby -- that he is seizing the role for himself, without an election. Explicitly citing the presidencies of Ireland and Germany, Dimbleby says Charles intends to be a "political" King. It will be "a seismic shift in the role of the sovereign," he says, with "the potential to be politically and constitutionally explosive."

Sing it, sister. This is the best news we Republicans have had for years -- and finally throws up a vision of how the rusty British monarchy will fall.

Charles says the "responsibility and authority of his position" -- and the "wisdom" it entails -- requires him to "speak out" and "pressure" our elected representatives. A bevy of fawning pundits have responded by crying -- yes! Speak for us, oh sovereign! We commoners cannot produce one as wise as you! So I have to start with a point so obvious that it seems odd even to state it in 2008.

Charles's position stems from one thing and one thing only: he emerged from Elizabeth Windsor's womb 60 years ago. That's it. He has no "responsibility." He has no legitimate "authority." He has no more right to "speak for the nation and to the nation" -- and pocket £7m a year for the bother -- than you, me, or the next person you see at the bus stop.

If not for that fortuitous journey through a royal womb, Charles Windsor's "wise" arguments would be gathering dust in the reject bin at certain newspapers' letters pages. If his advocates didn't keep praising him as "a public intellectual" I wouldn't be rude enough to point it out, but Charles Windsor is a strikingly stupid man. Every time he has been put into a competitive situation where he is judged according to objective criteria, he has been a disaster.

Despite the most expensive education money can buy, he managed only to scrape a B and a C in his A-Levels. Despite this, he was admitted to Cambridge University, where he failed again, barely scraping a 2:2. When he was ushered into the Navy, he was so inept at navigation he kept crashing. Anybody else would have been court-martialed, but instead the Navy gave him one-on-one tuition for years. And still he failed.

And what of his arguments? They are garbled, uninformed, cliché-ridden repetitions of what the last person who spoke to him said. His very sympathetic biographer Dimbleby admits that his staff "were uncomfortable with his tendency to reach instant conclusions on the basis of insufficient thought". Edward Adeane, Charles' private secretary for many years, was disturbed by the fact that "Charles was extraordinarily easy to lead by the nose".

What do these "interventions" really consist of? Charles Windsor scorns modern science, attacking it for its "lack of soul" and for "playing God". So he uses his position to attack qualified life-saving professionals who earned their position, like the General Medical Council -- and says he knows better.

He demands that the British national Health Service pay for "spiritual, alternative medicine", and has been a key player in ensuring the NHS now spends £200m a year on it. But as Professor Richard Dawkins explains, there is no such thing as "alternative" medicine. If a treatment works in clinical trials, it ceases to be "alternative": it is classified as medicine and prescribed by doctors. So "alternative medicine" is -- by definition -- medicine that doesn't work in clinical trials. It is not medicine at all.

Charles's other arguments have just as much merit. Even on the (rare) occasions when he is right, Charles wrecks it with rancid hypocrisy. His claims to be opposed to global warming would be more persuasive if he were not one of the worst personal polluters in Britain, using a private jet for the most trivial of trips. His claims to be concerned for the poor would be more persuasive if he did not claim more than £300m of public land that should be used to pay for schools and hospitals to fund his own shocking decadence.

But even if Charles Windsor was a genius who represented a political agenda I totally agreed with, I would still oppose his "right" to be an unelected Head of State. In a democracy, power should stem from voting lines, not bloodlines. Yet Charles has shown a willingness to use his unearned position to bully elected representatives for decades now. One former minister, Peter Morrison, has recounted how Charles called him into Kensington Palace and screamed and shouted and banged his fist on the table when Morrison wouldn't accept his arguments about the national curriculum.

It's easy to assume that as monarch Charles would have no powers -- but it's untrue. The monarch gets an hour of face-time with the Prime Minister every week, has access to all government papers, and -- in a tie-break election -- gets to pick the Prime Minister. This isn't a fantasy-scenario: it happened as recently as 1974, and it will happen again.

To be fair, we Brits should blame ourselves as much as Charles. Monarchy inevitably warps the personality of the people at its heart, because from childhood they hear nothing but sycophancy. One of Charles' ex-girlfriends said: "He lives in an isolation ward of flattery. He goes to Hollywood and is told he's handsome. He swaps jokes with a comic genius like Peter Sellers, and they fall down laughing. He boffs a woman once, and she tells him he's the greatest lover she's ever had." It is this system that made this dim-witted mediocrity believe he has a womb-given right to be our President. We made it. We created the monster.

So what happens when this man accedes to the throne and pretends to be our president? In Spain, Sophia Frederica, the "Queen", has begun to speak out -- and support for the monarchy has withered.

So let Charles speak. Let him grab the reins of power. Let him spew his ignorant babble from his many golden palaces. Charles Windsor will - in an unprecedented moment of efficiency -- lead us at last into the Republic of Great Britain.

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper in Britain. You can read more of his articles here or here.

Comments

[sedum]

How the hell do you dissolve the monarchy? Better yet. When?

[Apov]

Yet another W wannabe.

God save us all.

[biichama]

To be fair, Charles is more environmentally friendly than W. He turned his gardening hobby into a full-fledged organic farming concern.

[MTGradwell]

To be even fairer, Charles is more friendly than W in every sense, and there is absolutely no comparison between the two. The fact that somebody reading the above article can think to make such a comparison just shows how incredibly unfair the article is.

Charles is famously affable, friendly, interested in people, philanthropic. His charities, such as the "Prince's Trust" have benefited many. Hari's anti-monarchism makes him see a monster where there is none.

In his urge to insult Charles, Hari manages to insult just about everyone else. Charles is "a strikingly stupid man" because "he managed only to scrape a B and a C in his A-Levels" and only got a 2.2. at university. Well, in the days before dilution of standards, most people didn't even do A levels, most of the people who did them didn't get A grades, and most people never even got to university (not every post-school learning establishment was called a university, then). Well over 90% of the British public of Charles' generation are strikingly stupid, according to Hari.

And Charles isn't President, and neither does he aspire to be, regardless of what Hari tries to imply. Whatever political position he does have was thrust upon him by fate, not sought after. He merely wishes to make use of that position in order to speak out on important issues, as anyone with a brain should.

[NationalTreasure]

"Despite the most expensive education money can buy, he managed only to scrape a B and a C in his A-Levels. Despite this, he was admitted to Cambridge University, where he failed again, barely scraping a 2:2. When he was ushered into the Navy, he was so inept at navigation he kept crashing. Anybody else would have been court-martialed, but instead the Navy gave him one-on-one tuition for years. And still he failed."

Kind of reminds one of John McCain

[SonnyBono]

Actually reminds me more of George W. Bush - McCain actually made it into a shooting war unlike W would hid out in Alabama and the bars in North Beach.

[kalpal]

The children of public persons are not allowed to publicly fail. This is catastrophic to anyone who claims to be capable. If you can't help your child to become educated, how can help your nation deal with its problems?

GW Bush and Johnny Boy McCain were not permitted to reflect poorly on their parents. As children they learned quickly that personal failure would be erased by their parents. This taught them that being responsible is what other people do, not those of their social class.

McCain knew that leaving Vietnam ahead of others would erase his father's efforts on his behalf and end his father's career. He would be a pariah all his life.

GW never came close to learning that lesson. I think Bush is shell shocked that America insists on holding him responsible for his decisions, actions and inactions. It was and is a first for him and he has yet to recover.

[glorialovelace]

The mentality that thinks that high school grades -- which is what A-Levels are all about -- should determine a person's entire life is as ridiculous as the belief that attending Harvard proves that a person is a genius who can solve the world's problems.

[Colmore]

Reminds me of Georgie.

[pbley68]

America and England do have a lot in common, they both have vast inequity.

[davism97]

Ah an issue American Democrats and Republicans can probably agree on! Well as an American I think I speak for all of us when I say we've been waiting to see the British monarchy die for a long time now (oh say about 232 years or so). Charles sounds like an English version of W so we can expect some good drama from this.

[Nebris]

The British Monarchy does not do well with 'Charles'. Just look at the first two. Williams on the other hand, especially odd numbered Williams, do very very well. Just a thought.

[lisakaz2]

Chuck II wasn't so bad. It was Jim II who ruined the Ancien Regime.

[Readbetweentheelevens]

In 2008 you are headed for a republic? I doubt that is ever in England's future. The "Monarchy" literally owns that Island.

How many nations are part of the Commonwealth? That's why I don't support the U.N. Too many nations are under the influence of the British Government. Count the votes, you'll see for yourself.

I wish the British people all the luck in resolving this issue, but the land of witches, fairies, gnomes, hobgoblins, Crowley and Queens is stuck with the load of crap you transported all over the world.

How many Americans have accepted "Knighthood" from the "Queen"? There is proscription in the U.S. Constitution against titles. Have these Americans ever read it?

Ask yourself why is the pound worth more than the dollar? American Johnny Rotten has it right about England.

[UKVisitor]

Is American Johnny Rotten the erstwhile lead singer of the Sex Pistols? If so Mr Lydon is English, although he'd perhaps describe himself as Irish.

It's not whether Charles Windsor is a wise man or an idiot that's the issue, it's that he's in his position due to hereditary. That's what's so embarassing.

[Readbetweentheelevens]

He resides in America and has made an application for citizenship. His legal status in the U.S.A is unknown to me, but you would be wrong to call him an English citizen. He lives in America by choice, that's enough for me.

[1201SLD]

You could do far worse. George Bush will be available soon.

[PoliticalAnimal]

The last King in waiting to divorce for love - Edward, a Nazi sympathizer - was forced to abdicate in favor of his brother, George. The same should be expected of Charles.

If he becomes King, rather than William, it will be the end of the monarchy throughout the commonwealth countries - Canada, like Australia and other countries where Britain still has influence - would simply separate itself completely from the monarchy, and make the Governor-General an independent, Canadian institution.

Charles has no place as head of the Commonwealth.

[glorialovelace]

"The last King in waiting to divorce for love - Edward, a Nazi sympathizer - was forced to abdicate in favor of his brother, George. The same should be expected of Charles."

I disagree. Times change and institutions evolve. And Charles is not a Nazi sypathizer. Big difference there.

[thecanadian]

100% agree PoliticalAnimal! Charles should step down right now - remove himself from the running!

[messy]

Okay, Charlie isn't king yet. Also, Britain is a monarchy, and the upper house of parliament is unelected and was just as hereditary as the monarchy until five years ago.

Also, Spain's King was the one who gave Spain Democracy...TWICE. Juan Carlos could have been a dictator if he wanted, He WAS at the start of his reign, but he didn't. spain owes him.

[lisakaz2]

Sorry but I agree with Charles on a few points here, specifically on so-called alternative medicine. Conventional docs have not helped me at all so all their knowledge and credentials don't count for squat imo (it took an alternative doc to find out I had lyme disease where a neurologist just wanted to give me lexapro and no help whatsoever). Would you consider acupuncture to be a failure? It sure has worked for me but its quality depends on the practitioner. Frankly, if Charles wants to be more active in advising government, why shouldn't he? He wants a king to be relevant. This could be useful and it might backfire. It depends on him and I'd say give him a chance.

[KoolBreez]

I agree. There are too many instances where the 'traditional' medicine is not even advanced enough to comprehend and test the so called alternative medicine. What we call alternative medicine here can also be the traditional medicine somewhere else. Tried and tested over the centuries.

I too have first hand exerience where the western doctors were clueless and eastern medicine was very effective.

[strawberryjulius]

It's a little bit scary to read, on a site that is dedicated primarily to american politics, so many comments in favor of a monarch taking a more active political role in a democracy. Most people have judged our little dabble into monarchy aka The Bushes as a disaster.

[Boadicea]

lol

We could say much the same about our little Bush. If not for his parentage, he'd have likely been an even lesser piece of humanity than Charles.

I find the comments rather humorous - Americans long for a monarchy, and have enjoyed the convenience of being free to laugh at Britain's royalty while at the same time revelling in it.

[jayburd]

Good luck with all that...

Seriously, though, I LOVE Britain. I hope you good folks will soon get the monarch-free republic you deserve. In electing Barack Obama the U.S. has finally landed in the 21st Century. By dissolving the monarchy the U.K. will do the same.

[ReesieKitty]

I think it's really interesting how a lot of people like having 'the Royals' as a sort of uber-celebrity- someone who gets to go to awesome places, wear great clothes, etc. that you will probably never achieve yourself. As for any Royal income being 'private', as in the Duchy of Cornwall, I think there is a valid argument against that. Why is it private income? What real right does the Queen or anyone else have to essentially give away that property and all of its incomes to her relatives? And yes, I'm sure they help with the tourism and raise money for charity, etc.- I'm just not sure any royal personage deserves such a huge paycheck for it. I could see a monarchy whose personal incomes from the Crown are drastically reduced- forcing them to actually work, etc. for their money. If this means fewer special events and photo ops, then so be it. I think the monarchy is a kind of cool cultural tradition. But they don't actually GOVERN anything and should not expect to be treated as if they do, or payed as if they do.

[MrsGreebers]

I don't argue for one second about the assessment of Charles's public life. But I don't think his 7 million pounds are taxpayer funds. It's his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, on which he himself pays taxes -- I forget whether that's the before-tax or after-tax amount, but it's private money. If you take away the assests "held in trust for the British people" the Queen is still around the 50th wealthiest person in the world. Ill-gotten gain if you're an anti-monarchist, but private property.