…and this is a 
So, England, how does it feel to have a hereditary moron like Prince Charles fluttering about the country?
The Prince of Wales has blamed a lack of belief in the soul for the world's environmental problems, and said that the planet cannot sustain a population expected to reach 9 billion in 40 years.
He said he found it "baffling" that so many scientists professed a faith in God yet this had little bearing on the "damaging" way science was used to exploit the natural world.
The Prince pinned part of the blame on Galileo. Criticising the profit imperative behind much scientific research, he said: "This imbalance, where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo's assertion that there is nothing in nature but quantity and motion.
"This is the view that continues to frame the general perception of the way the world works, and how we fit within the scheme of things.
"As a result, Nature has been completely objectified — 'She' has become an 'it' — and we are persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo's scheme." The Prince said that he believed "green technology" alone could not resolve the world's environmental problems. Instead, the West must do something about its "deep, inner crisis of the soul".
Oh, yes — if only we'd return to regarding Nature as feminine, whatever that means, and start believing in souls, we could fix all environmental problems. He's not very specific, though — could he make some clear suggestions about how pretending the planet is a lady will solve, say, global warming or the oil spill in the Gulf?
Don't be too embarrassed, UK readers. It could be worse. If Charles were an American, he'd be getting elected to his position as ceremonial woo-meister. At least you can blame it all on the vagaries of the genetic lottery and a royally pampered upbringing.
Comments
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 10, 2010 8:13 AM
Has Prince Charles got evidence to the contrary beyond his desire for there to be something to the contrary?Sometimes I think that the materialist nature of science is one huge straw-man for critics to put blame on any time they don't like the direction science is going.
Posted by: gobaskof
|
June 10, 2010 8:14 AM
He is still bloody embarrassing, and uses his influence to help people insert magic medicine into the NHS. Hopefully his mum will outlive him and we never have to deal with that tit as king.
Posted by: SEF
|
June 10, 2010 8:14 AM
As though the first magical power someone should acquire and employ is the ability to kiss princes and turn them into frogs - a far more useful species of critter.
Posted by: Gerald Snit
|
June 10, 2010 8:19 AM
Prince Charles's new motto for his coat of arms: Non sequitur.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
June 10, 2010 8:20 AM
I'm sure the leaders of BP believe in an immortal, immaterial soul. I'm sure they are good believers, mostly Christians. I'm sure this has absolutely zero impact on the current problems.
It's not non-belief that pushes people (or rather companies) to lie, to cut corners on security and claim they're doing everything they should, to look for arrangements with the authorities supposed to regulate and punish them. It's the necessity to make as much profit as possible, as quickyl as possible, before someone else seizes the opportunity under your nose. It's the essence of capitalist economy.
Posted by: Zeno
|
June 10, 2010 8:22 AM
The royal family is reportedly quite devoted to homeopathy. Prince Charles should be checked for drug abuse. If he hasn't been taking his meds, he could be suffering from an overdose (according to homeopathic logic).
Posted by: tomhuld
|
June 10, 2010 8:25 AM
@#4:
Actually it's Honi soit qui pense
(with apologies to Erik Balling)
Posted by: defendthecheese
|
June 10, 2010 8:25 AM
it feels so bad, he supports lots of nonsense, thankfully he doesnt have to much influence on thinking peoples.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 8:28 AM
National embarassment? Maybe.
Influential? Not very. (And much less so now that his Foundation for Integrated Health has collapsed under allegations of fraud, although political support has been waning for such things in recent years in the UK, anyway.)
Notably, if he does become King, then he will be pretty much obliged to keep his opinions to himself. Constitutional precedent requires that monarchs restrict their public opinions.
He is a completely self-assured, opinionated meddler. A chip off the old paternal block.
Posted by: Oneiric
|
June 10, 2010 8:34 AM
One could argue that has already happened... (apart from the lack of usefulness)Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 10, 2010 8:35 AM
Can we PLEASE just ditch these morons? Royalty my aching ass.
They hurt Canada too!
Posted by: Stan Pak
|
June 10, 2010 8:35 AM
I think that greater embarrassment for Britain is the system still in existence in which they support family of hereditary morons and pay them respect and name them kings or queens. I do not blame little Charlie for his stupidity, at least he was born stupid and this is not his fault. The rest of society should be ashamed. They made him prince and support monarchy.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 8:38 AM
The Prince of Wales has... said that the planet cannot sustain a population expected to reach 9 billion in 40 years.
I wonder how many average Bangladeshis or Congolese would be required to equal this fuckwit's environmental footprint.
Posted by: Ediacaran
|
June 10, 2010 8:39 AM
Giant tampon?
Posted by: DN King
|
June 10, 2010 8:40 AM
I agree that it is important to respect nature almost as we would respect another individual; ie: do no harm. Whether this is regarding nature with a 'soul' is gibberish, but perhaps that's what his flitty mind was trying to explain? I mean, if we don't have the desire to care for nature for nature's sake, the way we care for a sick patient for the patient's sake, it makes it more difficult (though not impossible) to manage the planet.
(As an environmental sustainability focused science student, I work hard to emphasize env. sustainability IS economic sustainability, so while I agree with the above, I try to avoid appeals to emotion and instead seek facts and numbers.)
Still, no amount of respect, love, honor, and passion will save a single ant without a full understanding of the materialistic and quantifiable aspect of reality. Only pure and unbiased science will give us the answers needed to save the 'soul' of nature. That's what we do as scientists. We use objective reality to save what is subjectively important to us. We could blow up the earth, and from a purely scientific point of view, big deal, who cares, not even noticed in most of our own galaxy. But we do care, because we are human, and we know that.
In other words, Prince Disney Gone Horribly Wrong, sit down and shut up? Either your saying what we've known since before Plato, or you're saying something stupid and irrelevant.
Posted by: sineWAVE
|
June 10, 2010 8:43 AM
@Stan Pak
We don't so much support monarchy as not do anything about getting rid of the bastards. Although, given what happened last time we tried to get rid of the monarchy, it's not exactly surprising we're not too keen on doing anything.
Posted by: umkomasia
|
June 10, 2010 8:47 AM
If that Galileo guy would have used his telescope to spy on his hot neighbor in the apartment across the street instead of using it to understand our non-privelaged place in the cosmos we could all be happy in ignorant bliss. Damned scientists!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 10, 2010 8:47 AM
Yep... fucking Galileo... he's the problem.
That's a cop-out, really... it's not Galileo he resents, it's what Galileo represents... which was a shift in the way people looked at the world, from simply accepting scripturally dictated explanations for the "natural world", to questioning scripture's accuracy and, in essence, its authority...
If not for that ol' Charles might still live in a world where his title and birthright were worth a fuck, and he would be the God-appointed ruler of all he surveyed.
Don't tell me for an instant he doesn't wish it was the 15th century still...
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 8:48 AM
I think that greater embarrassment for Britain is the system still in existence in which they support family of hereditary morons and pay them respect and name them kings or queens. - Stan Pak
QFT - but cue Walton plunging in to defend the monarchy in 3, 2, 1...
The rest of society should be ashamed. They made him prince and support monarchy.
Er, no. None of us "made him prince", and many of us oppose the monarchy.
Posted by: wjv.myopenid.com
|
June 10, 2010 8:49 AM
An… acquaintance of mine posted the following link to Facebook:
http://harounkola.com/how-to-heal-the-mexican-gulf-from-the-oil-spill/
Essentially, this Haround Kola ("Eco geek and rainbow guru") believes we can "heal" the oil spill by praying … to … the water.
Sometimes, words fail.
Posted by: Ramases_1
|
June 10, 2010 8:49 AM
Belief in the right of an absolute monarchy to rule us is a lot like believing in god - an instinctive deference to a higher authority coupled with a faith abandonment of rational critical faculties.
Occasionally a monarch or potential monarch comes along who makes it increasingly difficult for believers to suspend their disbelief.
Long live Prince Charles! For us Australians he is the best weapon republicans have.
Posted by: solius
|
June 10, 2010 8:49 AM
That fucker, and Copernicus,too.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 10, 2010 8:50 AM
Much the same as it feels in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, I imagine.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
June 10, 2010 8:50 AM
I haven't noticed believers "in the soul" having a lower environmental footprint than those who don't. If anything, there seems to be a correlation between religious belief and popping out offspring without much regard to the earth's or the children's future.
Most sceptics and atheists I know practise birth control and have a better-than-average environmental awareness and lifestyle.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
June 10, 2010 8:51 AM
Luckily the United Kingdom made sure long ago that Royals have no political power at all. So they get the benefit of the ceremonial stuff without any old fashioned beheadings.
Influence? Does the Prince of Wales have as much influence in his country as Oprah has in hers?
The Prime Minister writes the Queen's speeches and the Archbishop of Canterbury writes God's speeches.
Jolly good. :)
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
June 10, 2010 8:53 AM
Wow. Leaving aside the mysticism (as difficult as that is to do), this still comes across as a hopelessly naive position. The #1 obstacle towards tackling environmental problems is not materialistic science, it's just the opposite! It's political ideology denying the results of materialistic science. Doesn't he read the fucking papers???
Posted by: cmustewart
|
June 10, 2010 8:53 AM
"The Prince of Wales has blamed a lack of belief in the soul for the world's environmental problems"
I would venture a guess the Prince has not yet run into a group of evangelical Christians who believe using up all of the Earth's resources will bring about the return of Jesus.
Also, why does the monarchy even still exist? I don't understand England's obsession with a woman so disconnected from reality that she did not know what type of music Eric Clapton played and her idiot son; A man so stupid that he wore a Nazi officer costume to a party. Maybe if we ignore them, they will just go away?
http://theliberalgamer.blogspot.com
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 8:56 AM
But surely not defending Charlie?
As to my own defence; I quite like the monarchy, personally. As an institution, it is like a cross between a museum and zoo. Some kind of highly endangered archaic species - a real version of the Loch Ness Monster. I don't mind paying a few pence to keep the Queen in roasted swan and pastel dresses.
...and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
(Thanks to Wiki for the list.)
Posted by: cmustewart
|
June 10, 2010 8:57 AM
"The Prince of Wales has blamed a lack of belief in the soul for the world's environmental problems"
I would venture a guess the Prince has not yet run into a group of evangelical Christians who believe using up all of the Earth's resources will bring about the return of Jesus.
Also, why does the monarchy even still exist? I don't understand England's obsession with a woman so disconnected from reality that she did not know what type of music Eric Clapton played and her idiot son; A man so stupid that he wore a Nazi officer costume to a party. Maybe if we ignore them, they will just go away?
http://theliberalgamer.blogspot.com
Posted by: xtaldave
|
June 10, 2010 9:00 AM
Prince Charles is a good example of the importance genetic diversity.
I apologise on behalf of my country that you have had to spend more than a few tenths of a second considering this buffoon.
(And for the record, it was the Queen's Grandson, Charlie's "son", Prince Harry (he of indeterminate parentage) who wore the Nazi uniform to a party. )
sigh
Posted by: ric.larsson
|
June 10, 2010 9:00 AM
There is this old British series called 'Blackadder' that features the royal family through a character 'prince George' played by Hugh Laurie...
I always thought literature were supposed to exaggerate reality when making fun of it - the situation with prince Philips clearly shows me wrong. Reality triumphing parody seems like a bad idea to me.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 10, 2010 9:01 AM
Yes, it's all science's fault. As if we'd know fuck all about global warming, the effects of DDT, lead and mercury contamination, acid rain, the ozone layer, or pretty much anything we do to the environment if science wasn't telling us about it and trying to find solutions. Oh, but maybe he wants to go back and live in the fucking middle ages? We'd still be cutting down trees, but more to the point, is Buckingham palace air conditioned? Heated? Then he like science, and he ought to recognize it's importance not just in making his pampered existence possible, but also in finding ways to ameliorate it's impacts. Fucktwit.
Posted by: chrissetti
|
June 10, 2010 9:01 AM
We haven't done anything largely because Lizzie 2 is a fairly nice old lady who lives in a big house and doesn't really annoy anyone.
OK, so every time she's exercised her constitutional powers she's made a horrible cockup of it (See her overruling of the Supreme Court's decision to let the displaced Chagosians return home) but while she's on the throne nobody will want to change the monarchy.
Oh and as long as people are allowed to get away with the 'they bring in tourists' rubbish...
Posted by: Copyleft
|
June 10, 2010 9:02 AM
So, let me understand Charles's position...
If only people would abandon science and reason, and return to the primitive superstitions of our ancestors...
THEN they'd understand the delicate nature of ecological balance and conservation of scarce resources, and make better informed decisions on development rather than rampaging around chewing up the planet as if it were our divine mandate?
Yes, I recall what excellent conservationists the religious whackos always were... we definitely need more of that attitude and less knowledge.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 9:03 AM
Is this the international standard for recognising reality, now?
I mean, the mansions, castles, palaces, the state ceremonies, the extra brithday, the wealth, the gifts, the fine dinning, the drink, the trips abroad, the butlers, maids, ladies in waiting, pantry boys, Household Cavalry, that I can put up with.
But does she know the words to Layla? She does not.
Posted by: nigel gomm
|
June 10, 2010 9:05 AM
that's what happens when cousins marry.
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
June 10, 2010 9:05 AM
That whole damned family is a national embarrassment. That's what you get when you combine inbreeding and unearned wealth, I guess.
Posted by: joeyess
|
June 10, 2010 9:05 AM
Slightly paraphrasing here merely as I don't wish to exclude women:
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
June 10, 2010 9:07 AM
Don't worry, he'll never be King - Brenda* won't permit it. She'll outlive him even if she has to make 150 to do so.
(*apologies to non-Private Eye readers, especially those of you overseas)
Posted by: coachharrisbasketball
|
June 10, 2010 9:07 AM
Thank goodness the opinions of the royal family don't have any influence in the UK. We just let them sit there and say silly things while bringing in tourism money to the economy. They're pretty harmless...usually.
Posted by: Pikaia
|
June 10, 2010 9:11 AM
Charles is a big fan of Islam, so I wonder why he doesn't convert. No doubt they can find a mosque to hold his coronation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html
Posted by: cypress
|
June 10, 2010 9:12 AM
@29: "Also, why does the monarchy even still exist?" IMHO, I would guess that they are still useful.
Do they bring in more $ to the county as a tourist attraction than they are paid by the government? Obviously, many people outside the UK are fascinated by the royals. I paid to see Diana's gowns here in Ohio.
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't they also devote all their "work" time to charity causes? Couldn't hurt to bring some "royal power" to bear on that.
Besides, people are attached to ritual and ceremony (which is why many people can't give up their religion, too). I am guessing you Brits like your live connection to the grand, historical past of your land.
Again, correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 10, 2010 9:12 AM
Everyone knows that the royals are so inbred that Charles' soul is his own cousin. His only claim to fame is being the perfect likeness of the winner of Upper Class Twit Of The Year. Maybe they'll come to their senses one day and make Alexei Sayle their king. Here's Alexei singing his new national anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGcJX3MHvm0
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 10, 2010 9:12 AM
It's a good thing that France still has a King. Otherwise, nobody would visit Versailles.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkizC4OJEQODw9Rn2-9Ccz5-1lYymHaqFs
|
June 10, 2010 9:14 AM
Yes, that's a great idea. Start treating the planet like a woman instead of a thing.
Because, you know, we have such a great track record in how we treat women around the world.
Posted by: Perspexo
|
June 10, 2010 9:14 AM
I wonder does Cahrlie's hankering for a pre-enlightenment past have anything to do with an nostalgia for the divine right of kings?
The clown probably thinks he'd be better at running government than the elected officials, actually...
Posted by: Louis
|
June 10, 2010 9:15 AM
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to be pissed off with Chuckie Prince of Tools, but have you seen what he charges for sausages?
For someone who complains about the commodification and commercialisation of things that fucker knows how to wring cash out of a banger.
Louis
P.S. The Oaten Biscuits are pricey too. Nice though.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 10, 2010 9:16 AM
Everyone knows that the royals are so inbred that Charles' soul is his own cousin. His only claim to fame is being the perfect likeness of the winner of Upper Class Twit Of The Year. Maybe they'll come to their senses one day and make Alexei Sayle their king. Here's Alexei singing his new national anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGcJX3MHvm0
Posted by: nomaduk
|
June 10, 2010 9:19 AM
So, first, I wasn't aware that the Queen had any say in the decision not to return the Chagossians to their islands. That, as far as I can tell, was done by a 3-2 decision on the part of the Law Lords, ruling on an appeal made by the then-Foreign Secretary, David Milliband. To my knowledge, the Monarch had no say in the process, and certainly has never, to my knowledge, attempted to overturn any sort of court ruling.
Second, I personally don't find the Monarchy any greater an embarrassment than Commons or the Government, which both appear to be made up largely of gutless, greedy, sociopathic, quasi-fascist bastards; or large segments of the population as a whole, who seem unwilling to forego their love of all things American long enough to stop and wonder whether building more roads, driving more cars, and wiping out more and more local village shops is really the right way to go. The Royals at least have the benefit of sparing us the fiction of democratic elections, and providing some entertainment and a tourist draw.
Third, HRH's comments are, as usual, a bit clouded, but I think his heart is in the right place. I read his comments as decrying a capitalist, consumerist culture that places money before all other considerations, especially environmental ones. I fail to see how the observation that a more 'spiritual' (read: respectful) consideration of Earth and her resources over the past few decades or centuries can be taken as a negative thing.
He's also made a point of criticising nanotechnology, which I think is wise, given that I don't trust corporations to develop that sort of technology with the best interests of the planet or its inhabitants at heart.
I have no use for religion myself, but if it leads others to the correct conclusion, I don't much care.
Posted by: AndyD
|
June 10, 2010 9:19 AM
Galileo? Pfft!
Every true person of faith knows it's all Darwin's fault.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 10, 2010 9:19 AM
Urk! Sorry for the double post. iPad learning curve. :P.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkizC4OJEQODw9Rn2-9Ccz5-1lYymHaqFs
|
June 10, 2010 9:21 AM
How do we treat women?
1. Act as if we own them.
2. Mutilate their genitals.
3. Force them to have babies until they die.
I think we're already on track.
Thanks, Prince.
DTK Greg
Posted by: Yoav
|
June 10, 2010 9:25 AM
The Prince of Wales has blamed a lack of belief in the soul for the world's environmental problems, and said that the planet cannot sustain a population expected to reach 9 billion in 40 years.
So that's why he's trying to replace medicine with magic water. Once that happen and we go back to 50% infant mortality and life expectancy of 30 over population will no longer be a problem.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
June 10, 2010 9:31 AM
As a Brit now living in the US, I'd say that the only things to like about the royal family are (a) the pageantry and (b) the convenient constitutional arrangement which separates the symbolic leadership of the country from the political leadership. I'm not that big on symbolism myself, but a lot of people are and I think it make sense to put national symbols in a bag, crown it king/queen, and then ignore it. Frankly, I think the US would benefit greatly from this kind of distinction between national symbolism and politics.
That said, Charles is an idiot, pure and simple. Most Brits know that.
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 10, 2010 9:32 AM
Well, he is making a reasonably valid point, at least in terms of fallout and ends. Green technology will not be a cure-all, necessarily. There may be a few lifestyle adjustments, too.
The rest is all bunk, though.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
June 10, 2010 9:35 AM
I think the good Prince is wrong. I think it all started going down hill with Aristotle.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 10, 2010 9:36 AM
Prediction: If Charles ever becomes king and his image adorns Canadian currency, it will spur such a rapid move to debit cards that strippers will be forced to walk around with card swipe machines.
Also, the bills will be called "Dumbo Dollars" and jigsaw puzzles will be made of only three pieces, but the pieces will be red hot and toxic. Okay, I stole that last one from Conan.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
June 10, 2010 9:37 AM
Pespexo @ 46
Well Prince Chuck hopes to Rule Britania by Divine Right so believing in souls seems to be a necessary corolary. I mean if there are no souls and no god then . . . why he's just a halfwit whose family owns a significant proportion of Britain by complete fucking accident of history and his opinions are nor more important than any other halfwit without a Kingdom and half-a dozen titles.
Madness of King George
Posted by: symball
|
June 10, 2010 9:37 AM
You aren't supposed to stroke it like that!
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 10, 2010 9:38 AM
Cue the obligatory Python reference: "You don't vote for King!"
Posted by: ed2001
|
June 10, 2010 9:39 AM
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.
-- George W Bush, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts (circa June, 2003), quoted from Arnon Regular, "'Road map is a life saver for us,' PM Abbas tells Hamas" (Haaretz.com:June 27, 2003), quoted from EvilOz (The Iterative Record)
Not to minimize the idiocy of a monarch, but it is MUCH more troubling when woo-woo like this comes from a US President. We had to suffer through 8 years of this...
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 10, 2010 9:41 AM
Whoa! That sounds a bit rude, doesn't it?
"..."
Oh, come on! 'Stroke it'! Sounds a bit like...
Well, 'stroke it'!
/Hugh Laurie
Posted by: Shona
|
June 10, 2010 9:43 AM
Thank goodness the Queen is clinging to the crown with those clawed tentacles of hers.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
June 10, 2010 9:44 AM
Can those of us in Scotland tell you how it feels, or can only the English do it? England and the UK are not synonymous any more than New England is the same as the US or Nova Scotia is the same as Canada.
As for our right Charlie his strong support for AltMed told us all we need to know about his attitude to science. He is now known affectionately as The Quacktitioner Royal. The man is iow a joke and has been so for a long time. The problem is this joke has way too much influence over the governance of this country.
Posted by: bart.mitchell
|
June 10, 2010 9:49 AM
Charles is a schmuck, and a woo meister supreme. But I think he might be on to something here.
Not the literal soul, but the metaphorical one. If we did spend more time trying to get in touch with our humanity, instead of our consumerism, it might go a long way to setting humanity on the right track.
Let's face it, most humanity lives in Sagans 'Demon haunted world'. Using language like 'coming closer to nature', or 'getting in touch with natures spirit' might be a step in the right direction.
Im not advocating accommodationism. Im still calling a spade a spade, but this just might be the direction that humanity can move in.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
June 10, 2010 9:49 AM
Although I agree with his views that overpopulation is the major problem feeding into all others and that green tech isn't going to save us, his harping about souls and religion is not a solution.
Then again the standard "we have lost our way, consumerism, money blah, blah" speech is always eaten up by the religious. Carefully ignoring of course the sheer wealth of said religions.
In context i'm sure this speech was lapped up by the faithful. Feelgood fistshaking and a religious solution from the impotent, for the impotent. What more could they possibly want?
Posted by: slugsie
|
June 10, 2010 9:53 AM
Well, at least our schmuck is hereditory, you Americans seem to have a habit of electing yours! ;)
I'm going against the tide of comments here in that I actually support the monarchy in general - the position that is rather than the actually people involved (some of them anyway). They are great for the ceremony, they're great for tourism, and a bunch of other stuff. Sure they get a big wodge of cash from the tax payer, but it's actually a tiny amount in the grand scheme of things. The generally do good things as figureheads of various institutions and charities.
Oh, and I do support the first bit, I do think we'll have a problem supporting 9Billion people on this planet. Mind you, I'm not claiming to have even the first idea how to solve the problem(s).
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 10, 2010 9:55 AM
Aaaand cue obligatory Neil Gamain reference: A Study in Emerald.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 10, 2010 9:56 AM
It's moments like these, I feel this distinct sympathy for certain peasant mobs.
I mean: we're mostly just afflicted with having to hear this dumbassitude reported in the press. They actually had to live under the rule of inbred idiots like this guy...
And, I s'pose unsurprisingly, not so intermittently found 'emselves starving. It must have been a mite... frustrating.
(/Also: I bet you could just never find the entrails of a priest when you needed 'em the most.)
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
June 10, 2010 9:59 AM
nomaduk (#49)
Yeah, the prince's message isn't so bad if you redefine the words he's using into something you agree with rather than taking his intended meaning.
And how, without science, are they to determine which is the "correct" answer? The trouble with religion is that it can lead people to any conclusion that pleases them just as easily as to correct ones. Do you really think Charles wants his faith informed by science after casting it as the enemy?
Posted by: kaylakaze
|
June 10, 2010 9:59 AM
Seems to me it's thinking of the planet as a lady that was the source for the problems in the first place. All these bastards want to do is stick their pipe in deeper, not caring how they abuse her, and then just leave a mess when they're done.
Posted by: Larry
|
June 10, 2010 10:06 AM
Don't feel too bad about the royals, my Brit friends. Like your weird, old uncle, they can cause embarrassment at times but they're kind of fun to have around for the amusement they provide. We here in the states have something quite similar. We call them radio talkshow hosts.
Posted by: Tulse
|
June 10, 2010 10:08 AM
This gives a whole new meaning to "moneyshot".
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 10, 2010 10:08 AM
Perhaps if some people stopped spawning solely for the purpose of making more souls for the Good Lord, we wouldn't be in this mess.Fuck you, Chuck. Fuck you with the dessicated corpse of ma Teresa.
Sideways.
Posted by: Holytape
|
June 10, 2010 10:09 AM
Fuck Galileo and his fucking telescope and shit.... He thought he was the fucking shit with his reflective mirrors and shit. Just because science has increased the quality of life more than any religion doesn't mean that it is right. If the earth really was moving wouldn't we feel it? And Magnets, how the fuck do they work? This is really pissing me off...
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
June 10, 2010 10:10 AM
(From the Times's comment section)This is indeed one of the stupidest quotes he has ever made. It indicates his complete non-comprehension of the real world, and his frustration that those evil, venal scientists have failed to back him up over his pet whims and fancies.
What? Where? OK big Pharma (maybe) but are all you scientists out there just greedy bastards peering at micro-organisms with $ signs in your eyes?
Was this really Galileo's motivation?
Science is about the accumulation of real, practical knowledge, and the investigation of the unknown. It is not this inquiry that's ruined the world.
But yes, we know he's a fuckwit. It's probably why he's not king.
In his defence, however, I must say, seconding Louis upthread, that he does make the most delicious cakes and biscuits. His lemon tarte is a dream; he himself, a nightmare.
Posted by: Nontheocrat
|
June 10, 2010 10:12 AM
The real cause of BP's (and other corporations) damaging of our environment, is the Ayn Rand inspired worship of greed and selflessness that has taken over the Western world. At the same time that America has become much more religious, it has become possessed with capitalism gone wild.
The problem has nothing to do with belief in souls, all Christians believe in souls; instead it has to do with worship of greed over accountability. You don't have accountability in regards to environmentalism if you believe the sky-daddy will wipe it all away in a few years. You can only have accountability when you realize that we (and our children) will have to live with our choices for a long, long time.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
June 10, 2010 10:14 AM
I thought they were just called Republicans.Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 10:16 AM
Prince Chuck hopes to Rule Britania by Divine Right so believing in souls seems to be a necessary corolary. - Q.E.D.
Not quite: he will ascend the throne (if Queen Never-die hands in her dinner pail before he does) according to the Act of Settlement (1701) - so not by divine right. That idea took a bit of a knock when Charles I lost his head, and was definitely abandoned when William of Orange was invited in to get rid of James II in 1688: the Act of Settlement confirmed this abandonment. OTOH, he does have to be a Protestant in communion with the Church of England, which may imply belief in souls, depending on whether you consider "being a Protestant" to be a matter of holding specific beliefs (being in communion with the C. of E. doesn't).
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 10, 2010 10:18 AM
Valid point... different conversation however...
Posted by: Givesgoodemail
|
June 10, 2010 10:20 AM
If Charles had half-a-brain (which he doesn't), he'd take the crown upon Elizabeth's death for a nominal period of time (say, a year), and then pass the crown to his elder son...
What the hell am I saying? That'll happen when biology professors in Minnesota fly with their own wings.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 10:24 AM
I've no doubt that Charles himself personally stirred the batter. He's like fucking Mr Kipling with ermine-trim on his blazer?
Duchys Originals biscuits are actually made by Walkers of Scotland (a company with no special commitment to the organic and ethical principles so proudly espoused by HRH Wales).
Posted by: Mumon
|
June 10, 2010 10:30 AM
I know this is off topic, but you might find Stephen Batchelor's atheism of interest, as well as the woo from a "Dr. Tart" commenting below the main article.
Very wooy, this Dr. Tart.
Posted by: TimmyC
|
June 10, 2010 10:48 AM
The soul stuff is pretty silly, but the rest of it sounds pretty intelligent, and in fact, true. Among other things, modern science has pretty much enabled us to rape and plunder the natural world. Maybe if so many scientists didn't go work for BP or other corporations destroying the earth this wouldn't happen. Maybe if so many scientist weren't such suck-ups to money and power, this wouldn't happen.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky
|
June 10, 2010 10:49 AM
Note that theories of motion existed well before Galileo. Aristotle had a theory of motion. In the late Middle Ages before Galileo there was a theory of "impetus" which was very close to correct and would be fixed up by Galileo and his contemporaries. So I'm not even sure why Charles thinks that Galileo is the first one to have this. It seems that he really objects to reductionism and his objection to Galileo is because Galileo's careful thinking, experimentation, and reductionism was unambiguously successful.
Posted by: Frank b
|
June 10, 2010 10:52 AM
Actually it was the Queen's grandson, Prince Harry, who wore a Nazi officer costume to a party. He had to go visit Auschwitz as punishment.Posted by: duckphup
|
June 10, 2010 10:54 AM
Galileo, huh? Actually, he's got to look back a little further than that, and place the blame squarely at the feet of the deity of the Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism. Ref: Genesis 1:26: "... let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
That is interpreted as a mandate from God for Christians to control the whole earth... physically... politically. It entails a return to Old Testament biblical law in place of the Constitution... the kind of biblical law were disobedient sons and promiscuous daughters get stoned to death... and so will you, if you eat shellfish or wear a cotton/polyester blend. They don't care about the environment... they just care about establishing the conditions that they think are prophesied to presage the return of Jesus, the destruction of the earth, and the creation of a 'new' earth.
Here's some tidbits from the guy who used to be in charge of protecting the environment...
The prince is probably right, though, about the earth not being able to sustain 9 billion human inhabitants...
Posted by: francis.dickinson
|
June 10, 2010 10:55 AM
So, England, how does it feel to have a hereditary moron like Prince Charles fluttering about the country?
About the same as it does to have Paris Hilton fluttering about the country, and a hell of a lot better than having a hereditary moron like George W Bush running the country. (People in glass houses...)
Being more serious, the purpose of the Monarchy is to make sure that a Prime Minister is not a President and doesn't get pretensions of being Commander In Chief (or any one of a number of other issues of hubris). The person in question is pretty much irrelevant to the function.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
June 10, 2010 10:59 AM
-Maybe if so many scientist weren't such suck-ups to money and power, this wouldn't happen.-
BP destroys the earth for us... and we have done very well out of it.
No BP, no plastics, no fuel for your cars. No modern electronics. No way to farm at the level we currently do. None of that would have been profitable to do in the amounts we needed to give us a lifestyle that would make a pharoah weep at his level of poverty.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 11:01 AM
re 77:
I'll just assume you meant "selfishness" and not "selflessness". But even so, Rand's philosophy is not the cause, nor would it condone this kind of irresponsible behavior that resulted in this catastrophe. Rand's capitalism would hold BP fully responsible and financially liable for ALL the damages resulting from the spill. The problem we see here is a result of privatizing profit while collectivizing risk, something Rand would NOT have supported. Rand's philosophy was not the "profit uber alles" that most people ascribe to her.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
June 10, 2010 11:01 AM
Weren't Charlie and his dad unfortunate survivors for several years running of the Upper Class Twit of the Year?
Posted by: Steven Carr
|
June 10, 2010 11:02 AM
There is more, much more....
Please do not read further if you are of a rational disposition and upset by gratuitious woo.
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/06/islam-prisons-the-prince-of-wales-divine-harmony.html
'Respect for the environment and conservation of resources are emphasized throughout the Qur’an and the Sunnah and are, of course, connected with such theological doctrines as the oneness of the Creator; the inherent worth and interdependence of all created beings; human stewardship, and man’s accountability for his actions.
Like other sacred texts, the Qur’an offers some profound and perceptive understanding of human and economic development: concepts that do not calculate well-being in merely financial terms, credit crunch or not!'
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 11:04 AM
Being more serious, the purpose of the Monarchy is to make sure that a Prime Minister is not a President and doesn't get pretensions of being Commander In Chief (or any one of a number of other issues of hubris). The person in question is pretty much irrelevant to the function. - francis.dickinson
Wrong: the purpose of the monarchy is to form the pinnacle of the class structure, justify hereditary privilege, and ensure that the armed forces can overthrow a dangerously socialistic government should one ever be elected.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 11:04 AM
Logging, mining, and farming probably have more to do with the plunder of natural resources. Science has little do with it. It is rampant population growth, poverty, and unchecked consumption that are to blame.
If anything, science has been at the forefront of environmental awareness and conservation efforts.
Er, what?
Posted by: DeusExNihilum
|
June 10, 2010 11:04 AM
How does it feel? Well, not all that bad, But quite embarrassing that other countries (eg. America) might see his dumbass self spouting this nonsense and either A. Take encouragement from it or B. Judge the UK by it.
I'm fairly sure that Americans, such as those who visit this site, do not like the fact that their "Representing Public figures" over the years have been little more than morons with to much money.
Personally, I feel that they are one species of creature (surely the amount of inbreeding the Royals have indulged in must of forced a branch by now?) I would not weep over if they became extinct.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 10, 2010 11:05 AM
I don't get this provincial defensiveness from some of the responses...
The question wasn't posed in an effort to bolster the reputation of the US by comparison. If you've read PZ for long he doesn't think too highly of the loopy idiots that tend to rise to positions of power in the US. In fact, if you bother to read PZ's last paragraph in this post he goes out of his way to say as much.
The question was simply asked (rhetorically) of Brits - how do you feel about having to deal with this moron as a public figure? He didn't ask it and then proclaim "America, FUCK yeah!".
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 10, 2010 11:06 AM
@Frank B #86: Great genes and education, no doubt. I pity how the kids were raised.... They are probably as delusional as their families now.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 10, 2010 11:09 AM
I would have thought that lack of belief in a soul (at least in a soul that lives forever and isn't bound to the Earth)would correlate more strongly with environmental consciousness - if you realize that this is your(and your kids, grandkids etc) one chance at life, rather than just being a temporary stop before entry into a far better place, surely you're more likely to take care of it.
If the whole shebang is due to be destroyed by zombie-Jesus pretty soon - what the hell does it matter if a few species get wiped out by an oil slick a little ahead of schedule.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
June 10, 2010 11:13 AM
Knockgoats, you've never adduced a shred of evidence for this ridiculous assertion. Neither the monarchy nor the military did anything whatsoever to stand in the way of the 1945 Labour government or its successor administrations, which were certainly "socialistic" compared to any we've had in the last couple of decades.
I get that you don't like hereditary monarchy in principle. That's fine, and I have no desire to have that argument all over again, having discussed it ad nauseam in the past. But conspiracy theories like this just make your argument look absurd. Whatever else one can say about the Queen, she has never stood in the way of any government's clear democratic mandate to implement its policies.
Indeed, the deep conservatism of the civil service and royal court officials is precisely why monarchs are strongly dissuaded from any kind of interference with politics or anything else that might upset the constitutional settlement. It's unlikely that, if and when Charles becomes king, he will be allowed to do anything that might be seen as politically partisan.
Posted by: Kathy Orlinsky
|
June 10, 2010 11:20 AM
Do the royals still believe in divine right?
If so, is anyone surprised that someone who believes that god has personally chosen to give him every luxury in life would object to any denial of god's power?
Posted by: False Prophet
|
June 10, 2010 11:21 AM
Well obviously he singles out that Italian bastard Galileo. He can't tarnish Newton, good English alumnus of Cambridge, discoverer of gravity, calculus, optics and binomial theorem, Lucasian Chair of Mathematics, member of the Royal Society and knighted by the Queen. That wouldn't be proper at all.
But sure, let's put all the blame on science. It's not like there's significant evidence that most of the world's megafauna were hunted to extinction by pre-historic human beings. Those Cro-Magnons with their Venus statues and cave paintings sure knew how to preserve nature's bounty, eh?
Posted by: cylusys
|
June 10, 2010 11:24 AM
Unfortunately, when it comes to nicey-nice sounding woo, Charles is a complete credulous fool willing to believe any old crap that you feed him. He's also prone to imperious fits of pique should anyone whom he considers lower than himself act as though they are in fact his equal.
Apparently he intends to use his coming kingship to interfere with the daily running of the country, since as king he would surely have more right to do so than elected parliament members. Once he's king we'll soon be a republic, thank dog.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 11:24 AM
Probably just embarrassment at the idea that anyone might think Charles to be representative of British society? Yeah, if I am, then what are you...?
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 11:34 AM
Neither the monarchy nor the military did anything whatsoever to stand in the way of the 1945 Labour government or its successor administrations, which were certainly "socialistic" compared to any we've had in the last couple of decades. - Walton
Well, we don't know what went on behind the scenes, do we? (this isn't evidence that they did stand in the way, but your claim that they didn't is uncheckable). In any case, these governments never threatened the class structure, and confined nationalisation to the bits private industry could not profit from. At that time, moreover, WW2 had led to a considerable proportion of army officers being left-wing, so the elite might not have been able to rely on the forces. The point is that the armed forces owe allegiance to the monarch, not the people or the constitution (because we don't have one). If you think this fact would not be used to defend class privilege if necessary, I've a bridge I'd like to sell you.
It's unlikely that, if and when Charles becomes king, he will be allowed to do anything that might be seen as politically partisan.
Who's going to stop him?
Posted by: Michelle R
|
June 10, 2010 11:37 AM
@Cylusys: Does he have the right to do that? My teachers loved to say that the monarchy of england have no real power over parliament.
Granted they were french canadians separatists so they loved to spew some bullshit here and then about england being the root of all evil but still?
Posted by: Chris
|
June 10, 2010 11:40 AM
Germany has a proverb that loosely translates to "[Add more] Chlorine to the gene pool."
Looks like who ever came up with that phrase had royal inbreeding in mind.
Posted by: AreUNorml
|
June 10, 2010 11:43 AM
The powers that be need to do everything they can to get the people back under the thumb of religion. We're a much easier crowd to control when we don't question anything.
As for the hole in the gulf..perhaps it never would have happened if we didn't need to be shaken out of our sin-trance. Or maybe if we were dumbed down sufficiently, it would be allowed to continue unchecked and BP could just call it God's will.
Posted by: Caddisfly
|
June 10, 2010 11:45 AM
An empty suit with and empty head making empty comments.
Posted by: cylusys
|
June 10, 2010 11:48 AM
@Michelle R
He won't have any real access to many levers of power but he can use and abuse his position into bullying MP's into doing what he wants regardless.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/prince-charles-rings-the_b_145113.html
Posted by: alkonost
|
June 10, 2010 11:49 AM
I think Charles has watched Avatar one too many times...
Posted by: Botswana Skeptic
|
June 10, 2010 11:50 AM
The question was "how does it feel?"
If I still lived in the UK and felt any allegiance to my country of birth it would probably be an embarrassment but as I've adopted a more sensible country it doesn't matter. However there's part of me that is sad that one day the British Head of State, Head of the Commonwealth and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England will be such a gibbering cretin.
OK, correction, it's probably quite reasonable that a church is led by a buffoon.
Posted by: H.H.
|
June 10, 2010 11:51 AM
nomaduk @#49 said:
Your reading would be more plausible if "spiritual" was in fact a synonym for "respectful." It's not, though, is it?Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 12:01 PM
The mob. This is a monarchy by consent.
Homeopathy has been provided on the NHS since its inception in 1948. HRH Wales had little to do with it, and given the recent rejection of alternative medicine provision by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, it would seem that his influence is not so far reaching.
Given the low public opinion of Charlie, it is unlikely that he would even be able to flex his muscle via the Great Unwashed.
The British press is generally fairly scathing of him.
Where is his influence?
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
June 10, 2010 12:01 PM
In general, I'm apathetic about the (Canadian) monarchy -- as an institution, it seems to do the job of Head of State in a mostly harmless way; it's not obvious any of the alternatives are better; and constitutional change in this country is damn near impossible anyway. But the prosepect of having this air-head in that exalted (even if only symbolic) position gives me distinct republican impulses.....
Posted by: Louis
|
June 10, 2010 12:02 PM
As mentioned above, you need to know nothing more of Charles than he can be adequately summed up by the epithet "woo-mongering, overpriced sausage peddler".
Louis
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
June 10, 2010 12:09 PM
For all those of you who think the royals and the aristocracy are merely harmless tourist attractions:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200409200005
The French revolution was imperfect in many ways but we certainly solved that problem.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
June 10, 2010 12:12 PM
As a Canadian, I'm now considering republicanism.
Anyway, we're going to hear from the Tard Who Would Be King for a long, long time.
His mother is 84 and in good health
His father will be 90 in a few days, and is also in good health.
His grandmother died at 101.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 10, 2010 12:15 PM
... a hereditary moron like Prince Charles ...
First I'd heard that Liz 'n' Phil were morons. A bit out of touch, to be sure, but that seems due to extreme environmental influences from which no social worker has been able to extract them.
... fluttering about ...
Oh please. "Plodding" would be a more accurate verb; "galumphing" should he achieve a state of excitement. (It's just not the same since Camilla moved in...) The future Charles III is simply not fabulous enough to "flutter".
Posted by: immichaelyoung
|
June 10, 2010 12:17 PM
If you take Prince Charle's statement in a loose and metaphorical way, it's actually not that bad, in my opinion. Some environmental choices -- between, say, building a dam and protecting an endangered species -- can' simply be resolved by an appeal to science. We need values outside of science to inform the choice.
Another way of putting the point is that, while we don't need to think that nature literally has a soul, there nevertheless is a normative and/or aesthetic concept of 'nature' which has a proper role to play in motivating action. Viewed loosely and charitably, Prince Charles could perhaps be seen to be gesturing towards this (worthwhile) point.
Not that I actually care about the Prince's reputation; but let's not lose the thread of a good idea if we don't have to.
Posted by: John_Robinson
|
June 10, 2010 12:19 PM
The saying is that one gets the politicians one deserves.
As the current incumbents continually refer to the dysfunctional nature of British society, with its high divorce rates, broken families, single parent families etc etc (stangely they never refer to the truly appalling wealth differential as being a bad thing however), perhaps we Brits also get the Royal Families we deserve. There cannot me a less functional lot in the entire land. They run the whole gamut, from alcoholism, multiple divorces, serial adutery etc. including it appears mental incapacity....
Posted by: Mainsail
|
June 10, 2010 12:22 PM
Charles? Influence? Only over silver-haired old dears and jockeys.
Deepak Chopra, Arianna Huffington, Glen Beck? Far, far more. Makes Chuck pretty tolerable by comparison, but then, I like the beer his people make- Duchy Originals English Ale.
Posted by: RickK
|
June 10, 2010 12:23 PM
I think that belief that there is a wonderful afterlife, or that there is a benevolent magic man watching over us, is what gives people comfort that whatever they do the planet, it will all be ok.
I think that the world would be a MUCH better place if EVERYONE saw the cold, hard reality that this beautiful world is all we get, and WE are completely and totally responsible for whether our children's children have a place to live or not.
I'm eating a sandwich from a 7x8x3" disposable plastic container that will have been used for about 20 minutes, and will still be leeching chemicals and mucking up the biosphere six centuries from now. No magic man in the sky is going to save us from ourselves. It's up to us.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 10, 2010 12:30 PM
Timmy C #84 wrote:
Daniel Dennett points out that many religious or spiritual statements have two meanings: one of them true, but trivial -- and the other one extraordinary, but false. By "trivial," he means "does not violate the body of current scientific understanding." Religious people, however, seem to ignore the distinctions, looking only at superficial ressemblances and assuming they're the same thing.
They do this as a habit. If two words or ideas look similar, they must be connected on a 'deep' level.
Materialism (1): The belief that reality is fundamentally material, and that the mental arises from the physical.
Materialism (2): the belief that the only thing that matters is what you can acquire and use; consumerism.
That's the root of the confusion, right there. Prince Charles, like most woosters, thinks those terms are interchangeable. Mental things like values and meaning simply can't be grounded in physical matter. They're higher! They must be special kinds of immaterial spiritual essences.
To people with this fuzzy, sloppy, clunky, slippery way of thinking, those other people who deny the special immaterial spiritual essences must therefore be rejecting the entire concept of meaning and value. They must only be interested in what they can buy and accumulate -- the best things in life (for them) are actual things you can hold in your hand. After all, they're materialists. Unlike the spiritual folks, of course, who can appreciate sunsets and beauty and nature.
Once you realize that "spirituality" often entails the sort of literal thinking a child engages in, it's easier to see what the heck they're nattering on about. Yes, they're making valid points at the end -- but they don't know how they got there.
(By the way, I leave Wisconsin in a few hours for the UK. If I see Prince Charles I will not shake his hand: I will give him a good scolding.)
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 12:32 PM
i.e. not how he intended it.
No. You need to completely ignore what he actually said in order to think that.
As though he is making a valid and novel point? As though environmental concerns don't permeate modern science? As though most environmental awareness doesn't have its roots in science (or at least naturalism, which must be a close kin)?
Prince Charles has taken a legitimate, widespread, and modern concern - environmental change - and used it as a platform for religious and pseudoreligious, anti-scientific waffle. The good idea was not his, only the bullshit he heaped upon it.
Actually made by the Wychwood Brewery Company.
Buy some of their other ales, rather than contributing to coffers of Duchy Originals Ltd.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
June 10, 2010 12:34 PM
For a Briton to believe in the divine right of kings, they would also have to believe "vox populi, vox dei." In the end, the commons chooses the king: consider not only William and Mary, but Edward VIII.
If Charles were to outlive Brenda and then push things, he might quickly be reminded that he has two sons, to say nothing of three younger siblings.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
June 10, 2010 12:34 PM
Re Walton v Knockgoats/royal coup plots. Is it true that Mountbatten was sounded out as a potential junta leader should the establishment have had to overthrow the Labour government in the '70s?
Is Queen Lizzie actually head of the Church of England? And is Charles head of the Masons?
I think I heard all that stuff somewhere.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 10, 2010 12:52 PM
If Hugh Cudlipp, as referenced on Wikipedia is to be believed.
Yes.
He is actually second in command in secret reptilian cabal who oversee the NWO. Honey Monster is in overall command.
Posted by: Chinaski
|
June 10, 2010 1:11 PM
To be fair, pretty much everyone ignores him except maybe the Daily Mail.
Although his sausages are quite nice.
Posted by: DNIR
|
June 10, 2010 1:30 PM
In some ways I agree with Prince Charles, at least I agree with the sentiment which I believe may behind what he is saying. And I don't think the problematic view he is attempting to highlight goes back to Galileo. I think it goes back to the Old Testament.
Prince Charles seems to be saying that when people adopted a materialists attitude and approach to life, they ceased to respect the earth. That's an interesting view, but I think the problem really lies in the basic fundamental beliefs of western so-called civilization.
From the King James Bible(the version of the bible, I grew up with, as most likely did Prince Charles.
So right here, way back in the Old Testament we have God telling people, "You have the right to do what you like with the earth. You have dominion over the earth's environs all the creatures therein."
Although the following is somewhat speculative, and I am not an authority on ancient cultures, still it seems to me that in older animist religions, whose beliefs would have informed people's actions, there generally was the belief that the earth was feminine, (and if not feminine in nature, it was sacred), and that human beings shared the earth with other creatures, and there was a need to respect the entire creation.
I once heard someone mention that Swami Dayananda had said that the entire world was once Hindu. That was second hand information. I didn't hear him say it myself, and I didn't understand what that would mean.
But later, when I thought about it,(if indeed he did say it) he might have meant that in previous cultures, people had recognized the sanctity of everything, and that they as human beings were just a part of the total, one part of the intricate web of life. That 'everything is god.' That this understanding held sway in their lives, even though the exact beliefs and the forms those beliefs took varied from culture to culture.
So, IMO there is a big difference between thinking human beings have 'dominion over the earth,' and the right to 'subdue it,' and viewing the earth and everything contained on earth as sacred, and ourselves, as human beings, just one thread woven into the entire fabric of life and the earth's environs.
--Dhanya
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
June 10, 2010 1:35 PM
Whoa. I'd never even heard of Honey Monster before. Guess it goes to show how secretive they are.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
June 10, 2010 1:37 PM
Chalk up another Brit republican here. Only problem is that if we did get rid of them, in true British style, what they'd be replaced with would be worse, like as not.
Still, while they're around they are quite good comedy value... especially when Big Ears or his Greek Fascist old man open their gobs (although for different reasons).
Louis
Hahahahaha! Love it!!!
I imagine that Avatar is what's been going on in his head for decades. :-/
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 10, 2010 1:40 PM
DNIR - taht'd explain the mass extinctions that follow pre-western humans expansion into new areas.
Also explains the absolute divide between the environmentally damaged Western world, and the abject lack of environmental damage in the East.
Posted by: Shadow
|
June 10, 2010 2:44 PM
@#132:
Wasn't there a time where the rivers near Tokyo were so polluted that (supposedly) you were able to develop film in them? I seem to recall this story.
They have improved in that area. China is also know as a large polluter.
This after they 'adopted' Western economic / production ideas.
Posted by: Billy
|
June 10, 2010 2:48 PM
Any chance you North Mexicans can stop using the term England when talking about the UK?
Posted by: immichaelyoung
|
June 10, 2010 2:51 PM
Bernard-
I think the question in the first place is how to understand or cash out concepts like "environmental concern" and "environmental awareness" in a way that does justice to their normativity. Put alternately, there are questions of not just what do we know, and how do we know it (questions for science) but also- what ought we do about what we know? And, relatedly- how can people be motivated to act in the relevant environmentally ethical way? It would be wrong to suppose that questions such as these aren't important, or that there isn't significant disagreement hiding under the surface of seeming agreement (everyone pays lip service to environmental goods, but action is quite another thing).
Understand, I'm not arguing against you, I'm wanting you to understand my motivation for taking a charitable, loose view here. I think there is something being gestured at worth discussing. But, you may be right for all that; perhaps I am being too charitable.
Posted by: Louis
|
June 10, 2010 3:12 PM
As others have noted, although the sausages and beer (and oaten biscuits, oh those fucking oaten biscuits. I shall never forgive the jug eared, horse-face fucking bastard for the price of those oaten biscuits) are decent, they are as often as not made by someone else and rebranded. And as often as not, whoever makes them couldn't give a tinker's cuss for the "organic" or "green" providence of said items. It's greenwashing, aspirational overpricing of the first water.
He's a water worshipping, chiselling little fucker that Prince.
But the important thing is that we consider his position as heir to a position that effectively disenfranchises every citizen in the Commonwealth, his advocacy of weird-beard anti-science quackery and to not in any way focus on the fact that the fucking money grabbing arsey little biscuit merchant has just done me for four quid for a packet of his crack filled biscuits. Wanker.
The good thing is I'm not bitter.
Louis
Posted by: phoenixwoman
|
June 10, 2010 3:20 PM
Billy @ 134: Well, if Scotland finally devolves like it's been threatening, maybe it won't be part of the UK soon. And goodness knows that the People's Republic of Yorkshire prolly wouldn't mind cutting loose now Cammie and the Tories are in charge. (Didn't you love how Baudoin Prot of BNP Paribas pulled that little bit of economic blackmail to get Clegg to go with Cammies?)
But, yes, my peeps got to start acknowledging that there's such a thing as the Ewe Kay.
Posted by: Moveable Type
|
June 10, 2010 3:21 PM
You leave our Schmuk alone!
Seriously though he does suffer from serial foot and mouth disease. He has a penchant for interfering, and he would make a great land mine detector.
He honestly believes that he is always correct any his convoy of resident arse-lickers don't have the guts to tell him, not if they want to keep their tongues in reach of his gluteus maximus anyway.
He recently interferred in some major military building project and got things changed because he rang King Saud who pulled the necessary strings! He has publicly stated that when he is crowned King he will be defender of faiths.
I can only hope that if that day comes our constitutional experts will make sure he stays out of the way.
Posted by: IgnoPhobic
|
June 10, 2010 3:26 PM
In response to a personal assistant (with a university degree) to his personal assistant wanting the opportunity for more training.I'm with Knockgoats on this one. He's the parasitic wart on the cancer of the British aristocracy. If the best thing he can do is endorse expensive foods produced on land stolen from the British people 600 years ago and subsidised by the taxpayer, then the quicker he becomes Mr. Windsor, the better.
Posted by: phoenixwoman
|
June 10, 2010 3:32 PM
Louis @ 136: I couldn't believe the "four fucking quid" for oat biscuits, until I Googled them.
Holy crap (forgive me PZ) -- FIVE fucking dollars for 150 grams of oat cookies? That's less than a third of a pound! What is this shit, caviar?
I think I'd make my own, thanks. Shortbread's not exactly rocket science.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
June 10, 2010 3:51 PM
Hmmm....from where I sit I've witnessed thirty some odd years of James Watt-style "screw the environment,God will sort it out when he comes back" fundamentalism, and I'm to believe this pompous airbag when he tells me from on high that it's because I don't believe in a soul(because I wouldn't want to make the most of the one life I have on this one earth)....just saying....
Posted by: Louis
|
June 10, 2010 3:58 PM
I realise my vulgar hyperbole might shock some of our sensitive readers, but I find spluttering outrage over biscuits the best way to deal with Prince Charles. If I read anything about homeopathy from him again, I'm likely to go on a killing spree.
Ok, so not an actual killing spree. More of a spree involving some hard stares at homeopaths and maybe gentle muttering.
Louis
P.S. Phoenixwoman. Pray you never taste the sausages. The sausages are temptation themself.
Posted by: Louis
|
June 10, 2010 4:00 PM
Themself? I meant itself. Teach me to post sober. Bahhhh. I'm off to the pub.
Louis
Posted by: Steve
|
June 10, 2010 4:04 PM
Ugh! I'm so glad my ancestors left those crappy little islands off the coast of Europe. Why the f**k do any modern countries need a monarchy anyway?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
June 10, 2010 4:44 PM
In other words, a Homeopathic Killing Spree?
Posted by: mothwentbad
|
June 10, 2010 5:32 PM
Hmmmmm. You give me 7 billion humans who believe in birth control, and give Charles 7 billion humans who believe in Jesus. Then we can ask whether Earth One or Earth Two is the one which will be able to support humanity 100 years from now.
Posted by: davem
|
June 10, 2010 6:23 PM
Aargh! I hate that sort of shit. All they do is get their name on the letterheads of charities, and do fuck all else - just turn up for a fancy dinner every year. It's not like they go actually raise money. The tourists will still come, like they do to all the republics in Europe.@Louis: I'm now tucking in to my 0.23 pack of supermarket cheap brand chocolate digestives, . Taste just as good, and 3.80 saved makes them even better ... :0)
As to Charlie the buffoon, does anyone see him in his 'sons'? I see Diana, but no Charlie at all, thank dog. Maybe the butler did it.
Posted by: Louis
|
June 10, 2010 6:47 PM
@ Davem #147,
Ah the two young princes are not always easy to tell apart, I have a rhyme for you:
If you can't tell the princes apart,
I'll tell you how to do it,
One of them looks a bit like his dad,
The other like Major James Hewitt.
;-)
Louis
P.S. Your digestives can never taste as good as the pure unadulterated evil indulgence of Duchy rip offs. You continue with your pauper's biscuit, I shall aim for higher things.....oh my ghod! I've been suckered into aspirational biscuits. Never again shall I taste the garibaldi of the people. I am now off to assuage my guilt and atone for the shame I have brought on my ancestors by committing seppuku with a malted milk sports biscuit.
Posted by: waynerobinson4
|
June 10, 2010 8:05 PM
"Being more serious, the purpose of the Monarchy is to make sure that a Prime Minister is not a President and doesn't get pretensions of being Commander In Chief (or any one of a number of other issues of hubris). The person in question is pretty much irrelevant to the function".
I suppose the question is, how would President Blair have been any worse than Prime Minister Blair (and ironically, I'm a liberal, who absolutely hates Tony Blair for the things he did and is still doing, Prince Charles is a lesser evil).
"Neither the monarchy nor the military did anything whatsoever to stand in the way of the 1945 Labour government or its successor administrations, which were certainly "socialistic" compared to any we've had in the last couple of decades"
.
Actually, it was George V who established the modern British monarchy after the First World War, as being purely symbolic and non-partisan. After the general election in 1924, he had no hesitation in inviting the leader of the Labor Party Ramsay MacDonald to form government. During the General Strike in 1926 he advised restraint, taking exception to the strikers being called revolutionaries, saying; "Try living on their wages before you judge them."
As an aside, Miranda Carter's book "George, Nicholas and Wilhelm: Three Royal Cousins and the Road to World War I" is a very readable account of the lead-up to WWI.
Posted by: gearloose
|
June 10, 2010 8:44 PM
In bislama (Vanuatu creole) Charles is "numba wun pickaninny blong queen".
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 10, 2010 9:28 PM
Ediacaran wins not one but TWO WHOLE INTERNETZ! And steak knives!
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8lUAxzUvYddYTJedMDL3ckyvyBetxnJ8
|
June 10, 2010 10:09 PM
The quaint past generations that saw nature as having a "soul" are the same that sent the dodo and others to extinction, shot most of the bison, intentionally gave the Native Americans smallpox, hunted whales, etc.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 10, 2010 11:57 PM
It is actually the opposite since that invisible sky-daddy have given his followers control over everything. (Gen 1:28) Thus, justifying the wreckage.
Posted by: mikee
|
June 11, 2010 1:55 AM
@Timmy #84
"modern science has pretty much enabled us to rape and plunder the natural world. Maybe if so many scientists didn't go work for BP or other corporations destroying the earth this wouldn't happen. Maybe if so many scientist weren't such suck-ups to money and power, this wouldn't happen."
You're making the same mistake as Charlie. You are blaming the tool and not those who are wielding it. It is rampant consumerism/greed that has plundered the natural world. Science may have provided more efficient tools for such plunder but science has also alerted us to the damage (warnings which are often ignored - by the greedy), and provided us with tools to benefit humankind (wind turbines, medicines, contraception, internet etc).
As for attacking Galileo, I'm sure he had rampant consumerism on his mind when he was facing down the Pope. Of course life would be sooooo much better if we thought the earth was the centre of the universe.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnb-E55g7vrnvH-3L1M6d7QuDYWoM_IDEM
|
June 11, 2010 3:44 AM
- SourceWhy would an educated individual believe this benighted-bozo on nay matter, let alone one which is only curable through a judicious combination of math, and voluntary contraception, NOT MAGIC!
Get in the fecking sack.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 11, 2010 8:24 AM
Bernard Bumner
It doesn't actually work like that though. Charlie's royal grandparents publicly celebrated the Munich agreement with Chamberlain and that was certainly a party-political issue.Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 8:31 AM
In bislama (Vanuatu creole) Charles is "numba wun pickaninny blong queen". - gearloose
It would surely show a proper sense of inclusiveness if this were added to his official titles :-p
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 8:37 AM
I once heard someone mention that Swami Dayananda had said that the entire world was once Hindu. That was second hand information. I didn't hear him say it myself, and I didn't understand what that would mean.
But later, when I thought about it,(if indeed he did say it) he might have meant that in previous cultures, people had recognized the sanctity of everything, and that they as human beings were just a part of the total, one part of the intricate web of life. - Dhanya
Alternative hypothesis: Swami Dayananda is/was an ignorant religidiot.
All this guff about everything being sacred etc. didn't stop our forager ancestors exterminating most of the megafauna every time they got to a new continent. Nor did it stop the early agricultural societies blitzing the forests and creating huge deserts.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 11, 2010 9:23 AM
No.
Callate, estupido. Estoy un Americano, yo soy de los Edtados Unidos Americanos. No es un Mexicano.
Comprende?
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 11, 2010 9:41 AM
I like that I can read Spanish without having learned it. It's just Portuguese with more extravagant vowels.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 10:10 AM
UK soon. phoenixwoman
In which case the whole thing will become the FUK (Former United Kingdom). Seems unlikely at present: actual support for independence in Scotland rarely goes above about 30%, and the financial crash really trashed the SNP leader Alex Salmond's strategy, which was basically to copy Ireland by offering big financial firms even less regulation than London, while being geographically close to it. Doesn't look quite so clever now. So far, Cameron is being careful not to look like Thatcher, who is still absolutely hated north of the border. Of course support for independence could rise if the looming cuts are seen to be grossly unfair to Scotland.
Posted by: revjimbob
|
June 11, 2010 1:54 PM
I once had an argument with a homeopathy defender on youtube. He presented the fact that the Royal family were devoted users of homeopathy as some kind of argument. I had to let him know that we in the UK are aware of how mad the fuckers really are, and that I wouldn't be surprised if the family doctor had a bone through his nose.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 11, 2010 2:00 PM
My mother still takes pride that amongst my first words (sadly not the very first) was the phrase
"Maggie Thatcher, Bitch"
while parroting my grandmother.
I still remain confused about the lack of a vote for independance around the time the scots parliament formed - I guess my family was a lot more nationalist than most other Scots.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
June 11, 2010 2:48 PM
The answer to your question is that it is incredibly frustrating and embarrassing that this prat has such a high media profile that he perpetually employs to spout idiocy. If I come accross one more rant about 'grey-goo' I will probably start entertaining decidedly treasonous thoughts...
All this blah about the 'spiritual crisis' of the West underpinning the global climate crisis is a new low, and as for the desire to feminise our concept of nature, Charlie should really read up a little and grasp the simple fact that it is a capital logical fallacy to anthropomorphise the natural world. It is not, and never has been, a she it has always been a complex of geologic and biological systems. Depicting nature as female would serve no purpose other than to warp our perception of natural processes, and satisfy Charlie's weird, antiquated fetishes. It most certainly would not help tackle anthropogenic climate change or enhance our understanding of the natural world.
I also note the casual assertion of gender roles inherent in his pronouncement. Nature is here depicted as Mother Nature, the nuturing femine trope writ large. I wonder if Charlie would still view nature as a 'she' when in its 'red-in-tooth-and-claw' manifestations. When a lion is eviscerating an antelope, would that still be an aspect of the feminine to him?
Why oh why must this boorish, privileged moron be afforded such a public profile due only to the accident of his birth? He is a perrenial embarrassment to the UK. If ever there was a living, breathing argument against hereditary, constitutional monarchy, Charlie is it.