THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING PART II
At the end of October the Guardian broke the following story:-
‘Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005 Ministers sought prince's consent under secretive constitutional loophole on bills covering issues from gambling to the Olympics’*
In the subsequent episode of BBC’s Question Time the panel made light of the affair, an extremely wealthy unelected individual having a veto over the legislation of a democratically elected government apparantly exiting little concern. I have heard nothing of this matter since.
Last June the Prince delivered a lecture at The Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford** on the topic of ‘Islam and the Environment.' The lecture was organised by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, of which the Prince is patron, to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Amongst the targets of the lecture, the theme of which was ‘that the current economic and environmental crisis is the result of a deeper crisis of the soul, ** was Galileo, whom the prince blamed for the ascendancy of materialism. This he contrasted with Islam which was ‘a custodian...a priceless gift to the rest of world."# He went on to plead for “Islamic scholars, artists, teachers and engineers to fuse the spiritual and practical worlds.” The Prince whose income last year was over £19 million went on to state “we are clearly living beyond our means.”
This infantile New Age piffle would be laughable if it were not for the setting and the person spouting it. The fact that the intellectually challenged Prince, next in line as head of state, is now cosying up to a version of Islam that is antithetical to modernity and the legacy of the enlightenment is positively sinister. Though it would seem that HRH is sufficiently concerned that her eldest son might not be sufficiently hinged as it were that she is determined to keep his bum of the seat for as long as possible. As for Galileo one suspects that in the great scheme of things his contribution to human endeavour might be deemed somewhat more significant than the pathetic ramblings of an unemployed and unemployable Dauphin.
*Robert Booth guardian.co.uk, Sunday 30 October 2011 21.00 GMT
** I am grateful to Christopher Hitchens book ‘Arguably’ and the chapter ‘Prince of Piffle,’ for drawing my attention to this lecture.
*** http://www.cherwell.org/news/2010/06/10/charles-blames-galileo-for-scientific-greed.
# ibid.
‘Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005 Ministers sought prince's consent under secretive constitutional loophole on bills covering issues from gambling to the Olympics’*
In the subsequent episode of BBC’s Question Time the panel made light of the affair, an extremely wealthy unelected individual having a veto over the legislation of a democratically elected government apparantly exiting little concern. I have heard nothing of this matter since.
Last June the Prince delivered a lecture at The Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford** on the topic of ‘Islam and the Environment.' The lecture was organised by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, of which the Prince is patron, to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Amongst the targets of the lecture, the theme of which was ‘that the current economic and environmental crisis is the result of a deeper crisis of the soul, ** was Galileo, whom the prince blamed for the ascendancy of materialism. This he contrasted with Islam which was ‘a custodian...a priceless gift to the rest of world."# He went on to plead for “Islamic scholars, artists, teachers and engineers to fuse the spiritual and practical worlds.” The Prince whose income last year was over £19 million went on to state “we are clearly living beyond our means.”
This infantile New Age piffle would be laughable if it were not for the setting and the person spouting it. The fact that the intellectually challenged Prince, next in line as head of state, is now cosying up to a version of Islam that is antithetical to modernity and the legacy of the enlightenment is positively sinister. Though it would seem that HRH is sufficiently concerned that her eldest son might not be sufficiently hinged as it were that she is determined to keep his bum of the seat for as long as possible. As for Galileo one suspects that in the great scheme of things his contribution to human endeavour might be deemed somewhat more significant than the pathetic ramblings of an unemployed and unemployable Dauphin.
*Robert Booth guardian.co.uk, Sunday 30 October 2011 21.00 GMT
** I am grateful to Christopher Hitchens book ‘Arguably’ and the chapter ‘Prince of Piffle,’ for drawing my attention to this lecture.
*** http://www.cherwell.org/news/2010/06/10/charles-blames-galileo-for-scientific-greed.
# ibid.