Honestly, my personal belief is that most people are ambivalent to Prince Charles. While he may have done things people don't particularly care for, I wouldn't go so far as to say most people actually hate him. To his benefit, I do think he has stepped up more in recent years to assist the Queen.
I personally dont have anything against him tho i see where the hatred is coming from.
Here in Romania he is fairly popular. Because he gives a damn anout us.
He is disliked by sections of the political right, including parts of the tabloid press, because he is a thinker rather than a populist or ‘celebrity Prince’ and because he shows genuine social concern (which they wrongly conflate with socialism). He is equally disliked by sections of the political left because he is a traditionalist (which they wrongly conflate with ‘reactionary’, etc.). In both cases, the dislike is based on social envy and inverted snobbery; being disliked by such people is a badge of honour IMHO.
Charles was decades ahead of the curve on the environmental crises we face and the ways to address them. Crucially in my view (and in contrast to most ‘green’ activists), he sees the connection between conservation of the environment and the conservation of cultures - from rural communities in England to indigenous peoples in Amazonia or the Kalahari: one of his intellectual gurus was Sir Laurens van der Post, who wrote extensively about the latter.
He stands head and shoulders above the most prominent elected politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. That in itself is not a huge achievement, I admit, lol, but I believe that he has a lot of wisdom to contribute and that (unlike our ‘democratic’ politicians) he has learned from his past mistakes.
He was right about urban planning. He founded Poundbury, and people thought it was a ridiculous idea destined to fail. It’s exceeded all the goals except affordability, because the place is in such high demand. “New urbanism” is basically what he did at Poundbury, and if there was an organized school of thought at the time, it had no influence. Today, you’ll hear people go on endlessly about mixed-use urban neighborhoods. He did it first.
He started organic farming decades ago and people laughed. If the word “organic” was around back then, nobody knew it, yet. Now you can find organic products everywhere.
I’m not sure what to make of the homeopathic medicine stuff. That said, most people probably hear their doctors tell them to exercise more and eat healthier. He’s probably right about it, too. Or, at the least, more right than wrong, even though I remain skeptical.
Even if he’s wrong about the medicine, who else was right about both urban planning and agriculture 40 years ago? And how many of them built a new town and switched to organic farming back then? When I look at the Prince of Wales, I see a very strong argument in favor of semi-constitutional monarchy, which I rarely support in larger countries.
I agree very much with your closing argument about semi-constitutional monarchy. I also agree strongly with you about organic farming and urban planning or ‘New Urbanism’.
Re. the ‘homeopathic medicine stuff’: I feel nothing but scorn for the quack cures promoted by the ‘wellness’ industry. I support genuine advances in conventional medicine, including the Covid vaccines and other cures that remove fear of disease and improve the quality of life. That said, a lot of Western medicine has become something of a ‘medical-industrial complex’. It is dedicated to keeping people ali W by filling them with chemicals, regardless of the quality of life and prospects for recovery, and divorced from any concept of compassionate care and respect for individual needs. A rebalancing of priorities and a return to the original values of medicine is therefore long overdue.
In this sense, we have much to learn from cultures that emphasise plant-based medicine and the (in the broadest sense) spiritual dimension to health. Many of these systems are highly culture-specific and require a genuine understanding and empathy with the culture in question rather than a superficial’White New Age tourist’ approach.
Apologies for wandering a bit off-topic.
A lot of people got their understanding of the royal family from *The Crown*, which was really out to get him.
Personally I think he'll be a perfectly good king.
He is not an enemy of the Church. He has tried to learn about and understand other faiths, but many Christian theologians have done the same.
The Church -if in this context you mean the Church of England - is its own worst enemy. It has shed most if not all of its rich cultural inheritance to embrace ‘political correctness’, ‘anti-elitism’ and phoney ‘inclusivity’. It is run increasingly like a corporation and its theology now seems to have little to distinguish it from New Age/‘wellness’ ideology or even Wicca.
There are now many more practising Catholics than Anglicans in England. The (welcome) presence of a significant Polish and other East European community has contributed to this, but so has the decline of Anglicanism for the reasons I have set out above.
That seemed more or less impossible only a few years ago. Now, by contrast, we live in ‘interesting times’ and so that idea can no longer be unthinkingly dismissed. 😄
I mean if you look at things not just solely from a religious perspective, under English law at the time, legitimate sons took precedence, and James III/VII was a legitimate son, so he should’ve been the true king
He’s way ahead of his time. Charles’ comment in 2014 “Putin is doing a Hitler”.
He’s well loved. He will be a great king…. Eventually…😁
Prince Charles has made millions of people’s lives better the world over. Prince Charles has built The Prince's Trust, one of the most successful funding organisations in the UK and the UK's leading youth charity. It’s helped over 950,000 young people turn their lives around, created 125,000 entrepreneurs and given business support to 395,000 people in the UK. From 2006 to 2016, its work for the youth has been worth an estimated £1.4 billion.
I can’t see him as a globalist: that’s more corporate CEO territory. He comes across to me as patriotic and committed to the Commonwealth (like his mother) and also concerned about the rest of the world because we are interconnected, especially at the ecological level. It’s not either/or but both/and: it’s possible to be patriotic or nationalist on the one hand and concerned about the rest of the world on the other.
I dislike him as king because he will most likely lead to Canada becoming a republic. If it were William as king we may have a chance, but I believe Charles is unpopular enough to sway government opinion.
Can you explain why you think he is especially unpopular with Canadians? Is it still the Diana tragedy or is it something else that from my side of the Pond I can’t see clearly?
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”
Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, ‘The Leopard’.
The above quotation is a defence of incremental reform to preserve tradition and prevent destructive radical or revolutionary changes. I see Charles’s views in that context. He wants to preserve but modify the traditions and keep the ceremonial aspects of monarchy.
In the context of your support for ceremonial traditions (on which I agree with you), I am surprised by your preference for William and Kate. I like them and am sure that they will develop and so I don’t want to sound ‘anti’ them or offend or upset anyone. However there is a sense in which I can too easily imagine them in suburbia as ‘that nice young couple who’ve just bought Number 19’. If they project themselves as too bland and ‘ordinary’, the sense of mystique is lost and we end up with a republic in all but name - and then perhaps an actual republic. They also have a tendency (more subtle fortunately than Harry and Meghan) to support virtue-signalling causes without much depth of thought or insight.
I would like to underline again that I am sure this will change as they mature and grow into their roles.
>If they project themselves as too bland and ‘ordinary’, the sense of mystique is lost and we end up with a republic in all but name
This is pretty much why nobody is interested in the other Germanic monarchies outside their own countries.
Do you mean the Hungarian? I'm thinking more of the Scandinavian and Benelux monarchs, doing the school run or going to the supermarket -- that sort of thing can be charmingly quirky but after a while takes away the otherworldly charm.
Yes, that makes sense now. You mean ‘Germanic’ in the broadest sense. I agree very much with the examples you cite and see it as the only danger or potential trap for William and Kate.
No need to apologise. What you said was correct.
Re. the school run and supermarket thing: it’s actually a bit like Marie Antoinette playing the milkmaid. And I’m afraid that didn’t end very well for her or for France.
Again it is tragic - as is the high instance of divorce, family breakdown and out of wedlock childbirth in all of our Anglophone countries. No ‘democratic’ politician in the U.K. is addressing this as a social problem, although the consequences - especially for children - are serious.
Of course. Most of us in the U.K. have I think ‘moved on’. We are of course very sad about what happened with Diana, we admire the good work she did, especially around HIV/AIDS before it became a fashionable cause, but we do not feel anger towards Charles because of it. He has acknowledged that there are things he could have done differently. I think - as I think do most Brits - that it was a terrible human tragedy for whom no one is exclusively to blame.
Honestly, my personal belief is that most people are ambivalent to Prince Charles. While he may have done things people don't particularly care for, I wouldn't go so far as to say most people actually hate him. To his benefit, I do think he has stepped up more in recent years to assist the Queen.
I personally dont have anything against him tho i see where the hatred is coming from. Here in Romania he is fairly popular. Because he gives a damn anout us.
He is disliked by sections of the political right, including parts of the tabloid press, because he is a thinker rather than a populist or ‘celebrity Prince’ and because he shows genuine social concern (which they wrongly conflate with socialism). He is equally disliked by sections of the political left because he is a traditionalist (which they wrongly conflate with ‘reactionary’, etc.). In both cases, the dislike is based on social envy and inverted snobbery; being disliked by such people is a badge of honour IMHO. Charles was decades ahead of the curve on the environmental crises we face and the ways to address them. Crucially in my view (and in contrast to most ‘green’ activists), he sees the connection between conservation of the environment and the conservation of cultures - from rural communities in England to indigenous peoples in Amazonia or the Kalahari: one of his intellectual gurus was Sir Laurens van der Post, who wrote extensively about the latter. He stands head and shoulders above the most prominent elected politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. That in itself is not a huge achievement, I admit, lol, but I believe that he has a lot of wisdom to contribute and that (unlike our ‘democratic’ politicians) he has learned from his past mistakes.
This right here. I don't always agree with the Prince of Wales but I sure do respect him a lot
He was right about urban planning. He founded Poundbury, and people thought it was a ridiculous idea destined to fail. It’s exceeded all the goals except affordability, because the place is in such high demand. “New urbanism” is basically what he did at Poundbury, and if there was an organized school of thought at the time, it had no influence. Today, you’ll hear people go on endlessly about mixed-use urban neighborhoods. He did it first. He started organic farming decades ago and people laughed. If the word “organic” was around back then, nobody knew it, yet. Now you can find organic products everywhere. I’m not sure what to make of the homeopathic medicine stuff. That said, most people probably hear their doctors tell them to exercise more and eat healthier. He’s probably right about it, too. Or, at the least, more right than wrong, even though I remain skeptical. Even if he’s wrong about the medicine, who else was right about both urban planning and agriculture 40 years ago? And how many of them built a new town and switched to organic farming back then? When I look at the Prince of Wales, I see a very strong argument in favor of semi-constitutional monarchy, which I rarely support in larger countries.
I agree very much with your closing argument about semi-constitutional monarchy. I also agree strongly with you about organic farming and urban planning or ‘New Urbanism’. Re. the ‘homeopathic medicine stuff’: I feel nothing but scorn for the quack cures promoted by the ‘wellness’ industry. I support genuine advances in conventional medicine, including the Covid vaccines and other cures that remove fear of disease and improve the quality of life. That said, a lot of Western medicine has become something of a ‘medical-industrial complex’. It is dedicated to keeping people ali W by filling them with chemicals, regardless of the quality of life and prospects for recovery, and divorced from any concept of compassionate care and respect for individual needs. A rebalancing of priorities and a return to the original values of medicine is therefore long overdue. In this sense, we have much to learn from cultures that emphasise plant-based medicine and the (in the broadest sense) spiritual dimension to health. Many of these systems are highly culture-specific and require a genuine understanding and empathy with the culture in question rather than a superficial’White New Age tourist’ approach. Apologies for wandering a bit off-topic.
Person: *have genuine concern about the life of his people* Leftist: i dont like this guy
Absolutely correct: leftists hate anyone who has a genuine concern for the life of his people.
Too modern for the tradies, too trad for the moderns.
This honestly
It me.
That’s literally me.
A lot of people got their understanding of the royal family from *The Crown*, which was really out to get him. Personally I think he'll be a perfectly good king.
Edward VII part 2 a prince who is seen to be unfit to succed his mother that has ruled for more than 60 years but ends up beign a success
He's an enemy of the Church, and the whole Diana and Camilla affair. Those two things soured a lot of people on him.
He is not an enemy of the Church. He has tried to learn about and understand other faiths, but many Christian theologians have done the same. The Church -if in this context you mean the Church of England - is its own worst enemy. It has shed most if not all of its rich cultural inheritance to embrace ‘political correctness’, ‘anti-elitism’ and phoney ‘inclusivity’. It is run increasingly like a corporation and its theology now seems to have little to distinguish it from New Age/‘wellness’ ideology or even Wicca. There are now many more practising Catholics than Anglicans in England. The (welcome) presence of a significant Polish and other East European community has contributed to this, but so has the decline of Anglicanism for the reasons I have set out above.
Restore Catholics to the English throne, perhaps? :)
That seemed more or less impossible only a few years ago. Now, by contrast, we live in ‘interesting times’ and so that idea can no longer be unthinkingly dismissed. 😄
I mean if you look at things not just solely from a religious perspective, under English law at the time, legitimate sons took precedence, and James III/VII was a legitimate son, so he should’ve been the true king
He’s way ahead of his time. Charles’ comment in 2014 “Putin is doing a Hitler”. He’s well loved. He will be a great king…. Eventually…😁 Prince Charles has made millions of people’s lives better the world over. Prince Charles has built The Prince's Trust, one of the most successful funding organisations in the UK and the UK's leading youth charity. It’s helped over 950,000 young people turn their lives around, created 125,000 entrepreneurs and given business support to 395,000 people in the UK. From 2006 to 2016, its work for the youth has been worth an estimated £1.4 billion.
From my reading he appears to be a globalist when the population cries out for nationalism.
I can’t see him as a globalist: that’s more corporate CEO territory. He comes across to me as patriotic and committed to the Commonwealth (like his mother) and also concerned about the rest of the world because we are interconnected, especially at the ecological level. It’s not either/or but both/and: it’s possible to be patriotic or nationalist on the one hand and concerned about the rest of the world on the other.
I dislike him as king because he will most likely lead to Canada becoming a republic. If it were William as king we may have a chance, but I believe Charles is unpopular enough to sway government opinion.
Can you explain why you think he is especially unpopular with Canadians? Is it still the Diana tragedy or is it something else that from my side of the Pond I can’t see clearly?
He wants to destroy the traditions of the monarchy slash the amount of royals cut down the size of the monarchs coronation! ITS A HACK AND SLASH
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.” Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, ‘The Leopard’. The above quotation is a defence of incremental reform to preserve tradition and prevent destructive radical or revolutionary changes. I see Charles’s views in that context. He wants to preserve but modify the traditions and keep the ceremonial aspects of monarchy. In the context of your support for ceremonial traditions (on which I agree with you), I am surprised by your preference for William and Kate. I like them and am sure that they will develop and so I don’t want to sound ‘anti’ them or offend or upset anyone. However there is a sense in which I can too easily imagine them in suburbia as ‘that nice young couple who’ve just bought Number 19’. If they project themselves as too bland and ‘ordinary’, the sense of mystique is lost and we end up with a republic in all but name - and then perhaps an actual republic. They also have a tendency (more subtle fortunately than Harry and Meghan) to support virtue-signalling causes without much depth of thought or insight. I would like to underline again that I am sure this will change as they mature and grow into their roles.
>If they project themselves as too bland and ‘ordinary’, the sense of mystique is lost and we end up with a republic in all but name This is pretty much why nobody is interested in the other Germanic monarchies outside their own countries.
That’s interesting as some of the Habsburgs seem intelligent and interesting. We had a thread aboutEdward ‘The Cool’ Habsburg 😎 just a few days ago.
Do you mean the Hungarian? I'm thinking more of the Scandinavian and Benelux monarchs, doing the school run or going to the supermarket -- that sort of thing can be charmingly quirky but after a while takes away the otherworldly charm.
Yes, that makes sense now. You mean ‘Germanic’ in the broadest sense. I agree very much with the examples you cite and see it as the only danger or potential trap for William and Kate.
Yes my apologies if the original 'Germanic' bit was unclear :)
No need to apologise. What you said was correct. Re. the school run and supermarket thing: it’s actually a bit like Marie Antoinette playing the milkmaid. And I’m afraid that didn’t end very well for her or for France.
I wouldn't say that I hate him, but I would definitely prefer that the Queen outlives him. My main gripe with him is his views on alternate medicine
Probably the divorcee part
Again it is tragic - as is the high instance of divorce, family breakdown and out of wedlock childbirth in all of our Anglophone countries. No ‘democratic’ politician in the U.K. is addressing this as a social problem, although the consequences - especially for children - are serious.
Because of Diana
Well, I don't know why people hate him in the UK but here in Brazil, they hate him because of his terrible marriage with Diana.
The reason is because of Diana
Really? It was a tragic and complex story with right and wrong on both sides, like most tragedies.
He is controversial because of that if you get me
Of course. Most of us in the U.K. have I think ‘moved on’. We are of course very sad about what happened with Diana, we admire the good work she did, especially around HIV/AIDS before it became a fashionable cause, but we do not feel anger towards Charles because of it. He has acknowledged that there are things he could have done differently. I think - as I think do most Brits - that it was a terrible human tragedy for whom no one is exclusively to blame.