« The Dangers of Listening to Music at the Dentist | Main | Are We Better Than A Monarchy? »
April 26, 2007
In Praise of Prince Charles
This is one of my more peculiar hobby horses, but let's take a moment to non-ironically appreciate Prince Charles. I came around to the Prince back when he married Camilla Parker Bowles. For all the scorn heaped on the couple, they always struck me as a particularly touching love story. They'd been together, in some form or another, for decades. Bowles is frumpy and long-villified, yet despite the hits to his public image and the opposition of both the royal family and the British people, Charles insisted on eventually marrying her -- pure sentimentalism, driven by a desire to legitimize and celebrate her role in his life (even as she will never be part of the succession).
Now, Charles is about to release a book on organic gardening. And the Prince's commitment isn't new, nor untested. Charles has a farm that's run according to organic, sustainable, principles. And he's been public with his convictions, dating back to long before such ideas were hip. "When all of this started in the 1980s," The New York Times reminds us, "the British press ground His Royal Highness down to a nub, branding him the prince who talked to plants. (Granted, he did say things like, “To get the best results, you must talk to your vegetables.”)' So there again, he took shit for a cause he believed in, and that most of us now find laudable. There's a courage to that, and for all the scorn heaped on him in The Queen for refusing to take a strong stand when the monarchy was in crisis, when Charles has stood firm, the principles he protected were significantly more admirable than a mere rearguard defense of his own station in life. "He’s still a little sensitive about [the attacks on his environmentalism]," continues the Times. '"One of the great difficulties” of converting to organic farming,' he wrote in his book, 'turned out to be convincing others that you had not taken complete leave of your senses."'
Even so, the Prince befriended Eric Schlosser, of Fast Food Nation fame, and apprenticed himself to sustainable thinkers in the US. He created a line of food products called "Duchy Orginals," which are organic and sustainable, commercially successful ($80+ million in sales a year), critically acclaimed, and all profits go towards charity. He tours well-run farms, speaks at sustainability conferences, and exchanges shout-outs with Al Gore. Definitely my favorite modern monarch.
Update: Also, read this great Kinsley column on Charles and Camilla.
There's no special magic about a prince approaching middle age who marries a young society beauty. And the more we learn about Princess Diana, the less magical that story seems. And, of course, the abdication tale remains far from inspiring.
Now, what about a prince who marries a young beauty out of his sense of duty, who waits for decades until a car crash frees him and then marries the woman he really loves -- a woman whom almost everyone else in the world finds remarkably unattractive; a woman he didn't need to marry in order to enjoy her companionship as he had for decades; a woman his family and the world didn't want him to marry. And what about a woman who watched her longtime lover marry a much younger beauty; who married someone else herself out of some kind of bitter realism; who fell in love with a young future king but is marrying an old weirdo who very likely won't ever occupy the throne; a woman who is inviting a lifetime of public mockery for every aspect of her public appearance. . . . Now that is a love story.
April 26, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Couldn't agree more. I've really come to respect Prince Charles as well. And I happily found the Duchy Originals Organic Ale to be quite good when I happened to score a bottle a few months back at a random store in Manhattan.
Posted by: Adam | Apr 26, 2007 3:06:39 PM
Have you read the book "Love Story", 'based on Algore's life'?
You Romantic, you.
Realpolitic is IT, baby!
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 26, 2007 3:07:11 PM
Yes, by all means, let's celebrate him. He has only spent his life idly sucking at the public teat while helping to perpetuate an utterly indefensible system for picking the head of state (not to mention male-preference primogeniture) that most modern states threw overboard centures ago. Splendid chap.
Posted by: Glenn | Apr 26, 2007 3:12:24 PM
Hear Hear. I have liked and admired Charles for most of my life. I do expect him to be king for a few years though, unless he chooses not to. Can he do that?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 26, 2007 3:13:07 PM
People can try to dress this up any way they like, but it strikes me, and always has, that the Charles and Camilla tale is one of spectacular selfishness; you simply don't get the same choices when you are the Prince of Wales, and Charles has never, ever seemed to accept that different rules apply to him than to others, even others in the Royal family. The Queen appears to have found her unsuitable for a potential spouse at the time when they could have married, and their cuurent marriage seems contingent on alternative arrangements for her title and possibly for succession. Decency, if nothing else, would suggest that once one has settled on an official marriage, ostensibly with love involved, that old affairs should be ended. Continuing to carry on with your original mistress, and ultimately marrying her with barely enough time for official mourning, does not make you - or her - a hero, however sweet it is that two old souls who care for one another can finally make it legal. I think a lot of people make a profit these days (ahem, Tina Brown) casting negative aspersions on Diana when she is in no position to defend herself. Although she was not the saint some make her out to be, she is surely not all the terrible things that recent gossip and innuendo are made to suggest.
Second, I would dispute the notion that The Queen is less than sympathetic to Charles - whatever his motives, he clearly reached out to Blair to move the Monarchy towards a better expression for Diana than his Mother was prepared to do, and seemed genuinely (by all accounts) shaken at the loss, putting it gently, of his children's mother. I think one of the best aspects of The Queen - and why it should have one Best Picture - is that it really left the viewer to draw conclusions, and I think many, based on negative views of Charles, drew bad ones. But I think objectively the film treats him surprisingly well - considering that the British public were furious with him at the time of her death.
I agree the Prince's various stances on architecture and gardening are admirable... I'm not sure they amount to the qualities one looks for in a King. And considering that most Americans - me included - don't really see the need for a King, perhaps we are in not the best position to evaluate. And like many wealthy back to nature types, he tends to give off a faintly hectoring, lecturish air, as if mass tastes and behaviors are beneath him. With him, I'm sure they are.
Posted by: weboy | Apr 26, 2007 3:20:42 PM
Here's a much better picture of Prince Charles as it shows him in his garden.
http://tinyurl.com/3e3rdg
Posted by: jerry | Apr 26, 2007 3:21:12 PM
I always got the impression that Camilla married her first husband more from a sense of petulance that seems fairly common among upper-class young women on the marriage market-- Charles didn't make her any promises and went off on military tours, so she just married someone else while he was gone, being in her mid-twenties and all that. I guess it's possible that her lack of a hymen did make her bitterly realistic about her chances, but she did marry first, leaving him adrift for several years before he did the dutiful and PR-enhancing thing in marrying Diana.
Posted by: latts | Apr 26, 2007 3:33:02 PM
"to perpetuate an utterly indefensible system for picking the head of state (not to mention male-preference primogeniture) that most modern states threw overboard centures ago."
Wait, are you opposing monarchy to our own political regime where:
a. the stronger of the two parties is outright owned and operated by the Bush family.
b. the weaker of the two parties has a strong propensity to be owned and operated by the Clinton family.
c. many of the leaders of the weaker party are products of the 40 year old Burton-Brown machine (Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer)?
d. Senate and congressional seats are often bequeathed to family members?
e. Families like the Kochs, the Ahmansons, the Mellons, the Waltons and so on are known to regularly and reliably outright buy government decisions?
The reality is you're opposing a nominal monarch to a pretend version of our democracy, which in reality is an oligarchy.
Posted by: burritoboy | Apr 26, 2007 3:34:33 PM
"And considering that most Americans - me included - don't really see the need for a King, perhaps we are in not the best position to evaluate."
I do see that need. A figure beyond politics who could step up at a needed time and say:"This must stop." and it would stop. Someone who would really have that power by almost never using it. Someone absolutely dependent on the goodwill and respect of all political players.
Someone who could have stopped the Clinton impeachment; called for a new election in Florida or nationwide in 2000;someone who would have postponed the 2002 elections;who could dissolve a Congress who won't balance a budget;whatever.
And could be deposed or decapitated with a 2/3 majority.
Dangerous? Unconstitutional? Of course. But "The Law" is shit. That should be understood by now. Power rules. "Countervailing Forces" or "Balances of Power" rule better.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 26, 2007 3:40:01 PM
Great post - how refreshing. & for the record Duchys products are great!
Posted by: alison | Apr 26, 2007 3:41:18 PM
tell that to diana's boyfriend who was killed in the crash and whose billionaire father blames the royal family and accuses charles of terrible things. he has a criminal case going to trial in france soon.
Posted by: christian | Apr 26, 2007 3:45:29 PM
You tell them burrito boy!
The US political system is much more similar to a pre-1914 European political system than contemporary European state.
Now stop slacking at aaronovitchwatch.
Posted by: otto | Apr 26, 2007 3:47:56 PM
> He has only spent his life idly sucking at
> the public teat
Although I too see the need for the head of state/head of government split, I am no fan of the British Royal Family. That said I believe that the Royal Family's payments from the government are primarily for historical preservation of buildings, grounds, crowns, etc, and for official state functions - they actually live from the investment proceeds on their $2 billion or so family fortune.
Now how they acquired that fortune is another question...
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Apr 26, 2007 3:48:39 PM
Yes, MI6 and the CIA used their secret weapons to prevent Diana and Dodi from fastening their seatbelts! That is of course the reason they died. The father of a car crash victim is usually a reliable source in these circumstances.
Posted by: otto | Apr 26, 2007 3:53:30 PM
Um, can we stop saying that Camilla is frumpy, middle-aged, and unattractive? I find her a fox, an alluringly sexy, beguiling woman. What a catch!
Posted by: Marshall | Apr 26, 2007 3:57:28 PM
Jerry is that link safe for work? I get the feeling that link isnt safe for work. Just a gut feeling. I dont want to see no nekkid HRH "in his garden", now.
Posted by: RW | Apr 26, 2007 4:01:30 PM
It is good to see Prince Charles getting at least some of the credit that he deserves.
Posted by: adam | Apr 26, 2007 4:37:46 PM
OH WHY OH WHY DID I OPEN THAT JERRY'S FILTHY FILTHY LINK!
Just kidding. Funny stuff. Funny stuff.
http://tinyurl.com/3e3rdg
Posted by: RW | Apr 26, 2007 5:02:28 PM
i have always had great admiration for princess diana, and little/no admiration for prince charles.i have always thought him to be a highly unsympathetic person.
i really believe that she tried to create something meaningful out of her life in her earlier years with the prince.
her interest at a very young age in championing social and political issues and very heartfelt visitations with sick people, particularly children, seemed really remarkable. she seemed like a person of great empathy and humanity, unlike prince charles.
and i imagined that being thrust into that life at a young age, with her background must have been incredibly difficult.
it always looked like prince charles did not help her or support her at all....leaving her like a deer in the headlights, which over time to her demise.
....it was just my impression that he did nothing to make life easier or less harsh and that he caused her a great deal of suffering.
....my heart always went out to her.
not to diminish his interest in organic gardening, but i think that prince charles has had the time and position to have affected and supported many meaningful causes and i think he has done little for someone who has been in a position to contribute so much.
Posted by: jacqueline | Apr 26, 2007 5:07:32 PM
The link is egregiously safe for work. I had to disguise it to avoid giving away the punchline.
Posted by: jerry | Apr 26, 2007 5:25:57 PM
here's a fun Charles blog entry, from one of my favorite blogs (favorite because/despite it's always good natured informative and about things I know nothing about and don't really aspire to) http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000218.html
Posted by: DB | Apr 26, 2007 8:38:16 PM
I would have to disagree you charactization of Prince Charles, I believe he's a menace to public health. His continued public and financial support for homeopathy and other sorts of unscientific "medicine" has led to the NHS and the British public to buy all sorts of "cures" that don't do anything.
In addition, I've never gotten what's so great about organic farming, other than it's billed as "natural". I could be wrong, but I can't seem to find any legit studies showing organic food to taste better or be more nutritious. And surely it's actually worse for the environment, as it requires more farmland than normal farming to make up for it's inefficiencies? Again, I'm open to be proved wrong.
Posted by: Cain | Apr 26, 2007 9:16:16 PM
The reality is you're opposing a nominal monarch to a pretend version of our democracy, which in reality is an oligarchy.
Hahahahaha....heeheeheeheeheehee......Lemme catch my breath! I'm OK now and.....heeheeeheeeeeheeeheehee!!!!
OK, I'm really better now..Whew!
And this poster thinks he is "mainstream"!! What a wack-job!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 27, 2007 8:14:15 AM
I was going to list some other ridiculous comments by Mcmanus and others, but the list was too long.
Although the topic, at first, seemed mundane, this has turned out to be a great thread. The comments have been 'enlightening' as one by one, the commenters from the fring left show their true colors and hate for America and democracy itself.
Thank you Ezra!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 27, 2007 8:18:28 AM
Does anyone remember the time he was giving a speech in Australia and someone ran up and shot a cap gun at him? I've always admired his response. He just shot his cuffs and kept speaking while others fell to the floor.
I've always admired him for that.
Of course the guy who did it got swarmed and the shit beat out of him.
Posted by: merlallen | Apr 27, 2007 8:26:53 AM




