h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Lucinda says that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I suppose she'd extend that to any philosopher going (as it's the prime requisite of a philosophy that it is self-consistent)?
Fact: I did not vote for the monarchy. I cannot stop buying their records or newspapers. They are accountable to no-one. I can refrain from buying the Spice Girls' new album or the Sun if I wish, but I'm stuck with a reactionary woolly thinker like Charles deriding my vocation UNTIL he dies or UNTIL we become a republic.

Prince Charles' recent pronouncements seem like nothing so much as a smokescreen designed to confer some spurious intellectual credibility to his uniquely privileged position. He's made a complete hash of being an heir apparent in the more traditional sense, now he seeks to redefine his role as a custodian of public ethics. His idea that the position of science, for example, has to be subordinated to some tenuous idea of the 'sacred', the influence of an unseen power that shapes our lives and decrees the natural of order of things is hardly a new one: tradition and God have been used by rogues throughout history to resist change. 'The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, he made them high and lowly, he ordered their estate...'

What's wrong with simultaneously going hunting and driving a gas guzzling car while preaching respect for the 'sacred' in life and nature is that it is NOT a philsophy worth of a Reith lecture, it is transparent hypocrisy and cant, as anyone with a modicum of respect for logic will agree. I suppose in being a Doctor of Philosophy I'm entitled to comment upon this but, well, having only got my laurels by a combination of hard work and natural talent, I'm reduced to using a chat room, just like Lucinda, while by being born into the right family, Charles gets a much trumpeted hour on Radio 4. Does Lucinda REALLY want to be an apologist for this kind of deferential rubbish?

And, by the way, about 7% of foxes culled by man die at the jaws of a pack of hounds. Hardly a very efficient way of doing it, if you ask me.

Aha... time to trumpet my ideas again... the monarchy (if they remained) should have their roles drastically reduced. I think it's positively damaging to allow Charles and the like to go around the world as representatives of the UK; for a start it's unfair, as the honourable Felonious Monk rightly says, that the rest of us don't get to air our personal views on Radio 4. Whilst I only have 11 GCSEs and an ABRSM grade 5 in the viola to my name, I think tha the monarch's powers should (if at all) be limited to essentially a cipher; it's probably better to have the position of head of state invested in a non-political individual, plus it can be quite useful to have the queen as a signatory in those hung parliament situations. They should live in a single place, hand over those lovely palaces and works of art to the people, and not be allowed to go around peddling their views on GM foods and the like - definite exploitation of position.

As for the whole class question - as it stands, the royal family is representative essentially of conservative/Conservative upper class interests - Green Welly Brigade and the like. Does anyone remember that time when they all decided to give each other Christmas presents like "the common folk"? The queen gave princess Anne an ironing board... how many of us would do that? Then again, you still get this type of class separation in the majority of presidential states; in the US, it's no longer the log cabin-born Abe Lincolns, but the 'replacement aristocracy', as it were - the Bushes and the Kennedys of this world, because it's that sort that gets the opportunities.

Ok - you think that Prince Charles' thoughts on life and such are uninteresting, inconsistent, and insincere. There are those who agree with you, and there are those who disagree. So it goes.

However, I'm still trying to work out how it is worse for Charles to spout his mouth off about life than for anyone else to do the same. We're not in some kind of meritocracy here - if we were then we'd have hordes of screaming young girls {and boys} hanging on Steven Hawking's every word - as it is, they take their ideas from geniuses like Liam Gallager and David Beckham.

If you don't like what Charles has to say, I have a simple solution: don't listen. That's exactly the same advice I'd give to those who don't care for what the Pope has to say, or what the Archbishop of Canterbury has to say, or what the Prime Minister has to say. I didn't vote for the weird guy who covered 98% of his body in tattoos and lives semi-naked on some godforsaken island - but remarkably, I still get to read his philosophy on life...

Even more incredibly, Chris Moyles gets two hours a day on radio one, and he doesn't have a degree in anything!

Replying to Bassman - sorry if I've missed the point, but the last king to defend his crown in the flesh was Richard III. In 1485. My issue is, that the monarchy is now an anachronism; historically yes, it was important, with the monarch as head of feudalist society, but the power of the monarch has been crumbling since the 17th century, when Parliament forced the Crown to convene parliament every year. Historically, the Crown had to "rule of its own" - ie. not tax the populace and for its subjects' keep out of the Crown's own purse. Far cry from that now. The concept of monarchy was born out of a necessity to unite a divided state, with it being a case almost of "survival of the fittest" - the bloke who kills the most people wins. Our monarchy is now almost purely symbolic, and very expensive at that.

On the state religion count - Queen Anne signed the statute forbidding any Catholic from sitting on the British throne. By rights, the monarch must be an Anglican, and therein lies the piss up for Taoist-Buddhists like myself. How much theology does the queen know, I wonder...

Fair enough - we can ignore Charles' views if we want. Slight tangent, but Tracey Emin was saying almost the same thing as Lucinda on "New Eastenders" the other day, that the press wants to ring her up and question her about the foot and mouth crisis/global warming/Julia Robert's 1992 vintage Valentino dress at the Oscars, purely as her name is known. I suppose the argument against Charles' spouting off about life would be that he claims to hold a position of authority with a duty to use that position as best he can. If this is the case he should surely try not to inflame public superstitions, eg. over the GM foods business, but perhaps inform people of the various standpoints. A very useful thing for Charles to have done recently, for example, would be to tell the public that HUMANS DON'T CONTRACT FOOT AND MOUTH...

FM, if you want to start a widely-read debate may I suggest you write a letter to the editor of Murdoch's Sunday Times.

If you make a decent job of it then the editor will send a reporter and photographer around to interview you.

The ensuing article will probably be entitled:- "Britain's new clear-thinking genuis speaks out".

Hopefully the interview will not be picked up by the Sun newspaper. You wouldn't want your picture on page 3 now would you?

Thanks for the support (I think!)
I think the entire readership of the Sun would be relieved that my scantily-clad picture were not on Page 3!

The point I suppose I was making was that the monarchy still possesses a hell of a lot of influence, most of it acquired in a profoundly anti-meritocratic fashion, and can command an obedient audience seemingly at the drop of a hat. To Princess Anne's credit, she weighed in after Charles spouted off again about his hobby-horses, and quite rightly said that many of the issues he had pronounced on were a lot more complex than he seemed to perceive. The issue is not about whether I'M qualified to speak on such matters (regardless of my academic history), but whether anybody else wonders the same about the likes of Charles. I'm relieved to say, from participating in this debate, that some people actually do.

Bugger it. No sooner do I go and put that humans don't contract it and some bloke callously and carelessly gets foot and mouth. Okay - Charles could have said its very very very *unlikely* that humans will contract foot and mouth.

I thought you needed cloven hooves to catch foot and mouth...? Have they checked this guy for horns, red skin, and a spiky tail?

I know a few slaughtermen and they all have cloven feet (better for kicking footballs with) horns and spiky tails!

The other great thing about a republic is that you can fire the president if they're no damn good or if their family is dys-functional (now who's fault would that be, eh?) but you're pretty much stuck with a king or queen and their wonderful family.

Besides, you don't really need a president to have a republic. When Rome booted out the last king, Tarquinius Superbus, he was replaced as chief bossman by two consuls, who served a term of one year.

One other point: Britain/England has had pretty awful monarchs- dithering halfwits and buffoons abound throughout British royal history. Only one monarch was ever called 'the Great', and Alfred's been gone a long long time.

And of course not having a royal family doesn't seem to have hurt the Italian and French tourist industries

In my opinion the Monarch does not give any sense of nationhood. His (I am here refering to Carl XVI Gustav, king of Sweden) children goes to private schools (I'm not saying they should go to public schools, private tutors would be fine by me, but I belive their education should come from the state, not from private institutions). This also means they hang out with the children of the corporate aristocracy, who is the most well represented group in these schools. When the king goes out on his annual hunting trips he goes with the leaders of the big corporations in Sweden, Wallenberg, Palmstierna etc. His connections with the citizens are solely with the upper class. He is the heir of Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, a French field marshall in Napoleon's army. His queen is German. He has no connection with the Swedish people what so ever.

He does have political powers. First of all he is a member of the counsel of foreign relations, which is a part of the government. Second, the media will publish any statement he makes, few people have that oppertunity. He does speak on political issues, even if his opinions are generaly very politicaly correct and non-controversial, he shouldn't do that.

Concerning the monarch's "Historical and cultural value", which monarchists sometimes refer to, I can't see why we so desperatly want to remember the atrocities commited by the Swedish armies in Denmark, Germany, Poland, Russia and the Baltic States during the 17:th and 18:th centuries. Not that we should forget them, but we shouldn't honor them.

And who can forget those regal sailers, explorers and nation builders, the Vikings

The Vikings did do some useful things (unlike the monarchy): my home town (Swansea) is a Viking settlement. Also, they were excellent craftsmen and artists. Unlike kings and queens in general.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1293000/1293773.stm

Check it out to see if Foot & mouth can be contracted by Humans.
Perhaps people in internet houses shouldn't throw stones & black kettles (St Emily Ultramarine)

(I find UPPERCASE very offensive.)

The French and Italians don't have the Tower of London or the Thames Barrier, or the Loch Ness Monster, or Madam Tussauds, or ... either - but that's not to say that blowing these things up wouldn't hurt our tourism, would it?

I'd have included the Millnium Dome in that list, were it not so pathetic...

Oops me and my big mouth.

Ready to criticise people for speaking too quickly and then I read the thread and find that you have already appologised.

Anyone want some Humble Pie

Do WE have the Loch Ness Monster? The French and Italians do have the glories of Paris and Rome to enjoy. I'm sure if we looked at most capital cities we'd all find something to celebrate, even in Bratislava or Ceaucescu's (have I spelled that properly?) Bucharest.

At least cities like these these are tangible, aesthetically glorious monuments to artistic, cultural and civic vision, and the qualities they embody are timeless and resonant throughout the ages. If the main thing we feel we can celebrate as a nation is an idea whose time has long since past, a residue of an unjust and superannuated mode of government, then we are in a sorry 'state' indeed.

Perhaps Egypt should knock down its pyramids because of the huge numbers of slaves that died building them? Perhaps Rome should destroy the Colosseum, because of all the innocents whose blood was spilled on its floor? Perhaps the Germans should destroy the concentration camp memorials?

The UK monarchy isn't the only tourist attraction which has a less than wholesome history. In fact, off the top of my head, I'm hard pressed to think of any which have a clean set of hands...