X Close

Why doesn’t King Charles like me? The monarchy's aloofness has always been a myth

He knows all about you (Serge Lemoine/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

He knows all about you (Serge Lemoine/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)


May 4, 2023   6 mins

I have a bone to pick with Charles III. Some years ago, while he was still a lowly Prince of Wales, he granted an audience to some Rhodes scholars from Oxford at a time when I was teaching there. “Who teaches you?” he asked them. “Not that dreadful Terry Eagleton, I hope.”

I was devastated on hearing this news. Not because I doubted the Prince’s right to pass judgement, however harsh, on one of his subjects. On the contrary, I would gladly have submitted to a torrent of vile abuse from the royal tongue, feeling it to be no more than his prerogative. If he had officially announced that I was a despicable worm, and was to be treated as such throughout the kingdom, my loyalty would have remained unshaken.

Even so, I couldn’t help being shocked. It was like discovering that God couldn’t stand the sight of me, or that the Pope threw up whenever my name was mentioned. Hearing Charles’s words made me feel like a shadier version of A.A. Milne’s Christopher Robin. “Do you think the King knows all about me?” he asks his nursemaid plaintively, to which she replies with the consoling lie: “Sure to, dear, but it’s time for tea.” It was clear that the Prince knew all about me as well, but more in the way that MI5 or HMRC might. This didn’t bring me the sense of cosmic security one imagines young Christopher felt. It was as though his nursemaid had replied: “She sure does, honey, and she thinks you’re a right prat.”

I assumed that it was my political views, rather than the cut of my jacket or my reluctance to ride to hounds, that Charles found distasteful, and it was this which disturbed me most. I had imagined that royal persons like himself were set above the political realm, impeccably even-handed in their treatment of Tories and Trotskyists. It’s true that he had sent his sons to Eton, but I’d assumed that this was because they might be knocked around a bit at the local comprehensive.

Was it possible that I had spent my life so far sunk in delusion? Fragments of memory floated up, stray anomalies to which I’d shut my eyes: the Queen Mother’s pathological hatred of Germans, Princess Margaret’s comparison of the Irish to pigs, the Duke of Edinburgh’s genial racist gaffes, the vast private wealth of the lot of them. Might there be a pattern here? Even back then, Prince Andrew no longer seemed to radiate the aura of mystery and enigma I had felt about him before. However hard I resisted, it was becoming impossible to avoid the conclusion that the royal family are not politically neutral.

Christopher Robin’s words reveal a certain insight. The idea of sovereignty involves the fantasy of being known by an omniscient power, one which despite searching you to your depths continues to love you unconditionally. The usual word for this is God, but a more familiar term is parent, and the monarch is the ultimate mummy or daddy of us all.

The fiction is that the King knows all his subjects from the inside, but this doesn’t mean that his knowledge of them is stretched so thin that he can’t know any of them in particular. Like Bill Clinton, the sovereign can talk to everyone in a crowded room as though they’re the only person present. It’s natural, however, to think that the King might not have such intimate knowledge, which is why there’s a certain anxiety in Christopher’s question to Alice the nursemaid. If God or the King is transcendent enough to know and love everybody, doesn’t this involve a detachment which means they can’t love or know anybody? How can you be both intimate and all-seeing?

Trying to solve this contradiction is the point of those folktales in which the king moves among his people incognito, observing them at close quarters but in disguise, and thus with no threat to his majesty. He becomes a fifth columnist in his own kingdom. What if the sovereign is so distant that the people feel bereft, abandoned, as the British seem to have felt when the Queen refused to mourn Princess Diana? The Sun’s headline at the time, “Where Is Our Queen?”, can be translated into one fearful infantile howl: “Mummy!”

There’s a problem, however, about parental love. Parents are like political authorities because they are supposed to care for all of their offspring/citizens alike, and in the case of parents to do so unconditionally. You can see this in action whenever someone is accused of a serious crime. All his relatives will flock spontaneously to his support, testifying that no more loving son or big-hearted brother ever trod the ground. “He can’t have done it!” they insist to the press. “I mean, I know him. I’ve known him ever since he was born!” The fact that the Boston Strangler was also known to others is strangely overlooked. I myself am a father, but if one of my children were accused of murder, I wouldn’t automatically assume that they were innocent. All murderers have fathers. Everyone is capable of losing their cool and doing someone in. There’s no inconsistency between being a loving son and wielding a machete.

The idea of sovereignty, then, is both consoling and unsettling. To be accepted by an authority inconceivably greater than yourself is for your identity to be grounded and confirmed. The sovereign gazes benignly at you, and you gaze gratefully back. You have been plucked out of the common herd and invested with special status. You are, in a word, UnHerd. The relationship is, of course, unequal: God or the monarch can know you, but you can’t know them in return, because they are transcendent beings shrouded in mystery. You can only know that you are known. Yet you are also aware that this special relationship is also true of everyone else, in which case it isn’t true of you. If everyone is special, nobody is. And this is one reason for the anxiety which authority engenders.

Real democracies, which is to say republican ones, don’t work like this. They are the only political form which doesn’t need to invoke a legitimating power external to the people themselves. Instead, the people legitimate themselves, in their everyday speech, action and law-making. This lends them an unusual authority, but it breeds uncertainty as well. It means that political society is founded only in itself, with no pre-written script or divine agenda, and this feels close to a sense of groundlessness. Democracies have to make things up as they go along, more like experimental theatre than Shakespearian drama. “The people” sounds like a firm enough foundation, but in reality the people are divided, diverse and keep changing. This is why democracy is the kind of politics suitable to modernity — to a sense of societies as historical rather than eternal, and men and women as self-fashioning rather than determined by tradition.

Being known, meanwhile, isn’t always pleasant, as “that dreadful Terry Eagleton” would suggest. If there’s the benevolent King who is acquainted with what Christopher Robin has for breakfast, there’s also Big Brother. Sovereignty isn’t far from surveillance. “Thou God seest me” can mean “Stop that sinfulness because He’s watching!” as well as “Isn’t it nice to know that God watches over me?”.

The 19th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham designed a prison with a central watchtower and a circle of surrounding cells. The warders didn’t have the divine ability to supervise all of the prisoners all of the time, but they could take a look at any of them whenever they wanted to; and since the inmates didn’t know when they were being scrutinised, this was equivalent to being surveyed all the time. In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault uses this as an image of the surveillance state long before we actually were watched all the time. It’s no longer true, to adapt Abraham Lincoln’s celebrated saying, that you can watch some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can’t watch all of the people all of the time.

Democracies work as long as we all agree they should do so. Ironically, however, the same is true of the monarchy. It survives only as long as we maintain the collective fiction that, for example, a young fogey turned old fogey notorious for his fussiness, petulance and self-indulgence, with no claim on our allegiance other than a genetic one, should be revered in quasi-religious fashion. In fact, we know well enough that being king is a job that almost anybody could do, as long as you can walk, smile, shake hands, cultivate a concerned look and do what your courtiers tell you. Manchester United could take it on in turn, with each player doing the job for a year or so.

If Christopher Robin displays a degree of wisdom, so does the child who proclaimed that the emperor had no clothes. Or rather the Emperor is nothing but clothes — only his outward trappings and ceremonial garb. Coronations are solemn charades in which we agree to suspend our disbelief in myth and divine order in order to assuage our fear that, as democrats, we may be standing on nothing more solid than ourselves. As with the currency, it’s our faith in something intrinsically valueless that makes it work. We need an Other, and the Windsors are on hand to provide it. In the days when the monarch had real authority, he or she would dress up in finery partly to dazzle their subjects, but also, as Edmund Burke argues, to cloak and soften the brutality of their power. Kings were men in drag, draping the ugly phallus of their dominion beneath alluring feminine garments.

In the end, however, it doesn’t work all that well. Royalty is meant to represent an oasis of stability and continuity in the increasingly fluid, unstable, unpredictable environment we know as market society. What’s happened instead is that the moral behaviour of that world has now invaded the inner sanctum of the royal family itself, with its litany of break-ups, cock-ups, publicity wars and dysfunctional relationships. It’s worth keeping this in mind as our democracy bows to an unelected head of state.


Terry Eagleton is a critic, literary theorist, and UnHerd columnist.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

92 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Okay Terry, we get it.

Just about no-one is dim-witted enough to believe the nonsense that’s ascribed to us in this article. Quite probably, the younger Charlie was referring to this tendency in the writer with his comment, so well done for confirming his assessment.

I’ll be watching the coronation without any illusions, simply as the continuity of something more important than the individual who finds himself being crowned. For as long as our constitutional monarchy continues to unite us rather than divide, it’ll continue to exist. It’s in our power to keep, and that annoys Eagleton like hell – which, as this article shows, hath no fury like a scorned WUM.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Russell Hamilton
Russell Hamilton
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

“the continuity of something more important than the individual who finds himself being crowned”

Exactly. I’m amazed that Terry Eagleton thinks we don’t see that the temporary face of the monarchy is of trifling importance compared to the importance of the institution. But then, he thinks that: “as democrats, we may be standing on nothing more solid than ourselves. As with the currency, it’s our faith in something intrinsically valueless that makes it work”. What? Most of us learned some history at school which covered the transition of power from the King to parliament. We ‘stand’ on a long history of the development of democracy and why/how that happened – the development and working out of values in our culture. The monarch reminds us of our history.

“being king is a job that almost anybody could do … Manchester United could take it on in turn, with each player doing the job for a year or so.” Of course. Think of the speech that the Queen gave during the COVID scare. Anyone could have done it. Obviously.

Last edited 1 year ago by Russell Hamilton
Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
1 year ago

I loved learning about the transfer of power from King to Parliament when I was at school. As far as I was concerned that was the main thrust of British history. I loved hearing about how, at his trial (which he refused to recognise) the knob fell off Charles I’s staff and no-one went to pick it up and then he realised he was not divine any more.
I loved to think about how the ancestors of today’s royal family could have ordered the death of anyone and seen it carried out. There were tyrants like Henry VIII or idiots like George III and their personality and psychopathy directed our history, but now …. now they have to bow to us and our wishes and obsessions, changing mores and politesse. They are our servants now and at the mercy of our whims and fancies (via the media).
I want to see the monarchy carry on so that we can continue to enjoy the spectacle.

Russell Hamilton
Russell Hamilton
1 year ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Hilary, did you form the opinion that George 111 was an idiot after reading Andrew Roberts’ recent biography of him?

I don’t think of the royals as so much our servants, as people, who, in their public lives, present the better sides of ourselves to ourselves. We all need reminding.

Russell Hamilton
Russell Hamilton
1 year ago
Reply to  Hilary Easton

Hilary, did you form the opinion that George 111 was an idiot after reading Andrew Roberts’ recent biography of him?

I don’t think of the royals as so much our servants, as people, who, in their public lives, present the better sides of ourselves to ourselves. We all need reminding.

Hilary Easton
Hilary Easton
1 year ago

I loved learning about the transfer of power from King to Parliament when I was at school. As far as I was concerned that was the main thrust of British history. I loved hearing about how, at his trial (which he refused to recognise) the knob fell off Charles I’s staff and no-one went to pick it up and then he realised he was not divine any more.
I loved to think about how the ancestors of today’s royal family could have ordered the death of anyone and seen it carried out. There were tyrants like Henry VIII or idiots like George III and their personality and psychopathy directed our history, but now …. now they have to bow to us and our wishes and obsessions, changing mores and politesse. They are our servants now and at the mercy of our whims and fancies (via the media).
I want to see the monarchy carry on so that we can continue to enjoy the spectacle.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Do you think it’s ever occurred to him that the reason many people like the monarchy is simply that it annoys people like him?

Rob J
Rob J
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It’s occurred to me. Bit pathetic, really, but I suppose that’s human nature.

Rob J
Rob J
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It’s occurred to me. Bit pathetic, really, but I suppose that’s human nature.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

WUM?

Maurice Austin
Maurice Austin
1 year ago

I looked it up. It means “Wind-Up Merchant”.

Maurice Austin
Maurice Austin
1 year ago

I looked it up. It means “Wind-Up Merchant”.

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

A point that is missed – really – is that the State; to which Charlie belongs now as the most visible member: comprises mainly invisible people who are more powerful than he and are not there in place for their wisdom either, but for the continuity of their dominion and that of the interests they are employed to protect and nourish.
It is a sad fact that a whole populace has eventually succumbed to the idea that The State is to be looked up to, giving the visuals of the Royals and colourful military parades as the cue, when quite the opposite is true.
The correct definition of “The State” is “Those men in a society who have the right to resort to force” The State has many employees, but they are not part of The State, or “Crown” as we call it. That definition is from Max Weber in the 1920’s, but just echoes Louis XIV “L’etat? C’est moi”. Its just that the powerhouses in ours are hidden. Like whoever told the Paras to assassinate the demonstrators on Bloody Sunday, for instance, remains completely unknown.
The visible part – The Monarchy – is there to inspire awe and stop our rational brains from being used, which tactic seems to overcome the absurdity that any rational individual would realise if he looked away from the screen to where Toto the dog was pulling the curtain back – this whole world of delusion was explained in “The Wizard of Oz”.
The most intelligent of our intelligentsia are as easily fooled as the dimmest of our dimwits by the same infantile emotion – shame on the intelligentsia – leading to mutual adoration; being at one: and a desire for subjection that we may look upwards at its object without the interposition of anything real. We ritually humiliate ourselves.
Our adored “Crown”, though hidden, stroked its chin and decided to help the US Neo Cons to succeed in persuading the West to destroy a million people and more by instructing their Public to support attacks interventions and invasions across the Moslem World – and now Ukraine if you look at what Toto is showing you again.
We can never have democracy until the people stand over the State, and Charlie boy etc. are a roadblock to that ever emerging as a possibility.
It’s called inversion, as horses are inverted by breaking them. We are horses that adore their riders and whinny that they are free and indoctrinate lour foals. They enter a post spirit-broken culture.
In order to achieve the aim of standing over the State – which is what is really needed to get us out of this delusional state – we the people, would need only the following, though.
1.That it be regarded as a public duty for any member of society becoming aware of crimes being committed that they inform their fellows.
2.To ensure that this duty can be discharged without fear or favour, it must be made so that any performing it be protected, absolutely, from being got at by any who do not wish the crimes to be known.
3.That a Senior Law be passed making it illegal for anyone to hide crimes behind secrecy arrangements and that any such arrangements be automatically null-and-void to that extent. The State can hide our military dispositions from our enemies, of course, but not crimes from the people, including its own.
4.That the media be fit for purpose meaning it guarantees to inform everyone about the crimes reported. Boy do we need the principles of Wikileaks, because without them the roadblock on the route to democracy cannot be removed
5.That any committing the crimes, or trying to hide them, or getting at anyone trying to report them to the people, be punished to the full extent of the law as common criminals. Persecutors of Assange and any like him – a press performing the common duty of reporting all great crimes to everyone – be warned
6.That the Judiciary be fully insulated from the Crown
Only if we do these pretty obviously necessary things can we bring the State under our control and move on to develop a proper democracy. As things stand we allow an often evil ancient regime to continue behind a curtain, or a dressing, we call democracy – but it is just a curtain or dressing – and that ancient regime comes forward when it feels the need pushing parliament aside with the admonition, “It’s The National Interest, which is our business, so kneel – yours is The Public Interest and must yield.”
Please also consider a different point – concerning the absurdity – by asking yourselves how a sane body politic population which sincerely complains about all manifestations of inequality, simultaneously worship in the temple of the apotheosis of the opposite and fail to see the irony?
Finally – for a person to be deserving of his own respect he must not stand by, or turn his back when victims are being made.
According to this standard, and again I salute Assange here, we are virtually devoid of this so not a populace deserving its own – and therefore anybody else’s – respect, yet such populace thinks well of itself and pats itself on the back in ignorance of this deficiency and thrills to acts concerning the visible chief of the non-deservers of their own – or anyone’s – respect, and worse; Monarchy and Crown are best chums with the most prolific creators of victims around the world.
Time for people who want democracy to wake up and make a fuss.
When I complained to a one-time Labour MP that nothing was done by his party following BBC Panorama’s 11/19 revelation of British atrocities and “Criminal ” cover up by Govt and Military, in Iraq and Afghanistan he simply said “There are no votes in that.”
We really need to throw people like these out in recognition of their moral vacuity that now transfixes us and start again.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Pete Rogers

In answer to your question about Bloody Sunday, it was General Robert Ford, my ghastly, pompous and useless erstwhile Commandant at Camberley Comprehensive, but the platoon concerned was in the charge of a Sergeant, rather than an Officer ( not that there is much difference nowadays in The Parachute Regiment).

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

Thank You Nicky
Did General Ford have that independent right himself do you know?- that would be odd – or was he cleared by a political Master who had the right to consent to “kill” instructions and guarantee that he and Ford would be protected?
In either case we are confronted with a pretty devastating fact and that is that our “Democracy” is really no more than a pretence in terms of “Government “For” or “By” The People” since the system is proof against us ever bringing such individuals to account and therefore has escalatory intimidatory dominance over us all.
Having taken 40 years to come out it has been overlooked that the event had the specific effect of placing the Catholic Community outside the protection of our system of UK Rights and Protections, forcing them to have to be the ones to defend themselves, meaning that the assassinations were an opening act of Civil War caused by The British State, so “The Troubles” proper were our responsibility – all deliberately Created with Charlie’s Mum as visible head indifferent to it all.
Some monster simply calculated that the Catholics would be beaten so that his aim of returning NI to the previous dominion of Loyalists would be achieved. that is how primitive and arbitrary the system really is.
I also looks to me quite possible that the Whistle-blowing Para who exposed the truth may be the one that ended up in prison and the others went free. I think the argument might have been that he gave the damning evidence against himself – any knowledge about that?
It seems clear that the other Paras got off and the responsibility chain to the real criminal was never exposed – so nothing has progressed from the whole thing.
What do you think?

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

Thanks Nicky,
It would be alarming if a General was entitled to order asassinations at his own discretion, so it would seem necessary for it to have been cleared by a person at the top of “The Crown” having that right. Do you agree? If so who might that be?
We can deduce 2 things in any case. One is that the power is arbitrary at the behest of The Crown and not tied to democracy – which is a matter of grave concern because the existence of such power means we are deluded concerning our real system. The democratic veneer is to give the appearance of public consent concerning what the Crown does independently of its own volition.
The second is that by killing catholic demonstrators whilst placing them outside the national arrangements for the rights and protections of citizenss placed them beyond society and with only their own resources to protect themselves with against a hostile State, which means that a State of Civil War had thereby been created deliberately by the Crown.
The consequence of that is that “The Troubles” proper were caused and continued by The Crown.
This kind of silent navigation, completely misleading the population leaves us in a deluded culture with no way out.
I think I may be correct in thinking that the Para who had the humanity to reveal the truth was the one convicted of criminality due tom his revelations. I rather think – if true – that that puts the lid oin what our rulers are really like and how the pathetic mantra that we have “Rule by the people” is exposed for what it is.
Can you add anything. or correct this

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

Dear Nicky,
I have written 2 comments to you since your posting but Unherd have blocked them as far as i can tell as neither have been posted. They were about the real consequences of the atrocities committed on Bloody Sjunday, but they will go unseen and unheard on Unherd apparently. No explanation has been given for blocking them.
I had understood that the raison d’etre for Unherd was to be totally non-partisan, so to hear views others may not agree with, particjularly if examinable reaslons are provided.
Unherd are partisan after all according to this evidence.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

Thank You Nicky
Did General Ford have that independent right himself do you know?- that would be odd – or was he cleared by a political Master who had the right to consent to “kill” instructions and guarantee that he and Ford would be protected?
In either case we are confronted with a pretty devastating fact and that is that our “Democracy” is really no more than a pretence in terms of “Government “For” or “By” The People” since the system is proof against us ever bringing such individuals to account and therefore has escalatory intimidatory dominance over us all.
Having taken 40 years to come out it has been overlooked that the event had the specific effect of placing the Catholic Community outside the protection of our system of UK Rights and Protections, forcing them to have to be the ones to defend themselves, meaning that the assassinations were an opening act of Civil War caused by The British State, so “The Troubles” proper were our responsibility – all deliberately Created with Charlie’s Mum as visible head indifferent to it all.
Some monster simply calculated that the Catholics would be beaten so that his aim of returning NI to the previous dominion of Loyalists would be achieved. that is how primitive and arbitrary the system really is.
I also looks to me quite possible that the Whistle-blowing Para who exposed the truth may be the one that ended up in prison and the others went free. I think the argument might have been that he gave the damning evidence against himself – any knowledge about that?
It seems clear that the other Paras got off and the responsibility chain to the real criminal was never exposed – so nothing has progressed from the whole thing.
What do you think?

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

Thanks Nicky,
It would be alarming if a General was entitled to order asassinations at his own discretion, so it would seem necessary for it to have been cleared by a person at the top of “The Crown” having that right. Do you agree? If so who might that be?
We can deduce 2 things in any case. One is that the power is arbitrary at the behest of The Crown and not tied to democracy – which is a matter of grave concern because the existence of such power means we are deluded concerning our real system. The democratic veneer is to give the appearance of public consent concerning what the Crown does independently of its own volition.
The second is that by killing catholic demonstrators whilst placing them outside the national arrangements for the rights and protections of citizenss placed them beyond society and with only their own resources to protect themselves with against a hostile State, which means that a State of Civil War had thereby been created deliberately by the Crown.
The consequence of that is that “The Troubles” proper were caused and continued by The Crown.
This kind of silent navigation, completely misleading the population leaves us in a deluded culture with no way out.
I think I may be correct in thinking that the Para who had the humanity to reveal the truth was the one convicted of criminality due tom his revelations. I rather think – if true – that that puts the lid oin what our rulers are really like and how the pathetic mantra that we have “Rule by the people” is exposed for what it is.
Can you add anything. or correct this

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

Dear Nicky,
I have written 2 comments to you since your posting but Unherd have blocked them as far as i can tell as neither have been posted. They were about the real consequences of the atrocities committed on Bloody Sjunday, but they will go unseen and unheard on Unherd apparently. No explanation has been given for blocking them.
I had understood that the raison d’etre for Unherd was to be totally non-partisan, so to hear views others may not agree with, particjularly if examinable reaslons are provided.
Unherd are partisan after all according to this evidence.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Pete Rogers

In answer to your question about Bloody Sunday, it was General Robert Ford, my ghastly, pompous and useless erstwhile Commandant at Camberley Comprehensive, but the platoon concerned was in the charge of a Sergeant, rather than an Officer ( not that there is much difference nowadays in The Parachute Regiment).

Russell Hamilton
Russell Hamilton
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

“the continuity of something more important than the individual who finds himself being crowned”

Exactly. I’m amazed that Terry Eagleton thinks we don’t see that the temporary face of the monarchy is of trifling importance compared to the importance of the institution. But then, he thinks that: “as democrats, we may be standing on nothing more solid than ourselves. As with the currency, it’s our faith in something intrinsically valueless that makes it work”. What? Most of us learned some history at school which covered the transition of power from the King to parliament. We ‘stand’ on a long history of the development of democracy and why/how that happened – the development and working out of values in our culture. The monarch reminds us of our history.

“being king is a job that almost anybody could do … Manchester United could take it on in turn, with each player doing the job for a year or so.” Of course. Think of the speech that the Queen gave during the COVID scare. Anyone could have done it. Obviously.

Last edited 1 year ago by Russell Hamilton
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Do you think it’s ever occurred to him that the reason many people like the monarchy is simply that it annoys people like him?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

WUM?

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

A point that is missed – really – is that the State; to which Charlie belongs now as the most visible member: comprises mainly invisible people who are more powerful than he and are not there in place for their wisdom either, but for the continuity of their dominion and that of the interests they are employed to protect and nourish.
It is a sad fact that a whole populace has eventually succumbed to the idea that The State is to be looked up to, giving the visuals of the Royals and colourful military parades as the cue, when quite the opposite is true.
The correct definition of “The State” is “Those men in a society who have the right to resort to force” The State has many employees, but they are not part of The State, or “Crown” as we call it. That definition is from Max Weber in the 1920’s, but just echoes Louis XIV “L’etat? C’est moi”. Its just that the powerhouses in ours are hidden. Like whoever told the Paras to assassinate the demonstrators on Bloody Sunday, for instance, remains completely unknown.
The visible part – The Monarchy – is there to inspire awe and stop our rational brains from being used, which tactic seems to overcome the absurdity that any rational individual would realise if he looked away from the screen to where Toto the dog was pulling the curtain back – this whole world of delusion was explained in “The Wizard of Oz”.
The most intelligent of our intelligentsia are as easily fooled as the dimmest of our dimwits by the same infantile emotion – shame on the intelligentsia – leading to mutual adoration; being at one: and a desire for subjection that we may look upwards at its object without the interposition of anything real. We ritually humiliate ourselves.
Our adored “Crown”, though hidden, stroked its chin and decided to help the US Neo Cons to succeed in persuading the West to destroy a million people and more by instructing their Public to support attacks interventions and invasions across the Moslem World – and now Ukraine if you look at what Toto is showing you again.
We can never have democracy until the people stand over the State, and Charlie boy etc. are a roadblock to that ever emerging as a possibility.
It’s called inversion, as horses are inverted by breaking them. We are horses that adore their riders and whinny that they are free and indoctrinate lour foals. They enter a post spirit-broken culture.
In order to achieve the aim of standing over the State – which is what is really needed to get us out of this delusional state – we the people, would need only the following, though.
1.That it be regarded as a public duty for any member of society becoming aware of crimes being committed that they inform their fellows.
2.To ensure that this duty can be discharged without fear or favour, it must be made so that any performing it be protected, absolutely, from being got at by any who do not wish the crimes to be known.
3.That a Senior Law be passed making it illegal for anyone to hide crimes behind secrecy arrangements and that any such arrangements be automatically null-and-void to that extent. The State can hide our military dispositions from our enemies, of course, but not crimes from the people, including its own.
4.That the media be fit for purpose meaning it guarantees to inform everyone about the crimes reported. Boy do we need the principles of Wikileaks, because without them the roadblock on the route to democracy cannot be removed
5.That any committing the crimes, or trying to hide them, or getting at anyone trying to report them to the people, be punished to the full extent of the law as common criminals. Persecutors of Assange and any like him – a press performing the common duty of reporting all great crimes to everyone – be warned
6.That the Judiciary be fully insulated from the Crown
Only if we do these pretty obviously necessary things can we bring the State under our control and move on to develop a proper democracy. As things stand we allow an often evil ancient regime to continue behind a curtain, or a dressing, we call democracy – but it is just a curtain or dressing – and that ancient regime comes forward when it feels the need pushing parliament aside with the admonition, “It’s The National Interest, which is our business, so kneel – yours is The Public Interest and must yield.”
Please also consider a different point – concerning the absurdity – by asking yourselves how a sane body politic population which sincerely complains about all manifestations of inequality, simultaneously worship in the temple of the apotheosis of the opposite and fail to see the irony?
Finally – for a person to be deserving of his own respect he must not stand by, or turn his back when victims are being made.
According to this standard, and again I salute Assange here, we are virtually devoid of this so not a populace deserving its own – and therefore anybody else’s – respect, yet such populace thinks well of itself and pats itself on the back in ignorance of this deficiency and thrills to acts concerning the visible chief of the non-deservers of their own – or anyone’s – respect, and worse; Monarchy and Crown are best chums with the most prolific creators of victims around the world.
Time for people who want democracy to wake up and make a fuss.
When I complained to a one-time Labour MP that nothing was done by his party following BBC Panorama’s 11/19 revelation of British atrocities and “Criminal ” cover up by Govt and Military, in Iraq and Afghanistan he simply said “There are no votes in that.”
We really need to throw people like these out in recognition of their moral vacuity that now transfixes us and start again.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Okay Terry, we get it.

Just about no-one is dim-witted enough to believe the nonsense that’s ascribed to us in this article. Quite probably, the younger Charlie was referring to this tendency in the writer with his comment, so well done for confirming his assessment.

I’ll be watching the coronation without any illusions, simply as the continuity of something more important than the individual who finds himself being crowned. For as long as our constitutional monarchy continues to unite us rather than divide, it’ll continue to exist. It’s in our power to keep, and that annoys Eagleton like hell – which, as this article shows, hath no fury like a scorned WUM.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Murray
Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

And that verbose load of drivel is what a left wing academic hissy fit looks like

ANON ANON
ANON ANON
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I’m surprised by comments in this vein, here. The tone and tenor of Eagleton’s piece seems pretty apparent to me, and as a consequence I found it amusing, witty, ruminative, thoughtful and entertaining – despite having no personal interest in, or strong views about, royalty whatsoever. It seems that a lot of the commentators who harbour such strong feelings of antipathy against the piece are taking it rather more seriously than the author himself does. This is a short, diverting essay which exhibits a decent dose of self-awareness and plants tongue firmly in cheek at the right moments. I struggle in vain to read it as a ‘left-wing, academic hissy fit’. That reading is quite baffling to me. Each to his or her own.

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

Custom designed to appeal to mainstream unthinking prejudices in this country.. many of the comments are mord intelligent and thoughtful than the article

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

An example of an unthinking prejudice is support for the King.
It is a purely emotional effect since the merit of the character of the individual concerned, or of the office concerned cannot be ascertained. These are all acts of faith – the enemy of intelligent thinking.
For example, people endlessly complain about inequality then we see them disappearing. en masse. into this Temple of the Apotheosis of Inequality where they worship devoutly and in great emotion without any sense of irony or absurdity.
Have a little think about what is going on there.
This kind of process produces mentalities which can hold polar opposite beliefs simultaneously, completely transfixing, and therefore disabling, them in the headlights shone upon us by politics. For instance – if you Google “Quaternary Ice Age” you will discover that we are in it as I write and that the temperature of the Earth is below its historical average accordingly, yet we have easily panicked about it getting hotter and join the shepherd’s flock with his words “Today’s temperatures are unprecedented!” ringing out. That’s what Semi-religion does to otherwise serviceable minds.
We either believe what we are told or realise that – in the absence of the examinability of what we are being told – a wise man would see that we are almost certainly being taken for a ride.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago

An example of an unthinking prejudice is support for the King.
It is a purely emotional effect since the merit of the character of the individual concerned, or of the office concerned cannot be ascertained. These are all acts of faith – the enemy of intelligent thinking.
For example, people endlessly complain about inequality then we see them disappearing. en masse. into this Temple of the Apotheosis of Inequality where they worship devoutly and in great emotion without any sense of irony or absurdity.
Have a little think about what is going on there.
This kind of process produces mentalities which can hold polar opposite beliefs simultaneously, completely transfixing, and therefore disabling, them in the headlights shone upon us by politics. For instance – if you Google “Quaternary Ice Age” you will discover that we are in it as I write and that the temperature of the Earth is below its historical average accordingly, yet we have easily panicked about it getting hotter and join the shepherd’s flock with his words “Today’s temperatures are unprecedented!” ringing out. That’s what Semi-religion does to otherwise serviceable minds.
We either believe what we are told or realise that – in the absence of the examinability of what we are being told – a wise man would see that we are almost certainly being taken for a ride.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

As Steve Murray said “just about no one is dim witted enough to believe the nonsense that’s ascribed to us in this article”

As an interesting bit of self reflection I am primed, through experience, to expect academics generally, and left wing ones particularly, to make cases that are nonsensical using unnecessary verbiage to camouflage the various logical inconsistencies.

I read this as an opening humble brag “the king knows who I am,” followed by a pop back, using the tools of his trade.

Was my assessment of it because I’m primed to expect it, or because that’s what is was, might be an interesting discussion.

Sorry if my shorthand to all that offended you.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

“As an interesting bit of self reflection I am primed, through experience, to expect academics generally, and left wing ones particularly, to make cases that are nonsensical using unnecessary verbiage to camouflage the various logical inconsistencies.”
 I experienced more or less the identical reaction a couple of years ago when re-reading The Communist Manifesto for the first time since my youth, so perhaps sophistry is baked into the hard left modus operandi. The gish-galloping technique you identify is one left wing academics share with the charismatic eccentric with the big personality who holds court in the Dog & Duck and talks over the civilians. Left wing academics really are no different from pub bores. They just get paid for it.
“I read this as an opening humble brag “the king knows who I am,” followed by a pop back, using the tools of his trade.”
Exactly right.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Perfectly encapsulated if I may say so.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Perfectly encapsulated if I may say so.

James Jenkin
James Jenkin
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

“Pop back” – brilliant, I didn’t know a term existed for that thing people do after a humblebrag

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

“As an interesting bit of self reflection I am primed, through experience, to expect academics generally, and left wing ones particularly, to make cases that are nonsensical using unnecessary verbiage to camouflage the various logical inconsistencies.”
 I experienced more or less the identical reaction a couple of years ago when re-reading The Communist Manifesto for the first time since my youth, so perhaps sophistry is baked into the hard left modus operandi. The gish-galloping technique you identify is one left wing academics share with the charismatic eccentric with the big personality who holds court in the Dog & Duck and talks over the civilians. Left wing academics really are no different from pub bores. They just get paid for it.
“I read this as an opening humble brag “the king knows who I am,” followed by a pop back, using the tools of his trade.”
Exactly right.

James Jenkin
James Jenkin
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

“Pop back” – brilliant, I didn’t know a term existed for that thing people do after a humblebrag

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

Good to read that ‘I am not alone in thinking’ that the piece was entertaining. Speaking for myself, I’m very picky on who I am prepared to ‘take the knee’ for (and indeed pay for) eg’s ‘The Great w***e’ of days of yore or the philandering of princes without portfolio. If not for dear old Lizzie keeping it all together, where would we be now?

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

Don’t be surprised. Some of us smelt a bit of a stink despite the fun-filled approach.
At the best of times we experience dismay when we see obsequious people – no matter how nominally intelligent or important – prostrating themselves before others. That nausea occurs because we know that despite the personal humiliation of it they form a vast flock of emotional believers and that means common sense will make no difference to what they end up subjecting themselves – and therefore we others – to.
The problem with Terry is that he obsequiously prostrated himself before a man of little known merit or brain who used a personal attack to diminish him and that is not a vertebrate act
Sometimes adversaries of inequality and unfairness see they are going nowhere and might be moved by its Honours System and want to come in from the cold perhaps, who knows, but the invertebracy of the whole business is a bit shocking to some of us.

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

Custom designed to appeal to mainstream unthinking prejudices in this country.. many of the comments are mord intelligent and thoughtful than the article

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

As Steve Murray said “just about no one is dim witted enough to believe the nonsense that’s ascribed to us in this article”

As an interesting bit of self reflection I am primed, through experience, to expect academics generally, and left wing ones particularly, to make cases that are nonsensical using unnecessary verbiage to camouflage the various logical inconsistencies.

I read this as an opening humble brag “the king knows who I am,” followed by a pop back, using the tools of his trade.

Was my assessment of it because I’m primed to expect it, or because that’s what is was, might be an interesting discussion.

Sorry if my shorthand to all that offended you.

Diane Tasker
Diane Tasker
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

Good to read that ‘I am not alone in thinking’ that the piece was entertaining. Speaking for myself, I’m very picky on who I am prepared to ‘take the knee’ for (and indeed pay for) eg’s ‘The Great w***e’ of days of yore or the philandering of princes without portfolio. If not for dear old Lizzie keeping it all together, where would we be now?

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  ANON ANON

Don’t be surprised. Some of us smelt a bit of a stink despite the fun-filled approach.
At the best of times we experience dismay when we see obsequious people – no matter how nominally intelligent or important – prostrating themselves before others. That nausea occurs because we know that despite the personal humiliation of it they form a vast flock of emotional believers and that means common sense will make no difference to what they end up subjecting themselves – and therefore we others – to.
The problem with Terry is that he obsequiously prostrated himself before a man of little known merit or brain who used a personal attack to diminish him and that is not a vertebrate act
Sometimes adversaries of inequality and unfairness see they are going nowhere and might be moved by its Honours System and want to come in from the cold perhaps, who knows, but the invertebracy of the whole business is a bit shocking to some of us.

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I see you thought long and hard about it all before providing us with your reasoned counter-argument.
It is an exposure of the fact that one cannot have democracy as long as the State stands over the people and there is nothing left wing about that, is there?
For democracy to come about, the people must stand over the State. It’s pretty basic if you think about it.
Plato (leftie?) had this kind of view 2400 years ago and Thomas Jefferson (leftie?) 250 years ago, slo perhaps you have a bit of catching up to do.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
ANON ANON
ANON ANON
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I’m surprised by comments in this vein, here. The tone and tenor of Eagleton’s piece seems pretty apparent to me, and as a consequence I found it amusing, witty, ruminative, thoughtful and entertaining – despite having no personal interest in, or strong views about, royalty whatsoever. It seems that a lot of the commentators who harbour such strong feelings of antipathy against the piece are taking it rather more seriously than the author himself does. This is a short, diverting essay which exhibits a decent dose of self-awareness and plants tongue firmly in cheek at the right moments. I struggle in vain to read it as a ‘left-wing, academic hissy fit’. That reading is quite baffling to me. Each to his or her own.

Pete Rogers
Pete Rogers
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

I see you thought long and hard about it all before providing us with your reasoned counter-argument.
It is an exposure of the fact that one cannot have democracy as long as the State stands over the people and there is nothing left wing about that, is there?
For democracy to come about, the people must stand over the State. It’s pretty basic if you think about it.
Plato (leftie?) had this kind of view 2400 years ago and Thomas Jefferson (leftie?) 250 years ago, slo perhaps you have a bit of catching up to do.

Last edited 1 year ago by Pete Rogers
Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
1 year ago

And that verbose load of drivel is what a left wing academic hissy fit looks like

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago

Given the events of the last hundred years, I’d back the democracy record of constitutional monarchies over republics any day.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

Given the events of the last 330 years since the Glorious Revolution, I’d back the democracy record of constitutional monarchies over republics any day.

Philip Tisdall
Philip Tisdall
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Would you accept emigration/immigration patterns as a way to measure your hypothesis?

Last edited 1 year ago by Philip Tisdall
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Tisdall

That’s merely one metric, with positive and negative aspects, and I don’t really see what point you’re trying to make anyway.

Nicola Bourne
Nicola Bourne
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Tisdall

Why would that be a relevant variable? Although some may exist, I’ve never heard anyone say they left Britain because they disliked living in a constitutional monarchy.

Josh Allan
Josh Allan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nicola Bourne

Hilary Mantel claimed she was moving to Ireland because she would ‘sleep easier in a republic’.
And then she died.
Other than that, can’t think of anyone. Although another writer (Anthony Burgess) had the opposite trajectory, claiming he despised republics – but then left Britain to live in Italy.
I suppose the Pope is a kind of king, however.

Josh Allan
Josh Allan
1 year ago
Reply to  Nicola Bourne

Hilary Mantel claimed she was moving to Ireland because she would ‘sleep easier in a republic’.
And then she died.
Other than that, can’t think of anyone. Although another writer (Anthony Burgess) had the opposite trajectory, claiming he despised republics – but then left Britain to live in Italy.
I suppose the Pope is a kind of king, however.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Tisdall

That’s merely one metric, with positive and negative aspects, and I don’t really see what point you’re trying to make anyway.

Nicola Bourne
Nicola Bourne
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Tisdall

Why would that be a relevant variable? Although some may exist, I’ve never heard anyone say they left Britain because they disliked living in a constitutional monarchy.

T Bone
T Bone
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

I guess that settles it! Welp, everybody go home.

Philip Tisdall
Philip Tisdall
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Would you accept emigration/immigration patterns as a way to measure your hypothesis?

Last edited 1 year ago by Philip Tisdall
T Bone
T Bone
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

I guess that settles it! Welp, everybody go home.

Android Tross
Android Tross
1 year ago

Maybe it’s the Yankee in me, but somehow I doubt the democracy record of constitutional monarchies would be all that great if they had never had to compete with the various republics that also sprang up over the years. Thinking of the Dutch, specifically, in addition to my native land. As I understand, they were pretty instrumental in the Glorious Revolution.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Android Tross

William the Silent and Oliver Cromwell set the bar, the ‘others’ followed.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

I’ve got a Dutch history somewhere called The Embarrassment of Riches. I think it’s probably by one of those ghastly linen-suit my-year-in-Provence lefties, but even so may actually be worth reading.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Thanks. It was written by that High Priest of Woke one Simon Schama late of Essex, now of New York.

In fact it is a very good synopsis, as one might expect as this is SS’s core subject.
Quite a remarkable story of how a little soggy, mud caked swamp in the NW corner of Europe dominated much of the 17th century both in terms of sheer power and also astonishingly in artistic achievement.

If you haven’t been, drop it on Delft next time you are nearby, William the Silent’s*rooms are perfectly preserved and the staircase he was ultimately assassinated on still bears the pistol shot holes!

(* One of the first high profile assassinations with a firearm!)

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Thanks. It was written by that High Priest of Woke one Simon Schama late of Essex, now of New York.

In fact it is a very good synopsis, as one might expect as this is SS’s core subject.
Quite a remarkable story of how a little soggy, mud caked swamp in the NW corner of Europe dominated much of the 17th century both in terms of sheer power and also astonishingly in artistic achievement.

If you haven’t been, drop it on Delft next time you are nearby, William the Silent’s*rooms are perfectly preserved and the staircase he was ultimately assassinated on still bears the pistol shot holes!

(* One of the first high profile assassinations with a firearm!)

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

I’ve got a Dutch history somewhere called The Embarrassment of Riches. I think it’s probably by one of those ghastly linen-suit my-year-in-Provence lefties, but even so may actually be worth reading.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Android Tross

“would” and “if” don’t really survive contact with “was” and “did”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Android Tross

William the Silent and Oliver Cromwell set the bar, the ‘others’ followed.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago
Reply to  Android Tross

“would” and “if” don’t really survive contact with “was” and “did”.

simon lamb
simon lamb
1 year ago

Exactly- see how that supposed paragon of designer democracy the USA is doing even after all this time, now finding itself undermined by extremism, with societal polarization dominating its politics. Devotion to the flag was meant to be the unifying force. But the flag now means very different things to different people. The Founding Fathers were not as all seeing all knowing as was thought, and the foundations of the US are being shaken. Not so here in Britain, where whatever the divisions, the monarchy remains our constitutional anchor. Which is why I think British republicans are deluded if they think they can invent a constitution that will withstand the machinations of devious populist charlatans forever. Sheer arrogance. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – and it ain’t!

T Bone
T Bone
1 year ago
Reply to  simon lamb

This is as you Brits say…rubbish. “Extremism” is an intentionally vague word that says nothing, just like the term “Populism.” Who was it that got the UK out of the EU? Oh yes, it was the “Populists” taking their autonomy back from the “Globalists.”

The US is intentionally designed to be polarized. The problem is not “polarization” but an overabundance of laws that can be selectively enforced by executive agencies because the real government is not the actual government but the Administrative State.

I will say that the Crown does a good job of tethering tradition but that’s partly because UK has a fraction of the immigration that the US has. Let see what happens when your Labour Party decides it wants to return to the EU and take a more international approach.

T Bone
T Bone
1 year ago
Reply to  simon lamb

This is as you Brits say…rubbish. “Extremism” is an intentionally vague word that says nothing, just like the term “Populism.” Who was it that got the UK out of the EU? Oh yes, it was the “Populists” taking their autonomy back from the “Globalists.”

The US is intentionally designed to be polarized. The problem is not “polarization” but an overabundance of laws that can be selectively enforced by executive agencies because the real government is not the actual government but the Administrative State.

I will say that the Crown does a good job of tethering tradition but that’s partly because UK has a fraction of the immigration that the US has. Let see what happens when your Labour Party decides it wants to return to the EU and take a more international approach.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

Given the events of the last 330 years since the Glorious Revolution, I’d back the democracy record of constitutional monarchies over republics any day.

Android Tross
Android Tross
1 year ago

Maybe it’s the Yankee in me, but somehow I doubt the democracy record of constitutional monarchies would be all that great if they had never had to compete with the various republics that also sprang up over the years. Thinking of the Dutch, specifically, in addition to my native land. As I understand, they were pretty instrumental in the Glorious Revolution.

simon lamb
simon lamb
1 year ago

Exactly- see how that supposed paragon of designer democracy the USA is doing even after all this time, now finding itself undermined by extremism, with societal polarization dominating its politics. Devotion to the flag was meant to be the unifying force. But the flag now means very different things to different people. The Founding Fathers were not as all seeing all knowing as was thought, and the foundations of the US are being shaken. Not so here in Britain, where whatever the divisions, the monarchy remains our constitutional anchor. Which is why I think British republicans are deluded if they think they can invent a constitution that will withstand the machinations of devious populist charlatans forever. Sheer arrogance. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – and it ain’t!

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago

Given the events of the last hundred years, I’d back the democracy record of constitutional monarchies over republics any day.

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago

Why doesn’t King Charles like me?

Newsflash, Terry – it’s not just King Charles. ;ÂŹD

Pat Rowles
Pat Rowles
1 year ago

Why doesn’t King Charles like me?

Newsflash, Terry – it’s not just King Charles. ;ÂŹD

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago

Well after this article and the one Eagleton recently about Ireland, to be honest I think I’m on the same page as Charles.
Not sure about the monarch having any God-like qualities and having to (appear to) love all their little lambs the same. What I think they do is hold a mirror up to us by being a reflection of British society at a certain point in time.
It’s fashionable to focus solely on skin colour and privilege – but the wider picture is more instructive.
People still get unbelievably wound up about Charles & Camilla’s long and winding road to matrimony – but really they are simply a product of the changes of their own generation. At first prevented from being together due to an overhang of conservative values that were on the way out and then being able to make the most of the freedoms of a new, more liberal age. They won’t be the only Boomers to have suffered that fate. For their part, William and Harry display the typical tendencies and quandaries of millennials – which I at least can understand and relate to.
And, if we are all sick of hearing about their squabbles and sordid internal family rows…then what else is that other than a perfect reflection of British society itself, arguing with itself about the same tired old issues ad nauseum while the world steps over you like roadkill? What better reflection is there of the UK’s current, somewhat fraught relationship with the US than the nose-wrinkling mutual disgust between Meghan “Walmart Wallis” Markle and the British public?
The monarchy has its own, non-political version of “we, the people”. And there isn’t anything “divine” about it. But it is fascinating. Who doesn’t secretly love their own reflection?

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Meghan “Walmart Wallis” Markle
Please accept my compliments and an uptick for making me laugh on my lunch break.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Meghan “Walmart Wallis” Markle
Please accept my compliments and an uptick for making me laugh on my lunch break.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago

Well after this article and the one Eagleton recently about Ireland, to be honest I think I’m on the same page as Charles.
Not sure about the monarch having any God-like qualities and having to (appear to) love all their little lambs the same. What I think they do is hold a mirror up to us by being a reflection of British society at a certain point in time.
It’s fashionable to focus solely on skin colour and privilege – but the wider picture is more instructive.
People still get unbelievably wound up about Charles & Camilla’s long and winding road to matrimony – but really they are simply a product of the changes of their own generation. At first prevented from being together due to an overhang of conservative values that were on the way out and then being able to make the most of the freedoms of a new, more liberal age. They won’t be the only Boomers to have suffered that fate. For their part, William and Harry display the typical tendencies and quandaries of millennials – which I at least can understand and relate to.
And, if we are all sick of hearing about their squabbles and sordid internal family rows…then what else is that other than a perfect reflection of British society itself, arguing with itself about the same tired old issues ad nauseum while the world steps over you like roadkill? What better reflection is there of the UK’s current, somewhat fraught relationship with the US than the nose-wrinkling mutual disgust between Meghan “Walmart Wallis” Markle and the British public?
The monarchy has its own, non-political version of “we, the people”. And there isn’t anything “divine” about it. But it is fascinating. Who doesn’t secretly love their own reflection?

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

“Why doesn’t King Charles like me?”. Maybe it’s just you are not very nice and even he would realise you are not as smart as you like to think you are.

Isabel Ward
Isabel Ward
1 year ago

“Why doesn’t King Charles like me?”. Maybe it’s just you are not very nice and even he would realise you are not as smart as you like to think you are.

Pil Grim
Pil Grim
1 year ago

Might as well have titled this “I should be King.” Same old resentment from worn out Left has-beens. The central hypocrisy in all of this is always the same -they despise hierarchy whilst indulging their own version of it.

Pil Grim
Pil Grim
1 year ago

Might as well have titled this “I should be King.” Same old resentment from worn out Left has-beens. The central hypocrisy in all of this is always the same -they despise hierarchy whilst indulging their own version of it.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

“Why doesn’t King Charles like me?”
You’re a communist, so you’re a fascist, and decent people don’t like fascists.

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Why can’t they just not like communists?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

Because of Leibniz’s Law of the Indiscernability of Identity.
Having said which, I do take your point.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

Because of Leibniz’s Law of the Indiscernability of Identity.
Having said which, I do take your point.

Last edited 1 year ago by Richard Craven
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

Why can’t they just not like communists?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago

“Why doesn’t King Charles like me?”
You’re a communist, so you’re a fascist, and decent people don’t like fascists.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

No, no, no, don’t look at him. Look at ME.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago

No, no, no, don’t look at him. Look at ME.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
1 year ago

Did you think to ask the man himself? Might be an idea next time you hear some students spreading gossip and then base your entire opinion of the country’s constitution upon their word.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
1 year ago

Did you think to ask the man himself? Might be an idea next time you hear some students spreading gossip and then base your entire opinion of the country’s constitution upon their word.

Last edited 1 year ago by Milton Gibbon
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Only a Marxist like Eagleton could so thoroughly mix up theory and practice.
In theory, I’m a subject of the King and should be paying attention to what he says: his authority, thoughts and actions should be constraining mine.
In practice, I pay no attention to what he thinks or says – he hasn’t done anything to earn my respect or subservience.
In practice, I suggest that Charles is more constrained by what we think of him than the other way round. Get too far adrift of public opinion and it’s – eventually – game over.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

No, you are not a subject, you are a citizen.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

A polis has citizens. A kingdom has subjects.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

A polis has citizens. A kingdom has subjects.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

No, you are not a subject, you are a citizen.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Only a Marxist like Eagleton could so thoroughly mix up theory and practice.
In theory, I’m a subject of the King and should be paying attention to what he says: his authority, thoughts and actions should be constraining mine.
In practice, I pay no attention to what he thinks or says – he hasn’t done anything to earn my respect or subservience.
In practice, I suggest that Charles is more constrained by what we think of him than the other way round. Get too far adrift of public opinion and it’s – eventually – game over.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

I’m reminded of Backadder’s comment to Pitt the Younger when he lamented that nice girls don’t like him: “Oh, shut up, you nauseating adolescent.”

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Has Blackadder really reached the US? Astonishing!

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

I know you’re being facetious, Charles, but we were hooked in the 80s with the very first, expensive version featuring Brian Blessed (and Peter Cook as Richard III) and have revered every episode that followed. Before that, we indulged in “Fawlty Towers'” sweeping wildebeasts and hanging gardens of Babylon, Sybil’s flirtatious vats of wine, Basil’s attempt to sober up a smitten chef – too many to praise. In fact, Husband and I bought a full script collection and, from time to time, get tipsy and pretend to be Basil and Sybil. My Sybil got me the lead in a local performance of “Run For Your Wife”. Truth, though, my co-star said “you’re not going to play it like that, are you?” So I toned it down to Patricia Hodges.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Yes I’m sorry, I was being a little facetious!

However I imagined such humour might have rather limited appeal in the US.

I had that forgotten ‘you’ are really on an extended vacation there as I recall, pitching up originally in 1634 if my fading memory is correct?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Yes I’m sorry, I was being a little facetious!

However I imagined such humour might have rather limited appeal in the US.

I had that forgotten ‘you’ are really on an extended vacation there as I recall, pitching up originally in 1634 if my fading memory is correct?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

I know you’re being facetious, Charles, but we were hooked in the 80s with the very first, expensive version featuring Brian Blessed (and Peter Cook as Richard III) and have revered every episode that followed. Before that, we indulged in “Fawlty Towers'” sweeping wildebeasts and hanging gardens of Babylon, Sybil’s flirtatious vats of wine, Basil’s attempt to sober up a smitten chef – too many to praise. In fact, Husband and I bought a full script collection and, from time to time, get tipsy and pretend to be Basil and Sybil. My Sybil got me the lead in a local performance of “Run For Your Wife”. Truth, though, my co-star said “you’re not going to play it like that, are you?” So I toned it down to Patricia Hodges.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

Has Blackadder really reached the US? Astonishing!

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago

I’m reminded of Backadder’s comment to Pitt the Younger when he lamented that nice girls don’t like him: “Oh, shut up, you nauseating adolescent.”

Josh Allan
Josh Allan
1 year ago

This is probably the first diagnosis of monarchy by a republican that I broadly agree with, although in my view these are all arguments for the monarchy.
‘To be accepted by an authority inconceivably greater than yourself is for your identity to be grounded and confirmed.’
Is that a bad thing? In lieu of gods and kings, the West is resorting to the worst kind of identitarian politics imaginable. Not unlike Eagleton, my family is half-Irish, so we’ve always had the option of resorting to an identity based on hatred, envy and spite (I’m referring specifically to ‘Irish’ diaspora, not the lovely people of ROI) – but, instead, I will always opt for the humbling, mysterious sense of identity conferred by being a British ‘subject’.
‘Democracies have to make things up as they go along, more like experimental theatre than Shakespearian drama.’
Another point for monarchy.
‘Coronations are solemn charades in which we agree to suspend our disbelief in myth and divine order in order to assuage our fear that, as democrats, we may be standing on nothing more solid than ourselves.’
Again, hardly selling the republican dream.
‘As with the currency, it’s our faith in something intrinsically valueless that makes it work. We need an Other, and the Windsors are on hand to provide it.’
So, at the end of the day, this is a diagnosis of the illogical, irrational undercurrents of royalism, which nonetheless fails to address the fact that our love for the king comes from deep within the human psyche, an inevitable condition of the soul that in any other circumstance would be channeled into something far more invidious, hubristic and, ultimately, unsustainable.
Edit: Just a counter-point after reading the other comments, and perhaps because I’m in a charitable mood, but I enjoyed the article, and have always had a soft spot for Eagleton’s literary analysis.

Last edited 1 year ago by Josh Allan
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Allan

My monarchism has a rational basis in conservatism. I don’t see what purpose is served by swapping out of a political settlement which has served us on the whole excellently in the 330 years since the Glorious Revolution.

Josh Allan
Josh Allan
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

The ‘spiritual’ dimension to monarchism – which probably forms the core of most people’s attachment to it – isn’t rational, but the political dimension certainly is, as you say. And that’s leaving aside the immense cultural prestige the monarchy gives us on the world stage, probably the most important factor, and yet one which no one ever talks about.

Last edited 1 year ago by Josh Allan
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Allan

Quite right, and thanks for your insightful elaboration on my point.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Allan

Quite right, and thanks for your insightful elaboration on my point.

Josh Allan
Josh Allan
1 year ago
Reply to  Richard Craven

The ‘spiritual’ dimension to monarchism – which probably forms the core of most people’s attachment to it – isn’t rational, but the political dimension certainly is, as you say. And that’s leaving aside the immense cultural prestige the monarchy gives us on the world stage, probably the most important factor, and yet one which no one ever talks about.

Last edited 1 year ago by Josh Allan
Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Allan

My monarchism has a rational basis in conservatism. I don’t see what purpose is served by swapping out of a political settlement which has served us on the whole excellently in the 330 years since the Glorious Revolution.

Josh Allan
Josh Allan
1 year ago

This is probably the first diagnosis of monarchy by a republican that I broadly agree with, although in my view these are all arguments for the monarchy.
‘To be accepted by an authority inconceivably greater than yourself is for your identity to be grounded and confirmed.’
Is that a bad thing? In lieu of gods and kings, the West is resorting to the worst kind of identitarian politics imaginable. Not unlike Eagleton, my family is half-Irish, so we’ve always had the option of resorting to an identity based on hatred, envy and spite (I’m referring specifically to ‘Irish’ diaspora, not the lovely people of ROI) – but, instead, I will always opt for the humbling, mysterious sense of identity conferred by being a British ‘subject’.
‘Democracies have to make things up as they go along, more like experimental theatre than Shakespearian drama.’
Another point for monarchy.
‘Coronations are solemn charades in which we agree to suspend our disbelief in myth and divine order in order to assuage our fear that, as democrats, we may be standing on nothing more solid than ourselves.’
Again, hardly selling the republican dream.
‘As with the currency, it’s our faith in something intrinsically valueless that makes it work. We need an Other, and the Windsors are on hand to provide it.’
So, at the end of the day, this is a diagnosis of the illogical, irrational undercurrents of royalism, which nonetheless fails to address the fact that our love for the king comes from deep within the human psyche, an inevitable condition of the soul that in any other circumstance would be channeled into something far more invidious, hubristic and, ultimately, unsustainable.
Edit: Just a counter-point after reading the other comments, and perhaps because I’m in a charitable mood, but I enjoyed the article, and have always had a soft spot for Eagleton’s literary analysis.

Last edited 1 year ago by Josh Allan
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

So, no Knighthood for Mr Eagleton then, unlike some other ‘woke’ geniuses such as Philip Pullman, Diarmaid MacCullock or Simon Jenkins.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

No one named ” Terry” can possibly be of any consequence or interest, let alone importance or significance.

Philip Burrell
Philip Burrell
1 year ago

If he was Terence that would be fine. Shortening one’s name is so dĂ©classĂ©

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Burrell

Like Nicky?

Philip Burrell
Philip Burrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Exactly

Philip Burrell
Philip Burrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Coralie Palmer

Exactly

Coralie Palmer
Coralie Palmer
1 year ago
Reply to  Philip Burrell

Like Nicky?

net mag
net mag
1 year ago

I protest ! Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Terry-Thomas all give lie to that statement.
All three, of course, being far more interesting and consequential than Terry Eagleton.

Philip Burrell
Philip Burrell
1 year ago

If he was Terence that would be fine. Shortening one’s name is so dĂ©classĂ©

net mag
net mag
1 year ago

I protest ! Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones and Terry-Thomas all give lie to that statement.
All three, of course, being far more interesting and consequential than Terry Eagleton.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

Eagleton ?
Is he that Marxist buffoon ?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

No one named ” Terry” can possibly be of any consequence or interest, let alone importance or significance.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

Eagleton ?
Is he that Marxist buffoon ?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago

So, no Knighthood for Mr Eagleton then, unlike some other ‘woke’ geniuses such as Philip Pullman, Diarmaid MacCullock or Simon Jenkins.

Ben P
Ben P
1 year ago

I still don’t know what you did or said or wrote to provoke Charles to describe you in the way he did. Are you a Trot? Are you a virulent anti-monarchist who wrote horrible things about him? What did you do to upset him?

Ben P
Ben P
1 year ago

I still don’t know what you did or said or wrote to provoke Charles to describe you in the way he did. Are you a Trot? Are you a virulent anti-monarchist who wrote horrible things about him? What did you do to upset him?

Phil Richardson
Phil Richardson
1 year ago

I find Terry Eagleton *hugely* entertaining in his role as UnHerd’s resident wind up merchant. It works every time as a quick glance BTL almost always confirms.

Jacqueline Walker
Jacqueline Walker
1 year ago

Agree. I just came back here to wonder if he was actually trying to write a comedic piece.

Jacqueline Walker
Jacqueline Walker
1 year ago

Agree. I just came back here to wonder if he was actually trying to write a comedic piece.

Phil Richardson
Phil Richardson
1 year ago

I find Terry Eagleton *hugely* entertaining in his role as UnHerd’s resident wind up merchant. It works every time as a quick glance BTL almost always confirms.

Sophy T
Sophy T
1 year ago

What a really unpleasant and spiteful article. I don’t blame the king for disliking this person.

Sophy T
Sophy T
1 year ago

What a really unpleasant and spiteful article. I don’t blame the king for disliking this person.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

“In the end, however, it doesn’t work all that well.”
On the contrary it works surprisingly well. Around the world, constitutional monarchies are, quite objectively, notable for their stability and prosperity. That unbreakable rock of supposed democratic example, the USofA, trembled, and may yet tremble, under the ego of one narcissistic, criminal moron. Long Live The King.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Were you referring to Charles or Biden ? You ingore the fact the Charles Is mega-woke and just loves the WEF, the WHO the UN just like Dementia Joe
Is there a difference between the two ?
Not that much.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Were you referring to Charles or Biden ? You ingore the fact the Charles Is mega-woke and just loves the WEF, the WHO the UN just like Dementia Joe
Is there a difference between the two ?
Not that much.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

“In the end, however, it doesn’t work all that well.”
On the contrary it works surprisingly well. Around the world, constitutional monarchies are, quite objectively, notable for their stability and prosperity. That unbreakable rock of supposed democratic example, the USofA, trembled, and may yet tremble, under the ego of one narcissistic, criminal moron. Long Live The King.

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago

Reads to me like Charles was right.

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
1 year ago

Reads to me like Charles was right.

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
1 year ago

Eagleton is one of our top satirists.. Of himself

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
1 year ago

Typically dim-witted article from him.
(Aside) ”in a real republican democracy”
Top satire, Eagleton

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
1 year ago

Typically dim-witted article from him.
(Aside) ”in a real republican democracy”
Top satire, Eagleton

Benedict Waterson
Benedict Waterson
1 year ago

Eagleton is one of our top satirists.. Of himself

Simric Yarrow
Simric Yarrow
1 year ago

Eloquent observation at the end given the current fifth column of trans women taking women’s rights away… “Kings were men in drag, draping the ugly phallus of their dominion beneath alluring feminine garments.” Exactly. Obvious when you look at portraits of Louis XIV or Charles II but I hadn’t quite spotted it before.

Simric Yarrow
Simric Yarrow
1 year ago

Eloquent observation at the end given the current fifth column of trans women taking women’s rights away… “Kings were men in drag, draping the ugly phallus of their dominion beneath alluring feminine garments.” Exactly. Obvious when you look at portraits of Louis XIV or Charles II but I hadn’t quite spotted it before.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

“Kings were men in drag, draping the ugly phallus of their dominion beneath alluring feminine garments.”
So what does that make Queens?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

“Kings were men in drag, draping the ugly phallus of their dominion beneath alluring feminine garments.”
So what does that make Queens?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

I find little to agree with Burger King Charles on, let alone his fatal ” moth to a flame” attraction to the evo sandaloid/LGBT/ racism” fascists, but in this case I do agree with his opinion of the author, and his cynical chippy whining.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

I find little to agree with Burger King Charles on, let alone his fatal ” moth to a flame” attraction to the evo sandaloid/LGBT/ racism” fascists, but in this case I do agree with his opinion of the author, and his cynical chippy whining.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

I once watched Mr Eagleton debate Roger Scruton, it was excruciatingly boring.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

I once watched Mr Eagleton debate Roger Scruton, it was excruciatingly boring.

Mark V
Mark V
1 year ago

A trotskyite can be treated as neutrally as a crocodile.

Mark V
Mark V
1 year ago

A trotskyite can be treated as neutrally as a crocodile.

P Stokes
P Stokes
1 year ago

It’s not just Charles, Terry


P Stokes
P Stokes
1 year ago

It’s not just Charles, Terry


Philip Gerrans
Philip Gerrans
1 year ago

TE has been passing his lame-ass opinions off as valuable insights for decades and as he gets older and more disinhibited/senile the level of complacent solipsism is off the charts. The time for him to stop publishing his “thoughts” was about 1992. Please stop him unherd

Philip Gerrans
Philip Gerrans
1 year ago

TE has been passing his lame-ass opinions off as valuable insights for decades and as he gets older and more disinhibited/senile the level of complacent solipsism is off the charts. The time for him to stop publishing his “thoughts” was about 1992. Please stop him unherd

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
1 year ago

‘Kings were men in drag , draping the ugly phallus of their dominion beneath alluring feminine garments’

Not Henry V111 . I love the way you feel you have to justify your coronation day hit job with your student’s tales that Prince Charles dissed you .

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
1 year ago

‘Kings were men in drag , draping the ugly phallus of their dominion beneath alluring feminine garments’

Not Henry V111 . I love the way you feel you have to justify your coronation day hit job with your student’s tales that Prince Charles dissed you .

Rachel Taylor
Rachel Taylor
1 year ago

A very good reason for preserving the monarchy is to protect us from the often disastrous ideas of people who want to change our system of government.

Rachel Taylor
Rachel Taylor
1 year ago

A very good reason for preserving the monarchy is to protect us from the often disastrous ideas of people who want to change our system of government.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Terry Eagleton crossword clue
” Female, ends in nt, but not aunt”

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Terry Eagleton crossword clue
” Female, ends in nt, but not aunt”

Alastair Macaulay
Alastair Macaulay
1 year ago

The crucial difference between Charles and his mother is that he has spent most of his life thinking it acceptable to voice his opinions. It would be no better and no worse if he proclaimed Terry Eagleton to be a valuable asset to intellectual life. Charles meant to be divisive, to state which people (architecture, social organisations, music, entertainment) were good or bad: a shabbily impersonal way for the future head of state to behave. It scarcely matters whether he stops sounding off now he is monarch: we’ve had all too many of his opinions over the decades.

One effect of any monarchy is to infantilise. The need for British people to think that a monarchy somehow makes British life superior or less fraught than French or German or American life is pathetic. While the late queen ran the shop, with all her splendidly impersonal devotion to duty, we could at least congratulate ourselves in that our régime worked beautifully (as long as you shit your ears to the foolish remarks of Charles, Margaret, and others). But now we have Charles, at a time when Brexit and Conservative economics and much else are ruining our nation. I hope we have a bloodless revolution during his lifetime, and that the monarchy will not be all that is consigned to the past.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago

Oh bless you: Brexit?

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago

Oh bless you: Brexit?

Alastair Macaulay
Alastair Macaulay
1 year ago

The crucial difference between Charles and his mother is that he has spent most of his life thinking it acceptable to voice his opinions. It would be no better and no worse if he proclaimed Terry Eagleton to be a valuable asset to intellectual life. Charles meant to be divisive, to state which people (architecture, social organisations, music, entertainment) were good or bad: a shabbily impersonal way for the future head of state to behave. It scarcely matters whether he stops sounding off now he is monarch: we’ve had all too many of his opinions over the decades.

One effect of any monarchy is to infantilise. The need for British people to think that a monarchy somehow makes British life superior or less fraught than French or German or American life is pathetic. While the late queen ran the shop, with all her splendidly impersonal devotion to duty, we could at least congratulate ourselves in that our régime worked beautifully (as long as you shit your ears to the foolish remarks of Charles, Margaret, and others). But now we have Charles, at a time when Brexit and Conservative economics and much else are ruining our nation. I hope we have a bloodless revolution during his lifetime, and that the monarchy will not be all that is consigned to the past.

William Jackson
William Jackson
1 year ago

‘It’s worth keeping this in mind as our democracy bows to an unelected head of state’. Democracy might bow, I will neither bow to the institution that is the monarchy or to Charles who by chance of birth claims omnipotence over others lives. In the 21st century a more Pythonesque institution (along with the impending coronation), is hard to imagine. They will call upon a mythological character to save the King, and through the voodoo of oils and other superstitious acts a new King will be acclaimed and all this in 2023 not 1625.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

In 2023 you say? At a time when we can no longer define ‘woman’? And a time in which people are claimed to have ethereal souls that can have a different gender than their fleshly bodies? I’ll take the voodoo oils, thanks very much.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

In 2023 you say? At a time when we can no longer define ‘woman’? And a time in which people are claimed to have ethereal souls that can have a different gender than their fleshly bodies? I’ll take the voodoo oils, thanks very much.

William Jackson
William Jackson
1 year ago

‘It’s worth keeping this in mind as our democracy bows to an unelected head of state’. Democracy might bow, I will neither bow to the institution that is the monarchy or to Charles who by chance of birth claims omnipotence over others lives. In the 21st century a more Pythonesque institution (along with the impending coronation), is hard to imagine. They will call upon a mythological character to save the King, and through the voodoo of oils and other superstitious acts a new King will be acclaimed and all this in 2023 not 1625.

LCarey Rowland
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago

If you happen to meet King Charles, please do tell him that it may be to his advantage, and to the advantage of all Brits everywhere where the sun rises and sets. . . were he to make amends with Harry’s wife, Meghan.
Also, advise King Charles to proceed forthrightly with his project at Poundbury and any similar forward-facing projects whereby Brits can live peacefully and productively while being exemplary citizens of the world.
Cheerio! God save the King!

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  LCarey Rowland

Downvote for your first paragraph.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago
Reply to  LCarey Rowland

This is irony, isn’t it? I haven’t missed the point; you weren’t being serious?

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  LCarey Rowland

Downvote for your first paragraph.

Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago
Reply to  LCarey Rowland

This is irony, isn’t it? I haven’t missed the point; you weren’t being serious?

LCarey Rowland
LCarey Rowland
1 year ago

If you happen to meet King Charles, please do tell him that it may be to his advantage, and to the advantage of all Brits everywhere where the sun rises and sets. . . were he to make amends with Harry’s wife, Meghan.
Also, advise King Charles to proceed forthrightly with his project at Poundbury and any similar forward-facing projects whereby Brits can live peacefully and productively while being exemplary citizens of the world.
Cheerio! God save the King!