Several readers of Mere Comments have taken strong exception to my recent negative characterization of Charles, Prince of Wales, occasioned by his pronouncements upon the subject of "climate change." They are of course entitled to their opinions, and I’ve been much stimulated by their lively responses. I wonder, though, how they will feel about his equally expert pronouncements on the subject of Islam, and American "intolerance" of it. We are, it is promised, going to be hearing a lot from the Prince about this, and Lord knows what else, over the next week or so. Perhaps he will inform us about what we should do on the question of embryonic stem-cell research too, while he’s at it. And I’ll bet he’s got some great ideas for Social Security reform. And the estate tax! He’s a natural for that one! I for one am willing to put up with it all, if only for the sake of the Mark Steyn columns that I know will come of it. But valiant defenders of the Prince may want to…um…sheathe their swords for a while.
P.S. After writing this, I discovered this, by kindred spirit Jed Babbin. He too is looking for the Steyn column. Mark, are you hearing this? Your public clamors for you….
P.P.S. I hope the Prince will be up to speed on things like this, and this. But I’m sure he knows ALL about that stuff….
The piece on Prince Charles and Islam offers no support for the claim he plans to plead the cause of Islam here. As it stands it’s just an assertion. It might be true, but the writer gives no reason whatever, not even unnamed “sources,” to think it’s true.
All that appears from the piece is that before 9/11 Charles said some nice things about Islam, and in November 2001 in a private meeting he repeated the eternal British complaint about America, that we’re too confrontational and don’t know anything about foreign countries. Also, he believes in international and interreligious understanding, and is going to attend a seminar about Georgetown, apparently on the topic of faith-based initiatives or some such. That seems to be about it. What does any of that have to do with telling Bush or anybody else what to do? (See this blogger’s comments.)
I wonder what the prince thinks about paying reparations to English Catholics.
“I wonder, though, how they will feel about his equally expert pronouncements on the subject of Islam, and American ‘intolerance’ of it.”
I think about it the same thing I thought about his opinions on climate change: “Mt. Athos, Charles. Mt. Athos.”
This is getting downright silly. In Mr McClay’s first post on the subject of Prince Charles he produces one of the worst ad hominems its been my misfortune to read. Namely, he initially notes the Prince’s comments on climate change, then calls him an ‘insufferable playboy’, proceeds to show that those views are obviously invalid as a result of Charles’s infedelity, moves to some psychological speculation as to why Charles might want to speak on such topics and finishes it all off with the assertion, apparenly based on Mr McClay’s insider knowledge of the state of the Prince’s soul, that he has never repented for the wrongs he has done.
Now Mr McClay links to a newspaper report which offers not the slightest evidence for its claims and on its basis assures us that the Prince of Wales is going to be lecturing America about Islam and everything else over the next few weeks.
Mr McClay, please give it a rest. One post can be a mistake, two is verging on the malicious.
I completely agree with Albertus M. I have no great desire to defend the Prince – I’ve never met the man. But Mr. McClay is just throwing mud at a minor public figure of no real importance, for no discernible reason. This is what we call “being a jerk”. Or other words even less nice.
I have commented further on my blog http://albertusminimus.typepad.com/albertus_minimus/2005/10/more_stone_thro.html.
I’m far from the first one to observe this, but it seems to be a Touchstone pattern to post a follow-up comment to an earlier comment that has provoked more criticism or disagreement than usual. Whatever the subject, the tone of the follow-up is dismissive, and the response amounts to “Some people disagreed with what we said yesterday; clearly, they’re entirely wrong.” Once in a great while, it would be refreshing to see a link to someone who expresses a contrary point of view – offered without any mocking or dissection, simply as part of the conversation around an issue.
The typical pattern of response comes across as defensive and prickly, driven by a need to have the last word in every conversation. We already know that the editors obviously have the last word on what gets published, here and in the magazine; there are ways to acknowledge disagreement and criticism that would better promote your message.
Back to the original post on Prince Charles: since when is concern about the environment a silly hobby or a fringe cause – and what does his marital history have to do with his opinions on other subjects? If he were preaching about the sanctity of marriage, one could criticize him for hypocrisy. (Side note: I’m not a huge follower of the Royals, but I did watch the wedding of Charles and Camilla, and I was struck by its muted, penitential tone, in keeping with a second marriage. Most of our churches do acknowledge the reality of broken marriages; declaring through annulment that they were never in fact marriages is one attempt to avoid doing that, but it strikes me as dishonest in many cases.)
Re: divorced public figures, I do wonder why conservatives don’t look amiss at conservative politicians and other public figures who publicly promote conservative views on marriage (aka family values) but have a personal history of divorce, sometimes multiple divorces. I just don’t see it mentioned, and I find that curious. I’ve even known conservative religious folk to say that private failings of public figures are irrelevant, provided that they are publicly supporting the proper causes.
Prince Charles talking about the virtues of Islam is yet another manifestation of that condition known to psychiatry as “Stockholm Syndrome.”
It’s funny that Mr. McClay should mention embryonic stem cell research. Steve Kroft’s piece on the prince on 60 Minutes yesterday mentioned in passing that Charles “has been critical of stem cell research.” (I assume that this means the embryonic kind, since there seems little reason to object to the research done with adult stem cells. Lazy and/or dishonest reporters frequently leave out “embryonic.”) If this report is accurate, then my previously low opinion of the prince would go strikingly up.
Sounds like Bill Clinton’s true British kindred spirit is the Prince rather than Tony Blair.
Juli wrote:
Re: divorced public figures, I do wonder why conservatives don’t look amiss at conservative politicians and other public figures who publicly promote conservative views on marriage (aka family values) but have a personal history of divorce, sometimes multiple divorces. I just don’t see it mentioned, and I find that curious. I’ve even known conservative religious folk to say that private failings of public figures are irrelevant, provided that they are publicly supporting the proper causes.
Very true. Where is the criticism of the late Ronald Reagan, Robert Dole, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Schlessinger (who was also an adulteress and posed for pornographic pictures)?
Well, if memory serves Dr. Laura did repent publicly of her past. But did the others?