"Dear Granny, I do hope you are well and having a lovely time ... We played a match yesterday against Cothill, in which I made one. The under XI lost though, but the first XI won! I got a letter from Mummy and Papa last week, they said it was very hot ... With lots and lots of love from your loving grandson, Charles."
Letter to the Queen Mother, July 12 1959
"It's such hell here especially at night. I don't get any sleep practically at all nowadays ... The people in my dormitory are foul. Goodness they are horrid, I don't know how anyone could be so foul. They throw slippers all night long or hit me with pillows or rush across the room and hit me as hard as they can, then beetle back again as fast as they can, waking up everyone else in the dormitory at the same time. I still wish I could come home. It's such a hole this place!"
From Gordonstoun, circa 1964
"Several species have been wiped out because no one has woken up in time to the danger ... The problem at the moment seems to be if everyone waits for scientific research into salmon netting etc, the stocks will be severely depleted before any regulations are imposed ... When you come up here next weekend I shall attack you on the subject again!"
Writing to Prime Minister Harold Wilson, 1969
"It seems to me that the problems we suffer in society as a result of violence, mugging and general anti-social behaviour on the part of younger people, are partly due to a lack of outlets into which pent-up energy and frustration and a desire for adventure can be properly channelled."
Speech to the House of Lords in 1975 about the problems facing young people
"I wish I could come roaring across the Atlantic to make you feel less lonely . .. it would be glorious to have a chance of being alone with you for a moment."
Letter written to a girlfriend in Canada, in 1976, while he was serving on HMS Bronington
"I am beginning to get fed up with the amount of nonsensical rubbish I take all day and every day. If one more NZ [New Zealand] child asks me what it's like to be a prince, I shall go demented ... Will you visit me when they strap me in a white apron and deposit me in some institution?"
Writing to friends in 1981 during a tour of New Zealand
"One of the least attractive traits of various professional bodies and institutions is the deeply ingrained suspicion and outright hostility which they can exhibit towards anything unorthodox ... Perhaps we just have to accept it is God's will that the unorthodox individual is doomed to years of frustration, ridicule and failure in order to act out his role in the scheme of things, until his day arrives and mankind is ready to receive his message."
Speech about complementary medicine, given to the British Medical Association in 1982
"The crowds which have turned out to see her - and assault her with flowers - have been enormous by Australian standards. Officials say they are the biggest since my mama came in 1954 ... I worry so much about what I have landed her in at such an impressionable age - the intensity of interest must be terrifying for her."
Writing to a relative in 1983 about Diana, on their royal tour of Australia and New Zealand
"A large number of us have developed a feeling that architects tend to design houses for the approval of fellow architects and critics, not for the tenants ... what is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend."
Speech given at the 150th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1984, about the proposed extension to the National Gallery
"You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe: when it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble"
Speech given at the Corporation of London planning and communication committee's annual dinner in 1987
"[The English] language has ... served as the medium for some of the greatest literature in the world ... Yet a great many people today look in dismay at what is happening to that language ... They wonder what it is about our country and our society ... that we have arrived at such a dismal wasteland of banality, cliche and casual obscenity."
Speech at the presentation of the Thomas Cranmer Schools Prize, London, 1989
"Appalling old waxworks."
Describing the Chinese officials in his private diary during the handover of Hong Kong in 1997
"The idea that the different parts of the natural world are connected through an intricate system of checks and balances which we disturb at our peril is all too easily dismissed ... Only by rediscovering the essential unity and order of the living and spiritual world - as in the case of organic agriculture or integrated medicine or in the way we build - and by bridging the destructive chasm between cynical secularism and the timelessness of traditional religion, will we avoid the disintegration of our overall environment."
From Prince Charles's Reith lecture, 2000
"I just wanted to thank you for all your kindness last week in showing me something of your splendid apartments and the wonderful paintings which you have managed to prise out of various collections! It was a delight to see how much care you have taken to restore and respect the very special nature of that part of the Palace of Westminster. I hope you will forgive me if I also take this opportunity to follow up part of [our] discussion ... It does seem to me that, over the last few years, we in this country have been sliding inexorably down the slope of ever-increasing, petty-minded litigiousness ... I am also struck by the degree to which our lives are becoming ruled by a truly absurd degree of politically correct interference..."
Letter to Lord Irvine, then the Lord Chancellor, 2001
"The more I have thought about this group of issues, the more convinced I am that we are heading for increasing difficulty ... the proliferation of rules and rights makes people over-cautious, stifles initiative and acts as a brake on creative thinking ..."
Second letter to the Lord Chancellor, 2002
"It's good to hear your refreshing common sense about the dreaded Turner prize. It has contaminated the art establishment for so long."
Letter to Kim Howells, then a junior minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who described the Turner prize as "conceptual bullshit" in 2002
[I agree with a farmer in Cumbria who told me] "if we, as a group, were black or gay, we would not be victimised or picked upon".
Part of a leaked letter sent to Tony Blair in 2002, in which the prince blamed the government for "destroying the countryside"
"I just wanted you to know how profoundly moved I was ... by your extraordinarily stirring, civilised and humane words ... you totally understood the nature of Iraq and her people and the need, above all, for respect if the peace is to be won. I hope you will forgive me for writing in this way, but it made me so proud to read what you said. It was in the highest traditions of military leadership and I simply had to express my admiration."
Writing to Colonel Tim Collins in 2003, after the British commander gave an inspiring speech to his troops on the eve of the Iraq war
"What is wrong with everyone nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centred system which admits no failure. People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history ... What on earth am I to tell Elaine? She is so PC it frightens me rigid."
Memo to a staff member at Clarence House in repsonse to a request from Elaine Day, a former personal assistant, to train as a private secretary, in 2003
"She was always there for me because above all she understood what I was about ... She confessed she had never given the subject of the position I happen to occupy any thought until I came into her life. But her thought then was not 'how wonderful to be royal' but 'that poor young man, he has the most difficult task in England' ... She [told me that if] during her remaining time here she could play a part in supporting me in realising my vision of a better world, it would be her greatest happiness. Her advice would come thick and fast: 'Dear, dear Prince, don't give that riffraff an inch of ground, not a hair's breadth, stand firm on the holy ground of the heart. The only way to deal with the evil forces of their world is from a higher level, not to meet them on their own.' This was advice I concurred with wholeheartedly, and still do."
Eulogy given at poet Kathleen Raine's memorial service, 2003
"I can only say that for some reason I felt in my bones that if you abuse nature ... then she will probably abuse you in return."
From The Elements of Organic Gardening, 2007
"For too long we have been conducting a gigantic experiment designed to test nature, and the world, to destruction in order to obtain the empirical evidence that it is possible to do so ... The reason I keep sticking my 60-year-old head above an increasingly dangerous parapet is not because it is good for my health, but precisely because I believe fundamentally that unless we work with nature in a myriad of ways such as this we will fail to restore the equilibrium we need in order to survive on this planet."
The Sir Albert Howard Memorial Lecture, 2008, on genetically modified food
Comments
13 November 2008 1:39AM
As always, I am moved and inspired by Prince Charles' thoughts and ideals. His compassionate heart is revealed in these writings, as well as his keen intellect. He has shown a capacity for wisdom and far-sightedness for all of his life, and it only pains me that he has not been taken as seriously as he deserves.
Not only is it an unhappy thing for him personally that the majority of his fellow citizens and their governments have failed to appreciate and act upon his visionary and practical ideas and policies, but it is tragic for the nation and the world that Charles' intelligent observations have been pooh-poohed and sidelined.
In particular, HRH's sane approach to nature should have been taken to heart decades ago. Such fellow visionaries as Rachel Carson and Jacques Cousteau warned us half a century ago that we were destroying all that was good and beautiful in this world by selfish, greedy, ignorant behaviour. Prince Charles has tried his best to do the right thing for Great Britain. He has been proven correct in many things, and it is only others' pig-headedness and arrogance that prevents him being credited with knowing the right way to go about saving ourselves.
Humans have done so much damage. One might say we deserve our awful fate; but sadly, innocent wildlife has to suffer along with us.
Thank you, Prince Charles, for your noble efforts.
13 November 2008 5:06AM
What an irony it is (or could it be providential?) that we should have an hereditary heir to the throne, someone who just happened to be born into that position, who is so much wiser than our elected representatives . . . !
You would think that we (Homo sapiens!) would elect the very wisest members of our society to lead us, but we don't.
Why not?
Surely, there must be a lesson to be learned here somewhere . . . . ?!
13 November 2008 5:13AM
I think it is truly unfortunate for your country that this man is so often denigrated there, and in the pages of the Guardian.
It is probably true that he is the ONLY "royal" with brains--contrary to what is so often stated in the press--and that he is the one with the most generous heart.
That he does not have so much position and influence as so many other cruel and selfish aristocrats and "royals" do is a tragedy for Britain.
13 November 2008 5:33AM
I would be interested to know how these particular writings were chosen. Were they supplied to the Guardian, or did the editor choose them from a larger number?
I understand the Prince writes many letters, in a spirit of helpfulness no doubt, to public officials. I am looking forward to reading these.
13 November 2008 6:07AM
I agree 100% with digbydolben. The UK has become a country where only cheap celebrity is worshipped. When I go abroad, people still talk about Constable, Whistler, Shakespeare, Wilde, Shaw, Wodehouse, Eton, Harrow, Oxbridge, British humour. They cannot understand why we have sunk so low - why the British media is such a bitter one - just waiting to pounce. Pounce on those who cannot reply because of their "position". How many like the DailyMail & Mirror columnists have rubbished the Prince 's views on the environment, farming.etc., in the past? Now that is very "in" to talk about & be aware of such things, they have started singing a different tune.
I wish Prince Charles continues the good work - especially the very wonderful Prince's Trust - about which we seldom hear from the likes of the Daily Mail & Mirror - & continues to ignore the wretched British media.
Congratulations, your Royal Highness! There are millions of us who are so very proud of you.
13 November 2008 6:55AM
Prince Charles may not always be right, but he has a passion and concern about deeper issues that should be applauded rather than reviled by the media (as it often is). As digbydolben says, he is clearly the most thoughtful royal, and it is interesting to think what the situation would be if we had Prince Andrew in his position instead.
Prince Charles makes a valuable contribution to public life, even if he is there by an accident of birth, and his words should be listened to carefully rather than dismissed. He associates with people such as Jonathon Porritt, Patrick Holden of the Soil Association and the late Kathleen Raine - this is a set of much more interesting and appropriate advisers than most heirs to the throne would muster, and shows his seriousness of purpose.
13 November 2008 7:05AM
The heading and subheading of this article are tinged with a sort of spite. On the other hand, the letters are interesting vignettes into someone growing up and finding themselves. Stuck between duty to his position and the intense desire to help mankind, it can't be easy. I think he shares this quality with his sons.
13 November 2008 7:54AM
What a tosser!
13 November 2008 7:56AM
The headline and intro to this feature highlight a worrying direction for the Guardian. Adolescent sneering disguised as progressive outlook. You attempt to turn him into a caricature of a moaning fogey. Too many of your younger writers take this stance nowadays - there is no heart, no depth, just a points scoring childish worldview.
Like many in the English tradition, Charles has old fashioned views on modernism. Those views should be taken on board as part of a wider discussion of culture rather than dismissed as the rantings of a philistine. How sad that this obviously intelligent, caring individual is pilloried for his so-called flakey views. The Guardian should be championing this sort of outsider thinking, not taking the lazy stance of Daily Mail style pro-establishment mockery.
Time to get some adults to do your online sub-editing, perhaps?
13 November 2008 8:09AM
What, like you charley? No qualifications to speak of (apart from 2 A levels and a made up Desmond 2.2.) You certainly feel qualified to speak about subjects as diverse as architecture, environmental science and nanotechnology.
You think you'll be a smashing head of state then?
without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability
Because you put in decades of work to become 2nd in line to the throne?
As others have so eloquently said - tosser.
13 November 2008 8:41AM
One does wonder why the Prince, who is much more aware than ever he seems, does not engage with a Proxy Champion, to smite the dragons which blight the Future ..... for a brighter, more enlightened Lead Movement with Right Royal Patriarchical Motives.
Although that may equally just be a case of a Proxy Champion needing to be both bold and brash enough in a forthright impertinent ambiguity to float such a notion to the Monarchy via a Guardian report/retort.
QuITE why such a Bright Light is confined to Palace Duties rather than Royal Acts is perhaps a Question which shines unfavourably on the Fitness for Purpose of the Household Administration and IT Facility for Greater Advice.
13 November 2008 8:42AM
I wonder how old "Furious Orange" and "Superburger "are?
When I was doing my National Service, almost 60 years ago, we had an expression that was used to the "new boys", "Get some in". Referring to how long they had been in the service.
Prince Charles is 60 years of age. He may not be the "Brain of Britain", but has has some life experience.
Perhaps a bit of National Service might benefit "Furious Orange" and "Superburger". It could widen their outlook.
Just my Aussie two cents worth!
13 November 2008 8:47AM
If his concerns have been 'unchanging', perhaps it is not so much because these days he is a conservative old misery-guts but because in the past he was surprisingly progessive. To have spoken in 1975 on the need to understand the motivations of 'anti-social' young people - this is actually quite impressive.
I found the letter about Diana really very moving too.
I agree with some of the other posters. This has been childishly presented by the Guardian; the Prince is a humane and intelligent man.
13 November 2008 9:22AM
Perhaps, but his ill-conceived ideas on alt.medicince and nanotechnology suggest otherwise.
He sees fit to dismiss people as being unqualified, yet he is a man with no meaningful qualification other than being the 1st legitimate son of a german housewife.
@aussiepete --> On any given topic there are plenty of other 60 year old who are far more knowledgeable then charlie. And any number of 60 year olds with more 'life experience' than a man who has has every whim induldged his whole life.
I would suggest that if he was just plain old Chales Windsor there is not a single subject area on which he would be considered a leading expert, and no topic on which he would be considered a highly qualified critic.
13 November 2008 9:35AM
Prince Charles is one of those charcters who says all the right things, but then rarely lives up to them.
He might make his staff ride bikes, or fly on scheduled flights, but he isn't one for roughing it himself. Similarly, he's quick to condemn others for demanding too much from life and society, but still demands a retinue of staff (that even the Queen finds excessive) to cater for his every need. Elaine Day is criticised for being too ambitious, but Chazza stil whines to the Lord Chancellor that some undefined political correctness "stifles initiative and creative thinking".
I can't take this dope seriously at any level.
13 November 2008 9:49AM
It's the self pity I can't stand. What a CURIOUS personality trait. It is almost perverse. Perhaps when you have everything, including the ears of the most powerful and influential people in the world and yet you know that in essence you are being paid sycophantic lip service, a furious and self pitying impotence will emerge as a dominant personality trait... I watched last nights programme with a mixture of incredulity and sadness, at a man who has had to exist in such a system.... BUT, What a stylish man and I think posessed with a compassionate intuitive nature....... He does care, but the care is wrapped in a hard shell of narcissism, the result of an appalling upbringing...
13 November 2008 9:59AM
People are all too ready to ridicule others who see things differently and express their opinions, see some of the comments here, a kind of self congratulatory points scoring cynicism that does nothing but poison debate and constructive thought.
I've always appreciated prince Charles thoughtful and sensible contributiions to debate, even if i dont support the institution of monarchy, and its those that lob around cheap insults like "tosser" that are the problem in any kind of thoughtful, discourse (superberger and FuriousOrange) .
13 November 2008 10:05AM
After catching the end of his birthday program last night - i fear that i am more in agreement with this Prince then usual. He is the only sane member of the royal family, and should have been in politics! At least he has some wallop / clout, which can not be said of our current ministers!
He also seems to have the sticking power that many do not own - he will relentlessly untire of subjects that are truly necessary - can we clone him please?
13 November 2008 10:08AM
@Jontyscho
"Perhaps when you have everything, including the ears of the most powerful and influential people in the world."
I think you may be confusing the most powerful and influential people in the world with an African elephant.
13 November 2008 10:20AM
The man and his family have nothing to add to public life in this or any other country. Simply by virtue of him having so many views, there are a few here and there with which I could agree, but that is more by the law of averages than any consistent or considered thinking that he has done.
I am so glad you included that quote where he complains about people having ideas above their technical capabilities or natural ability. The inability to see the irony of this is revealing.
I would be totally opposed to the monarchy even if the members of it were exemplary, highly intelligent, honest and ethical people. The fact that they are none of these things simply makes the case against it even stronger.
13 November 2008 10:25AM
Come on, Graun, admit it - these are really Mike Read's letters, aren't they?
Charles' job is to shut up about politics and science and agricultural policy, whether he understands them or not. The fact that his understanding is so dismally poor is actually irrelevant. Since he doesn't appear to be able to carry out even that rather simple task it seems that his 'natural ability' for the job of head of state is sadly lacking.
13 November 2008 10:27AM
@bongold
Except, of course, his opinions regarding alternative medicine are delusional. Far more qualified people (Profs Ernst and Colquohoun for example) have pointed out the reasons why Charlie is wrong - but because of his position he continues to talk rubbish about things he knows next to nothing about (however much he thinks he knows!)
The *only* reason he is given time-of-day in the media is because of his mother. There is nothing distinctive or distinguishing about his intellect and there are dozens of people more qualified than he is to comment on his various pet topics.
13 November 2008 11:25AM
More or less wise words (on society, on the environment) for the most part, with the odd clanger sprinkled in.
So three cheers for Prince Chuck, overall.
13 November 2008 12:49PM
Superburger
The trouble with people like you is that you get off on throwing expressions like delusional into debates and really are rather interested in shutting people up or flexing your (self) supposed intellectual muscle.
Charles is someone in a prominent position who raises important topics thus bringing them to a wider audience. His thoughts on for instance GM crops and Monsanto are important at a time when politicians appear to be able to be bought off via lobbying.
Whether he is always right is another matter but instigating discussion on controversial subjects can only be positive.
13 November 2008 1:06PM
Give the guy a frickin' break. He doesn't claim to be more intelligent than anyone else. Like it or not, he has inherited a role. This has brought him pain and responsibility and he's just trying to do his best with his lot. He is probably the last person he would vote for to be King of England and would probably prefer to see out his days on an allotment somewhere if it didn't mean potentially bringing down the house of Windsor and all that goes with it.
13 November 2008 1:21PM
First of all, let me declare an interest: I am avowedly a Republican and therefore do not support a Constitutional Monarchy based on a hereditary principle, regardless of who the present or future incumbent is.
That said, I'd like to say a couple of things about HRH Prince Charles Windsor Saxa-Coburg Goethe:
For: Whether it was his idea or not, I admire what he and his colleagues have done for the Prince's Trust and other charities that he patronises, that try to help the poor and socially excluded in this country and others, and for raising awareness of these issues.
Against: Regardless of whether you agree with a monarchical system or not, as heir to the throne, one of the honoured conventions is that Royalty - in public - do not stray into the world of politics. He and other members of the Royal Family should be apolitical and neutral.
However, with Prince Charles' public utterances on everything from organic farming, GM crops, the Govt handling of the foot and mouth outbreaks in 2001 and 2008, fox hunting, to so-called 'political correctness' in education, he has not observed this convention, thus making him one of the most political members of the Royal Family that I am aware of. This was illustrated in a documentry that I saw on Channel 4, where Labour Cabinet Ministers (Geoff Hoon, Jack Straw, et al) disclosed how they would receive notes on Palace note-paper, where Prince Charles made his views known on this subject or that. A state of affairs many Cabinet Ministers found 'displeasing', to say the least!
The point is not whether you agree with Prince Charles or not, the point is that despite waiting for many years to inherit your birth rite - as frustrating as it may be - the one thing he had to do was keep his mouth shut, which is a price to pay for the life of priviledge that he has been born into.
13 November 2008 1:27PM
To quote a non-silverspooned princess of Wales: 'Storm the palace, Turn it into a bar, Let them work in Spar'.
-------------------
An interesting biographical note is that Prince Charles has recently taken up self-imposed exile in the small Welsh village of Myddfai, a place renowned for the medieval Meddygon (or Physicians of Myddfai).
Surely there is no small coincidence between these quotes on the natural world, and notable maxims of the Meddygon.
'He who sees fennel and gathers it not, is not a man, but a devil'.
'If thou desirest to die, eat cabbage in August'.
13 November 2008 1:39PM
alexisdetocqueville: Gotha, not Goethe. However, unsurprising mistake from a Republican.
The older I have got, the more sympathetic I have become towards Prince Charles. He is now older than Edward VII was when he ascended the throne. He will have to wait for possibly another 10 years, at which time non-entities like that horrific Hate Mail woman (I refuse to give her the oxygen of publicity) will yet again demand he steps aside in favour of Prince William.
This is not the X Factor. This is our heritage.
Happy 60th, your Royal Highness xxx
13 November 2008 1:44PM
superburger and FuriousOrange represent the side of this country that depresses me the most; bitter, angry and empty. Willing only to tear away at the fabric rather than add to it. The worst of it is I think they might be breeding as those types of comments; 'tosser' and the derisory 'charlie' seem to be more prevalent. Cohesive argument replaced with quotes of people with more intelligence, jibes and outright insults. Sad to think that this is the level of rhetoric these days.
13 November 2008 2:44PM
Anyone in Charles's position who can write in response to a perfectly reasonable request to be considered for promotion...
...with seemingly no sense of irony at all, has forfeited any right to be taken seriously about anything.
This is a probably well-meaning but wholly mediocre man using his unearned position to publically pontificate on things of which he has little or no real knowledge. That his chosen audience usually comprises long-suffering and infinitely better-qualified experts in the very fields he elects to dispense his wisdom on makes this even more ridiculous.
The sense of arrogant entitlement his position has instilled in him then drives endless childish complaining that no-one is listening to him, usually due to 'political correctness' or some other silly, made-up justification.
Of course it never occurs to him that the experts may indeed be listening to him (either forced to, or out of deference to his heritary status) but then politely dismissing his expressed opinions as those of someone just as ill-informed and ignorant in such matters as the rest of us.
Who to believe? Qualified, learned professional people - doctors, scientists, agronomists, architects. Or a man whose sole qualification derives from the happy accident of being born into one particular family...
Charles's personal tragedy is that he's so very, very ordinary. But thinks he's extraordinary. Sad.
13 November 2008 2:48PM
I , for one, am very impressed that he was able to turn his Navy severance pay of 7000 pounds in 1975 into his PRINCE'S TRUST Fund now worth 50Million pounds and that this Fund has now helped half a MILLION young British people since the mid-70's....
That should be the envy of ANY other country in the world. Britain you are lucky to have this man working for you!
It's time to acknowledge him and thank him!
Happy Birthday, Prince Charles!
13 November 2008 2:59PM
Weird. One the one hand he is insightful and lucid, on the other, bigoted and patronising. One of the things I like about The Queen is that she is mysterious, very seldom imparting an opinion or even emotion; Charles is outspoken and opinionated, and just like any other public figure, sometimes he makes sense, sometimes he doesn't. That he has these opinions renders him a target.
For the people who are denigrating superberger and furious orange - leave them alone - you are for him, they are against him.
13 November 2008 3:03PM
His "vision of a better world"? How, exactly, despite being in a position of not insignificant influence, has Charles ever done anything to make the world a better place? Apart from decrying, it seems, everything from modern architecture to ambition? What a waste of space.
13 November 2008 3:09PM
@bluebaby
"This is not the X Factor. This is our heritage."
The title "Prince of Wales" and the Monarchy system itself is my heritage. The babbling fool that fills the position currently and the solipsistic drivel that pours relentlessly from his mouth is not.
13 November 2008 3:12PM
@Bluebaby
apologies for the 'Gotha/Goethe' thing but nevertheless, it's funny - Republican or otherwise - that you do not see fit to argue/dispute my views about Prince Charles' unconstitutional forays into subjects/the political arena, that convention states he should not.
You said:
So what?
I know not whom you refer to as 'that horrific Hate Mail woman', neither do I care. Similarly, neither do I care if Prince Charles steps aside and lets in Paul Burrell or King Ralph.
I object being subject to a constitutional system where the Head of State can not be chosen or removed by democratic means, and the Head of State is decided by a hereditary principle based on 'Divine Right'.
13 November 2008 4:30PM
What a bunch of humanist poopycock! Agreed--TOSSER!
14 November 2008 2:09PM
I don't care if someone is royal or dirt poor, if he can state his ideas and opinions clearly and concisely then it encourages debate. Whether you disagree or agree, the proper response should be equally well-drafted, so to a response such as Furious Orange of a one lined insult, I say, if you can't string together a complete sentence or thought exhibiting your own knowledge, then remain silent. It is you that Prince Charles is referring to when he writes of the 'unqualified people'. Educate yourself beyond that of a 6 year old, then post on the Guardian. This is my reply to anyone that agrees with him with one line of text, Vraalstad.
And to superburger, what kind of imbecile judges a man of 60 on his A-Levels? I don't even think about my university anymore as my 10 year career in biotechnology speaks for itself. This must be the level you must judge someone: your level, baseline. Prince Charles is above you in experience and that is obvious in his writing.
Kaneda, I disagree with your beleif that we should leave Furious Orange and superburger alone because they are just 'against him'. I think your outlook on the human mind is pessimistic. People can change their minds about people and ideas if they research them. I suspect that FO and SB will never change their minds which means their minds are closed. From the writings of Prince Charles, I see a person with a very open mind willing to discuss a broad range of subjects. That discussion can only help matters. Hasn't everyone stopped to think about architecture, the environment, organic farming, etc. after reading these letters?
And to anyone who might counter me by claiming I just love royalty, I'm an American expat and I think our President-Elect is a great example of what can be accomplished if you aspire to not appeal to the base.
15 November 2008 6:13PM
Few people seem to take the trouble to figure out where Prince Charles is coming from. Its quite simple, really.
There are two types of science and medicine. The orthodox one is a mechanistic model; it is reductionist and appears anti-Nature. The powerful fossil-fuelled technologies believe they can subdue Nature, which trhey observe as a mechanical system. Modern medicine has difficultly in seeing the human being as a whole integrated organism.
This science is supported by the establishment, by big business and by most politicians. It has lots of money, power and influence. New biotechnologies are given religious status and must not be questioned.
The other model is inclusive and holistic and sees all of life as part of the vast web of Nature. Everything is connected and interdependent; it is the view of quantum physics. Prince Charles talks to independent scientists who are not financed by big business. They tell him we shall lose the fight to control Nature.
He is better informed than most ‘expert scientists and politicians because those who counsel him are unprejudiced and more balanced. He is a visionary, and needs courage to stand up to the powerful and the sneering. This is how he has been able to do his thing with the Princes Trust, supporting young people, small businesses, sustainable agriculture and integrated health care.
Reductionist science is unsustainable. Why is it contemptuous of holistic science? Thats too bad, for it is the science of the future.