Happy Birthday. Please no speeches.

Prince Charles, famous for his ‘lunatic fringe’ interests and unorthodox views, turns 60

by Alex Shimo on Friday, November 14, 2008 12:00am - 2 Comments

Prince Charles

If we hear little of Prince Charles as he approaches his 60th birthday this month, his advisers will have done their jobs well. Significant birthdates usually draw media coverage, and the future king has already come under criticism for holding two birthday parties—a private reception and a state function—in a time of economic recession. Then there is Charles’s reputation for controversy, his public outbursts, his tendency to make headlines with his tirades on a variety of issues. Labelled “the potty prince,” the “hapless heir,” he has a penchant for speaking his mind and voicing extreme views. Avoiding negative publicity usually means keeping him away from the public eye, says Richard Kay, a correspondent on royal issues for the Daily Mail.

In the past, this has not always been possible. Prince Charles believes he has a responsibility to lead, yet he is a man whose opinions have often diverged from public consensus. He has “a tendency to pursue ‘lunatic fringe’ interests in his off-duty hours, and to spurn the advice of those urging him down more orthodox channels,” says Anthony Holden in Charles: A Biography. Over the years, he has railed against things like modern Christianity, the Industrial Revolution, “child-centred education,” and modernity itself, says Kay. Former deputy private secretary Mark Bolland has said that Prince Charles sees it as his role to “influence opinion.” What this leads to is Charles giving advice to experts on subjects he knows nothing about, says Catherine Bennett, a columnist for the Observer newspaper.

When questioned about his public image, the prince himself seems a little bemused. In an interview with the Sunday Times in 1985, he said, “You know, as far as I can make out, I’m about to become a Buddhist monk, or live halfway up a mountain, or only eat grass.” He was joking, but the quote is revealing because many of these extreme interests actually dovetail with his own. The prince might joke about living as a Buddhist monk, yet he’s quite happy to retreat from time to time into a traditionalist order of Greek monks that forbids women. He might joke about eating only grass, yet he has been known to rail against modern agriculture.

Bookmark and Share
  • Jack Mitchell

    This is a very poor article. You shouldn’t write about what you don’t know; you especially shouldn’t mock people for not knowing anything about what you don’t know. Charles says something anti-establishment? How scandalous! How about weighing the pros and cons a little on the particular issues instead of quoting “experts”?

  • James Pannozzi

    The author of this poorly written and badly researched article states that , “Homeopathy is one of the treatments Prince Charles believes should be integrated with regular medicine, although a major review for the medical journal The Lancet indicated that this therapy works no better than a placebo”.

    Please try and do some research before publishing hack journalism repetitions of what other hack journalists are saying. At the time it was published,in 2005, the Lancet article was deluged with criticism, even from MD’s who disagreed with Homeopathy, so poor were its “evaluation” criteria and details of the study were not publsihed until later, after public outcry.

    Recently the Lancet article was reexamined and its conclusions refuted completely, here are the details:
    fron
    http://www.news-medical.net/?id=42412
    “The review was based on 6 clinical trials of conventional medicine
    and 8 studies of homeopathy but did not reveal the identity of these
    trials and has been criticised for its opacity as it gave no
    indication of which trials were analysed and the various assumptions
    made about the data.”

    “Sufficient detail to enable a reconstruction was eventually published
    and two recently published scientific papers based on such a
    reconstruction challenge the Lancet review.”

    “George Lewith, Professor of Health Research at Southampton University
    says the review gave no indication of which trials were analysed nor
    of the various vital assumptions made about the data which is not
    usual scientific practice.”

    References
    Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusion on the effectiveness of
    homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of
    Clinical Epidemiology, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.015

    Rutten ALB, Stolper CF. The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: analysis
    of postpublication data. Homeopathy, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.homp.
    2008.09.008.

From Macleans