Charles At 60

[poliphilo]

Prince Charles is 60. Funny bloke.

I'm of the same generation as him- two years younger. He's always been there, just a little ahead of me- enjoying his schooldays (ha!) going to university, travelling abroad. I got married before he did. We both made a horlicks of our first marriage.

When Ailz comments- as she so often does- on my thinning hair, I say, "No, that's Prince Charles you're thinking of."

There was a specially commissioned, entirely grovelling BBC documentary about him last night. He seems to spend his life talking. He says he listens, but we didn't see any of that. His staff say that when he's not there to talk at them he sends them handwritten memos. Has there ever been a man so full of opinions?

Perhaps he should write a blog.

The Prince's Trust seems to do good work. We saw him in Burnley- on a mission to save the town from itself. Believe me, Burnley needs saving. His views on agriculture and architecture are harder to swallow. Actually I think they're batty.

We got a stroll round his gardens at Highgrove. They're very lovely. The Prince's walk (so-named) has topiary to die for. In a nook of the garden- beyond the arena of tree stumps- very creepy- which he's dedicated to the memory of his gran- is a private chapel. So private we didn't get to look inside. The Bishop of London ("We were at Cambridge together") consecrated it for him. All the measurements are based on the measurements of Charles' own body- the length of his outstretched arms, of his finger joints. Solipsistic? Yes, just a little.

He says that when we switched from traditional measurements to decimal, we "lost our connection to the universe".

Ailz and I were discussing him in bed afterwards. We agreed that he seems happier, more at ease with himself since he married Camilla. He twinkles as he talks, talks, talks.

That twinkle reminds me of Olivier's Lear in the opening scene of the play- a man entirely sure of his welcome, of his own charm and amiability. And who wouldn't be sure of his charm if everyone in the neighbourhood bowed or curtsied and called him "Sir" and listened with smiles while he talked?

Comments

[mamadar.livejournal.com]

My personal theory is that monarchy is a good way to rule a fairly small population. Most nations outgrew that size population decades or even centures ago, but a few countries seem to make a go of supporting a ceremonial monarchy on top of later democratic structures.

The real absurdity, I think, is that Charles has been held to notions of marriage, breeding, and succession that came out of the Dark Ages. To be more objective, the English monarchy seems to be hanging on to the pre-troubadour, pre-romantic concept of marriage as a form of property transfer, in an age when even the sacred Emperor of Japan has been allowed to marry beneath his station, because he fell in love with a "commoner". A lot of unhappiness could have been averted if Charles had been permitted to do that.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think Charles will have been the last royal to be forced into such a marriage. Hopefully the Palace has learned from the embarassing shambles that followed never to try anything like it again.

There are two words that almost persuade me that a ceremonial monarchy is preferable to the republican alternative. They are these: President Blair.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Yes, every time I feel republican urges, I realise that our dear Queen isn't all that bad when compared to the alternative. Imagine if we'd had President Thatcher? But Blair applies also. :)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think the Queen does a fair-to-middling job. High marks for application and perseverance, low marks for charm and charisma. And why, after fifty years in the job, is she still so bad at public speaking?