Stephen Pollard isn't very impressed with the heir to the UK throne:

You have to hand it to the Prince. There aren’t many people who can manage to be a loudmouth, a danger to the constitution and a buffoon all at the same time. Most of us can manage two of the three. Prince Charles is unique in getting the hat-trick.

That he is wrong, or at the very least a hypocrite, about Big Macs is, however, the least of it. Even if he was right — and by the law of averages he will surely be right about something, one day — his behaviour is an outrage against the constitution and undermines what little credibility the institution of the monarchy has left.

The Prince of Wales has shown over the years that he is simply a loudmouth who cannot resist shooting his mouth off when an opportunity arises. And as he is the heir to throne, such opportunities arise at will.

Whether it’s the supposedly deplorable state of modern architecture (a matter of taste), the efficacy of alternative medicine (voodoo, not science) or the superiority of organic produce (an assertion with no evidential basis), Prince Charles appears to be a man of limited intellect, but to be nonetheless desperate to share the produce of that limited intellect with the rest of the country.

[Evening update]

Glenn has a sentiment that I share:

Please, can't they skip Charles and go straight to Harry?

As I have said before, there is nothing more dangerous than an idiot with high self-esteem.

I have trouble understanding the problem here. Is it that when he expresses his opinion of say, modern architecture, that thousands, nay millions of fanatic Brits start pulling down anything that is more complicated than one stone stacked on another? No?

Or when he discusses the relative merits of Big Macs versus his Cornish pasties that he is challenging the power of Parliament or undermining the very fabric of British society? Most certainly, but is that a problem?

I'm waiting to see what happens here in Canada when Prince Charles takes over. The Queen is still on our coins; having Chuck suddenly appear instead will probably end the tradition.

Few here feel any loyalty to the British monarchy, especially compared to when Elizabeth was crowned. Most see the monarchy as a quaint British tourist attraction with about as much relevance to Canada as the Eiffel Tower or the Great Wall of China. Any patriotism is towards Canada, and a foreign leader on our currency goes against that.

But when it comes time to decide which former Canadian Prime Ministers will appear on the coins, we can just imagine the bickering among the politicians, editorial writers and bloggers. We can imagine the whining and protests that'll come out of Quebec if any of the faces on the coins don't come from that province. If there's a face from outside Quebec it would have to be Diefenbaker, and NO-ONE wants that.

Maybe we can just sell the space for advertising.

Maybe we can just sell the space for advertising.

How about putting fortunes on them instead? You could mint some that euphorically say This is your lucky day! Spend me! and others that puritanically say Waste not, want not. Put me into your mutual fund.

That way the government can influence the money supply just be altering the balance of optimistic and pessimistic coins it's got circulating. No more of this indirect fiddling with the interest rate stuff.

Fortunately in NZ we have Ed Hillary available. No one has a bad word to say about him and he's already on our five dollar note, a most unusual thing for someone neither a head of state nor dead.

Holland puts engineers and scientists on their paper money. Or they did 20 years ago (which is the last time I saw any). Why not celebrate the people who really do the country good? :-)

"Maybe we can just sell the space for advertising."

I'd vote to have Sir John A. MacDonald on our coins. For those not schooled in Canadian political history, Sir John was Canada's version of George Washington. He was Canada's first prime minister, and he was a key figure in the efforts to establish Canada as a self-governing nation (as opposed to just a colony of Great Britian). The history books call him one of the Fathers of Confederation (or whatever the modern PC version of that phrase is).

Unfortunately, given the way Canada's political and cultural elites think, we'd likely end up with Pierre Trudeau on our coins (our version of JFK, with more than a bit of John Kerry thown in).

What about Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas?

Scientists do appear on British bank notes.

And... *shock* an inaccurate statement in a blog! Never!

Please, can't they skip Charles and go straight to Harry?

I strongly suspect Willian would have something to say about that.

Bush manages to be a loudmouth, a buffoon and
a danger to the constitution every day.

Is anonymous dim enough to think Bush is in line for the British throne?

Whereas anonymous only manages to be a loudmouth and a buffoon, and unlike Bush, won't change jobs on 1/20/09 -- it'll still be unemployed and living in its parents' basement. Sometimes the jokes just write themselves ...

What about Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas?

Posted by Dick Eagleson at March 1, 2007 06:52 PM

Dick there's only one way to even answer that,

Koo Loo Koo Koo Koo Koo Koo Koooooo, Koo Loo KOO Koo Koo Koo Koo Kooooooo!!

Beauty, eh?!

Stewart,
yon troll is indeed that dim. If intelligence and knowledge were measured in candle power, he'd make a fire fly look like a carbon arc searchlight.

Please, can't they skip Charles and go straight to Harry?

I strongly suspect Willian would have something to say about that.

As Glenn wrote, I don't think that was an unintentional error.

A J-H,

Did you ever notice how you have to make every non-related thread about Bush or Iraq?

Do you know how superior you are making the rest of us feel as human beings, not being abject dysfunctional failures and all like you continue to be?

I checked the link to Glenn and it didn't look like. William is popular, good looking, has a hot girlfriend, in the military...

Unlike Harry he isn't prone to being photo'd in fights at nightclubs nor dressing in Nazi uniforms for fun...

I think Harry's more fun myself, but not as a monarch, no more than Andrew would be a better bet than Charles.

Anne's got more balls than the lot of them. Takes after her old man.

Stewart

Who ever knew the British had a constitution?

Who ever knew the British had a constitution?

Everyone not living under a bridge.

Prince Charles was right about architecture. The people who think he is wrong tend to be the types who build concrete warehouses foe poor people while living in Georgian mansions in the country...

He's made so much money from the organic farming thing that there is speculation that he will end the Civil List (government paying for the Royal Family) when he gets the job.

Incidently, when he was in the Navy, he flew F-4s off the small RN carriers. And he was night qualified... Not bad for a moron.

mcgehee

Can you send me a copy?

perhaps you can hang it under a bridge