Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, despite all the glitter and festivities, have cast this ghoulish question to the minds of some. When will the Queen die? And this leads to a second question: Will the government allow Prince Charles, an ill-informed and unrestrained mind, to succeed as King? And if ever they allow the prince to succeed, until how long will they let him rule?
In his May 20 column in The Observer, journalist Nick Cohen labels Charles both as a “rogue and a fool,” unfit to rule, let alone reign, thanks to his meddlesome nature when it comes to public policies, pestering with politicians every now and again, demanding to have a say in everything, from education and environment to fighting foot and mouth disease and banning foxhunting.
Many believe that the prince’s moves were a result of boredom of having to wait for too long before he finds himself thrusted upon wearing a crown that has shrunk in power and rusted in time. But what they do not understand, writes Cohen, is that nothing could stop Charles III from interfering, as much as he is unstoppable right now as Prince of Wales.
His behavior and way of thinking could be attributed decades ago. “From his mentor, the fraudulent South African anthropologist Laurens van der Post,” writes Cohen, the prince became a student of philosophical traditionalism, “the belief that all religions contain the same perennial truths; and that the human race alienated itself from this ancient wisdom when it discovered the scientific method. Hence, his loathing for technologies that might feed the world, his embrace of the Saudi royal family, his support for reactionary versions of Islam and Buddhism, his strange desire to be a defender of all faiths and, above all, his preference for medicines that don't work over medicines that do.”
The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee might silence all republican sentiments. But that won’t last long. Cohen foresees Charles as “the best advert the republican cause has had since Charles I.”