this spaceship earth

The Rottweiler

I for one am dead chuffed about the upcoming marriage between Charles and his longtime mistress. They are obviously together, and what should prevent them, both divorcées, from marrying one another? At the very least, Charles has this time been able to choose his own consort, rather than have her selected by a shodowy group of courtiers somewhat reminiscent of the ALP's so-called factional heavyweights— faceless and unaccountable. And yes, it's someone whom he has fancied for decades. Let him wed. Just thank god it wasn't Kanga.

I think it's something that, as much as the public dislike it, will be good for the monarchy in a roundabout way. Which is not to say that I am a monarchist. Australia and Great Britian are different countries with different perspectives on the globe and their positions on it (although you'd hardly know that from our identical 'shoulder-to-shoulder' stance in the coalition of three). What I do dislike is how, in some way, this union restarts the republic debate in Australia, as though anything done by Charles reignites this debate. It sits hushed in the corner when we are concerned with the Queen , Wills or Harry, but whenever it's about Charles, the republicans bellow: 'he's your future King, do you really want someone like that?' And that's not fair in my books. The issue, although those pushing the bandwagon will never admit it, revolves around Charles' personality. Because he is a quiet soul who likes the country air, a hunt and a ride, because he has a failed marriage behind him, because he is a horticulturist, a watercolourist and has a variety of dearly-held yet apolitical opinions, because he went to Timbertop, he is somehow regarded by the urban-educated (and even the urban-uneducated) as an eccentric duffer not fit to be a monarch. Give the bloke a break.

Remember the 80s, when it was all "Charles is a nutter, he talks to his plants"? Looking back, that must have been the easiest line to spin on what was then a ridiculously left-field opinion: that chemical fertilizers damage the land and that farming should be sustainable. But being disallowed from political comment—or basically any comment that may be seen as an intrusion into politics, which rules out a lot of stuff—he's had to stick to innocent, fringe topics like horticulture and urban planning. Yet he had the courage of his convictions to turn Highgrove organic, and now, 20 years later it is the most profitable sustainable organic farming business in Britain.

Organics still aren't big here, but they're massive in the British high street—public sentiment has forced organic fruit n veg onto Tesco and Sainsbury shelves, and farmers markets pop up every second weekend, even in inner city areas like Pimlico—which would probably be the same here if we had to feed 60 million people on land the size of Victoria. The man seems actually quite visionary in that respect. Its all about spin.

So is it the media who dislike Charles? or the public? or simply the left? I know a bunch of Aussies whom I wouldn't consider left but are avowedly republican. And I'd consider myself left, but not necessarily republican. If we are all so Howardian these day, then the public will be pretty much 'meh...'. SoI tend to think it's the media, wanting a story, wanting an easily-communicable caricature, and wanting to demonstrate that they are somehow 'better' than him despite his birth into wealth and status (you can't call it power, being so tightly bound in protocol). So instead he is eccentric and old before his time and therefore less of a man.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be a tirade but rather an endorsement.

I simply believe the argument should be about the position and not the person. And for the record, I voted YES for the republic option last offered, and will vote NO to a popularly-elected 'president'.

posted by skander @ 9:32 PM