Vice-Regal Saint: Will Sir Ed cost Charles his Crown?
Peter Hitchens writes:
I try and try to defend the Monarchy against the dreary republicans. But the Royal Family often aren't much help to their supporters.
How did they fail to grasp that Prince Charles should have gone to New Zealand for Sir Edmund Hillary's funeral?
Sir Edmund was a Knight of the Garter. For a whole generation his conquest of Everest is associated with the Queen's Coronation. New Zealand is rightly proud of him, not just for his climbing but for his exemplary and thoughtful life afterwards.
I know it's a long way away but it's not as if Charles has to fly goat-class. This mistake will gravely weaken the cause of Monarchy in New Zealand.
I suspect Australia is about to have another vote on abolishing the Throne, which is more likely to go through thanks to this blunder.
With Australia gone and New Zealand gone, Canada can't be far behind. And then, encouraged by their success abroad, our own anti-Royal politicians will start work here.
Don't expect the Tories to fight – they gave up on the House of Lords without a squeak.
Lost, and all for the price of a plane ticket to Auckland.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
9 comments:
Does anyone actually expect Charles to up and off to New Zealand without the advice from the PM of NZ to do so? Really.
and who does the writer think will pay for a Royal to pop down to NZ and back in a few days. Get real... any way he gets a memorail at Windsor, which not even Royal get, so grow up
Countries to become a republic, just because a high and mighty Prince did not attend the funeral of a man that climbed a mountain?! Also do not make assumptions about Australia; who is to say there will be another vote in this country? And what is this silly “Charles and Crown: Three Times Unlucky?” ?
Yes, you're assuming that he will become Charles III. It has been reported that he will ascend as George VII.
How has there been so little (public) blame placed on the Prime Minister? It was her decision, most likely, and yet she has very adeptly placed the issue on the back of her Queen.
And I don't think very many people know for sure what Charles will name himself as King. I could see him going either way, myself.
If the people of NZ really are so feeble-minded, and so fickle, they never really were monarchists.
Quite - surely they value the Monarchy more than "a plane ticket to Auckland".
I tend to ignore most things either or the Hitchens say. It expense would be vastly more than a plane ticket to Auckland. Security alone would dwarf the cost of the flight and accomodation and expenses.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand would have made the decision.
As to The Prince's eventual name, the idea that he would style himself George VII has been around for 40 years. So, it is a pretty valid guess. I would suggest that it was leaked this way many decades ago.
The Charles III angle could be interpreted badly by some who look back negatively on the Stuarts.
King George VI was loved and revered by his peoples across the Globe. He was the Queen's Father. George VII makes eminent sense.
Post a Comment