Prashant's Moralizing over King Charles III

Submitted by Robert (United States), Sep 26, 2022 at 11:44

Dear Prashant,

I am addressing you here because Dr. Daniel Pipes agrees with you. My position is a third one. I do not subscribe to a logic in which true or not true are forced to be one;s choices.

First of all, all Democracies are corruptible, and the United Kingdom is a constitutional democratic monarchy. England, which is at the heart of this commonwealth, has evolved peacefully since the beheading of it's king in the 17th century. And the constitution of this commonwealth has evolved in the direction making the monarch Reign but not Rule. By the way, I have the eccentricity of capitalizing words which have a historical ideology behind them - and I'm reminded of the German language in which Capitalizing word (or concepts) is institutionalized grammatically. Queen Elizabeth II was, emotionally, very strong monarch - perhaps in reaction to her beloved father, who was weak emotionally and relied on his wife-consort, Queen Elizabeth, Her Royal. The Daughter Elizabeth was also a dedicated as well as wise ruled. She ruled at a time when being a King or Queen became a very weak institution in the West in relation to the powers of ruling. And we know that Charles III was more like Elizabeth's uncle who abdicated for the love of the wife, the American twice-divorced Mrs. Simpson. At that time the British Parliament was already extremely strong. The good thing in this context is that Charles III has become King in his 70's. I hypothesize that he has grown up learning to admire his mother the Reigning Queen, so I predict he will follow in her footsteps. Also, his mom had the luck of marrying the man she fell in love. That probably made her wise enough to accept Charles divorce and marriage to divorced Camilla, the current Consort of King Charles. Queen Elizabeth II also accepted her grand-children's choice in marriage. It appears that the House of Windsor has "inherited" the practice of marrying for life.

So if this Prince Charles found "nothing wrong" in accepting a suitcase of "one million" (pounds or dollars) the blame should fall on the "shoulders" of the British (English) Parliament. And if this Parliament did not see anything wrong with Qatar giving the money to its king, neither do I.

I hypothesize that this "good will" towards Islam that Charles III nurtured during the years that he was "merely" the Prince of Wales will become a powerful tool which the United Kingdom will be able to use in its favor when dealing with the Muslims of the country as well as the diverse Muslim-majority states of the world.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".