Until Prince Charles stops his nonsense that Americans need to be more “sensitive” to Muslims and that we should “appreciate Islam’s strengths,” I will refer to him casually. And frankly, his second wife does not deserve respect either. They’re both simply elites who have been spoon-fed their entire lives. He entered into a marriage with a young woman he did not love and continued on with an affair that destroyed her life and marriage. Chuck essentially used Diana as the Official Womb. She’s dead, he remarries, and now that self-obsessed, self-indulgent couple are in the US for 8 days.
Think I’m being too harsh when it comes to their relationship with reality? Here’s something to consider: Mrs. Parker-Bowles-Windsor packed fifty (50) gowns for her eight (8) day visit.
Need I say more?
Now that I’ve barked and growled at them, it isn’t because I wasn’t invited to the White House tonight for the dinner in their honor. If I had been invited, I would have first hugged the president for all of us (for taking WWIII to the enemy) and then I would have given him the baby-shake (for not being as brave here at home, spending too much, wanting to open the borders, etc, etc).
So since I wasn’t invited, I took a gander at the guest list to see who was. That list and the menu for tonight’s dinner is here.
The more fascinating pairing at the dinner is this one:
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Mr. Gene A. Washington, Director of Football Operations, National Football League (Guest)
Hmmm…and this isn’t the first time Dr. Rice has been in the company of Mr. Washington.
I’ve noted before that one of the signs we should look for that Secretary Rice might be considering running for office is if she were to pair up. A single, never-been-married 50+ year old woman would face certain types of innuendo from the ever-so-tolerant left. Of course it’s not fair, but you know how ugly the left is. Where this ‘relationship’ goes will be interesting. Keep your eye on it. I will too 🙂
Very interesting. It will indeed be instructive to watch what happens with Dr. Rice – and I believe you’re absolutely right about the Left! They will not hestitate to stoop to homophobia (not to mention racism and sexism) when it serves their agenda.
My wife and I were discussing Prince Chaz and his new wife/longtime lover, Camilla, and her 50 dresses as we watched the news this morning, while getting ready for work. We also discussed it before bed last night, as we watched the news before bed.
We just don’t understand the reason for such an extravagant show for them. We understand the concept of international relations. But, the members of the Royal Family are just figure heads. And, the money wasted on that state dinner could surely have been put to better use, than giving Chaz opportunity to tell W that Americans need to be more tolerant of Islam and how he has Islamic tiles in his countryside estate. Look at the menu and think about how many people consumed all of that wine and food.
I would say, let Kofi feed them at the U.N. But, we would still be footing most of that bill too.
“But, the members of the Royal Family are just figure heads.”
No, only the Queen is a figurehead. The rest of the family aren’t even that. To be completely hairsplittingly pedantic (as I am sometimes wont to do), this was only an official dinner, not a state dinner, because Charles is not a head of state.
In some measure of fairness to the White House, GWB’s only hosted about six or seven of these such things; most presidents do several dozen.
Dave,
You are correct. If I had read the top of the C-SPAN page more closely, I would have noticed that it says, “Social Dinner in Honor of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall”.
If Chaz and Camilla aren’t even “figureheads”, then W had even less business hosting such an extravagant event in their “honor”, so that Chaz could lecture us on our lack of tolerance. If W has hosted only a fraction of those done by his predecessors, this was not the time to try to increase his numbers.
Charles raises Billions for charity, but but the English press do to him what the MSM do to Bush.
Hillary gets ridiculed because she takes two pant suits on roving the coutry, Camilla has the Class and the “hat” to take a wardrobe of “womens” clothes, or which she will not wear them all. however most women want to dress for the occasion, and the way the hungry hostile press are going at them both, she has to be ready for anything. She is a multi talented lady on her own, and fiesty at that.
Diana was a child in a womans body, that thought all she had to do was satisfy her intense desire for sex 24/7, her official duties were selfserving not caring for the work and the travelling that her husband the “Next King of England” has to go through. She was the wrong “pick” from the start, but life is not all rosey, and England is still the genesis for the Magna Carta, which the US Constitution is designed from, a better ally we couldn’t have and his remarks about the Muslims have been taken out of context. Remember when he becomes King, he will also become the head of the Church of England, an English Pope in other words, and so his Religious Responsibilities, as well as his responsibilities to the Crown, have to be played together, he has to walk a tight rope. His heart is in the right place, can anyone argue with that? Take a second look at them, and you may not be so critical.
What if England had not supported Bush, could Bush do it on his own? with just Australia?, come on lets get off the pettyness. Americans are bigger than that?
Stephen Parksville BC Cn.ww 2 vet. Can-Am
What exactly did Prince Charles say with respect to Americans and Muslims?
A good-natured fisking follows, I’m afraid, Canamsteve. Don’t take it personally.
“…England is still the genesis for the Magna Carta, which the US Constitution is designed from…”
Magna Carta contains some of the language found in the US Bill of Rights, by way of the English Bill of Rights. However, to say on that basis that the US Constitution is “designed from” Magna Carta is a huge stretch. Magna Carta was what amounts to a peace treaty between King John and the other major political players in England, principally the barons and the Church. It is looked back on romantically as perhaps more of a watershed than it really was at the time.
The basic structure of government in the US Constitution is modeled on what is known as the “Whig Theory of Balanced Government,” a constitutional theory that wasn’t really fully formed until after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, and probably made most legally explicit in the Glorious Revolution of 1689: both by the Bill of Rights as mentioned above, and by the Act of Settlement, wherein Parliament demonstrated its supremacy by determining who would be monarch.
The Whig Theory of Balanced Government presumes that each of the ancient forms as decribed by Plato and Aristotle descends into its characteristic form of degradation: monarchy into tyranny, oligarchy into corruption, democracy into mob rule. Thus, it viewed the historic English constitution as balancing these excesses by the presence of Crown, Lords and Commons. The US Constitution made seperation of powers far more absolute, but expresses a similar breakdown: the executive branch is essentially monarchical, the legislative democratic and the judiciary aristocratic.
“..a better ally we couldn’t have..”
Than the UK, not than its self-parodying heir apparent. There’s a difference, you know.
“…and his remarks about the Muslims have been taken out of context.”
What would be the proper context then? Ever since 1991, the US has liberated millions of Muslims. Who the hell does Charles think he is to lecture us?
“Remember when he becomes King, he will also become the head of the Church of England, an English Pope in other words,”
Only Henry VIII was ever “Head” of the Church of England, proclaimed as such in the Act of Supremacy. Subsequent monarchs have been the CoE’s “Supreme Governor.” But to say the monarch is an English Pope is nonsensical: he or she is not clergy, and does not take part in the Church’s internal affairs. The monarch is at the apex of the CoE only in the sense that the monarch is head of state and the CoE is an agency of the state.
The “English Pope” in the sense of Apostolic Succession from Saint Peter is not the monarch but the Archbishop of Canterbury.
“…and so his Religious Responsibilities…”
What religious responsibilities? He is not required to be a member of any faith to become king, only barred from the succession (under the Act of Settlement of 1701) if he converted to Catholicism. James I was a Presbyterian and it didn’t stop him from being Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
“…as well as his responsibilities to the Crown…”
What responsibilities to the Crown other than those of any other subject? His responsibility to get his mother’s permission before getting married, under the Royal Marriages Act? Well, he’s fulfilled that responibility not once, but twice. His oath upon being invested as Prince of Wales? It’s a feudal formality and its hard to see how exactly one would or would not put into effect a duty to one’s “liege of life and limb, and earthly worship.”
“His heart is in the right place, can anyone argue with that?”
That’s the easiest thing in the world to argue with: have you never heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?
“What if England had not supported Bush, could Bush do it on his own? with just Australia?, come on lets get off the pettyness. Americans are bigger than that?”
That’s beside the point: the UK is bigger than Prince Charles. And it’s also bigger than just England, unless you’re specifically excluding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for some particular reason.