Hey, Brits—you know that your next King is a woomeister, right? He’s long been an advocate of homeopathy, and has supported its use by the National Health Service.
If you have two neurons to rub together, you’ll know that homeopathy is bunk: its “principles” (infinite dilution of molecules out of existence) mean that it couldn’t possibly work, and studies show that it’s no better than placebos.
Nevertheless, despite asserting correctly that homeopathic remedies are the equivalent of sugar pills, the NHS still offers it in some areas and in two NHS hospitals, so that the British taxpayer has to subsidize completely worthless cures. Hey, Brits—why do you put up with that?
The Daily Mail has documented Prince Charles’s pressure on the British healthcare system; here’s one of a series of letters in which he argues for more homopathic treatments. Here’s a 2007 letter from Prince Charles to health secretary Alan Johnson:
Well, the Heir Apparent has now jumped the shark—or the cow. As the Guardian reported on Thursday, the Inbred One has stated publicly that he uses homeopathic treatment on his cows to reduce antibiotic use. Of course we should be striving to reduce the prophylactic use of antibiotics in farm animals, but why not give them more water instead of homeopathic medicines?
From the Guardian:
Prince Charles has proposed a solution to the growing crisis of antibiotic over-use in animals and humans, telling an international gathering of scientists and government officials in London that he treats his own cows and sheep with homeopathy.
In front of the government’s chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, who once told a parliamentary committee that homeopathy in humans was “rubbish” and that she was “perpetually surprised that homeopathy is available on the NHS”, the prince explained to delegates from 20 nations and organisations why he had turned to homeopathic remedies for animals.
“It was one of the reasons I converted my farming operation to an organic – or agro-ecological – system over 30 years ago and why we have been successfully using homeopathic – yes, homeopathic – treatments for my cattle and sheep as part of a programme to reduce the use of antibiotics,” he said.
The prince did not give details or stay for questions, but Clarence House later said: “Homeopathy is used on a case-by-case basis at Home Farm, in combination with more conventional medicine, to minimise dependence on antibiotics.”
Yes, we can hope that Prince Charles’s abnegation of antibiotics has a salutary effect on British farming, but replacing them with “imprinted” water is not the way to go. Even the British Veterinary Association parts company with its future king:
But the British Veterinary Association, the leading representative body for vets in the UK, dismissed homeopathy out of hand.
“BVA cannot endorse the use of homeopathic remedies, or indeed any products making therapeutic claims, which have no proven efficacy; the consequence could be serious animal health and welfare detriment because of the lack of therapeutic effect, which would be counterproductive to best animal health and welfare,” said John Blackwell, its senior vice president.
It’s a sad state of affairs when the next King of England is nowhere near as savvy as his country’s own vets.
And I continue to be amazed that, in the face of a highly inbred, arrogant, and irrelevant royal family, many of whom are as dumb as a box of rocks, my liberal British friends still favor a monarchy. “It’s good to separate the ceremonial function of government from the part that actually dos something!” they tell me. I suspect they secretly love the tradition of the monarchy.
Sorry, but you don’t need such a separation, for in America we successfully combine both functions in the person of the President and Vice President. The British royalty has become a vestigial organ of the body politic: a useless appendage. The idea that I would have to bow to the Queen, or walk backwards out of the room when leaving Her presence, revolts me. What have they ever accomplished to deserve such treatment? To an American, the thought of bowing and scraping to royalty is deeply repugnant—even more so if it’s someone like Prince Charles.
Yes, I rant. Yet nobody can disagree that Prince Philip and Prince Charles are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, and, unless the Queen lives forever, before too long the British will be ruled by a woomeister.
h/t: Grania
I am British, and I agree with much of this post, especially the criticisms of the monarchy and of Prince Charles’ antics. One thing I will say however – I know whose health service I would rather have at my disposal and it sure as hell isn’t yours.
Good grief…it’s 2016. Homeopathy is as medieval as a hereditary monarchy.
To be fair, homeopathy wasn’t really “invented” until around 1800. You can see a picture of the quack who came up with here.
Yes; true. My use of the word “medieval” was really meant to be a colourfully exaggerated insult aimed at both = )
Worse. I dare say that even somebody like Aristotle, who held a *continuous account of chemical combination and mixture* (and hence has no way to understand the Avogadro limit) would likely find it ridiculous that one can increase potency of something by *diluting it*.
Yes we’re all aware he’s a nutjob…
As a republican (in the British sense of the word) I sincerely hope that Charles’ accession will hasten the end of the monarchy.
The monarchy is currently popular in Britain, but that is largely to do with the longevity perceived competence of the current office holder. Though I don’t really see why this should be: the Queen’s only real job is to never say or do anything of significance. I’m sure an elected official could handle that; whereas Charles has demonstrated that he can’t.
People also forget that the Queen and monarchy were deeply unpopular around the time of Diana’s death. Charles III is on course to being the most unpopular and divisive monarch since Edward VIII. If he has any sense he will abdicate quickly. But he doesn’t, so he won’t.
As another Republican, I too fervently wish the inbred bunch of descendants of robber barons would be put up against the wall – of the Dole Office, until they can get a proper job. Sewage plant operator would be a great contribution to public health for King-to-be Dimwit.
I understand his mother used to be a competent auto mechanic. Too bad she quit.
I blame excessive inbreeding.
You say your system of President and Vice President is some improvement over the British system?
Lets look at your Presidents over the last 40 years – Oh – I see one that could possibly be called good- the present one.
If Trump is elected , will that help your average?
Seriously? We’re talking about systems of government here, not who’s been elected. But, besides Obama there’s Carter. And the British record of Prime Ministers isn’t much better, now, is it?
I guess you like the monarchy, which clearly does–what?–running the country.
Your argument is completely incoherent.
Agreed. Often on political boards in the UK posters extol the monarchy and say if we didn’t have the monarchy we would have the likes of Dubya or Putin. Well, no, we would have an elected nonentity, probably a retread PM for 4 or 5 years, followed by another one who’s main job will be to wave to the crowds. There is no comparison between a working Head of State such as you have and a titular one as in a Parliamentary Democracy. Ours would be like the Presidents of Germany or Ireland. Now why exchange someone recognised by some 95% of the World’s population for someone recognised in only his / her own country? (Besides, since the monarchy is paid for from out of the revenues of the Crown Estate, why change it?
That is my view also,veroxitatis.
Whilst I agree with your republican sentiments it does seem that the amount of print space given to the British royalty in the USA indicates that Americans are probably some of the worst toad eaters to monarchy in the world. Fuck it, I bet even Michael Moore keeps a copy of Hello magazine hidden under his sofa cushion.
I do wish that Hello would use better binder in their ink. It gets both the fingers and the ring dirty.
What – there’s another use for it? Firelighters?
I (USAian) lived and worked in London for several years during my first postdoc. My labmates and I cut pictures out of Hello! magazine, and other such trash, to make a giant collage of improbable celebrity and royal scenes on one wall of our communal office. I wish I’d thought to take photos, but this was before the era of smartphones. There was definitely a disconnect between the attitudes of my republican, mostly Labor-supporting, Grauniad-reading labmates, and those of my two Tory, Times-reading flatmates. One of my flatmates grew up in a Stately Home in Surrey that had a name rather than a street address, had an OBE grandparent, attended Ascot in the Royal Enclosure, etc. However, she also worked for a living as a physiotherapist, and through some system of patronage by the royal family (which I never understood entirely) would occasionally receive free tickets to film and theater premiers or concerts. It was something like “Princess Anne is the patron of physiotherapists.” Anyway, I loved living in the UK, and would take their healthcare system over ours any day.
Even though I normally treat sport with utter disdain, I did notice and read (on the paper stand by the supermarket checkout) an article about
-oh : Verstappen wins F1 at 18 – good drive.
Sorry, where was I. Disdain for sport , oh yes, some American woman swimmer in the Olympics (is it Olympics? Some new name for the Paralympics?) who went to bed on holiday in Britain with some bacterial infection, became very unwell, had a team from Papworth travel to her hotel to treat her by putting her into a medically-induced coma, treated her for 10 days and shipped her out to wake up in a US military hospital in Germany (she was a veteran, or serving soldier, or something).
Bill : $0
Strangely, she was quite appreciative of the differences between the US and UK medical systems too.
And in my twitter feed today – an astronomy graduate student begging for assistance with $2000 hospital fees and $1600 operation fees. I bet she’d really appreciate the differences between the systems too.
I was wondering when someone would mention this. The Royal family, especially William and Kate, are probably as popular in the US as anywhere else.
And if Charles wants to use homeopathy what’s the harm. No one takes him seriously anyway.
Yes. I would have thought Charles supporting homeopathy is more likely to put people off it than encourage its use!
I hold small brief for the Prince of Wales and none whatsoever for homeopathy, but would ask the writer to note that there is no such entity as “the King of England” nor has there been for over 300 years. The last King of England was William III (1689 – 1702) He was concurrently King of Scotland. The last person who was solely King of England was Edward VI (1547 – 1553) In the highly unlikely event that Scotland were to become independent (and retain the monarchy) it is assumed that the previous titles would be resumed, ie., HM (King / Queen of England and His / Her Grace King / Queen of Scotland.
I think he is also a fan of ‘Biodynamic farming’. Some of the elements of this are in fact, bizarre to put it mildly. More woo…
Several years ago I visited a biodynamic vineyard and farm in Sonoma with some friends. All three of us are scientists, so there was a lot of surreptitious eye-rolling at the signs describing the buried cow horns and quartz crystals. The wines were all excellent, however.
Later that day, we visited a more traditional winery, and possibly solved a significant fruit fly problem for them in their wine-tasting room. They were saving the used corks in open boxes, which my friend and I thought might make a pretty good fly medium and larva nursery.
You have to be highly savvy to become a vet. My niece wanted to be a vet but her A level results*, though excellent, weren’t excellent enough. She studied chemistry instead.
Charley, on the other hand, is less savvy than one of his sheep.
*I don’t know what the US equivalents to A Level exams are. They are the last exams that students sit at school and your results have a big bearing on whether you get into a good university.
Richard Dawkins’ open letter to Charles:
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/prince/prince_index.html
That’s great. I don’t remember seeing it before.
Great letter, but does Charles read at that level?
Did Chuckles answer?
I’ll bet he sent back some royal form letter, thanking his loyal subject for blah blah blah…
He looks at the pictures studiously.
Ha Ha Ha!
David Berkowitz remained convinced that a dog talked to him. Many others believe a dyslexic dog talks to them. Why is remaining convinced considered a worthy argument when the prince offered no supporting evidence for his convictions?
Just curious – what is Charles’s last name? Is his name Charles Windsor? Does he have a middle name? Or does this sort of thing apply only to non-royalty?
Charles Phillip Arthur George Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland has no surname.
For the love of Caesar…
Not only does that NOT roll off the tongue, you couldn’t keep it on there if you tried!
Wow. Humans do like to masturbate, don’t they?
Not exactly. Windsor is not a surname, it’s the name of the royal house. The royals tend to make up a surname when they need one, for example Prince William joined the navy as “Lieutenant Wales”.
Too bad he didn’t post an internet poll. I rather like McPrinceface.
Verotaxis and NJBartlett have given two not-inconsistent answers. Probably there is no simple answer other than “fiat nomen!”
One of the more detestable bits of UK-Royal PR (a wide field to choose from) is the way that they changed their dynastic name from “Saxe-Coburg” (the name of the region of modern Germany which originated the 51-st candidate to replace Queen Anne (1714? thereabouts) to “Windsor.”
Strangely (?), this dynastic change occurred just after the start of warfare between Britain and Germany in 1914. They thought the Saxe-Coburg name might distress the people being sent to die fighting against the minions of their cousins.
Do I detect the stench of self-serving hypocrisy?
About the same time that the Battenbergs changed their name to Mountbatten, right?
I would not fall off the floor in astonishment if that were true.
What, exactly, is wrong with that? Changes of surname are frequent in all sorts of families, rich and poor. You could call the Windsor change of name hypocrisy or sensitivity. If they had refused to change their name that would presumably be seen as arrogance.
I don’t think you can impute any malfeasance to anybody just on the strength of a change of name.
cr
Changes of surname are one thing. Trying to misrepresent your family associations for political reasons is another thing.
Let’s say that Cruz (the Cuban-American presidential contender for … which ever party) chose to change his name last week to “Cross” to try to distance himself from the current war between America and Cuba.
OK, we’d have to move Cruz’d campaign back to the last presidential contest, and the war likewise. But that’s the level of cowardly and contemptuous toadying to public opinion that we’re talking about.
You’re stretching it, rock-abuser. (And not just with your Cruz example, either).
The Saxe-Coburg – Windsor change of name wasn’t a secret from anybody. It was public. No misrepresentation possible. They wanted to show solidarity with England and just didn’t want to remind the public daily and gratuitously that they had family connections with the Kaiser. I don’t see anything cowardly or contemptuous about that.
cr
Reblogged this on The Logical Place.
Ug. He used the word “reductionist” as a pejorative in the way that anti-science people do. Much like the ignorant people who think “selfish gene” means selfish people, they think that “reductionism” means taking away the good stuff, when in fact reductionism subtracts nothing from the picture but rather adds more information to the picture. You get the manifest image plus the reductionist information to ADD to it. Reductionism = more information to work with. The flower is still pretty and fragrant, plus now we know about the atoms inside it. Win win.
I suspect the hostility towards reductionism comes partly if not mostly from the fact that it rides roughshod over a “humans are more than the sum of their parts” philosophy. After all, if you believe in Human Specialness – whether via the explicit belief in a soul or via a more humanistic belief that physicalist ideas of humanity leave much to be desired – you’re not likely to welcome the fact that human experience is basically the material, mechanical, mathematical workings of a hypercomplex neural network made of atoms.
Moreover, when the idea of Human Specialness is at the core of many philosophies – political, religious, artistic, cosmological – there’s a lot of people who will insist “there are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio…” Hence the common misunderstanding of reductionism.
Since working out sums and parts is science’s raison d’etre, it’s not hard to see how “reductionism” ends up becoming a dirty word to hurl at scientists.
Caveat: It is possible to go too far the other way and try to explain too much with overreaching theories, of course, but personally I think this is less of a problem than dismissing “reductionism” prematurely. At least fellow scientists can check an overambitious colleague touting a “theory of everything” in any particular field.
And besides, it’s incorrect to believe that all science is reductionist anyway. There was actually a time when “holistic” was an accepted scientific term, before it got co-opted by the wooists, and one that was mentioned a lot in ecology, especially in community and ecosystem ecology. Much of evolutionary and paleo biology is also not exactly reductionist; also population biology. Many if not most sciences have specialties at both ends of the reductionist/uh, expansionist? continuum.
I like your take on reductionism, Matt–that it adds, rather than subtracts information.
Science is *systemist*. Wholes are analyzed into parts and parts are related to their wholes. (E.g., boundary conditions.)
New meaning of that term for me, but old concept. 🙂
Because of his divorce from the late Princess Diana, I have read that it is, in fact, unlikely that Charles will become king upon the death of his mother but will, instead, be pressured to abdicate in favor of his son, Prince William.
There is a contradiction in your post. At the instant of death of HM The Queen Charles will be King (The King is dead: Long Live the King, as the saying goes.) Whether, he abdicates later, who knows. He may very well feel after a few years that the Country would be best served by someone much younger.
As Terry Pratchett pointed out, this is true no matter how far apart the two people involved are, making royalty the only thing that travels faster than light. I once had an interesting beer-fueled chat with him about the possibility of FTL communication by keeping the monarch hovering on the brink of death and monitoring the heir’s ability to cure scrofula.
Was this before or after he wrote his footnote in Mort –
“Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles — kingons, or possibly queons — that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.”
cr
It is an interesting exercise in science fiction to imagine all the social institutions we have that presuppose that we are almost in the same place, so to speak.
That was written a lot in the years following Diana’s death, and following his marriage to Camilla, but there are not so many of those stories now. Charles has been on a mission to get Camilla more accepted by the public for years, and it seems to be working.
I also think it unlikely that he would abdicate in favour of William. Whatever else he is, he loves his kids and would want to spare William that as long as possible.
Unlike most people though, I was never an uncritical admirer of Diana. She did many things that are to be admired, but on balance I don’t consider her admirable. (80% of the planet just decided they hate me, which surely should give people pause. It’s the same reaction you get for not admiring Diana’s friend Mother Teresa.)
I also have never considered Diana admirable, but she has been far more sympathetic to me than Charles. The latter leaves the impression of an arrogant nutjob.
I for one certainly do not hate you. Your assessment of the late royal brood mare is quite accurate although perhaps somewhat too kind.
There is no doubt as to the reasoning behind the marriage of this woman from one of the oldest (English I think) astocratic families to Charles (succession planning)and there is no doubt also that this woman was a conniving publicity seeking clothes horse and she and Charles deserved each other.
There we go, I have probably upset a large proportion of the planet also.
Wrt to the demise of the present obviously popular British monarch the thing that interests me most is are we going to see a repeat here in the twenty first century of the ridiculous ceremony which took place in 1953 when the man in the silly hat told the world that the queen ruled by divine right, or some such silly other stuff.
Really? Is the UK going to sanction this elitist rubbish?
Thanks plingar! Nice to know I’m not alone. Yeah – that divine right thing really is ridiculous and embarrassing. Charles has said something about all religions getting together. I can’t remember exactly how he expressed it – it was a while ago. He was widely mocked because he’s going to be head of the Church and the other beliefs he was praising were in direct contradiction to Church of England tenets. He seems to have steered clear of religion since. He’s mates with some weird psychoanalyst/philosopher guy too.
He’s also friends with Stephen Fry, and Stephen Fry says he likes him as a person, finds him interesting to talk to, and that he has a very broad general knowledge. I can’t help feeling that any friend of Fry’s can’t be all bad.
I can’t help feeling that Fry might be influenced by the fact that it’s Prince Charles.
I believe he wanted to change the title of his role as “defender of the faith” (i.e. the Church of England) to “defender of faith”, to reflect religious-demographic changes since his ma started her job.
The question that arises from this of course is, against what?
That’s right, I remember now. Thanks. 🙂
I was always fairly neutral about Diana. When she was first married to Charles and the press was fawning over her, I thought she wasn’t that great. Okay, but nowhere near the hype. Then when the press did its nasty hypocritical snooping worst and she was being vilified, I felt she wasn’t that bad, nothing to be outraged about. I did applaud her efforts to rehabilitate herself in public opinion. And then she died and became Saint Diana, just more hype. Though IMO the paparazzi thoroughly deserved all the shit that landed on them. I do have great sympathy for Royalty (and film stars and other celebs) who can’t have a private life without being snooped on by predatory photographers. I’m sure many of their personal problems arise from the pressure of being under a spotlight the whole time.
cr
Yeah, whatever I think about Diana, I’ve no time for the paparazzi. Though it also annoys me that a lot of the people who complain them read all the articles. I refuse to buy those magazines on principle (and they’re also crap). I won a subscription to Women’s Weekly a couple of weeks ago and I arranged for it to be delivered to someone I knew would like it – I wanted nothing to do with it!
Well said. The front covers of womens’ mags do not reflect well on their readerships’ IQ.
The front covers of mens’ mags, now… oh, wait…
cr
Made me laugh! 😀
Ha ha! 😀
Never could stand Diana.
The pressure to abdicate upon succession is certainly there.
As a Republican (sensu-UK), this would be a terrible result. Prince Charles becoming monarch would be one of the best PR events that the Republican movement could have.
We take our allies where we find them.
Yep, he’s our best hope for a republic.
To all appearances, Charles’ mum will do whatever is necessary — e.g.,living to 112 years — to prevent his becoming king!
I’m pretty sure the Queen is into homeopathy too, so we already have a monarch who’s a woomeister.
There actually are good political arguments for a powerless monarch being head of state. If I was British, I’d be gunning for the House of Lords before the monarchy. The fact that the USA has remained stable with its type of democratic system is actually pretty unusual, and it’s not a system I’d recommend to a new country.
However I do find the idea that someone is better or more deserving of respect by dint of birth completely abhorrent. I would challenge the idea that USians don’t like the monarchy though – they sure flock to see any member of royalty, and are amongst the most enthusiastic consumers of royal tourism. Besides, USians have a habit of making people like Paris Hilton their de facto royalty. How is that an improvement?
I have heard it said, by an American historian, IIRC, that the USA has an elected monarchy whereas the UK has an hereditary presidency. On the whole, during my lifetime, I would much rather settle for the UK system. Has it escaped the notice of the anti-royalists who post on this web site that most of the highly respected north-western countries of Europe are, in fact,monarchies? I would certainly not suggest that being ruled by a monarch causes liberal governments, but perhaps a pragmatic acceptance of a non-political head of state accompanies a generally tolerant political system.
The problem with my viewpoint, of course, is Charles: seriously stupid, a walking talking example of the Dunning–Kruger syndrome, and I only hope that he is true to his homoeopathic principles the next time that he is ill. In the meantime, long live the Queen.
I like that elected monarchy/hereditary president thing. As you say, the northern Europeans countries that get so much praise are often monarchies, Sweden amongst them. In NZ, the Queen is legally our head of state too and we’re up there with the northern European countries for liberality and atheism. Australia is up there too. I’ve posted this before, but I think it bears repeating: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral
But yes, Charles has a few too many of his father’s genes. He’s not all bad but he tends to be easily convinced by crackpots.
Scarily, he has earned – and kept – a passenger-carrying pilot’s license both for rotor craft and fixed-wing.
We got the preliminary report on last week’s crash today. No pilot effect there, but the thought of Prince Plant-Talker behind the joystick still makes me wish to be on the ground. And not below the flight path.
I dont believe he flies any longer after stacking a plane whilst trying to land in the Hebrides.
Ran off the end of the runway – I remember it. Didn’t know that he’d stopped flying though. He used to get “cooperation” from the RAF about getting use of aircraft to keep his logbook up, which caused soome comment about “hidden subsidies”. But I haven’t head that charge for a while, so maybe he has let his license lapse.
To be fair, most European countries fare well on international measures of well-being, homicide statistics, equality, etc., and they show a mixture of monarchies and presidencies, the Nordic countries in particular. I doubt it’s a major factor compared with other societal measures, such as general religiosity, social welfare, and economic robustness.
” . . . the USA has an elected monarchy whereas the UK has an hereditary presidency.”
I’m reminded of the Bush-Cheney “unitary executive.” (And Republicans/conservatives gripe about Obama’s overreach, eh?)
“I suspect they secretly love the tradition of the monarchy.”
Case in point: Richard Dawkins.
“Yes, I rant. Yet nobody can disagree that Prince Philip and Prince Charles are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, and, unless the Queen lives forever, before too long the British will be ruled by a woomeister.”
Um, do I have to mention names like George W. Bush and Donald Trump? I’ll take the monarchy thanks. I agree Chuck is a dope but he’s just a figurehead. Real decisions are made by an elected government.
What exactly is the point in highlighting terrible US Presidents when the history of terrible English and British monarchs is far richer? At least an American President is removed from office after at most 8 years.
Bad monarchs are selected by ‘god’ (in reality blind chance of who gets born first).
People actually voted for Nixon, Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 and it looks like an uncomfortably high number are going to vote for Trump.
Neither is good, I’m not sure which is worse.
Bush 2 won by virtue of that concept of human herd management, the “Electoral College.”
Times have changed. In the Commonwealth for the better, in the US for the worse. The monarch has no real power, but US presidents do. For example the war criminal LBJ, Tricky Dicky, Gerald “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” Ford, Carter (I will admit that history has been very kind to him since he left office), serial womanizers like Kennedy and WJC, etc.
How is it that in the American system it costs insane amounts of loot to run for office, and serious candidates are rejected in favour of people like Trump?
To me, the US president is analogous to British PM as head of government, rather than to the ceremonial constitutional monarchs and presidents of other countries.
I think Americans do not understand why there should be a ceremonial head of state on top of the real one, but non-US countries apparently need such a position.
Exactly.
Because I don’t think the executive function should be separated from the legislative function – countries that combine both tend to be more stable although this can be overcome e.g. in France the Prime minister is in alternate periods with President policy maker as well as well as head of legislature. I think the executive/legislature divide causes gridlock – like between the house and the president in US these days. Another problem is as in many South American countries if most of the parties in the legislature don’t have strong interests and clear platform so the parties just collude or there’s too many little splinter parties that keep changing allegiance and interest.
Incidentally, fans of Christopher Hitchens reading this site — I expect there are a few — will enjoy his short book “The Monarchy: A Critique of Britain’s Favourite Fetish”. It’s only £1.99 on the kindle store.
American readers including the OP will certainly gain insight into how otherwise rational, progressive Brits can be seduced by this gaudy cult.
The problem with Charlie (well one of the problems) is that the bloke has not got a proper job. Apart from a time in the Royal Navy in his twenties all he has had to do is hang around waiting for his mother to die (a not particularly pleasant concept) before he fulfills his function. Frankly it’s not surprising that he has gone a bit doolally.
As posted above we can just hope that when he finally succeeds he will continue spouting rubbish when he is meant to keep his mouth shut and increases the movement for an elected head of state. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime though. The upheaval will be enormous.
Agreed. For one thing we’d need to decide on a name for the country!
The “United Kingdom” is the only country I can think of that specifies its system of government in its name. What would we call ourselves, the “United Republic of GB and NI”? Ugh. I favour simply “Britain” but I guess the folks in NI won’t like that much.
The “United Kingdom” is the only country I can think of that specifies its system of government in its name.
In actuality, the majority of countries are strictly speaking named like that: “Republic of X”, or “Kingdom of X”, or “Democratic Republic of X”, and so on. What makes the UK unusual is that it is more popularly known by the description rather than by the “X”.
Well, I guess that’s because they ran out of descriptive names.
First there was England, which conquered and absorbed Wales (sorta). Then it conquered Scotland (sorta) and that made Great Britain. So when they added Ireland (now wound back to Northern Ireland) I guess they were running out of descriptive names.
After all, ‘United States’ is similarly geographically ambiguous. It’s in America but certainly doesn’t encompass all of America. It’s understood ‘U.S.’ doesn’t refer to the united states of e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina.
cr
England didn’t become GB when Scotland was “conquered” – it inherited a Scottish monarch thanks to the stupidity of the whole hereditary monarchy setup. That monarch then had two countries and the two parliaments decided it made sense to unite. Ireland had already been conquered but remained a separate kingdom. (It was actually the Normans that did all the conquering, including England, but that seems to get forgotten in the blame-the-English narrative of the smaller nations.) Following an Irish rebellion, it was decided to dispense with separate realms and unite the kingdoms, hence United Kingdom of Great Britain and (now just Northern) Ireland.
“United Kingdom” is a truncation and so the full name is not ambiguous – it is the islands of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Unlike USA, which is geographically wrong, rather than ambiguous, one could argue.)
I will admit to having abbreviated history somewhat (maybe even misrepresented it in the case of Scotland, though I do recall some fighting which the Scots did not, in the end, win). My point was really that the full name of the UK is somewhat unweildy, and unlike, say, the Peoples Democratic Republic of Algeria, the UK does not have a handy short geographical version. i.e. you can’t just call it ‘England’, and ‘Britain’ is taken. Hence UK.
cr
Except in sport, where we are still GB! (Or England, Wales & Scotland, depending on the sport.)
One even worse example: Islamic Republic of Iran.
I’ve seen a few more walking around Ottawa – the things one can learn from embassy signs 😉
Not to mention, I might add, all the euphemisms and lies, e.g., “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. At least Iran is *honest*. 😉
Quite a few more Islamic Republics in Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states
But that wasn’t my point so I avoided it.
cr
There is a problem with an ekected head of state – the fact of election gives them a claim to authority. There is no claim to authority for the Queen. It’s understood her role is purely ceremonial, and that can be useful. In many ways she’s a tool of government – a sort of roving diplomat, and she does that fairly well.
As I’ve stated elsewhere though, the idea that being born into a particular family confers status is just wrong. But that does happen in the US too – Bush and Kennedy are but two examples of legion.
Well, the Kennedys do not appear to have fulfilled their early promise and no one seems to want “tired” Jed.
You need to listen more to Monarchists. They routinely claim that the family descent is the grounds for her Brendaness’s authority.
Some of the monarchists get a bit carried away. I personally don’t see her having any authority, but of course it is her descent that put her in the position she’s in. I feel like you can’t justify putting anyone in a job just because of birthright, but the tradition of monarchy exists, so use it. I wouldn’t ever start an hereditary monarchy tradition, but since it’s there, let’s make the most of it.
Indeed some monarchists do get carried away, and do make the claim that the ancestry proves something other than the ability to profit from being born rich and powerful.
Totally agree. I think the monarchy is a feudal hold over that on one level represents the peak of feudal aristocratic lineages whilst costing quite a lot (and only recently being taxed. It is however ceremonial and helps to keep separation of the real powers effective. For some reason, the English Brits of all classes still seem to love all the ceremony (is it because it represents reflected glory of the past/ its a comforting tradition and a public spectacle both dazzling pomp kind and celebrity gossip kind?)
However an elected head of state is not good – it weakens the voice of the majority as reflected directly in the legislature in my view and makes for a messy disputatious government. However if the British could have a head of State appointed by both houses of parliament that would be good. Agree that the undemocratic features of the (British) house of Lords (though Labour got rid of hereditary seats if only a few years ago) is more important.
I’m a republican (but only for appointed NOT elected Head of state) re Australia. I am less that happy at the thought of Charles becoming king but I don’t like it when people vilify the Queen – I think within a tradition bound, semi feudal institution she has a huge sense of duty and has done everything she can within the institution to be a unifier and (at times a la Thatcher) to moderate harsh policies within the ceremonial nature of her role. According to a Guardian article she is not totally powerless
Secret papers show extent of senior royals veto over bills
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills. I get the impression this is still very marginal power but it isn’t exactly transparent. I think the US Americans don’t mind the celebrity/gossip and spectacle/fairy tale aspect of the royals either.
As an Aussie too, you’ll know or remember what happened what happened when a governor-general tried to make it more than a ceremonial role. :-/
Royal assent is still a thing here in Canada (and I suspect in NZ and Australia, right?) With the GG doing the actual assent thing.
The problem is the UK’s *undocumented* use of the power, since there’s no written constitution.
Since when did *documenting* something improve it?
(Thinks of Second Amendment…)
cr
Well, sometimes.
In the case of UK conventions, we have a lot of them here too, and the previous government decided to *ignore* a few of them, like nominal approval only for what are supposed to be programs at arm’s length (e.g., the Census of Population). So for one generally prefer explicit to implicit in regulations and laws.
I’d agree with the ‘sometimes’.
(All too often ‘documenting’ procedures just produces reams of paperwork where the important points get buried in a morass of box-ticking).
cr
“…why not give them more water instead of homeopathic medicines?”
They kind of are giving them more water. 🙂
“Hey, Brits—why do you put up with that?”
Good question but I have one for us here at home (USA). Why do we put up with allowing people to pay for “faith healers” using tax-exempt medical savings accounts (FSAs)? In the end we taxpayers subsidize quackery that kills a few kids every year.
Does Prince Charles talk to each cow for two or three hours in order to determine its individual homeopathic remedy?
+1
As has been said above we in the UK know Charles is not very clever, bonkers even. But if and when he comes to wear the crown he will do as his mother has done, that is get pulled by political strings like a puppet.
The debate here is, who could we possibly vote in as a president? The whole political class is believed to be not worthy. We’ll just have to try to be more like the Swedish crown or one of the more sympathetic others.
Meanwhile it’s a shame anyone listens to Charlie’s nonsense. Because they do.
I’d be fascinated to know what the Swedes think of their monarchy. I remember reading a book by Michael Booth on the Nordic countries (The Almost Nearly Perfect Countries), and in one passage, he asks this question to a few people he interviewed. The general consensus he got was that they mostly just tolerate it, except as a mild form of celebrity culture. But you can’t base much on anecdotal evidence, so it’d be informative to see if there’d been a national survey of some kind.
EDIT: Got title wrong. It was The Almost Nearly Perfect People
The Queen doesn’t ‘rule’. Nor will Charles. Their roles as Heads of State are/will be almost entirely ceremonial. Just about the only area where Charles’s ‘black spider’ letters to Ministers have had even peripheral effect is that of architecture and city planning. His views on homeopathy have had no effect whatsoever: it is in serious decline throughout the UK.
Popular support for republicanism in the UK is at its lowest for years. This may in part be due to the ‘Elizabeth factor’; but the fact is that the process of disentangling the monarchy from the rest of the constitution would be difficult and destabilising. And for what? A President Blair, Branson or Brand? No ta.
Disclosure:I have met Her Maj twice. She’s OK. Not inbred,arrogant or dumb at all.
Jo Brand as head of state would be fun.
Maybe! My concern was about Russell.
I know.
I could live with that.
Thinking about it a comedian as head of state would be great. Eddie Izard greating Putin on a state visit in drag would be brilliant!
Paging Zaphod Beeblebrox …
Sorry Jerry, but I think you’re way out of line here.
In my youth I used to be a hardline republican. with greater maturity I’ve changed my mind and I now wholeheartedly support the British monarchy.
Constitutional monarchy may be quaint, old-fashioned and a system that non-one would invent from scratch if they had to design a system of government now. But you know what, it works. It works in the sense that countries with parliamentary democracies under a constitutional monarch are among the most stable, peaceful, civilised and humane places on Earth. The UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan.
“The British royalty has become a vestigial organ of the body politic: a useless appendage.” No it isn’t: it’s a focus of national pride and affection. It’s a symbol of the nation and of our continuity with our ancient past. I don’t suppose an American can really understand that, but that’s too bad. No-one’s asking you to adopt our system, so feel free to stick with your own rigid attachment to a fixed constitution written by a bunch of be-wigged slaveowners in the late 18th century. The British system is far more flexible and adaptable to modification than yours.
“The idea that I would have to bow to the Queen, or walk backwards out of the room when leaving Her presence, revolts me.”
You don’t have to. It’s used to show respect, but there are no penalties for
not doing it – or do you seriously think that anyone failing to bow is hauled off to the Tower to be hung, drawn and quartered?
I agree with you that Charles’ views on homeopathy are ridiculous. But you know what – it doesn’t matter. He can send off letters now because he isn’t yet the king. His ravings will be politely acknowledged and then politely ignored. When he does become king he’ll be required to keep his mouth shut and carry out his ceremonial duties just as his mother has done. That’s the thing about constitutional monarchs – they’re powerless figureheads and its doesn’t matter what eccentric views they may hold.
Enjoy the next eight years of President Trump. Over here, we’ll stick with the system that’s served us well since long before the upstart USA was even thought of.
God Save the Queen (I can say that even though I’m an atheist).
+5. Well said.
Agreed.
Hear, hear.
Our gracious majesty the Queen has been a symbol of stability and continuity for all of my life, and it will be a very sad day when we finally and inevitably lose her.
Agree also.
Hear, hear! Jolly well said.
Do you relly think that Trump will be content with 8 years. The amendments will be in place in his first term to remove that pettyfogging little restriction.
King Donald the First! Hurrah!
About time those colonial rebels re-discovered the delights of absolute monarchy.
(Just joking – honest, guv)
How did Phineas, Freddie and Freewheelin’ Franklin put it? Oh yes, “Hallajuleahbubble!”
I don’t think Spain, and especially Belgium and Japan are good examples of constitutional monarchies. The Spanish monarchy have fallen out of favour on account of corruption, plus the country is a bit of an economic disaster. Theres a lot that isn’t terribly democratic about Japanese democracy, and their judicial system operates on presumption of guilt. Belgium is a complete political mess and always has been plus its founding monarchs include the notorious Leopold II of Congo genocide note.
Japan is a constitutional monarchy, it just happens to be a very authoritarian one in many respects. In fact, since Japan has a written constitution, I’d say there is a sense in which it is more of one than the UK.
Is there such a thing as an unwritten constitution?
I don’t know where the term comes from, but that’s how the UK’s system is described.
I’d say it’s a mixture of laws, customs, established institutions and ‘how things have always been done’.
Whether trying to document it all is even possible, or would actually improve matters, I doubt. The US I think has tried that, and their legal system is just as confusing. The Supreme Court is supposed to try and sort it out, and its decisions are still notoriously subject to the personal quirks of the justices appointed to it.
cr
Setting aside such unsubtle rhetoric as the implication that anyone who disagrees with you is immature, your argument rests on a few shaky premises. For starters, it relies on transparent cherry picking of your examples. France, Portugal, Finland, Austria, Germany, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Slovenia, Italy, Ireland, and Iceland are viable candidates for stable, peaceful, civilised and humane places in the modern world, while Antigua and Barbada, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Tonga, and Tuvalu also have constitutional monarchies.
This is assuming the standard of evidence we should appeal to is mere correlation by listing countries. But even supposing every last constitutional monarchy was in the top tier and everyone else was below, you still cannot, on that basis, claim that this particular governmental style “works”. It’s not even that hard to find confounding factors: by and large, wealthy European, American, and West Pacific nations come out top in many measurements of societal wellbeing, regardless of the presence or absence of a monarchy system.
Lastly, the idea that an entire form of government should be propped up for “national pride” or chiefly as some kind of “symbol” is a desperate one, to put it mildly. Leaving aside the unlikely empirical claim that countries without such governmental and nationalistic “symbols” would be statistically less likely than otherwise to rank high on well-being – and even by correlational standards, that’s a dodgy claim – it doesn’t strike me as a good idea to instill a bias in a country when a more cosmopolitan focus (and less patriotic fervour) is more rationally defensible.
You rail against the US and praise the UK, but frankly the UK on such measures of wellbeing is USA-lite compared with most of the rest of Europe, and the nationalistic pride and fervour you espouse is more conspicuous in the USA than in the UK. It’s not a good idea to tout the values of a nationalistic pride by criticizing one of the most nationalistic and proudest Western countries on the planet.
You may be proud of the way we pick our head of state (picking a womb & seeing what pops out) but I’m not.
Protocol these days allows one to act normally when meeting a royal, say as one would if meeting the head of your university.
Anyhow, the Royal Family generate tourist dollars from rich Americans, and they also do good service in their “day job” of an endless round of civic and charity events.
So, overall, it’s not really worth objecting to having them.
… their day job being to distract people from realising who is accountable for the problems of governance in the country.
Oh yeah, they’re effective at that.
Canada has a Monarch too, (no, it’s not Dave Foley) but at least we don’t have to pay for her. We get to borrow England’s. We call her The Queen of Canada. It’s a good arrangement, cheap, she has no actual power so she’s like a celebrity that cuts a ribbon at a mall opening with a really large pair of scissors.
If anyone is interested her constitutional role is outlined here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada#Federal_constitutional_role
Basically all of her power is “entrusted for exercise by the politicians (the elected and appointed parliamentarians and the ministers of the Crown generally drawn from among them) and the judges and justices of the peace.”
Your last paragraph suggests that there can never be room for direct executive action by the monarch of Canada. I wonder. Even now, there are conflicting accounts of the role played by the Queen of Australia in the dismissal by the Governor General, Sir John Kerr of PM Gough Whitlam and the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser as caretaker PM in 1975. It seems clear that in the lead up to the action advice was sought by Kerr and responded to by Charles, Prince of Wales. The role of Her Majesty remains opaque however.
That’s true, and there was outcry at the involvement of ‘the crown’, however, it can’t happen again and, it was really just the political machinations of ‘our’ political parties.
At one time the Queen of Canada needed to be informed of certain issues and she would give Royal Assent. Legislation, swearing in of Prime Ministers, etc. That was removed, and if I understand correctly there is no longer a need to even inform the Queen. I believe this change took place after Canada’s constitution came into force in 1982, when it replaced the North American Act.
One of the recent Lieutenant Governors was quoted to have said he was considering removing the then British Columbia premier because of irregularities and questions of legal problems with the then Premier (I think it was Vander Zalm). I watched this on the news, but I’ve never been able to find anything more about this. This has been done before, in 1903. I understand it that is part of their duties. The decision is ultimately the Lieutenant Governor’s and no consultation, informing the Queen or her royal assent is required.
Constitutionally, her supposed representative (the Governor General, or the LG in provinces) can do *something*, though it is unclear what. There was talk about this when Parliament was prorogued a few times in seemingly weird circumstances under PM Harper a while ago.
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Diderot
Id settle for strangling the last priest with the guts of the last king. I might even leave the king alive to enjoy the spectacle. That should be within the abilities of a good torturer/ executioner.
Hmmm, problem – we haven’t had an executioner or admitted to a torturer for some time. We might have to borrow a foreign executioner and get some of our “black ops” people to provide some training.
This strikes me as too extreme a response. It’s impossible to defend monarchies on egalitarian grounds, but on pragmatic ones in aid of popular welfare, I think a case can be made. It is possible to have relatively liberal nations that also have constitutional monarchies. Scandinavian countries and a few in mainland Europe rank well on such measures as press freedom, lack of restrictions on speech, and voting opportunity, and commonwealths like Canada and Australia can sit comfortably alongside them in international measures.
What the heck is Charles’s signature??
That question was bugging me too.
They call him Harly for short. Or is that Mary?
Just as a tangent, I have the genuine signature of both George VI and Elizabeth II, thanks to my grandfather’s long career in the Civil Service.
I had them framed (they are on ornate certificates) after my father’s death, and my local framing shop said they were the most interesting and unique items they had ever done.
That, plus a few dollars will me a coffee, I know.
Reading the comments here shows the division between Americans and our British cousins regarding monarchy. Many Americans seem to enjoy the spectacle and tabloid gossip but I suspect few would chose to install an American monarchy. I personally despise the idea of a king and would be among the first to take up arms against anyone claiming that position here in the US; ceremonial figurehead or not.
That said, I can understand that the history of Britain is so long that it would be very difficult to discard something that has defined your culture for so long. Either way, I think we can still be friends.
+ 1
There are more important fish to fry. And we need to work together on those.
“In America we successfully combine both functions in the person of the President and Vice President.”
Exsqueeze me? I have always been baffled by the way in which some moron who half the population have voted against and who has been made out, during the election campaign, to be the biggest dickhead in the universe, having successfully been manipulated into office, suddenly becomes a demigod to be revered. Think Dubya.
The huge advantage of a Royal family (Britain’s or scandinavian) these days is that their function is separated from the executive. Unlike, unfortunately, your President. (Not think of Obama there, but for every Obama there’s several Dubyas).
Back to the issue at hand, if Charles wants to avoid the stupid and pernicious practice of dosing his cattle up to the gills with antibiotics, to the endangerment of us all, in favour of feeding them water which is stupid but endangers nobody else, then surely that’s a net gain. I’d take that any day over the loopy millennialist AGW-denialism of much of your ruling clique.
cr
If our presidents are bad it is our choice and the error will be corrected in 4 to 8 years. In the meantime, division of powers keeps things from goin too far off the rails. You only have the impression that the monarchy is harmless because there has been so little turnover. What happens when you get stuck with your own king George? I prefer to elect my leader rather than wait for them to fall out of a queens vagina (the top qualification of a king).
Mark Twain said it best (as usual):
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/01/youre-idiot-of-33rd-degree.html
Love it!!
One of my personal heroes, thanks for the link.
I recently took the Oath of Canadian Citizenship, wherein I had to swear allegiance to the Queen. As a born and raised American, I imagined years ago that this would bother me for some of the exact reasons Jerry has highlighted here. By the time I took the Oath though, I didn’t have a problem with it at all, for a lot of different reasons, including some of those listed by commenters above.
But it is instructive to make a comparison between the naturalization oaths of Canada and the US. Being born American, I never had to take the Oath, just as natural-born Canadians don’t have to swear allegiance to the Queen. But read these two Oaths and then think about which one you would rather say.
Canadian Oath of Citizenship:
“I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”
American Oath of Citizenship:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
I have a lot of problems with that American Oath. In particular, I really dislike the fetishizing of the Constitution – it’s treated as an immutable, sacred document. I would much rather “faithfully observe laws and fulfil duties as a citizen” – which may very well include *changing* those laws – than swear allegiance to any text. I also have a major problem with the “God” bit in the US Oath, notably absent from the Canadian one.
We already know Canada’s perfect. You don’t have to rub it in. 😉
I had no idea the US oath was so–antiquated. And to me, parts of it sound unconstitutional!
Well that certainly is embarrassing. Glad I didn’t have to take such a stupid oath.
So, when one is born in the U.S., one is bound by that oath, though never having taken it. Or is it only naturalized citizens who are so bound?
I’m no legal expert, but to my understanding it’s only naturalized citizens that are bound by these oaths since they are the only ones who are ever made to say them.
Is there in fact anything (in either oath) that is not equally legally required of a citizen who has not taken it? I can’t see it.
The last oath that I recall having any tangible effect was the ‘fahneneid’ that the German armed forces took, of personal allegiance to Hitler. It was reputedly a significant obstacle to the anti-Hitler movement in the German officer corps.
cr
Not sure, but I think I just Godwinned oaths of allegiance 😉
cr
Loopholes can be fun.
Turing was asked to sign a paper that put him under military law when he was at Bletchley. Unfortunately for his would-be CO, there was a line that read “Do you consent to be put under military law?” and Turing had written in “No.” (Yet had signed the paper.) They only noticed this when it came time to summon him somewhere.
Apparently he became a crack shot, but really didn’t like reveiile or something.
—
As a new Canadian public servant and a republican (UK/Canadian sense, as usual) I was concerned on my first day that I would have to swear allegiance to the monarch. Fortunately, the oath is to the Canadian people, which is in my view exactly right.
Oh I *like* that Turing story!
cr
We have to remember that, long, long before the advent of radio or the “telly”, the Royals have provided the British people with an ongoing drama/farce/reality show, not to mention an endless font of material for the tabloid grist mills. They are beloved- if for entertainment value, alone!
I refer the honourable gentleperson to Zaphod’s comments on the purpose of heads of state.
And Zaphod should know a thing or two about heads.
🙂
cr
Donald Trump
Trump is neither a king nor a president (yet) so I don’t understand all the references to him in this thread. You’re basically saying “hey, what’s that over there?” to divert the conversation away from the issue at hand.
It is a bizarre argument. Since nothing would stop us having a Donald Trump or his cut price version Boris Johnson as the UK PM.
With the royal prerogative our cut price version could end up with more power as well.
One could just as easily reply “King George IV”. Unfortunately there is no shortage of abhorrent leaders on either side of the pond.
Er, actually homeopathy is not completely “bunk”, as several recent studies have shown, and it does *not* involve diluting compounds down to nothing; in involves diluting them to the point of effective bioelectric transmission. It’s like salt and water; neither of those, pure, will conduct electricity, but mixed in just the right ratio they will. Same deal with homeopathic potions. Since homeopathy was invented before modern electronics, let alone the modern understanding of bioelectronics, the exact ratios had to be discovered by trial and error, and are still fairly hit-or-miss. Still, homeopathy has enough cures to its record to be well worth studying — and sometimes applying.
Sources?
I’ve a feeling the word quantum is going to be used and maybe nano tubes…. sources or it didn’t happen
It defies all logic so we know for sure it’s complete bunk.
It probably deifies all logic as well. 😉
Analysis of current evidence does actually show homeopathy is completely bunk. For example, the Science and Technology Committee Evidence Check in 2010:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm
“There has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious.”
…and the Homeopathy Review of the Australian Government’s NHMRC in 2015:
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-topics/complementary-medicines/homeopathy-review
“Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes
that there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy
is effective.”
The take home message of years of studies is that homeopathy works no better than placebo, *and* there is no plausible scientific theory underlying its supposed operation. For example, the Parliamentary committee reported:
“Both critics and supporters of homeopathy have questioned the scientific plausibility of any direct physiological mode of action. For example, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB), which is firmly in the “critic” camp,[48] argues that “no plausible scientific reason has yet been proposed as to why it should work”. The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, which is more supportive of homeopathy, also notes: “any specific mechanism of action based on extreme dilution is implausible and regarded as unsupportable by the majority of scientists working in this field”.
If you have evidence of how dilution of like materials achieves healing effects via “bioelectric transmission” perhaps you could write this up for peer review? Or, if it has already been done, could you supply some links?
“Who are you who’s so wise in the ways of science?”
“She turned me into a newt!”
A neeeeeewt?
I got better…
(Used to show that clip in my geometry classes when we were doing proofs:-)
Many (Most?) of us Brits are not Royalists and see the Royals primarily as a way of making money from American tourists – sorry but your countrymen seem much more keen on them than us! Even the Royalists generally want Charles to be skipped in favour of William. The Queen has a fair few more years, probably. We hope!
(NB. The Queen is a bit like family – we Brits may criticise a lot at home but that doesn’t mean that some outsider can come along and disrespect her! This may account for an apparent pro-Royal sense from the Brits you’ve talked to. Either that, or you move in more aristocratic circles than me!!)
It might be a good time to mention a book for those interested in the interactions between the heir apparent and the world of CAM. Edzed Ernst was appointed Professor of Complementary Medicine at Exeter University, supposedly the first chair in the world in that subject. With charming naivety he set about proving what worked and what didn’t, and couldn’t find anything in the first category. He soon fell foul of HRH by withdrawing his support for homeopathy on the NHS. Prince Charles’ private office laid complaints against Ernst with the university and applied pressure such that he chose to retire and avoid such aggravation. The story is told in his autobiography, “A Scientist in Wonderland”.
Incidentally, Charles has also overstepped his constitutional role many times by writing to government ministers and attempting to influence policy. The government has loyally tried to prevent the release of the correspondence, which doesn’t reflect well on either side, but The Grauniad has gone to court to obtain some of these so-called ‘Black Spider Memos’ (his handwriting, apparently). The man is plainly a fool and will probably advance the republican cause should he choose not to step aside for his popular and less insular son.
Well as a Brit, I do not support the Monarchy, I am a Republican, and have long advocated the Windsors being put out to grass, as a matter of fact Mrs Windsor is not the rightful Monarch, who happens to live in Australia and is himself a Republican, so I’m in pretty good company. lol, This explains it.
https://youtu.be/7DCasz6oeL4
Thanks for posting this. Most enjoyable to watch. Love most things Tony Robinson does, and we don’t always have access to British productions such as this in Canada. (At least, I don’t, with my limited # of TV channels.) I do watch “Time Team” though.
As a person living in Canada, I can watch the antics of the royals with amusement (though sometimes, “we are not amused”), and see Elizabeth’s portrait displayed in school libraries, town halls etc. Outdated, for sure, but not really threatening in any way.
On the other hand, some of us are keeping a watchful (and, I may say, fearful) eye on the antics south of our border. Is King Donald about to be crowned? I sure fucking hope not!
I’ve got a plan, a cunning plan…
A lot of monarchy-bashing from the Americans here it seems. I think that those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones! Great Britain is a fairly sensible place in spite of having an unelected, powerless head of State. The USA on the other hand seems to have a habit of frequently *electing* complete idiots to their head of state, and it looks like they’re about to do it again. Monarchy = inherited privilege, sure, but the US system is hardly a glowing example of democracy: anyone can become president blah blah blah…. just as long as they have access to a f*ck-load of money and powerful friends, which has been in most recent examples, um, inherited. With most of the candidates being lunatics, and even fewer with any actual credentials for the job, I’d say “six of one, half dozen of the other”. Fortunately Prince Charles’ opinions on vet medicine are about as likely to become public policy as Kim Kardashian’s! I’m not too worried about the prospect of Charles and his ‘no actual power’; I am on the other hand very worried about Donald Trump! I’d suggest saving all the indignation for problems closer to home.
The UK is relatively “sensible” compared with the USA, but that’s not saying much to its advantage overall. The UK itself is just a less extreme version of the USA compared with most of Europe (and especially compared with the Nordic countries). It seems to me that the monarchy here is harmless largely for the same reasons religion is: it’s deprived of most of its historic powers and forced to coexist with other, more democratic and welfare-oriented systems that act as checks and counterbalances.
While there are certainly graver issues compared with arguing over the existence of a disarmed hereditary system of government, I don’t see the advantage of begrudging liberal Americans the chance to point out how inegalitarian the system is.
The UK (and places like Canada, my own country) are relatively sensible *in spite* of having a theocratic and monarchical form of government …
—
Japan/UK/Iran/Saudi Arabia
US/France/Russia/Cuba
All democracies put morons in power. The thing with modern monarchies is that they have resident inbred permanent morons, stupefyingly wealthy, leaving above the law for reasons nobody really comprehend and with functions that nobody understand.
Here’s how Alan Johnson should have replied:
Your Royal Highness,
Thank you for your letter of the 19th September. As a Royal Fellow of the Royal Society, you will of course be familiar with basic scientific concepts such as molarity and Avogadro’s number; and I am sure you will have no trouble estimating how many molecules are left after one mole of a compound is diluted into water by a factor of 100C, as typically advocated by homeopaths. This calculation is trivial and can be done by any competent GCSE Chemistry student.
If you do the calculation, you will immediately see why homeopathy is bunk.
Yours most sincerely……