It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Prince Charles - 'Don't think above your station'

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
This forum is for important world news. As much
as Prince Charles likes to think he is important,
he isn't. However, I thought it was important to
share with everyone one of Prince Charles'
views on life - Common people shouldn't think
ABOVE THEIR STATION. Only 'smart' people like TV
personalities (gag!) and the like, should be thinking.

ENGLAND - when are you going to stop paying tax money
to support these muffin heads?

uk.news.yahoo.com...

Yahoo News
November 19, 2004
Excerpt -

Hereditary heir to British throne criticises those with
'ideas above their station' Such as former secretary,
who is claiming unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination
More unwelcome ructions from Clarence House for Monarchy

Key quote"People think they can all be pop stars,
high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or
infinitely more competent heads of state without
ever putting in the necessary work or having
natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism
which believes humanity can be genetically and socially
engineered to contradict the lessons of history."
- Prince Charles Story in full PRINCE Charles's latest
pronouncement on British society - that its schools
are imbued with a culture of "social utopianism"
responsible for people getting ideas above their station
- was laid bare at an employment tribunal yesterday


[edit on 11/18/2004 by FlyersFan]




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Prince Charles is utterly irrelevant to the vast bulk of the UK people, I doubt that many have even heard this story.

Discussion of the Monarchy is - one way or another - curtailed in the mainstream media outlets in UK but the more 'profile' he tries to muster for himself the more it will provoke debate......especially with this kind of idiotic rubbish.

Even with no real public debate there is already believed to be around a third in favour of a British republic.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Prince Charles is utterly irrelevant to the vast
bulk of the UK people


Good. Glad to hear it. I hope the good people
of the UK stop letting their tax money go to
support irrelevancy.

Of course ... it is THEIR business ... not
ours here in America. The UK is free to do with
their country as they see fit. But I gotta' admit
that voyerism into how this will play out is fun.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Not that this really matters as his opinion does not really matter, but it reminds me of Brave New World.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
The irony is delightful coming from a man who thinks he is fit to be King.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
If history repeats itself (Victoria/Edward VII) the Queen will not die until Charles is relatively old. He will probably only last a few years as king before being succeeded by William.

Personally, I think that William is the last hope for the British monarchy.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
if you think the royals are irrelevent, i think you're wrong. there would be no more royals otherwise. there is more than 'tradition' keeping them sitting in their ivory towers.

the sad thing here is, although he's an elitist silver-spooner, he has a point. i mean would you want the guy who can't even take a pizza order right to build a nuclear power plant. there is such a thing as IQ. i'm not saying that makes smarter people better, just smarter. maybe they have poor social skills where someone less eggheaded has good ones. each person has something to offer(even if it's just a negative example) to the whole.
what we need to avoid is someone or some group trying to DICTATE who's who. let's let nature work that out.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Charles is pretty much stating many points made in the Bell Curve

I agree with many of those points



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I read a book a while ago outlining how Prince Charles is the Antichrist. It went into elaborate detail on the changes he's made to the family crest signifying an alliance with Satan. It also told of Prince Charles looking to head a new European Council a.ka. New World Order group.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
I read a book a while ago outlining how Prince Charles is the Antichrist. It went into elaborate detail on the changes he's made to the family crest signifying an alliance with Satan. It also told of Prince Charles looking to head a new European Council a.ka. New World Order group.


interestingly the king arthur lore has it that the 'once and future king' will be the only royal to bear the name arthur, which is the middle name of both charles and Will I Am, the first royals to have that name since arthur himself

hmmmmm...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
[edit on 19-11-2004 by outsider]



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   



Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities?

. . .

People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability.


On that part I agree whole heartedly with him. You see examples of that right here on ATS every day



"This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centred system which admits no failure.

. . .

This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history."


Im not sure I go along with that part, however. While I agree that there are problems in our educational systems as a result of the PC agenda, I think that he may be over reaching a bit there.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I agree with Prince Charles on one part of his statement - a lot of youngsters nowadays DO indeed think they can achieve big things without putting in any work. After all, in the West, more and more parents give their children pretty much all they want - in part to get "forgiven" for not being there. So these kids grow up and in a number of cases assume they'll get all they want in life without having to lift a finger.

However, I do disagree with the "natural abilities" crap, and I can't fathom why this was written about a secretary who requested more training. The prince shot himself in the foot.

FlyersFan - would you believe me if I said the United States never really got rid of the "monarchy"? Look at the trappings and ceremonial surrounding the presidency - the swearing-in ceremonies, parade, waving to people, evening ball... and of course the fact that Presidents who were/are considered part of a "dynasty" occupied power for a total of 43 years out of 215...

What can I say... the people need some glitter.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
From the people who brought us WW1 and WW2...

Bloody Charles Saxe Coburg Gotha, he has nothing to do with the surname Windsor, he a german from the house of Hanover, he shouldn't even be an heir to the throne of Britain.

His claim is bogus, he's Prince of Wales without being the Prince of the Welsh, like his mother Queen of Great Britain without being the Queen of Britons. They represent their land and holdings, not the people...

There will be no justice in Britain until the rightfull celtic heir to the throne, Prince Micheal Stewart is recognised and coronated King of Scots...

In the meantime "Prince" Charles should be the last person in Britain denouncing speaking above ones station...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
This all too sad comment from the future Charles III, who will of course be the Last King of England.

The first two Charles' didn't fare much better, if I recall my British History....

It will be a shock to the tourist trade to rid the country of the Royals but I suppose they can always freeze them and put them behind glass for the public to gawk at, with their bejewelled crowns on, of course.

"Cor, 'ave a Dekko at the Relics of a bygone Era. Quaint, aint they, Margaret...? And t'fink we paid taxes for feez inbred parasoits !!"

Ahhh...I can hear it all now in the year 2050...



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
.
.
.
Charlie's comments are straight from the Eugenics Bible (currently masquerading as genetics). ...I thought the good Prince had dissed Eugenics, which has VERY strong support in Britain AND America.....

...anyone have current/accurate info? Re Prince Charles and the Eugenics Movement?

Thnx.



.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I ask you? Can't he think his own thoughts and speak from his own mind?

Look. In America that woman [secretary to his personal secretary] would have been simply fired, without a word. At-Will EMPLOYMENT, remember?

But this woman filing suit against the Prince was not fired; she quit. She didn't like the Prince's secretary getting too chummy; and they didn't like her not liking that.

So? Is this grist for a lawsuit? Was someone harmed in some way?

How silly. Leave the man alone. He's a figurehead for a huge Disneyland-type tourist industry that grosses 179 million pounds a year [so HRH Elizabeth II claims on her balance sheet]. As the executives of such a large business, shouldn't they be able to do whatever they WANT?

Like Enron, or Wackenhut? or CityBank?

Don't all those other organizations hire and fire at will?

Tsk tsk tsk.




posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Is that his sons actually have more royal english blood than he does. Charles is a german imposter at best.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
He's suffering the same disease as his father Prince Edward, the hominid foot in mouth encephilitus.

Or more commonly known as Diahrea of the Mouth.

Poor William and Harry, they likely hid in their dorms after this remark.

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Royalty, by definition, is hereditary and not democratic.

They also have a lifetime job that is daunting in its boring sameness.

If Charlie was upset, let him be. After all, he didn't FIRE the lady. She quit.

And THEN she sued.

I'm afraid it will take someone more tenacious and better trained in combat to change the way that Monarchy runs itself.

It's a rather large corporation, you know--farms and tourist businesses combined. All their jewels belong to the UK; and they pay most of their own expenses.

Not an easy or sweet job, they have.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join