Of Frogs and Kings

FrogKingThumbby Glenn Fairman
“Do you seriously expect me to be the first Prince of Wales in history not to have a mistress?” – Prince Charles   •  Depending upon your point of view, nature and convention have been either astonishing beneficent or stunningly cruel to Prince Charles, who languishes faithfully behind the ancient walls of Cornwall and contemplates what he would do “If I were king.” At 64 years of age, he is beset with a Shakespearean dilemma: how to fulfill a lifetime’s dreams and ambitions that are lying fallow because his aging mother will not either turn loose the reins of power or else seek slumber alongside her ancestry from the House of Windsor. Such a tragedy, that pits tepid filial love against the desperation of long simmering pride and resentment, was made for the Big Screen; and it would be a psychological tour de force because brooding truth is far more interesting than any lukewarm fantasy.[pullquote]At 64 years of age, he is beset with a Shakespearean dilemma: how to fulfill a lifetime’s dreams and ambitions that are lying fallow because his aging mother will not either turn loose the reins of power or else seek slumber alongside her ancestry from the House of Windsor. [/pullquote]

Britain’s “sticky wicket” is personified in Bonnie Prince Charlie, who is a bit of a blue-nosed fop – and a cold fish to boot. He has all the likability of Robin Hood’s King John: although he supports all the Euro-Chic fashionable causes. Having a more than subliminal Socialist bent, he heaps praise on what is environmentally in vogue: like an Al Gore with an added chromosome. Moreover, he is more than compliant and accommodating to the Islamicists whose preference is more to Caliphate than King – which has drawn the nativist ire of Brits who use the epithet “Packy” with venomous gusto. And rightly so, given the corrosive effect that Londonistan has had on the Empire that the Sun Never Sets Upon.

The discriminating English Street, which adored Lady Di and grimaced at the equine countenance of Camilla Parker Bowles, has never truly forgiven the “heir despairent” for the way things have shaken out. Though Di was no Victoria, her sheer charismatic substance effervesced: gracing Charles in its abundance. If one were to consider the “Q” ratings of his two sons and queried the general public over who should succeed Elizabeth, the haughty Prince would badly trail them. In fact, most any member of the royal clan, or even George Michael, would compare favorably to the star-crossed King-in-waiting.

Blame it on the currents of history; blame it on the cruel fates of Kings and cabbages. When we hear of the long- in-the-tooth Prince of Wales whining that “I will run out of time soon,” one longs for the sturdy Queen of the fading empire to commence B-12 injections and jogging—anything to stave off her journey to the Undiscovered Country until Charles himself shuffles off this mortal coil.[pullquote]Having a more than subliminal Socialist bent, he heaps praise on what is environmentally in vogue: like an Al Gore with an added chromosome. [/pullquote]

Monarchies are anachronisms in our time of democratic homogeneity. But nothing upholds a people like a titular father or mother and unites their past and future in a commonality that melds subterranean emotion with pageantry and pomp. England’s Royals have stood the test of time because of tradition – and the people would have it no other way. Whether England was threatened by the crashing of bombs falling through rooftops or Spanish galleons auguring certain oblivion, the monarchy has coalesced the great spirit of a tiny island that once commanded the earth. That she has diminished in stature is no reason to bring Prince Charles to the throne and finish the “Old Girl” off. Perhaps it would be best for all concerned if the next time Charles waxed blue-boyish over his kingship deferred, he lay back in a stately repose, and thought of England.
__________________________________________________
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at arete5000@dslextreme.com. • (1584 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Essays and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Of Frogs and Kings

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I didn’t think there was anything left to say about the British Monarchy and Prince Frog. But I think Glenn has found some more relevant and eloquent things to say.

    I suppose that criticizing the monarchy now puts one at odds with an increasing number of Americans who have taken on a celebrity-centric point of view. And that’s about all that the British Monarchy has left…celebrity.

    So perhaps, quite naturally, Prince Frog takes on many of the leftist-secular causes, adding a bit of posh to what is, at heart, merely pedestrian. One of the commenters over at American Thinker even noted that Prince Frog (the supposed “defender of the faith”) had built a mosque on his property.

    Celebrity culture perhaps isn’t difficult to explain. As the basics of a human life (food, clothing, and shelter) become easier and easier to acquire, the various other areas of the brain take on a masturbatory function, including obsessing over the lives of others.

    But at one time, kings really could decide who lived and who died. Now, at best, they either help ratify the dumb-leftist-idea-of-the-week or (as even the Queen now occasionally does) give “oh, what the hell does it matter now” lip service to them, thereby implicitly ratifying that her empire is one that is changing from the regal to the mundane.

    It kind of makes you long for King George. At least he still was a king. I’ve read that he wasn’t quite as bad a guy as has been made out (although he did help needlessly fritter away the Americas when just an ounce of political common sense could have fixed the situation in a jiffy). And I still have respect for the QEII.

    But perhaps the largest issue that King Frog raises is the fact that it is not moms and dads (or queens and kings) who raise their sons, for no one could have had as conservative, traditional, or regal upbringing as King Frog did (or had access to). Instead, King Frog, and his fellow croakers in the family, show that it is TV, pop culture, the vapid mainstream media, “Progressive” state indoctrination in schools, and the juvenile entertainment/celebrity culture at large that has the most influence.

    This is why many people these days home school their children. It’s not just to give their kids a better education. And it’s not just to instill religious values in them. It’s to keep them from becoming the kind of vapid secular man (or woman) that is the end product of immersion in today’s popular culture. And even Frog Princes are not immune to this. In fact, they arguably have to live in it now. The glory of Britannia is now but a memory. It croaked.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One thing to say for mad old George III: When he heard that George Washington was laying down his power, he was amazed that observed that if Washington actually did that, he would be the greatest man in the world. So we know he was very right at least once — and in a way that all too few people in the modern world would ever be.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Good point, Tim.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        I believe Charles has much in common with George IV, who acted as regent for much of George III’s reign. He ascended the throne in his late fifties and was an extremely unpopular monarch. He had married a commoner, was forced to divorce her but didn’t end his contact with her. Had many other mistresses and treated his royal wife horribly. She was not allowed to attend the coronation. He brought the monarchy into disrepute and when he died, there was no great feeling of sorrow throughout the realm.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Well, I read the whole thing and found no reference to the French, so where did the “Frogs” in the title come from? (Sorry, I just had to do that.)

    Actually, “Pakis” would be the logical term for those who come from Pakistan, just as we use Baluchis for those from Baluchistan, Kurds for those from Kurdistan, Uzbeks for those from Uzbekistan, Kazakhs for those from Kazakhstan, Afghans (as distinct from afghans, such as the one my maternal grandmother gave me years ago) for those from Afghanistan, etc.

    One history I read a few years back suggested that the reason Britain still has a king (or queen, at present) and France doesn’t is that Charles II mocked those who tried (and executed) him as illegitimate, whereas Louis XVI actually tried to deal with his accusers on their own terms.

    S. M. Stirling (a Canadian immigrant now living in New Mexico) has written a series of books set in a world where technology was (more or less magically) taken away. (He likes the British 19th century adventure series, so he tries to come up with ways to bring them back to life aside from simply mining the same territory.) Charles turns out to be king, and definitely not a good one.

  3. Glenn Fairman Glenn Fairman says:

    Aristotle, in his Politics, ranks Monarchy among the best of regime types. It unifies a people under 1 man: effectively rendering them children under a symbolic father. Monarchy’s antithesis, tyranny- is also the rule of one man, but his reign is illegitimate. What makes one laudable and the other detestable? The monarch upholds law and treats his charges as ends and not instrumentalities. The tyrant destroys law and views his subjects as means towards the gratification of his own narrow ends. The King is loved and the tyrant is hated.

    Interestingly enough, Christ fulfills every attribute of kingship—Justice, love, self-sacrifice, power, mercy, preservation of the law and of his own. While it appears that the age of kings is passing away, perhaps a new age is on the cusp of returning.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Could be. And judging from Barry Screwtape Obama, it’s the age of popular tyranny.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The way you state it, Glenn, makes sense. And I think many Catholics, for example, look at Big Government as they would a Pope. They see Big Government as a sort of benevolent Father.

      Part of the American experiment (perhaps best espoused by Thomas Paine) was the idea that mankind had grown beyond the need for Kings, at least earthly and political ones. But now a kingdom of sorts is being imposed on us by the Feral Government, aided and abetted by a people who have grown soft, dull, stupid, and greedy.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Feral government . . . damn, I wish I’d thought of that. All rigbt if I use it in FOSFAX?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Well, if I were a Democrat, I would say that I invented it. But being a conservative, I have to tell you that I’ve heard that from a least three or four different sources in the last few weeks. And I like it as well. It’s so true: Feral Government.

          And any or all of my articles you can repost, reuse, or otherwise recycle for FOSFAX. You’ve certainly been generous in sharing some of your FOSFAX stuff and I hope you will continue to do so.

  4. RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

    ‘…like an Al Gore with an added chromosome.’

    Bravo Glenn, line of the day!

  5. Kung Fu Zu says:

    “like an Al Gore with an added chromosome”

    ???

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As I recall, Down’s syndrome involves an extra chromosome (though I don’t recall which one), so when (e.g.) Al Gore referred to “extra chromosome conservatives” a decade or so ago, he was sneering at those he disagreed with by mocking the handicapped, thereby revealing himself as doubly a hypocrite. Of course, I would already think of the Goracle as having the extra chromosome (after all, whenever a liberal makes an accusation against a political opponent, they’re always guilty themselves of the same thing), so on that basis Charles would have a doubled pair, but that’s a minor detail.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        I recall Gore’s obnoxious remark. I was just wondering exactly how Glenn’s remark was different from Gore’s remark.

        • Glenn Fairman Glenn Fairman says:

          it was an insulting remark……..and I’ll own it.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            True it was insulting, but who are you using to insult Gore? The poor people who have an extra chromosome?

            Why was Gore’s remark obnoxious in the first place? Because he was belittling unfortunate people who were born with a handicap. His statement was obnoxious and hypocritical for a Leftist politician who claimed to care about the unfortunate.

            Do you not see this? Do you not see that your using his obnoxious comparison is in its own way obnoxious? Just my thoughts.

            • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

              I took it as an insult to both, brilliantly done.

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying you thought it was brilliant to insult Gore and people with Down Syndrome? Or to Charles and Gore?

              • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

                Can’t reply to you directly King, so replying to myself.

                I took it as a slam on sick pathetic Al Gore and vacuous snob Charles. No insult to those with Down Syndrome.

                Why, do you perceive its politically incorrect to slam Gore for his absurd comments simply because he was being absurd about Down syndrome??

              • Timothy Lane says:

                I suspect Kung Fu Zu’s point is that it’s a bit much to criticize Gore for mocking the handicapped and his over-the-top attack on his opponents (by referring to “extra chromosome Republicans”), and then do the same thing to him. However, it seems to me very reasonable to treat Gore as he treats us, and as for sneering at the handicapped — our point is that the Goracle and his fellow liberals are the ones who prate about their sensitivity to others, which they then ignore whenever it’s convenient to do so.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I thought the insult was fitting, witty, and appropriate, Mr. Kung. Perhaps “sensitivity” is a fine line. But I’m quite sure that Mr. Fairman is full of compassion for the handicapped. But my guess is that his remark had nothing at all to do with the handicapped and everything to do with the dishonest and despicable Mr. Gore.

  6. Glenn Fairman Glenn Fairman says:

    Some say the art of delivering the “clever cut” perished with Oscar Wilde. We live in a prickly age that wears its indignations on its shirt sleeves so that the world will behold our sensitivities and marvel.

    With that being said, I profusely apologize for contrasting those gentle and loving souls who (through no fault of their own) have contracted Down’s Syndrome with the loathsome Mr. Gore or the foppish Prince. The former have enough on their plates to contend with.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      We live in a prickly age that wears its indignations on its shirt sleeves so that the world will behold our sensitivities and marvel.

      I don’t think that describes Mr. Kung (or was meant to), but that is so true in our day and age. Nevertheless, an elegant apology. Maybe someday I’ll do the same for Jonah. 😀

    • faba calculo says:

      “Some say the art of delivering the “clever cut” perished with Oscar Wilde.”

      Then “some” must have never heard Churchill’s cuts against Lady Astor.

      However, one thing that may have died with Wilde was the art of good last words. Away from his house at his dying moment and taken by concerned friends into a washroom when he collapsed, he’s said to have looked around and remarked cuttingly, “This wallpaper is atrocious. Either it goes, or I do!”

      God, there’ll never be another Oscar Wilde.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One thing to notice about the most famous swipes attributed to Churchill both involved counterpunches against being insulted. I noticed once in a study of humor that I preferred my insults to be reactions to insults instead of pre-emptive. Thus: “If you were my husband, I should poison your coffee.” “If I were your husband, I should drink it.” And: “Sir Winston, you’re drink.” “Madam, you’re ugly. And tomorrow morning I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.”

        • faba calculo says:

          Yes, you do get the idea that Lady Astor kind of brought it on herself. Still, while googling around to find her name, I also came across an exchange of theirs where she came out on top.

          CHURCHILL: What disguise would you recommend for me at your costume party?

          LADY ASTOR: Why don’t you come sober?

  7. Glenn Fairman Glenn Fairman says:

    It was surely not intended for Mr. Kung—He is a clever fellow and has a right to feel the way he does and I respect that. Just a general statement about a frame of mind that has the world walking on egg shells lest some raw nerve be aggrieved. We know the drill: men and women using a feigned strategically directed outrage as tin snips to emasculate the written and spoken word……..

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Savvy = good, which means understanding the game being played instead of just mindlessly reacting to it. There’s not a lot of that going around. It’s nice to meet a fellow savvy traveler. Let’s spread the savvy word.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *