04 Feb 2010
We’ve always known that Prince Charles has a monumental ego, utterly disproportionate to his actual abilities - but picking a fight with Descartes, Voltaire and Rousseau?
Yes, Charles’s latest target is “the Enlightenment”, which he holds responsible for our corrupted morals, economic decline and the impending apocalypse. Speaking at an event organised by his Foundation for the Built Environment (tough crowd) he suggests that:
It might be time to think again and review it and question whether [the Enlightenment] is really effective in today’s conditions, faced as we are with huge challenges all over the world.
Charles likes to make out that he is some kind of revolutionary, challenging the orthodoxy of our times. Indeed, he never tires of telling audiences how he was the first to espouse wacky ideas that are now considered mainstream. He loves to speak of the “unbelievable abuse” he suffers when he does so (was Cassandra ever this self-pitying?).
In truth, counter-Enlightenment thinking stretches back as far as the Enlightenment itself. Take Antoine de Rivarol, one of the leading opponents of universal rights, who said in 1789:
From the day when the monarch consults his subjects, sovereignty is as though suspended … When people cease to esteem, they cease to obey. A general rule: peoples whom the king consults begin with vows and end with wills on their own.
Royalists like de Rivarol and Joseph de Maistre were petrified that the unfettered employment of reason would lead to the collapse of the old order. They were right.
De Maistre thought the French revolution and its associated violence were a punishment from God. A punishment for believing that humans could take control of history, understand and improve the world around them, when in fact they were essentially feckless and brutal creatures.
It is easy to detect the ghost of de Maistre in Charles’s language. Charles talks about Nature (always a capital N) being “’suppressed and humiliated”. For him, environmentalism is not a question of how we should overcome the problem of climate change. It’s about accepting that we are being punished for overcoming irrationalism and superstition, for striving to improve our lives. “What is the point of all this clever technology” he asks, ”if at the end of the day we lose our souls, and the soul of nature of which we are a part?”
The counter-Enlightment enjoyed a brief revival in post-war French philosophy. A bunch of ex-Marxists condemned reason, democracy and universal rights as “totalising” ideologies. They valorised the irrational and exotic wherever they saw it, even if it was in fascism.
Now the counter-Enlightenment story has taken another twist, but not an entirely unexpected one. The movement began as a defence of monarchy. It seems fitting then that our most prominent flag-bearer for unreason will one day be a monarch himself.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 4th, 2010 at 12:26 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
February 4th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Good post. The Enlightenment matters. Charles is ill-advised to try taking on the Enlightenment for anything that anyone has found to put in its place (e.g. Marxism, Fascism) has not worked out well.
But it is unfair to compare Charles to Joseph de Maistre whom Isaiah Berlin described as a forerunner of fascism. (New York Review of Books 27 September 1990). He was after all pretty extreme.
Berlin says “In place of science [de Maistre] preached the primacy of instinct in place of optimism, pessimism, in place of eternal harmony and eternal peace the necessity … of conflict and suffering, sin and retribution, bloodshed and war”.
De Maistre believed “ .. the keystone of the arch on which the whole of society depends, is a far more frightening figure that king or priest: it is the executioner”, “War, torture, suffering are the inescapable human lot”, and that “Whatever is rational collapses because it is man-made: irrationalism can last”.
I wouldn’t nail all that on Charles. De Maistre did also believe strongly in the divine right of kings but I don’t think Charles has ever claimed that.
In fact, the source of Prince Charles’s Anti-Enlightenment is far more banal. Everywhere today you hear the call for opposing the Enlightenment legacy because it is too reason-orientated, as if a reduction of reason is somehow going to be useful. In fact, there are many aspects to the Enlightenment and these often step well outside the confines of narrow reasoning. The Enlightenment was above all a renewal and a modernising of the Humanist tradition of the Italian Renaissance and the late Roman Republic and also going back to Aristotle.
Part and parcel of this was a strong Republican impulse and the American Founding Fathers, for instance, were nothing if not Enlightenment figures. They sought a practical way to take the Humanist tradition forward. The inescapable link between Republicanism and the Enlightenment may colour Charles’s view of the latter.
Also many people today have a problem with the Humanist aspect of the Enlightenment for they see in this an unwillingness to address the problems of nature and the environment. It is clear from his speech that Charles shares this misguided view.
As James says, the Enlightenment has been a battleground since its inception. Republicans should be staunch in their defence of it. It is still the best thing we have.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
“Just imagining that the principles of the Enlightenment still apply now. I don’t believe they do. But if you challenge people who hold the Enlightenment as the ultimate answer to everything, you do really upset them.”
With whom did he challenge & if he does participate in real debate then maybe he should name the date & venue so we can establish what the arguments against our values are.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I suppose removing his head might be a good idea
February 5th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Would be used as a vase since it is empty!
February 6th, 2010 at 11:37 am
The social contract comes to mind. However not all that flowed from enlightenment was good, temples of reason were built in France but at the same time a blood letting anarchy nearly destroyed the hopes of the revolution.
I think that we should not refer to enlightenment, but reason, and the principles of natural justice, a fundamental aspect of which is that all should be equal in the eyes of the Law and that individual rights should be protected so long as they do not harm others. I would add that this predicates a reasonable response to rational thought on social matters, especially if there is a guiding constitution like that thoughtfully constructed by the EEC.
I agree with Charles views on some aspects of urban and building design, but he should not have the right to be more equal than others or to use his hereditary privileges to add weight to his own views or prejudices.
February 6th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
The Enlightenment was strongly connected with the rise of science.
If we were to return to a state of nature, where would modern medicine be for example.
Charles is not qualified for these great debates: he should butt out.
Let the scientists and forward thinkers take the chair.
How much longer do we have to endure these stupid puffed-up Windsors!
February 6th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Agreed Susan ! He should just “butt out ,Man , period !”. The trouble is , I think , that Charles is just” twiddling his thumbs”. He must feel that he needs something to do. He is of course , ” In Waiting” , a bit like some of the queen’s ladies . Donating some of his property to the homeless might be a good idea, for starters. I think Edward the 7th was in a similar position, before he became king, of course.
February 6th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Dear Peter,
Your mention of the “Terror” within the French Revolution is a good warning about the dangers of uncontrolled anarchy. This must be avoided at all costs. My view is that uncontrolled ,explosive, revolutionary violence is bad. A slow , progressive , piecemeal change is far better. Also, we should not underestimate the place and value of civil ,orderly ,disobedience in the face of social injustice ,when it occurs. It could be a valuable and effective tool. However it needs our people to become “Awakened ” , in many ways.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:47 am
Guys, Barry in particular: I’m really sorry, but I cannot possibly make a proper comment on this topic without once again mentioning everyone’s favourite point of contention – the good ol’ European Union.
But what on earth has that got to do with this particular topic? Well: ask a lot of people who aren’t particularly monarchist what they think of Charles’ speeches, interventions etc., and they’ll probably tell you that much of what he says is valid and that he must therefore be encouraged to speak out or even meddle, despite his position – “because his ideas are a damn sight better than most of the dross spouted by our glorious politicians.” Now this attitude is no doubt largely symptomatic of the widespread disenfranchisement of the masses, which is of course partly down to public distrust over expenses etc. However – and this is where the EU comes in – I also believe it smacks of the whole attitude behind the ever-hastening expansion of the antidemocratic Brussels juggernaut and the establishment of the EEC in the first place: “We Europeans are getting too old for modernist nonsense like democracy and aspiration, let’s leave that to the New World and just get our house in order.” Because let’s face it: if you (rightly) deplore the corrupt behaviour of your legislators precisely because you elected them and they are thus supposed to be answerable to you, then how and why can you possibly condone any intervention in the political process by a figurehead monarch-in-waiting with no democratic mandate whatsoever – unless you have somewhat limited faith in democracy?
You don’t have to be a constitutional expert to know that an activist monarch, which Charles threatens to be, would set our democratic development back by 300 years. Sure, I make no attempt whatsoever to hide my belief that Labour are hell-bent on taking the whole nation back to the Dark Ages; but even if you agree with that assessment without sharing my faith that the Conservatives will start to put it right, you can’t seriously argue that the only or even just the best solution is for us to take a massive step back in that direction by giving a monarch carte blanche to impose his will on government, no matter how sound his ideas might be, and regardless of how much potential these ideas might have to prevent any further cultural reversion to those bleak ancient days.
OK, so the EU wasn’t really central to my argument, but I cannot reiterate too strongly my utter rejection and condemnation of any defeatist c**p about us Britons being incapable of finding a truly democratic remedy for our many woes. People keep saying, “But this is the 21st century, and we’ve got to face up to the reality of our position in the world.” True, in the sense that we must ditch the nonsensical imperial romanticism that leaves us in thrall to our former colonies; but b******s if it means “We aren’t strong enough to cut it on our own, and only fully-centralised authoritarian government can give us the security & stability we need,” whether that authoritarian government comes from Brussels or from Buck House.
There is nothing that we, the nation who changed the face of civilisation between 1750 and 1900, cannot accomplish if we work together to nurture, promote and expand the common cause of popular sovereignty. The fact that our would-be activist king sees fit to speak against the Enlightenment, sends out the clearest warning as to the dangers we face if we lose faith in democracy.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:26 am
All the opinions tend to support the notion that we cannot be a grown up country…….a democracy as long as we have the windsorsors
February 7th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Thanks Steve, that’s the great irony of it all: that the idea of us as a nation or indeed as part of Europe being “too old” for “modernist nonsense” or “childish pipe dreams” like democracy, leads to the overwhelming majority of us – the people on the street – being infantilised.
Time for us to send out the message loud and clear – to Brussels, to Downing Street and to Buck House: we are not children, and we will not let you carry on treating us like we are.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Well said Matt. This notion that the masses do not have the nous to rule themselves and need constant guidance from their so called betters is what gets my goat. You see continual examples of it, from Charles preaching from his lofty perch whilst, at the same time, refusing to enter into any sort of debate, to the likes of Margeret Beckett when she told a TV studio audience on Question Time that she didn’t expect them to understand when a discussion was taking place on MPs fiddling their expenses.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Who will rid us of this troublesome prince?
February 7th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
A great article, James, and some excellent posts – even from arch-tories !
How harmonious things must look in Charles’s imaginary landscape. Neat cottages for the workers; well-to-do squires’ houses; and a big palace up on the hill. Not a factory in sight. Lovely, “natural”, harmonious, and everyone in his or her place. Curse those enlightenment scoundrels, they’ve spoiled it all !
It’s helpful though – he unwittingly reminds us how monarchs don’t fit with modernity.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Steve:
Who will rid us of this troublesome prince?
When I referred to the inevitability of a constitutional rethink on the British Right, one prime example of how this could easily come about would be if Charles becomes an activist king when much of the deferential wartime generation has passed on but David Cameron is still prime minister (touch wood on the latter!)
I’m not pretending that Cameron is currently displaying any signs of republicanism. But we need only look to 1936 for a clear precedent to assure us that a Conservative premier will not tolerate an activist monarch; and I do firmly believe that if Baldwin v EviiiR repeats itself as Cameron v GviiR (Charles has suggested he wants to be crowned George VII), then it will not end with mere abdication this time, oh no. A full-blooded debate on the future of the monarchy, leading to a referendum if we republicans have done our job properly, will be inevitable. Which is not, of course, to suggest that we can’t accomplish this sooner.
February 7th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“I’m not pretending that Cameron is currently displaying any signs of republicanism. But we need only look to 1936 for a clear precedent to assure us that a Conservative premier will not tolerate an activist monarch; and I do firmly believe that if Baldwin v EviiiR repeats itself as Cameron v GviiR (Charles has suggested he wants to be crowned George VII), then it will not end with mere abdication this time.”
Matt
Whilst making a conscience effort to remain on topic, I’m curious to what type of reasoning enabled you to come to this conclusion ?
February 7th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Hi Ash
I suppose part of it is gut instinct. Every time I hear old-fashioned monarchist claptrap from Conservative old-timers, I become more and more mindful of a ticking ideological ‘time bomb’ waiting to explode once the Queen, and the majority of her wartime contemporaries, are gone. Because if those of my contemporaries in the party whom I have met are anything to go by, then the new generation of Tories – whilst largely continuing to believe for the moment that democracy can be enhanced without abolishing the monarchy – would prefer a republic to a system in which the monarch was any more politically active than we currently know them to be; so it is completely absurd to suppose that the party can continue to cling to that romantic pipe dream of an unimpeachable whiter-than-white monarch once the deferential generation has passed on. For starters, most people know what Charles’s views are on just about everything, and are mindful of his threat to be an activist monarch and thus remove yet another layer of gloss from the monarchy’s image. What’s more, as long as our constitution remains uncodified, there will always be the potential for another major political breach of public trust a la Expenses-gate; and again, with most of the “You can’t let the courts run the country!” scaremongers gone, the grass-roots political and widespread public appetite for entrenchment in that scenario would force the issue.
Which brings me on to another, less hypothetical reason to be hopeful that a King Charles/George-initiated constitutional crisis will bring about the end of the monarchy if all else has failed up to that point: it has frequently been stated quite rightly by numerous people on this Blog that the overwhelming majority of people both inside and outside the establishment would laugh off the idea of a written constitution vesting sovereignty or even the titular representation of the people’s sovereignty in a monarch, because this is the 21st century. By that logic, it seems equally absurd to think that a crisis plunging the reputation of the monarchy into turmoil could be satisfactorily dealt with only so far as a previous one was in 1936, with the PM simply engineering a smooth succession for the next-in-line to the throne who would be far happier to toe the line – especially if William continues to court controversy, let alone if he starts to show signs of meddling himself.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
YOU RULED US FOR 2 CENTURIES….(CRUELY I MAY ADD)….BUT STILL I THIS REGARD WE SCORED OVER YOU…
WE ARE A PROUD DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, WITH AN ELECTED HEAD OF STATE..
JAI HIND!!
AND GOOD LUCK FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN…INDIA AND INDIANS WOULD SUPPORT YOU IN THIS
February 8th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
MONARCHY IS LIKE THE ‘UNTOUCHABILITY’….DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF YOUR BIRTH…
WHILE U BRITS ABOLISHED UNTOUCHABILITY HERE IN INDIA….
BUT YOU FORGOT TO ABOLISH “YOUR MONARCHY”…
hehehehehe…
GOOD TO SEE THIS CHANGE …..YOU DESERVE TO BE A REPUBLIC..GOOD LUCK!!
February 8th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Hi MK Gupta,
Thanks for the kind gestures.
We never forgot to abolish Monarchy, we simply didn’t have the will to do it back when India became indpendent. Britain was so confident in the uncodified constitution that we built other nations on a similar model.
Doubts began to emerge during the 1960’s about the nature of our Constitution and they have never gone away since.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Evening Ash
Have you any thoughts in response to my clarification on the ‘Prime Minister Cameron v King Charles’ hypothesis?
February 8th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
I always thought that the British class system at one time meshed in very well with the Indian caste system. Good riddance to all concepts of class ,I say !
February 9th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Hi Matt,
It’s difficult to say how Cameron would react to an activist King, or if he would still be in power after Charlie’s coronation. By the way what is Lord Ashcroft getting in return for his millions?
Your response did remind me what I sucpect other Republicans may have thought, though they probably and unsuprisingly keep it to themselves. This is the notion that we for the last 60 years had a unmeddling monarchy who seems on the face of things to be reasonably pleaseant. The anti-climax of you know who inheriting the throne will change the scene of Monarchism and hopefully never recover.
My response to any Monarchists with the argument that our current Head does a good enough job is the following.
Anyone who has the job of Head of whatever state they are head of needs to their country the top priority. Elizabeth Windsor, as well intended as she may be, or nearly any other constitutional Monarch in Britain hasn’t put Britain first on the basis a Monarch isn’t able to perform specific stop checks or roles as they do not have any democratic mandate that an Elected Head of State would be able to.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Ash:
…the notion that we for the last 60 years had a unmeddling monarchy who seems on the face of things to be reasonably pleaseant. The anti-climax of you know who inheriting the throne will change the scene of Monarchism and hopefully never recover.
I certainly think that is an extremely likely scenario if Charles does become king; but if we are able to force a referendum while the Queen still lives, then we can effectively defuse that ideological time-bomb and thus rally a lot more people to our cause in far more amicable circumstances.
Elizabeth Windsor, as well-intended as she may be, or nearly any other constitutional monarch in Britain, hasn’t put Britain first on the basis a monarch isn’t able to perform specific stop checks or roles as they do not have any democratic mandate that an elected head of state would have.
No argument from me on that one!