Tribunal exposes prince's (Charles) 'Edwardian' attitudes

[kskiska]

Prince Charles's hopes of one day appearing a thoroughly modern monarch received a fresh blow yesterday when his candid thoughts about those who aspire to rise above their station were ruthlessly exposed in a sex discrimination hearing.

Elaine Day, a former staff member, is accusing the royal household of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Her evidence threw up a handwritten memo from Prince Charles on the first day of what is scheduled to be a three-day hearing in the prosaic surroundings of an employment tribunal in Croydon.

In the memo, written to an unnamed member of staff, apparently in March 2002, the prince fulminates about the state of education - a long-standing obsession - and the uppity aspirations it provokes.

(snip)

"What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?" the prince exclaims.

"This is all to do with the learning culture in schools. It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,1353772,00.html

[Pithlet]

1. Reason number 1,544,980 why the English monarchy

or any monarchy for that matter, is 100% useless and irrelevant.

[kskiska]

2. The class system

is very much in effect over there.

[area51]

11. class system

There's unfortunately a class system over here in the states, too.

[SemperEadem]

42. and over here, too

that's why we had to have the civil rights movement--to get equal rights for everyone. and it's still going on--if you're brown skinned, you are questioned about your right to vote by those who are not fit to ask you for the time of day.

[barb162]

3. and what qualifies him for anything, oh that's right, mommy

Charles is such an arrogant snob

[natrat]

4. at this point it looks better than our monarchy

[Maple]

5. I'll be glad to see the end

of Charle's little reign.

And it'll be very little, because he won't be King before he's 80, and by that time there won't be a UK monarchy anyway.

[SemperEadem]

43. there will always be a monarchy is England

get used to it. They tried to abolish long ago and it didn't go.

Now, I wonder what side Charles is on regarding the fox hunt being outlawed?

[roguevalley]

6. shortly ago, during the last sex scandal -the one about someone

in the household getting raped by another man and there was a cover up- chuck went to Bahrain or some small Arab state for some reason or other. There was a photo of him sitting on the floor offering his feet to an aide -referred to as a lackey in the caption- so that the aide could untie his shoes. I stared at the picture for I don't know, hours. A grown man letting someone untie his shoes so he could enter the banquet hall. What a total waste of space this freak is.

[kskiska]

7. I remember reading he's got a servant

who puts toothpaste on his brush for him.

But then, I've also read how Eisenhower had a valet who would hold his shorts every morning for him to step into. I guess those higher-ups in the military live like kings, too.

[smirkymonkey]

55. How lazy can you get?!

I think it has more to do with needing to humiliate someone, as it would be more efficient and practicle for these arrogant jerks to do these tasks themselves.

Sooner or later, the English people will see how pointless their monarchy is.

[Sideways]

47. He Went To Oman I Know Because I Saw Him At The British Embassy

It was a fucking hot as hell day and he was to greet British school children on the Embassy lawn. He was an hour and half late and some of the kids fainted. My French friend Isabelle and I were drinking wine in a shady corner laughing at the IDIOT.

Isabelle was very close to Sybella wife of the British ambassador and drug me to this ghastly affair. The wine was good and I got pretty plastered. But Charles was just a load of pants IMHO. :silly:

[Must_B_Free]

8. NOt sure what he is saying

first of all, what is "a child-centred education system"? seems dumb

second "which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability."

That's not really all that bad in some sense. He's not saying that they can't rise about their station in life, he's referring to merit. Bush, for example, is a head of state that didn't put in the necessary work.

[kskiska]

9. He's referring to Brits, of course

The British Class System allows him to lead the life he does, and everyone else is to remain in their proper place.

He said much more in the article.

[Nihil]

15. Wow - you actually *read* it first?!

The other replies so far are the predictable "he's royal so he's wrong"
crap that Charles Clarke & co love to encourage.

The fact that the Prince was recommending that the focus should be on
identifying where an individuals strengths are (in order to reinforce
and build on them) rather than either bullying kids to learn things
(the old educational models) or giving everyone a tear-off rectangle
of soft tissue with "GCSE", "Diploma" or "Degree" on it (the New Labour
educational model).

The other fact that should be remembered when all of this righteous
tripe is spouted in the press is that the comment was written by hand
in a *private* memo that was expressing an opinion to a friend.
The reason it became public was because the woman in question not only
violated her confidentiality agreement but is a common thief who tried
to exploit the theft for personal financial gain.

There are both good and bad things to say about Prince Charles but this
is just a Labour-funded media circus to distract people from the range
of fuck-ups for which Blair is personally responsible.

Nihil

[Mr.Green93]

18. well said

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. 'Common thief'?

Where have you got that from? It's not in any of the reports I've seen.

[Nihil]

23. "... obtained the handwritten note without permission"

(Stated on Radio 4 last night)

I paraphrased "person obtaining without permission" into "common thief".
Apologies if you don't approve of such words.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. It is a bit pejorative

getting hold of a memo about you, and then using it as evidence in a case about unfair dismissal, is not normally called 'theft for personal gain'.

[SemperEadem]

45. co-sign

well said.

[Pacifist Patriot]

59. If my friends published things I'd said in private

I'd be villified for sure!

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. "think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities"

So, after complaining about the learning culture and education system, he says:
"It is a result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically engineered to contradict the lessons of history."

which makes me wonder about his capabilities. Where does this idea of genetic engineering come from? What's that got to do with education? Does he believe in Lamarckism - that characteristics acquired in life can be passed on to descendants?

But when you see this:
"the prince was to be advised about the state of education by such luminaries as the former chief inspector Chris Woodhead and the Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips"
you can understand his problem. Both are reactionary bastards; I've never trusted Woodhead's educational ideas, and the fact that he left his wife for a former pupil makes me mistrust his ethics too. And Phillips is borderline fascist - she is the nearest thing to the American Religious Right we have in the UK. In fact, these are the only 2 people who I have found that if they express an opinion, you can be almost certain that the sensible and ethical thing to do is to oppose it.

You can be sure that the Guardian writer was being sarcastic when he said 'luminaries'. It's like Bush getting his education policy from Robertson and Falwell - deeply worrying.

[KitSileya]

12. Actually, as a teacher, while I don't agree with the snottiness

I tend to agree with his statement about today's teens wanting accolades without doing the work first. Note that I am talking about Norwegian youths, but I think it's a general trend.

"It is a consequence of a child-centred education system which tells people they can become pop stars, high court judges or brilliant TV presenters or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having the natural ability."

Too much, today's children are praised for doing stuff that went without mention when I was a child - doing chores, homework, and other things was a natural part of life that didn't merit praise. You did your duty. However, kids today are used to almost excessive praise when doing ordinary stuff - and if their work only merits an ok, they feel cheated. While I disagree with Prince Charles on his statement about social utopianism, I do fear that a huge number of ordinary kids will be living unsatisfied lives because they are just that, ordinary, and being ordinary isn't something to aspire to in today's society. We do teach children to aspire to being the best they can be, but not everyone can be above average, or live extraordinary lives. I don't know how to solve this conundrum, but I'm afraid for today's youth.

KitS

[Nihil]

16. Taken in context (rather than in sound bites) this is spot on.

My sister-in-law is a teacher (in England) and she said almost exactly
the same thing. The focus should be on providing equal opportunities
not equal results.

Kids are not stupid. Most of them can recognise when an award is given
for doing something well and when it is given just for turning up.

There again, when you look at the way the civil service is organised,
it makes you wonder when the rot really started ...

Nihil

(PS: I loved Bergen when I was there - many years ago - happy memories!)

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Actually, the context is mobility in his employees

"whether secretaries and personal assistants might one day aspire to become private secretaries or senior advisers in the prince's household"

and his view seems to be that they mustn't - but he's too afraid of Ms. Day to tell her so. Perhaps someone so formidible might make a better adviser to him than some yes man who comes from 'a good family'?

Do you believe that there should be a barrier in employment, to stop people getting promoted too much higher than they started? What do you think the qualifications are for being an adviser to a prince? Are they that obvious by the time you leave formal education?

[Nihil]

26. Aspirations or expectations?

> ... whether secretaries and personal assistants might one day aspire
> to become private secretaries or senior advisers in the prince's
> household

His view seems to be that they mustn't assume that they will get there
without hard work over a period of time. Is that unreasonable?
It's not "you can't get from A to B" but more "you can't get from A to B
without crossing the river at bridge C".

> Do you believe that there should be a barrier in employment, to stop
> people getting promoted too much higher than they started?

I fought against this for years: "You are doing the work of a graduate
but you haven't got the piece of paper so we can't pay you for it or
promote you any higher without it". That was a direct quote from my
manager in my first major employer. I left and found an employer who
rewarded on merit instead.

I've since gained an honours degree (I found something else that I was
good at and took the opportunity to build on it) but that has nothing
to do with my current job or any in between (other than providing
another topic for light conversation with customers in that field).
I was the first person in my family to obtain a degree - the rest had
been "trade" or "foreman" at best - so I really do support the "give
people a chance to shine" approach. This is NOT the same as teaching
people that they can rise to the top simply by wishing.

I picked up on the Prince's frustration with the "everyone wins"
attitude. I share it. Everyone doesn't win. Teaching kids that
there will always be a prize regardless of how hard you work is not
just wrong, it is downright cruel. Teaching kids that everyone has
talents, everyone has abilities, everyone can shine at *something*
is the way to go, not blindly handing out "You're the best!" stickers
in every subject, regardless of how much effort they put in.

> What do you think the qualifications are for being an adviser to a
> prince?

Probably higher than being an adviser to a Prime Minister, "special"
or otherwise.

> Are they that obvious by the time you leave formal education?

?Did I say that? (if so, I apologise)

If you think that someone can go straight from standard formal
education to being a senior adviser of anything significant, I would
suggest that you are guilty of the same woolly thinking that Charles
is ranting about - namely that you can be anything, do anything simply
by wanting to. If I'm misunderstanding your question (or if it wasn't
directed at me) then ok.

Nihil

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. I don't think it was a question of going straight from education

to being an adviser, or private secretary; but I don't think Ms. Day did either. She, after all, is in her 30s.

Stories such as yours show that people should be judged on their ability; but when asked if advancement is possible for personal assistants (who have degrees, showing they have some ability), Charles starts going on about schools. This seems to mean he thinks that if you haven't achieved the right things early on, then you should forget it. If it was their present achievement he thought wasn't up to it, then why not say that?

I worry that his household is still dominated by people from the 'right' school, university or regiment. I also worry that he gets his educational advice from the shitheads Melanie Phillips and Chris Woodhead.

[Nihil]

28. OK

> This seems to mean he thinks that if you haven't achieved the right
> things early on, then you should forget it.

I see what you were getting at now. I didn't interpret it that way but
thanks for the clarification.

> I worry that his household is still dominated by people from the
> 'right' school, university or regiment. I also worry that he gets his
> educational advice from the shitheads Melanie Phillips and Chris
> Woodhead.

Totally agree with you on both points.

[DrZeeLit]

32. I'm an educator in the US and I agree about the "hard work" part.

Students often want high grades, but do not want to work hard.
They do very sloppy work and expect "A" grades.
I ask them to use academic sources, and they go to Google.
One said, "but it's easier."

When I taught in the lower grades, I would be astonished at the "magical thinking" which carried their aspirations. They fully expected to be awarded with careers, fame, and money without working or putting the "climb the ladder" time. They were all going straight to the pros, to the movies, to a recording contract.

I asked once how many would be willing to work at McDonalds to earn money. Nobody was planning to start at the bottom.

This also attended their study habits. They didn't do homework and did not study for tests. Of course, in my class that didn't bode well for their grades. I did not take late work and did not take make up work. I didn't want to hear excuses. I wanted to reward those who came to class and did the work.

I feel that we do not reward the hard workers. Students who are disruptive or lazy get all the attention -- trips to the office, concern of the counselors, parent conferences -- it's all about them. What is it with teachers who give students "extra time" when they don't have the assignment? They skip over saying "thank you" to the student who worked hard and finished on time.

Meanwhile, A- students get nothing. No pat on the back. No awards, no spotlight. Just hard work. I'm hoping they are out and about, saving the world now.

[SemperEadem]

49. I see that a lot on some of the job boards I visit

"They fully expected to be awarded with careers, fame, and money without working or putting the "climb the ladder" time."

One of of the job boards I frequent, there are some who've just graduated from college and can't figure out why no one will hire them... they didn't do internships, they didn't find summer work in the field of their interest--nothing. But they expected to get hired in a job above mailroom, like they see on the soaps. They all acted like they had a trust fund, without having the trust fund.

It seems that there is a lot of evidence that many, not all, but many of today's youth and working young people feel that just because they showed up for work for 2 weeks without taking a day off means that they are qualified for senior positions--and someone is feeding them the lie that that is ok.

I feel that there is way more to this story than what the writer has chosen to publish--perhaps he's got an axe to grind with the Windsors, who knows what his pathology is. I'd like to hear the other side of the story before pronouncing a judgement upon Charles.

[KitSileya]

50. Absolutely. That is a very prevalent trend, unfortunately.

It's like my students want to dance Gizelle with the ABC without spending more than an hour a day training. Perhaps I am overly sensitive about the issue, having been a moderately gifted student myself, but I fear for the mediocre and brilliant students - the weak or disruptive ones get all the attention.

As I said, in Norway, that is a greater problem, I think, than in many other countries - the salary differences between someone with a high school diploma and a Master's degree is ridiculously small, when taken in context (student loans, loss of income due to studying) but with the outsourcing in the US, I believe that being well qualified for jobs that no longer exist doesn't help spur good students on. What use is there in doing well in school, when their future seems lo lie with Wal-Mart?

And I guess that is where Ms. Day has a problem. What good does it if she's good at her job, and more than well-qualified, when she's got the two strikes of being a woman (formidable, I saw her bing called in this thread, and we all know formidable is one step away from dragon lady) and of not having attended "the right schools" (presumably Cheltenhams or a similar school, I guess) against her?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. I know, and I always tried to write encouraging words on the

test papers of students who did well and/or performed above their expected ability.

Following the advice of a colleague at another school, I held an Awards Day in class at the end of the semester, awarding small prizes (Japanese trinkets, little books, etc.) to the three highest-ranking students (gold, silver, and bronze medals) and to the student who had improved the most since midterms. I also gave one-time prizes to to students who displayed outstanding abilities in skills like calligraphy or listening comprehension or creatively acting out dialogues.

The students appeared to look forward to Awards Day (which I never announced to the first year, first semester students) after they'd been with me a while, and I'd hear them wondering who was going to get the gold medal or what surprise prizes I would award.

[KitSileya]

44. I fear that Norwegian schools are more infected by the equal results bug

than most countries' public education. I recognie that that is good for the weaker students, but it can be disastrous for the brilliant ones - simply because they are not challenged enough. They grow bored, and the devil finds work for idle hands and all that.

As for Prince Charles, I doubt that he knows ordinary people enough to come to these conclusions, I believe his remarks are aimed at people getting ideas above their station, so to speak. In other words, he isn't interested in the challenge we face in today's society, he cares only about the smooth running of his life, I think. At least in this instance.

And yes, Bergen is a nice, though wet, city. I'm not a native Bergenite myself, so the rain can get depressing at times.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. When I was teaching college students in the States

I grew very tired of the sense of entitlement that some students had, the idea that I should give them good grades just for showing up and that I should never criticize anything they did or hold them to any standards.

So on that point, I'm with Charles.

But I also agree that the whole idea of a man of 56 or whatever who is still waiting around to start his first job is absurd.

[lightbulb]

13. Anything that any member of a "royal family" says is irrelevant

What do the Brits expect when they hold on so dearly to the antiquated classism and racism of the Royal Family anyhow? This has never made any sense to me. Sure, the monarchy is a big part of their cultural history and everything, but human slavery was a big part of American culture once. You don't see us keeping a mock slave plantation intact for nostalgic value.

Time to move on folks, leave these arrogant screwballs that call themselves "royalty" in the history books. Refuse to respect anyone who thinks they are better than you just because of who their parents were.

[Mr Creosote]

17. Oh really

How many of us Brits hold onto it so dearly? My guess - roughly the same proportion as you Yanks that voted for georgie Porgie. Don't tar us all with the same brush, and we won't do the same to you.

[AP]

30. It's not irrlevant. They're not just part of the cultural history. They're

part of the contemporary culture.

They are a constant reminder that people have "stations" in life and that that entitles the ones at the top a fat check from the public purse year over year.

And that fat check could be spent on a lot of other things that would have a much more productive impact on society.

[lawladyprof]

14. I'm not sure that I wouldn't prefer Chuck over George--eom

[jpgray]

21. He may well be elitist, but that quote sounds about right

How many poor talentless bastards are pissing their lives away in CA right now trying to "make it" as actors who have not a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere? How many shitty bands and musicians have you heard who do not have the skill to get anywhere professionally? Worse, some of these folks don't even put in the amount of work that is the norm--they just want to know the secret shortcut that gets around all the work. That's why worthless books and seminars on acting, standup comedy or making it in the music business sell so well--people want to know how to get around all the work. Acting tutors, singing coaches--they prey on these people to make their money by nursing that addictive idea that fame and fortune are available to all and are just a few thirty-minute sessions away.

Frankly, I think the Guardian misread the quote. This has nothing to do with "uppity aspirations", it has to do with the unrealistic idea that a combination of "clever laziness" and belief in one's talent is all it takes to get to the top. That is a sorry idea to have around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. It has everything to do with aspirations

The prince's extraordinary outburst came after Miss Day suggested graduate secretaries received training to become assistant private secretaries.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14885536&method=full&siteid=89488&headline=charles--don-t-get-above-yourself-name_page.html

ie people who are as qualified as the prince is himself. Ironically, everyone agrees that Charles would never have been allowed into Cambridge if he hadn't been the heir to the throne.

[jpgray]

25. If Ms. Day doesn't have the ability, then it still makes sense

Lots of people attended the Warsaw Conservatory, but not everyone turned into a Chopin, right? Completing a course of training doesn't mean your ability is equal to all who have also completed that course.

[AP]

31. Apparently, she did have the ability.

Here's the stuff she was doing before she was downgraded (for complaining about sexual harassment):

Ms Day, of Belvedere, Kent, worked in the royal household as a PA, helping to organise events, liaise with charities, check locations in advance of the prince's visits, organise seating plans for dinners and even help draft speeches, from March 1999 until last April.

The job she was asking about, it seems, was the job just above that -- managing the PAs.

[jpgray]

33. Well, I can't really speak to that

I don't have enough information. In isolation, Charles's quote seems fine to me. But if it is specific to this woman and is a biased take on her qualifications, then it is elitist.

[AP]

36. I think it's pretty clearly a general statement:

"What are these people all thinking, being ambitious? Don't they know people have stations in life?"

Ambition, and believing that, with effort, you can do better is the thing that keeps the world moving forward. It looks like Charles doesn't want it to move so far forward that he's no longer relevant.

[jpgray]

38. He didn't say above their station, he said above their ability

Station was inserted by the Guardian, I believe. And taken generally, he's right--if your ambition only amounts to dreams of success that you have neither the ability nor the willpower to carry out, then it is not something that is very useful or productive to have.

[AP]

41. oops. Meant to reply to this, but replied to myself below.

I have some capability problems.

[AP]

29. That angers me more than anything I've read on DU in days.

They need to get rid of the monarchy.

[jdj]

34. this is Bush's philosophy as well, and he has real political power.

the shit we are in is way deeper than this.

[AP]

37. However, where Charles sees genetics, Bush sees dollar signs.

Bush wants to take away the options of the middle and working class in order to shift the wealth they create to people who already have a lot of wealth.

[AP]

39. He talks about "natural ability" and then says this:

"It is a result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically engineered to contradict the lessons of history."

It's hard to figure out what he's talking about at all, but it's probably because this guy isn't a top-notch thinker. He probably doesn't have a lot of people challenging him to refine his arguments about how the world works. But it does seem that he thinks there's somthign genetic going on that can't be changed by the schools.

[jpgray]

46. Well, it's hard to defend that sentence

Mostly because it makes no fucking sense. Does he mean that this ambition is the result of a belief that we can be somehow altered to be as good as anyone else in a certain field? Does he mean that ability is genetically inherent and therefore that would need to be leveled out for this noexistent parity to come about? I dunno.

My agreement begins and ends with recognizing that ambition without ability and/or hard work is often wasteful.

[AP]

48. Education should be about converting ambition and work into reward through

maximizing ability.

It's not about genetic engineering or whatever the hell Charles thinks it's about.

They've already hired these people, they're training them, and now they want to know how high they can go and his attitude is that everyone is hired to fit a niche and they shouldn't think they can go up. And then, to make a point, they kept knocking this woman down a peg (into jobs below her capabilities!) becuase, it seems, she complained that some guy was touching her inappropriately.

[SemperEadem]

51. but a good reporter would have asked him to clarify such an

ambiguous statement. hence, what he is saying is borne out by the writer of the article.

[AP]

52. This is a report on an ongoing trial. The parties aren't going to talk to

the press.

It's quoting the evidence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. Charles said it in a memo

there was no chance to get him to clarify what he meant. The memo was evidence in an employmwent tribunal.

[AP]

61. And if the reporter did ask for clarification, the response would be,

"we can't comment on matters that are the subject of ongoing legal proceedings."

[Tomee450]

57. Exactly!

"But it does seem that he thinks there's somthign genetic going on that can't be changed by the schools."

That comment about genetics is significant.

[Minstrel Boy]

35. Snottiness aside, what Charles is saying reminds me of Ted Rall's cartoon

that lost him his gig at washingtonpost.com

[SemperEadem]

40. that 's the very mentality that 's used by slave/plantation owners

to justify their 'keeping blacks in their place' and stealing land and anihiliating the Native Americans in this country. I don't see why anyone would have their panties in a twist over this over here... it's why the civil rights movement had to come to the fore---this abominable mindset is monarchial at its core. So many little minor princes and dukes posturing on this contintent just because their forefathers stole land out from under the "Indians".

[moggie]

54. Who the hell does he think he is?

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this particular case, I find it galling that every utterance that Charles Windsor makes, no matter how inane, gets (inter)national coverage and is debated as if it carries more weight than that of an average guy -- which is all he really is. It's particularly annoying when he comments on science, of which he appears to have a very slim understanding. The guy is qualified for nothing other than shaking hands and screwing around, so can't we just learn to ignore him?

[yellowcanine]

56. What is funny about this is Prince Charlie complaining about people

thinking they are qualified to do things above their capabilities - when he has had everything in life handed to him as a birthright and has still managed to pretty much fuck up everything he touched. What makes him think he is qualified to be head of state?