Christopher Hitchens, Bitter Brit
Centuries have passed since British kings claimed a divine right, but British subjects still seem unable to accept the fact that their nominal rulers are human. Such, at least, seems to be the case with Christopher Hitchens in his recent attack on Prince Charles. Britain’s sovereigns are scandal-prone and soft-headed, sure. But read about Britain’s daily debauches, blinding stupidity and record promiscuity and one starts wondering whether the British have better royals than they deserve.
Hitchens’ attack is centered on an admittedly silly speech given by Prince Charles at Oxford. Hitchens’ reply, though, just intensifies the London fog of confusion. Take Hitchens’ claims about Galileo:
We owe a huge debt to Galileo for emancipating us all from the stupid belief in an Earth-centered or man-centered (let alone God-centered) system. He quite literally taught us our place and allowed us to go on to make extraordinary advances in knowledge.
Rather remarkably, Hitchens has seized on one of the few supportable things Charles says. The story of the de-centering of man, and Galileo’s role in it, is increasingly dismissed by scholars who view it as a convenient story made up, centuries after the fact, by critics of the Catholic Church. As Ryan T. Anderson noted in his review of the book Galileo Goes to Jail:
[E]ven if Copernicus had demoted the earth–notably, this spin wasn’t proposed until a hundred years after his death–it wouldn’t have been a problem for anyone who declared with the Psalmist, “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have established; what is man that you are mindful of him?”
Hitchens also makes the false claim that the speech was given at Oxford’s Center for Islamic Studies. While the centre sponsored the program, it was actually given at the Sheldonian Theater, behind the same podium Hitchens stood at a few weeks ago.
The Centre for Islamic Studies,which Prince Charles helped build, is a fine reminder of what’s best about Prince Charles’ wide-ranging philanthropy. Some view his efforts to resurrect walkable towns built on a human scale as kitschy sentimentalism, but I tend to think his commitment to traditional forms of building will strengthen civic life, improve health, and slow the destruction of the British landscape.
The Centre (pictured above) was designed by Egyptian architect Abdel-Wahed El-Wakil who successfully integrated traditional Islamic architecture into Oxford’s highly particular gothic landscape. It is a silent lesson in the possibility and promise of integrating Europe’s Muslim populations. The idea that faith does not lead only or simply to violence may be why Hitch seems to dislike Oxford’s centre—and its batty but benign patron—so much.
A minor but important correction Matt; in the last near century the British Sovereign has been pretty much scandal proof. The Queen has been dignified, responsible and refined over the decades. It is her siblings, children and to a lesser degree her grandchildren who have been scandal-prone and soft-headed.
What the institution will do without Elizabeth II when she finally waves her way off this mortal coil I fear to guess. God save the Queen indeed.Report
@North,
You’re right. I meant the royal family more broadly, but picked the wrong term.Report
This sentence “But read about Britain’s daily debauches, blinding stupidity and record promiscuity and one starts wondering whether the British have better royals than they deserve” reads like you read the Daily Mail and concluded that the country is going to the dogs, which is what the Daily Mail is there for. The piece would be better off without it, really – a little hesitation in judging entire countries might be in order..Report
@Simon K,
I get pretty annoyed when people do this about other countries (France being the most common), so I probably should have been a bit more cautious here. (Still, I did say “start to wonder,” not “conclude,” for what it’s worth.) The reason I went that far was the long, proud and productive history of American polemics against our mother country. Like any good child, we are ready to defend her from any outside attack.
The eye-shot thing is, I assume, a small and exaggerated trend. Britain’s widespread drinking, however, seems to be a real social problem. I know people who live in Britain who call it the least virtuous nation on earth. That’s a stretch, but it’s sad that people are tempted to make it.Report
@Matt Schmitz, “Drinking problem? We drink, no problem!”. Seriously, though – binge drinking is a competitive sport in parts of the UK, and there’s a national tendency towards disorder and debauchery. But there are social conventions around all of this that make it less socially disruptive that you’d think if you just read the Daily Mail and took it seriously. I think this is one of the hardest cultural differences between the US and UK to bridge – American public standards are more respectful of authority, more law abiding, more continent, less libertine and more prudish. Private behaviour of course is another matter entirely. I’m not sure about “least virtuous nation on Earth” but I might give you “least publicly virtuous English speaking nation”.Report
It’s funny- the less time I spend looking at little glowing rectangles, the less I know about scandals. Now I will go read the link; however I suspect this has something to do with Islam because I did see something yesterday about Prince Charles being a covert Muslim on a blog I used to really like before it became about nothing but the blogger’s really intense hatred for Muslims.Report
@Rufus F., Ah, okay, it’s not about Islam; Hitchens is defending the Enlightenment (peace be upon it) from Prince Charles. Well that’s good. You know, Hitchens is a great prose stylist, but I think I’d describe most of his stuff as “timely”, mainly because I just can’t imagine rereading it at a later date.Report
Hitchens actually names Alan Turing as one of the scientists who needs to be defended from Charles’s attack on the Enlightenment, presumably because Charles might, I dunno, hound him to death for being gay.Report
@Mike Schilling,
I can’t really see Charles being a homophobe, whatever else he is.Report
@Matt Schmitz, Of course not. It the establishment Hitchens is defending from Charles’s interference that did that.Report
I think he is justified in his reaction to Price Chuck’s pandering to the Muslims. Prince or not, Chuck needs to know that the commoners will not be silent about such stupidity. Maybe he and Carter can get together and go play somewhere far away from anyone.Report
In the end, Hitchens is just a guy with a witty style (half of which comes from a British accent and the boldness from alcohol); future historians will puzzle at why anybody considered him worth listening to.Report
In fact, Galileo really WAS pretty important, even beyond his not inconsiderable personal contributions. The Renaissance followed a millenium and a half of stasis in engineering and science, because the habit of looking at facts first in science had been lost since shortly after the fall of the Roman Republic to absolute monarchy. Clearly, Copernicus had already been paying attention to factses, but facts first was still unfashionable in most of Europe. Galilei’s example brought alot more credibility to that habit in Renaissance Italy, an intellectual center of no small importance.
Rather a startling amount of Chuckie-boy’s comfort comes from the technological progress that he’s been standing against. No, Alan Turing doesn’t need defending, but contemporary British scientists and engineers might see attacks on their freedoms and especially budget sizes if he had his druthers; New Labour’s already been bad enough, freedom-wise.
That’s one reason monarchy’s a bad idea – 60%ish aren’t so up to their jobs. Another is, under unchecked monarhchies like Rome’s, stifling of non-kings and those not in favor at the second. That’s how Hero of Alexandria’s gaseous and steam engine work came to be the last real work forward for said 1500 years until the Renaissance.Report