Prince Charles – bloody idiot

From Wikipedia, here are a few dissidents:
Andrei Sakharov
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Natan Sharansky
Vladimir Bukovsky
Harry Wu
Lech Wałęsa
Václav Havel
Aung San Suu Kyi
Nelson Mandela
and they are the ones whose names I instantly recognised. There will be many many more.
And Prince Charles thinks that he too is a dissident ? It may well be a relative term but he does a grave disservice to those who have suffered hardship and continued pressures by using that term for himself. The guy is an idiot who seeks to back in some sort of reflected glory.

8 thoughts on “Prince Charles – bloody idiot

  1. To be fair he is correct, he has gone against a lot of political ideas. He is a dissident, he is someone who disagrees.

    To make anything more of the word is silly, and that’s what the BBS is doing there. Even using those godawful quotes around it to pop the word out like it is significant.

    People who speak out against the prevailing opinions are disidents. Charles has often done that, and it’s one of the few things I like about the man. The very few.

    Disident has been slightly demonised by the Bush administration as a bad thing, much like the term liberal, it’s hype – nothing more. The word isn’t any more important than its meaning.

  2. I disagree :)
    I think that while Charles is using that word is a way that is in accordance with a dictionary, he is using it to associate himself with stronger actions.
    In the UK, we have people disagreeing all the time but we do not use the term dissident. We will call them activists, politicians, extremists, pressure groups, demonstrators – but not dissidents. Given that his acts of dissidence are as radical as speaking but suffering no other effects, then his use of the word for himself while not seeing others in this country as worthy of that tag by using that tag for them is very very poor.
    By absolute definition, he may well be correct. By accepted use within this country, he is not.

  3. I think you’ve managed to miss it’s general use over the past few years then. All of the above groups you mentioned have been called dissenters by the media. Why? Because it’s the correct term and doesn’t have any loaded political meaning.

    I also don’t think he’s using it for effect. It’s the correct usage and so, given his education and upbringing, he’s using it correctly.

    I’d say it’s you who are projecting and infering things from the usage, although it’s not surprising given the way the article is written. The “accept use within this country” is the use he is using, your version is also accepted use but usually with the clarifying word “extreme” usually in the form of “extremist dissident groups” or the like.

    I don’t think Charles has ever (or could ever) called himself extreme, that would be silly ;)

  4. Today I have been a dissenter with my bank, with my wife, with my dog, the cat and a few people online.
    I’ve been dissenting all over the place :)

    I still think that given his command of the English language he could have picked a term that was more accurate given his actual level of involvement.
    “Armchair dissenter”
    “Throne dissenter”
    “Just talk dissenter”

    :)

  5. Heh, I can imagine it’s a little like going stir crazy though. I think that’s why William just got the hell out of there and did lots of things that were making the “royal advisors” scream (like the Gap year in the middle of the jungle).

    It’s also probably what made Diana go so bat-shit crazy towards the end of her life. It’s not like she was particularly clever or a subtle press manipulator (there are only so many times you can see that whole “doe-eyes” look without rolling your eyes).

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.