quote: "What is wrong with people these days?" the prince responded with evident exasperation in a memo written in 2002 and made public Wednesday at the tribunal. "Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities?
quote: "This is all to do with the learning culture in schools," it added. "It is a consequence of child-centered education system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be 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."
What I found most amusing about this story is that some news sites seemed a lot more biased about this issue than others. Some made this sound like a scandalous tabloid magazine story (Associated Press) and even CNN-- with the headline "How Prince Charles lost his street cred"-- while the NYtimes and USA today gave more to both sides of the story. It makes me wonder which news sites are the most reliable for leisurely news acquisition.
I realize (after finding the right source) that he wrote this memo in a flustered state. But what determines "natural ability"? Should people not bother to work on a skill unless they're really good at it from the start?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"People seem to think they can all be 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."
He's saying that people don't want to work for it whether they have talent or not - but that either way they feel entitled to all these glamourous lifestyle possibilities.
And he's correct. They don't, they're not and they do.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
I listened with interest to the BBC reports on this story. I agree with you, but that evaluation wasn't stated in any of the news reports I heard or read. Instead, the reports quoted the education minister stating that he thought that Prince Charles was "out of time" with the current education system.
I agree with you that the Prince's remarks ring true. I also agree with the current education policies of trying to get young children to explore *anything* they are interested in while they are young with no presumption that the child will not be able to accomplish his or her goals. However, as the Prince remarks, at some point as one matures, it becomes more and more evident that certain avenues are closed to future progression.
I think that the British government saw this statement as an attack on the entire system. I think it intended as more of an attack on older youths and young adults who aren't able to transition from the "anything is possible" to "you can keep trying, but you're reaching the point of diminishing returns here."
posted
When I read the above quotes, I immediately thought that Prince Charles was talking about the self-esteem movement and how it's harmed an entire generation. I completely agree with him.
We're moving away from it now, but the self-esteem generation was overpraised, even when they underperformed. As a result, we have a historically unskilled generation with the highest level of self-confidence.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find myself a bit annoyed by those statements. On one hand, someone should at least have experience in what they are doing, that goes without saying. But, does this mean that a person should stay in the same position for the rest of their lives? (Like me who is stuck being a bagger and as long as I stay at this job, I'll never, ever be moved to anything else and it's making me miserable.) He's a prince, soon to be king and did nothing to deserve it other than being born in the right family. They get to be rich forever and they never have to worry about getting a job or advancing. So who is he to talk?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's a prince, soon to be king and did nothing to deserve it other than being born in the right family. They get to be rich forever and they never have to worry about getting a job or advancing. So who is he to talk?
Yyyyeah, that kind of threw me, too.
Now, I agree with his statements, if he meant what I think he meant. I think there are far too many people these days who feel a sense of entitlement that makes them think they can be great without having to work at it. I think that's a bad thing and that it can ultimately lead only to stagnation and mediocrity.
But the sentiment would have been more convincing had it come from a wealthy or powerful person who had pulled themselves up from the bottom through hard work and dedication. Coming from a man who was born royalty and will one day be King of one of the more powerful nations in the world without ever having to do anything except wait for dear old mummy to die . . . well, the words don't seem to have quite the same effect, do they?
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So people are only allowed to complain about the sense of entitlement if they aren't from a family that has entitled them to something?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Elaine Day worked as a personal assistant to Prince Charles for four years. But when she wrote to her boss suggesting that PAs like herself with university degrees should have the chance to train as private secretaries, she unleashed an exasperated stream of consciousness in a memo from the man who would be king
Do you know what prompted the memo?
A woman with a university degree requested the opportunity to train for and apply for a job as a private secretary, a job traditionally held by the children of peers. This was Charles response - lamenting that education makes people think they can be more than they are capable of. He's not talking about being an opera singer and achieving it by lip-synching; he's talking about the audacity of woman thinking she could aspire to be a private secretary just because she has a university degree.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say he's not allowed to say it. I'm just saying that statements to the effect that you must work hard to become great are less convincing when coming from someone who never had to work for anything. Does he expect the common man to be more virtuous than himself? Or does he think that his being royalty means he doesn't count, and statements about "people these days" don't apply to him?
Edit: Or perhaps he was saying he is great because of his blood, and only people who have great blood should expect to be great. In which case, he is an anachronism who has forgotten what century he lives in. But then, I gather a great many British people already think so.
quote:The prince wrote the memo in reply to Day's suggestion that personal assistants with university degrees should be given the opportunity to train to become private secretaries - a more senior position within the royal household. Day excluded herself from the proposal.
Charles concluded the note by writing: "What on earth am I to tell Elaine? She is so (politically correct) it frightens me rigid."
Got that? This is his (cough) "measured" response to a suggestion for further responsibilities and training for staff with university degrees. He's responding to a person who HAD demonstrated talent and HAD put in work - unless things have changed recently, I don't think the university system in Great Britain as wide open in terms of admissions as universities in the U.S.
Adding this particular context makes his rant look like little more than a royal temper tantrum.
(The other part of this case, regarding toleration of sexual harrassment by those in Prince Charles' employ, is not a new one.)
Oops! Kat noted the same information and typed it while I was still composing this.
posted
Aside from Prince Charles gaffe's, and obvious stuck upness (issue like these make me want to go back to England and prove their little sorry butts wrong) I'd like to derial the thread slightly...
To the princes.
I was in shoppers drugmart with a friend and I see the front cover of a tabloid. "Prince William apologises for badboy Harry."
Prince William Badboy Harry
Now I realise this is a tabloid and the story is probably false or horribly out of proportionm, but I believe this is a symptom of the thing that makes Harry more likely to have a terrible life.
Throughout the article, all the pictures of Harry were those with him struggling with police or attacking photographers. All William's were of him looking nobly sad. "It pains him," said one quote, " to see Harry acting this way." Whether these quotes are real or not is beside the point. The real point is that if someone portrayed me like that, over and over, drinking, doing drugs, sleeping around etc, being "false to Princess Diana's memory" and my brother playing golf and being "nobly sad" I would be angry too.
GAH! I hate tabloids.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the topic of the self esteem movement: I'm a freshman in college right now, taking a class called Academic and Career Planning. We are repeatedly told that even though we're all capable of doing whatever we want, we're just here to decide what's best for us. I've always hated this attitude, so I'm afraid I've argued with my Professor about it more than once to no avail. Eventually, I always give up because it's not worth continuing the conversation anymore. The last time we discussed it her response was, "I've seen your test scores, and I know you could do it if you wanted to." Which I thought was just slightly hypocritical.
Of course, this is the same professor that gave us a class reading with this statement in it:
quote: Surround yourself with positive influences and eliminate negative ones. Don’t watch movies or TV programs about disturbing topics that bring you down (e.g., refuse to watch stories about child abuse and sexual assault, etc., if it makes you angry). Turn off the news, don’t read the opinion and editorial section of the local papers. Don’t dwell on the news, especially events that you feel powerless to influence. Instead, rent funny movies that make you laugh, and read books like Chicken Soup for the Soul. Read inspirational biographies.
Which I think is lovely advice, just what we should be taught in college.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Then again, if I did that I'd be so much happier and so much less stressed out. But, I'd also be uninformed. Maybe it's advice for people who do research and read news stories to the point of palputation... and the people who don't do that should start reading the news to balance it out.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
D'oh! Thanks for providing context, y'all. He wasn't talking about the self-esteem movement at all. He has so little credibility at this point that I don't really think that his opinion counts for much anymore.
blacwolve, that class sounds ever so useful and relevant. I'm surprised that it's still around - the self-esteem movement has been largely discredited. The problem now is what to do with that generation.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's a prince, soon to be king and did nothing to deserve it other than being born in the right family. They get to be rich forever and they never have to worry about getting a job or advancing. So who is he to talk?
Syn, not to defend Prince Charles, but while yes, he was born in an unusual family, personally, I think this is to more pitied than envied. We can choose our careers and our lot in life for the most part. Someone born into his family, to a very large degree, cannot. Yes, they have lots of privileges we don't even dream about...but they are under a microscope, where their slightest movement is endlessly analyzed by people who have no reason to be charitable and every reason to be excessively critical. For all his money -- and I don't think it's nearly what, say, Bill Gates enjoys, there is no way I'd trade places with him or anyone else in his family.
As for his memo, his family is a holdover from a past time, IMO, currently living in a century that isn't quite sure what to do with them. I can't help but think of Gosford Park.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They do have a miserable life always having to have their pictures taken and having details I don't want to know about them printed on tabloids. Still, in my peasent way I cannot help but envy their money. How I wish I had just a portion of that money (not the fame) so I'd never, ever have to bag groceries for my whole entire life.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is correct to say you can be whoever you want to be. It is incorrect to say you can be whoever you want to be without putting in the work required to become whoever you want to be.
posted
Democracy can only be sustained so long as the common man shares the values generally associated with aristocrats, these are those that spend energy to reach beyond what 'you' need too what society as a whole needs.
It is our affluence level that secures our democracy and fuels our dreams and our attitude "I ain't saying I am no better then anybody else, but I'll be damned if I ain't just as good." It is clear that what we have taken to heart still remains a rift between our values and those of monarchs.
However I agree with those who say the equivalent of "everybody knows that one horse is the fastest" We need to be quick to find great potential and put it to work for us all. That said, they should be compensated with money for talent, not privilege. If they then purchase a bit of extra privilege, well it is the American way...
"Why should I marry a 50 yr old widow when I can rent an 19 college girl..."
Guy on Law and Order
Clearly there is still institutionalized noble privilege out there to go with our own monetary privilege system.
posted
Prince Charles is really bad at his job, too. His mum is so much better at hers and HER mum was magnificent. They stayed in London during the blitz, because if they had fled (as so many others did) it might have caused the people to lose heart.
The job of a monarch is to be the servant of his or her people, to work tirelessly to inspire the people and be an embodiment of the ideals of the country. I think Charles's behavior and the general tenor of his life falls far short of that ideal.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Oops! Kat noted the same information and typed it while I was still composing this.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm surprised that it's still around - the self-esteem movement has been largely discredited. The problem now is what to do with that generation.
