In the meantime we have a report from London, carried in The Australian on 23 January, 2006, that Prince Charles did not go to a dinner with the Chinese president in 1999 because he did not approve of the brutal occupation of Tibet. If so, most people would agree with him. Unlike The Queen, he did not have to go.

But what is really appalling is that a former aide seems willing to betray his confidence – if what he says is indeed true. What ever happened to honour and decency?

Apparently the British press has publicized the Newspoll which says 52% of Australians would support a republic if Prince Charles were King, rising from 46%. What they probably did not say is this indicates that a referendum would then be overwhelmingly defeated.The referedum vote is only taken when the people see allof the details, and have an idea of what the politicians are up to. 

The British papers are likely not to have reported the trend in public opinion polls on this issue. ( If some did, I stand to be corrected)

An earlier poll, taken at the height of the media campaign against the Prince was about ten points higher. The marriage of course has changed things completely, and the trend in public approval of the Prince is now rising. If the report on Charles’ views about Tibet is accurate, they will only rise higher. As they would if the media, instead of such trivia as who squeezed his tooth paste when he had broken his arm, bothered to report with even equal emphasis such serious matters as the fact that last year he raised an astronomical quarter of a billion dollars for his very worthwhile charities.

Until next time,

David Flint