Dishing the dirt: What Foreign dignities really think about China

"Prince Charles describes Chinese officials as being “appalling old waxworks” and the hand-over ceremony as being an "awful Soviet-style display" where the Chinese military ‘goose stepped’ around in a ‘ridiculous’ ceremony before turning on an artificial wind generator to make sure that the newly raised Chinese flag could be seen to ‘flutter enticingly’.

I've never felt the slightest amount of sympathy for the guy before, but that is funny as hell!

That is pretty ironic comment to make for a country which snatched Hong Kong from China because of the Opium war, and which still actually maintains a monarchy. Without being of any actual use, Prince William is a billionaire, his wealth made up of gains from colonising other empires.

I guess human rights and corrupt business is purely defined by the West. Selling drugs to a country and forbidding it from rejecting your drugs is apparently ethical.

Actaully, Britain has a constitutional monarchy. It's imperial family acts as the counterbalance to the government. Under this British system the Queen (they have kings and queens rather than emporers) can disolv the British government if it becomes too corupt or despotic. They also act as the symbolic bridge between Britain and those former colonies that still maintain friendly relations with Britian.

For example, the British queeen is also an important figurehead in Canada and Australia, and is an important part of Britains internatinal diplomacy because she is an apolitical ambasidor.

Prince William is actually Prince Charle's son. I think that you mean Charles himself.

Much of Prince Charles's wealth is not from the former British empire, it comes from the Dutchy of Cornwal. The wealth of the Dutchy is mostly derived from agriculture. Prince Charles is one of Europes biggest proponents of organic farming, he runs many large farms producing high quality GM and chemical free food, and he actually puts more into the world economy than he takes out, making him a valid member of society.

Though I hold much of the British empire in disdain, and think that it was every bit as genocidal as the NAZI, Imperial Japan and America, it is, in so many words DEAD and GONE.

The human right and drugs offenses that you speak happened two hundred or so years ago and were no more terrible than the crimes being committed by other empires either then or throughout history.

I can't defend the opium wars, and I'm not going to, but Britain banned slavery, brought at least a semblance of an impartial judiciary with it, and didn't go around raping and murdering 100s of thousends of people at a time. Its crimes in China are actually fewer than China's own.

My original comment stated that such remarks were ironic, and you have not shown me how they are not ironic.

Is it necessary to have a monarchy to act as a counterbalance? What about the people? The free press and the judicial system? How are a bunch of people who can't even pass the A levels better than their ex-colonies be fit to serve as an effective check on the system? I was pointing out that Prince William owns a billion pounds, that must mean Charles and Elizabeth are much much richer. Wow, agriculture IS profitable industry, the farmers in Britain must be swimming in cash.

How much do the British pay to maintain the palace? Basically Prince Charles has no moral authority to write about having an open and uncorrupt system in which gains are ethically and fairly accrued to deserving people.

Your last paragraph cannot be substantiated.

What has time elapsed got to do with the seriousness of crimes? If the passing of time ensures that people learn from their mistakes (or that they even want to), then the iraq war wouldn't be happening today. The fact that war is still going on today only shows that the strong will always bully the weak.

"I can't defend the opium wars, and I'm not going to, but Britain banned slavery, brought at least a semblance of an impartial judiciary with it, and didn't go around raping and murdering 100s of thousends of people at a time. Its crimes in China are actually fewer than China's own. "

Your logic does stink, some may say it's worse to bully and enslave other countries than it is to bully your own people. Japan, your favorite country, is one tiny country that did rape and murder 100s of thousands of people at a time. And if one misdeed can be offset by another, then you might say that the current Chinese government has raised the standards of living of millions of Chinese, hence whatever faults you perceive it to possess can be mitigated.

If you find yourself siding with Britain then you'll excuse those who also side with China. Basically everyone is biased, and evidence is often interpreted the way the interpreter wants it to be.

Quit harassing me. This is a China blog, could you please limit your arguments to things about China. I don’t like straying off topic this much.

I don’t like the way that things are in Britain and I don’t claim to know all that much about the topic as I didn’t study this in history or social studies, but it is obvious that you know less about it than I do, and you like it even less to boot.

“My original comment stated that such remarks were ironic, and you have not shown me how they are not ironic.”

You are presuming that I disagree with you about it being ironic? I appreciate irony as much as the next person does.

“Is it necessary to have a monarchy to act as a counterbalance? What about the people? The free press and the judicial system?

This is the British system. I was explaining the system, not justifying.

The counterbalance arrangement was made generations ago when the world was a different place. There was no free press as such, the judicial system was not utterly independent, and the people barely knew what was going on in the next town, let alone in the capital. Bluntly put, none of the above had the power to counterbalance the Government. Only the Monarch had the fortune and influence to do it, and the soldiers to enforce it.

It is not my place to question a system that the British have used for centuries, and I doubt very much that it is your place either unless you are a democratically elected member of the Lower House working on behalf of the British people.

“I was pointing out that Prince William owns a billion pounds, that must mean Charles and Elizabeth are much much richer. Wow, agriculture IS profitable industry, the farmers in Britain must be swimming in cash.”

I don’t know why you keep raising Prince William, this article is about his father. Prince Charles. William had nothing to do with this.

I am also ‘deeply sorry’ to tell you that you have gotten your figures quite wrong. No member of the British Imperial Household is a Billionaire, not one.

Queen Elizabeth II is the richest member of the Household, and world’s tenth richest head of state, with a net worth in 2001 of about $420 million (according to Forbes Magazine), and Prince William must have substantially less money than she does, far short of the billions that you claim.

Taken from Forbes Magazine

Queen Elizabeth II: royalty, but no billionaire. http://www.forbes.com/2001/06/26/0626queens.html

Queen Elizabeth II may live in Buckingham Palace and enjoy one of the world's most stunning jewellery and art collections, but she falls far short of making the Forbes Billionaires list. Forbes pegs the world's best-known reigning monarch at a relative pauper's sum of $420 million. That's because the Queen, who marked her 49th year on the throne in February, doesn't actually own many of her brightest baubles like the crown jewels or the palace. These items technically belong to the British state, much like the White House is the property of the U.S. government.

What is hers: a handful of properties, including Balmoral Estate in Scotland, which has a castle and 50,000 acres of woodlands, moors and lochs; and Sandringham Estate, with dozens of houses, 60 acres of gardens and 20,000 acres of forest. The real estate is valued together at approximately $150 million. She also has her own private collections of art, furniture, jewels and horses, worth some $110 million. The rest of the fortune comes from conservative investments in blue chip stocks and bonds.

Perhaps I should explain things, as you obviously didn’t study European monarchies in school either.

Much of the Imperial Househol's apparent wealth is what is known as ‘property in trust to the nation’. I don’t know if you are familiar with the concept, but it means that they keep the property safe, but do not own it. Instead, this property, including Windsor castle and the British crown Jewels, belongs to the British people. Members of Imperial Househol can’t sell this property or use it as currency.

In short, the Prince William can’t sell Windsor castle to buy a pair of jeans, and he can’t porn the crown jewels to buy soda. But he would have to pay for one to be painted and for the other to be cleaned. He isn’t a billionaire by any stretch of the imagination and he can't actualy use any of this apparent wealth.

“How much do the British pay to maintain the palace?”

They don’t. The tax paid by the Imperial Household and the tourist income brought in from Windsor castle etc means that the British state makes a net gain from its monarchy.

“Your last paragraph cannot be substantiated.”

Britain occupied a VERY small section of a very BIG country for a relatively short period of time. Statistically, the British will have committed fewer crimes against the Chinese people than the current Chines Government.

Are you honestly saying that the opium wars and the imperialist crime of in the concessions were more of a crime than 50 years of communist rule under which tens of millions died unnecessarily of where imprisoned unjustly?

What about the Crimes committed by the KMD/GMD on Taiwan. They killed thousands of potential opponents, Chinese killing Chinese. They killed more people than the British killed and they did some very nasty things to anybody there who supported the comunist government on the mainland.

Currently there are 2000 members of the FLG sect in Chinese prisons. When did Britain ever have 2000 Chinese in prison for anything, let alone something that is unjust like belonging to a religion?

“some may say it's worse to bully and enslave other countries than it is to bully your own people”

I am not one of those people. A crime committed against your own is double the crime committed against a stranger. Not only have you committed the crime, but you have betrayed them.

A leader who kills his own people may be equally a murderer to the leader who kills a foreigner, but he is twice the barbarian.

DUTY OF CARE.

All i can say is the English are hyprocrate they are good at saying one thing do another.

This doens't make it any less of a loss of face for China though, does it.

I bet that it must have really hurt Jiang to have to share a platform with Prince Charles as an equal.

@Ming: your post is a generalisation lacking in insight or substantiation. As an overseas Chinese living in London it is obvious to me that hypocrisy is more often a criticism pointed at Chinese - those westerners (Brits included) who have significant exposure to the Chinese often complain about Chinese who don't say what they mean and don't mean what they say. It is part of our culture - we cannot call them "brash" laowai and then criticise them for what might be defended as "discretion".

@ACB: great site you have here. That Prince Philip dude is funny but I'm not sure about the slitty eyes comment ;)

Thank you for an opportunity to post a comment. May I say to Ming that if someone says one thing then does another, it just means you shouldn't consider that person a close friend, and that part of being an adult is to allow for the failings of others. On Prince Philip, remember that he comes from a time when China did not walk on the world stage. In fact, in his time it was perfectly acceptable to be extremely rude when talking about foreigners; and, of course, no one has the power to make him change. He probably had no idea why any British citizen would want to spend time in China. On Prince Charles, it was his duty to be present at the hand-over of Hong Kong. I trust that the city was in as good as or better condition than when it was taken from China, and that China will benefit from having it back. However, I personally believe the people of Hong Kong should have been allowed to vote to determine their own future. Is not Singapore a city state? Charles was correct to insist on being treated as an equal. We are all equal, and he was representing a sovereign nation. His personal observations on the ceremony are private, and Beijing is correct in saying simply that it was unfortunate that they became public. Lastly, the name of the greatest mass murderer in human history is Mao Zedong, or when I went to school Mao Tse Tung. Unfortunately, probably the greatest problem that China faces in the future remains, simply, too many people. Things could get ugly inside China. Sorry, straying off topic.

Martin Ruddell

"I trust that the city was in as good as or better condition than when it was taken from China"

You could sort of say that Hong Kong was in a far better state than when it was signed over to Britain.

Originally, Hong Kong and Kowloon were pretty much barren and devoid of human haitation. There were a few fishing villages there, but little else. The land was quite poor for farming and there were problems with maleria and co so it wasn't a good place to build a town.

All that oyu see in Hong Kong today is because of the British (so to speak), as is much of Canton (Guangdong Province), which grew up as a sister development serving as the middleman between east and west in partnership with Hong Kong.

Hong Kong was, of course, built on the backs of the Chinese who lived there, and most of them only came because Hong Kong wasn't 'China'.

You post:

/quote

In the same year, Prince Phillip also famously made derogatory comments about South Chinese dinning habits when speaking to delegates at a meeting of the World Wildlife Fund.

"If it has got four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it."

Prince Philip

/endquote

Are you really not aware of the Chinese phrase which amounts to the same thing? Assuming you are, how is Prince Philip's comment derogatory?

It was inapropriate for him to say it at a WWF meet.

It's like making a child abuse joke at a child protetion society dinner.

Prince charles is an adulterer and as such is not fit to become king of England. His ugly wife, an adulteress is not fit to become queen of England. The royal family who seem to think they deserve something more than the general population of this country should be removed from any privilege and all monies and property they have gained from such privilege redistributed back to the people. Make England a Republic. Long live the Republic.

Prince charles is an adulterer and as such is not fit to become king of England. His ugly wife, an adulteress is not fit to become queen of England. The royal family who seem to think they deserve something more than the general population of this country should be removed from any privilege and all monies and property they have gained from such privilege redistributed back to the people. Make England a Republic. Long live the Republic.

Your knowledge of Monarchies seems to be lacking. Adultery is practically a normal activity for royalty. And by historic standards having an affair with just the one woman is tame.

At least Charles isn't a murderer. Some of his forebears committed genocide and war crimes on a daily basis

"all monies and property they have gained from such privilege redistributed back to the people."

They already have been. The British Royal family pays income tax on their earnings, and most of what you see (the crown, the palace etc) already belongs to the people. It is only on loan to the monarchy.

"Make England a Republic"

The British monarchy is constitutional. This means that they are part of the system of checks and balances. If you take away the monarchy, you also remove the people's last line of defense against the excesses of a corrupted federal government.