Prince Charles Windsor says he is no longer the enemy of the Enlightenment. He says there are too many problems in the world to bother with it. It will bite Charles on the arse very soon because it opposed both monarchy and religion. It also had a lot to say about democratic political philosophy. Morsi in Egypt didnt know the difference between democracy and majoritorianism. This is why citizens are being killed in large numbers. The Enlightenment had a lot to say about the distinction. The problem wouldnt exist if Enlightenment philosophy had held sway. Charles rejects the answer to this huge problem as worthless, while wringing his hands over the problem. It is not news that Charles is a stupid fellow. It is also not news that he holds a veto over Legislation affecting him and his interests, so on what basis do monarchists commend monarchy to us. I will spare you their propaganda and go straight to their purpose. They do so because the Queen is Anglican head of state for anglicans. They just dont mention that they are anglicans themselves. Apart from the celebrity befuddled lunatics, all who opposed my case for the Republic were local anglicans. They were not even bright enough to know of the wealth of sociological studies done on the relationship between religion and power, or how they were making my argument for me just by opposing me. None had ever heard of Samuel Huntington. He laid out the drivers of support for monarchy very clearly. The monarchist writers had heard of Amanda Vanstone. She told Q&A. (24-4-11). It is rational for anglicans to support monarchy because monarchy serves their interests. This happened to be my argument exactly. I would have thought a head of state should serve all our interests. There are many talented Australians who would better fill the role. I will revisit the Enlightenment for a moment. Jean -Jacques Rousseau said ” the ruled should be the rulers”. Nothing could be clearer. Little wonder Charles has more important things to bother about.