Richard Dawkins is very sound in his judgement of all religions--they are beliefs--or social engineering by those, who enjoy power under the pretext of morality. A sincere and reciprocal respect for human beings is all we need for our existence. Charles Windsor would be, but one insignificant member, if not for an effete royal lineage, supported by sycophants and a beneficiary Establishment, who see "order" as a benign serfdom.

Why do I always get the impression that if charlie hadn't been born to Elizabeth Windor he would have been just another harmless but completely ineffectual social worker?

'Atheists have not tried to be charming or humourous, to my knowledge'

Gore Vidal? Mark Twain? Bill Hicks? What always astounds me is how humourless the 'new atheists' are in the sense that they are so pompous: which Hari proves here. 'Oh look someone praised me: go and read it'.

'the ever-increasing rule of tyranny--now global, has convinced me that, social engineering is more the aim of our moral monarchs--not the "truth" of gospels.'

Isn't the first point one that Hari and Dawkins assiduously avoid (and which renders the 'superb' article complete drivel)? I have no sentimental connection to the monarchy, but isn't modern Britain evidence that two party democracy is a sick joke? We have the red team of warmongering free market fanatics and the blue team of warmongering free market fanatics.

Can Mr Windsor really be much worse?

As to your second point, have you read the Gospels? Messrs Blair and Bush had no idea of Christian ideas and values. Look how much they did for the Christians of Iraq.

Gregor--You appear to be getting yourself in a bit of a wax over "new atheists"--whatever you think they are. Whether they are charming or not--who can say if they are deliberating trying to charm. That is subjective. It is natural that, atheists are more assertive and strident now, in the face of religious non-proof--after all it was not so many years ago--about 200 years, that we would have been declared heretics and burnt at the stake for simply erring from mainstream religious propaganda. Two- party democracy is a joke. The idea that Britain has a true democracy is a joke. However, having these fraudulent practices--and a monarchy is by far the most ridiculous of all systems and has created a nation of political cowards. Your point about Bush and Blair falls into my camp--they are both charlatans, who pretend Christianity for their credibility amongst the gullible public. I believe Charles Windsor to be little better in his seeking to be defender of all faiths--why not all ideas?