CHARLES & REZA: Can and Should Royals Be Opinionated ?


CHARLES & REZA: Can and Should Royals Be Opinionated ?
by Darius Kadivar

Recently Crown Prince Reza has been subject to harsh critics by some in the diaspora for maintaining his claim as heir to the throne of Iran while at the same time entering the political arena. (Source:

Interestingly similar critics have been made against UK's Prince Charles in his lifetime for having an opinion on issues deemed beyond his prerogatives. 

Here is an interview of the Prince in the 1980's in which he expressed some rather "radical" outlooks on the Church of England and how to Run the British Arms Forces. 

From the 1994 documentary about the Prince of Wales by Jonathan Dimbleby.


Prince Charles and the Armed Forces:

Prince Charles speaking about the Church:


(Notice he mentions the Zoroastrians @ 4 mn 29 sec) 

Prince Charles - Islam & Muslims in the World Today:

VOA's Siamak Dehganpour reviews Highlights of 2011 interview of Crown Prince Reza as well as that of other Opposition figures actively opposed to the IRI.

OFOGH: Crown Prince Reza and the State of the Opposition Abroad:

Related pictory:

pictory: Prince Charles and Prince Reza (1974)

Related News :

Prince Charles called on to block modern Iranian embassy next to historic church

Related Blogs on Crown Prince Reza:

Crown Prince Reza Responds to Shahram Homayoun on German Magazine Interview Controversy

VOA OFOGH: Crown Prince Reza Debates
 with Hassan Shariatmadari on Secularism

VOA OFOGH: Crown Prince Reza and the
 State of the Opposition Abroad

Related Blogs on Prince Charles :

A PRINCE’s PRICE: Prince Charles's public funding increases by 11.8%

Press TV 'Investigates' Prince
 Charles 'Right To Veto' Laws

ROYAL FORUM: Prince Charles and 
Camilla's Car has been attacked by protesters (Dec 9th, 2010)


more from Darius Kadivar
Banafsheh Zolfaghari

If an opinion does'nt count, does it matter to have one?

by Banafsheh Zolfaghari on

While at times I find myself sort of impressed by reza pahlavi's positions and ability to articulate fairly solid oppinions on Iran, I must admit my greater and utter dissapointment in him (as with his fellow 'oppositionists') for a grand abject failure to provide a semblence of leadership to an abhorantly desperate situation in Iran.

Uninspiring and anemic they ALL have a common "foot-and-motor-mouth" dissease that has been running us ragged and exausted for nearly four decades!

So, while Royals do have the right to an opinion, in the case of our last vestige of royalty, he fails (with all due respect) in the very first test of being relavant; therefore it is really inconsequential what opinion he may or may not hold. 

The question to ask is that "If one's opinion does'nt count, does it matter to even have one?  At the end, a royal or a commoner needs to be relevant first otherwise it matters not. 

Charles is kind-of sort-of relevant as he is (for now) heir-apparent to that  old-bag.  But Reza at this stage is in danger of complete dilution, needing to fight for relevance well before any worry about where, how and to whom to speak his mind.

I don't relish sharing this view as it is in fact a heart break.  But true and also very sad.  Sad, because I like the next person would love nothing more than to live the fantasy of Persia's prince charming to sweep me and my homeland off our feet in pursuit of liberty and happiness. 

But that is a dream lost a long, long time ago. 



Immortal Guard

(Notice he mentions the Zoroastrians @ 4 mn 29 sec)

by Immortal Guard on

Yaap he knows that the Persians are underneath Zoroastrians. But what is also interesting is that he does not mention the Jews as subjects!

First Amendment

Thanks, Mr.'s a precious blog and everything.....

by First Amendment on

Opinionated?........Wow, that's too many syllables for one lonely gray cell bouncing in a perrrrrrrrzhen imperial skull............


Democracy + Monarchy = Future Iran

by bahmani on

I support a Constitutional Monarchy for Iran. It ONLY makes sense. At once we can and should have a country that is run through normal democratic (secular) 21st century means. HOWEVER, we cannot ignore our history and simply write it off and forget it to assuage modernity.

Granted a new country starting out would and should never install a monarchy. But Iran has a 2500+ year history of being a kingdom. Including the micro-55 year reign of the Pahlavi dynasty.

With the current state of affairs, you can now certainly debate whether the Shah era was worse than what we have now. I stand on the side of it being worse. That does not mean I think it was all that great.

Certainly it was bad enough to result in its demise.

All the more reason why in spite of what RPII doth protest too much, I'll come out and say it. I support him as King of Iran. I think he can redeem the Pahlavi dynasty IF he adheres to not what his Father stood for, but what his Grandfather stood for. Namely the staunch defense of Iran above all. Even (and especially) during a World at War.

This does not mean I support giving my King all encompassing powers. We and the rest of the world have learned that mistake all too well.

But given what we all aspire is to be able to hold our heads up in the world, and have some sense of unique identity, as well as offer the world a level of beauty and grace and cultural elegance, I think a monarchy is well-suited to championing and perpetrating that image.

So, I am for giving RPII the chance to redeem his family name, and take a decent shot at his destiny, and ours. I've read his books and (online) looked him in the eye. He is certainly not his Father. But I don't think he has decided to become like his Grandfather.

At this point in time, with the often cryptic answers he seems to give, I'll venture a guess and say that now, today, after all these years, RPII has been raised longer by his surrogate Father, the Royal Secretariat, than his actual Father. Given what we now know, that is not entirely a bad thing. But it is possible that RPII is emulating the aspirations of a Royal Secretariat, rather than his own.

If that is indeed what he is doing, and why he appears indecisive, he should stop doing that.

He should look to his grandfather and combine that energy and patriotism, with his own sense of what is right, good, logical, and above all appropriate for Iran now. And then be that.

We don't have to give the next King of Iran a secret police and full dictatorial powers, but we ought to provide a healthy people-serving (secular) democracy to compliment our next foray into the future. And this time try harder to live up to "the center of civilization" that we once were.

Proof that we should do this, is that EVERY SINGLE Iranian alive today, has this response to the current state of Iran, "It's a Real Damn Shame!"

So what do you prefer?

A full Secular Democracy with a Constitutional Monarchy to hold up an impressive legacy?

Or a weakling hat-in-hand Bani-Sadr modeled Social Democracy?

Or god forbid, US-military installed MEK Communism!

Let me answer your predictably guaranteed reflex responses in advance:

No, if you end up with a US-style democracy, you will end up with a fake 2-party system that feigns to be a democracy, but becomes mired in promoting party wonks, rather than advancing the real needs of the people. Sound familiar?

Worse, you will have lost a full-time 24/7 advocate of your own history.

Having seen all options now (USSR era - EGYPT era), we have a chance to do it right. For our us. Not the flattering emulation of what other nosey oil-sniffing countries want us to become "just like".

To read more bahmani posts visit: //