Published 8 July 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2771
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2771

Observations

On the Contrary

Thinking about Charles II

Charles II sometimes backed scientific evidence and sometimes backed belief. How different will the next King Charles be?

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The heir to the British throne has been at the centre of controversy again lately—for his last minute intervention to stop a building development he didn’t like and for the dodgy claims made for tinctures produced by his company.

While Prince Charles has form when it comes to architectural scraps, the Advertising Standards Authority’s judgment against his company, Duchy Originals, broke new ground: its marketing was the first in the United Kingdom to fall foul of new European regulations governing alternative medicines (Financial Times, 6 May, www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5e108746-39d7-11de-b82d-00144feabdc0.html).

One of Prince Charles’s objections to the new development was that it was unsympathetic to the nearby Royal Hospital, founded by Charles II. Which set me thinking about the reign of Prince Charles’s namesake. Building the Royal Hospital, a retirement home for British soldiers unfit for further duty, seems A Good Thing. So, too, does Charles II’s support of the . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Keep libel laws out of science

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2009 339: b2783. [Extract] [Full Text]

Back to square one

Stephen J Evans
BMJ 2009 338: b2332. [Extract] [Full Text]

MHRA label seems to be illegal

David Colquhoun
BMJ 2009 338: b2333. [Extract] [Full Text]

"Treating evidence with contempt"

Edzard Ernst
BMJ 2008 337: a2063. [Extract] [Full Text]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>