Charlie Gilmour has, for a brief moment in time, eclipsed his adoptive father (Pink Floyd's David Gilmour) in his media presence but for all the wrong reasons.
Why has this young man become the face to the mayhem that swept across London during the tuition fees protest? Is it because he was particularly violent and aggressive? no it's because his mother married one of the world's greatest guitarists.
If it were any other young lad out to bring down the establishment we probably would have seen a quarter of the media attention Charlie has had. But he is a man who has spent his teens and early adult life living the opulent life offered by multi-millionaire parents.
It is this background which the public at large find a bitter pill to swallow with regards to his legitimacy to protest in such a manner, but once again the public are wrong.
Charlie Gilmour is not the offspring of a businessman and a middle class ballet teacher. No, his biological father is none other than Heathcote Williams the notorious anarchist, poet, songwriter, actor and artist whose exploits during the 1970s rival those of his son's.
After Charlie's father abandoned Charlie and his mother Polly Samson it was Pink Floyd's David Gilmour who stepped into the parental role for young Charlie and lovingly adopted him as his own child after marrying his mother.
To find fire in the guts of Charlie Gilmour is not to be unexpected. But at the same time it is in no way a reflection on the love and stability offered by David and Polly or any wrong doing on their parts and this is something which I am sure any parent who has watched their children grow up will recognise.
It is called rebellion.
We all did it in varying degrees in order to establish our personalities outside of the confines of our upbringing and if your upbringing was unconventional then the rebellion may well be exaggerated.
When your parents are themselves known rebels then what form does your rebellion take? Do you chose to conform with society that your parents have questioned? Probably not if it goes against every core value you developed during your upbringing.
However you will seek approval and that is what I see when I look at the photos of Charlie Gilmour, a young man looking for approval from his mother, father and adoptive father.
I do not condone Charlie's actions which were extreme and may well have been premeditated (which he denies) but I find it hard to point a finger at what is to be fair a brilliant expression of the human soul to establish itself and act through the desire we all have to please.
His actions on the Cenotaph were disrespectful and distasteful but many young men and women have no idea of the significance of that statue. And I am sure in years to come as he grows up he will squirm at that photo in which there is no pretence and by that I mean he looks like a privileged twit trying to look cool and it makes him look like a laughing stock.
Only with age, maturity and wisdom do we get to regret the foolish works of our childhood and that is the luxury of hindsight.
The manifestation of Charlie's coming of age rebel yell has been a bit unfortunate in as much as it has singled him out unjustly and demonised him through sensationalism.
We should expect great things from young Charlie who has made a mark without the assistance of his parents or reality television, you may not like what he did which was basically stupid yet there was brilliance in it.
He was photographed continuously and spotted in all the hot spots with the demeanour of an awkward almost geekish rebel without an IPod. He had a sense of how to make himself known even though he looked more like Richard E Grant's Withnail Character from Withnail and I than he did Che Guevara.
Naughty boy Charlie but still rather an amusing and brilliant execution of a flawed and unfocused rebellion none the less….which actually makes it all the more brilliant.
However 'de law iz de law' and he must face up to his actions even if it is his generation that pays for our excess.
Judging this young rascal smacks of hypocrisy, of course the young will commit such acts as those by Charlie Gilmour because they are angry to be saddled with our debt whilst we tell them how very silly they are to protest and attack our great monuments which they perceive as emblems of a nation which has rested the responsibility of debt squarely on their shoulders.
The tuition fees protest is simply the cause these young people felt affected them most directly so what will happen when austerity begins to really bite? Will we see the parents of these children out on the streets protesting?
You have got to be joking. What a pathetic piece. So we are now going to coo over 'poor Charlie Gilmour" who has a genius biological father, was loved and nurtured by a genius adoptive father who brought him up in the lap of luxury? Obviously, whether by nature or nurture, genius did not rub off. Not only has that over-indulged little pratt hijacked the true message of the tuition demos for those of his peers who really have difficulties – family, financial, social – and done them a huge disservice, he has brought public shame and scorn on one of the great musical geniuses of our generation, Mr. David Gilmour. Mr. David Gilmour famously shuns the spotlight and vulgar notoriety and in one fell swoop, with his "alleged arson" and "alleged theft" (of TopShop boots? – was he "protecting them from demonstrators?) little Charlie has thrust his father exactly where no deserving adoptive parent should be.
Many well-to do off-spring are social-justice activists but extremely few are demonstrably hooligans. Charlie Gilmour needs to issue several other public apologies: to all his luck-less parents, to Top-Shop and where ever he was allegedly trying to burn down a building. The Cenotaph caper pales in comparison.
@ S Braddock-Fisher
Thank you for not reading the article properly and commenting on it and backing up much of what I said.
You are not doing this young man a service… Are you going to write a piece explaining why all the other hooligans who gave the tuition demos a bad name "are crying for help", or only the famous one. How about the chap who who p'd on Churchill's statue: why did he do it. What's his cry for help? Or isn't he "famous" enough to be publicly defended in a newspaper. Let's have some more journo-pop-Freudian psycho-analysis. If Charlie Gilmour has private family psych issues, let his family deal with them in private, not expose his wretched parents to even more public ridicule and cheapen the whole tuition debate which is the real issue here. Have some respect. Charlie Gilmour's behaviour was beyond deplorable. He's an adult. Let him deal with it..
Actually S. Braddock you raise some very good points….
The point I am making is in reverse…..why is Charlie being made the focus of the media attention? hence…
"Why has this young man become the face to the mayhem that swept across London during the tuition fees protest? Is it because he was particularly violent and aggressive? no it’s because his mother married one of the world’s greatest guitarists"
As for your point "If Charlie Gilmour has private family psych issues, let his family deal with them in private, not expose his wretched parents to even more public ridicule"…..
I refer you to this quote from the article "But at the same time it is in no way a reflection on the love and stability offered by David and Polly or any wrong doing on their parts and this is something which I am sure any parent who has watched their children grow up will recognise"
And finally "Have some respect. Charlie Gilmour’s behaviour was beyond deplorable. He’s an adult. Let him deal with it"…….excellent point however I refer you back to the first quote from article where I question why Charlie is being singled out in this matter which does give an unfair public bias towards himself through media demonisation.
We use the same arguments to reach opposite conclusions: sign of healthy debate.
However, if you question why CG is being singled out by the media you are not pressing your point.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
S. B-F
Have a good Christmas S Braddock-Fisher
Richard Henley Davis
Quote :" But at the same time it is in no way a reflection on the love and stability offered by David and Polly or any wrong doing on their parts…"
You're joking, right? In the past couple of years there's been a few articles on the web where we've seen Charlie talk about his drug use, and his mother's. We've read that Polly has shared her pot with her own mother, in front of the family, with David giving his mother-in-law advice about taking it easy on the hashish she was smoking. If mom and dad think this is o.k. then a little anarchy can't hurt, and Charlie knows his stepdad has the money to get him out of the sh*t he steps in, so yes, why shouldn't little Charlie act like the spoiled brat that he is. However, those who find it somehow alright to defend the brat's actions are the most worrisome to me. They should know better.
I would like to add and agree with you that although I don't know much or anything about CG's mother, I am sure that, like most mothers, she has done nothing to deserve this either.
S. B-F
Thank you for your kind Christmas wishes that I reciprocate.
S. B-F
Agreed S Braddock Fisher
Hi Aunt Sam…..
In what way does my quote challenge love and stability within the context of your comment?
S. Braddock Fisher and Richard Henley Davis. With your double-barrelled names, you both sound like a couple of public school twits. I bet I am right.
Hi John, I know RHD and you could not be further from the truth. I think you definitely slotted him in the wrong pigeon hole.
@John Macky and Admin……
Your both right I must confess to a spell in a public school however as Admin said…..you would never tell :-)……and yes I am a twit….tally ho old boy.
Well, this is all very cosy. I don't really care about Charlie Gilmore, whose life of privilege will shield him from any consequences. My son is a student who is going to find it very difficult to find the wherewithal to fund his Masters degree next year. His father and I will help all we can but we are by no means wealthy. The sight of spoilt-brat students rioting on the streets of London was sickening to behold. It now turns out a lot of them were by no means poor, or even students, but just the usual rent-a-mob there to enjoy the gig. With the usual anarchist elements also thrown into the mix, it was obvious there was going to be trouble, and people were likely to get hurt. As for feeling sorry for poor Charlie, young men of his age have died for their country. The same young men commemorated on the fair-ground attraction known as the Cenotaph. By the way, my son would not dream of rioting even though the cuts will affect him badly.
I think you raise some interesting points but you are essentially an apologist for his behaviour. For a start his actions were clearly premeditated not just 'possibly'. He was wearing latex gloves for God sake! Secondly, 'His actions on the Cenotaph were disrespectful and distasteful but many young men and women have no idea of the significance of that statue.' He's studying History at Cambridge! He is not 'many young men and women' in this respect. I think its this deeply flawed and weak defence of his supposed 'moment of madness' that further antagonises the general public. And to call his vandalism and acts of hooliganism, 'an amusing and brilliant execution of a flawed and unfocused rebellion none the less….which actually makes it all the more brilliant.' This totally detracts credibility from your article. How was it brilliant exactly? Oh and of course he has Daddy issues and you treat us to some cod psycho-anaylsis about little boys wanting Daddy's approval. Weak.
But don't worry about him, Richard. Ironically the same wealth and privilege he was rioting against will stop him suffering any real consequence of his actions.
Very well put, Mrs. Jones. I sincerely hope these horrendous tuition fees will soon be a thing of the past for your son's and all our children's sakes.
Hi Guy…..
"For a start his actions were clearly premeditated not just ‘possibly’. He was wearing latex gloves for God sake!"…….circumstantial and not definitive.
"He’s studying History at Cambridge!"……anyone over the age of 10 knows the meaning of what the Cenotaph is however significance here is something that a Cambridge degree cannot reveal……respect and emotional reverence are in no way linked to higher education….for goodness sake people study politics does that improve their moral standing? it should but the proof is in the pudding currently occupying Westminster.
And to call his vandalism and acts of hooliganism, ‘an amusing and brilliant execution of a flawed and unfocused rebellion none the less….which actually makes it all the more brilliant.’ This totally detracts credibility from your article.
No it doesn't.
"Oh and of course he has Daddy issues and you treat us to some cod psycho-anaylsis about little boys wanting Daddy’s approval. Weak."
What should we do then? hang the boy? why should he be judged harsher? because he is from a wealthy family?
Maybe I'm too cynical. But if a history student doesn't know what the Cenotaph stands for and how much it means, isn't that the best argument to scrap tuition fees altogether? I mean: I can teach my children less for much less.
“Coming of age rebel yellâ€
The idea that Charlie Gilmour and his parents are surprised by the spotlight is so ridiculous!!! The man is represented by a model agency and a PR firm – he hit the streets that day dressed in clothing which feature in his portfolio, made sure he was photographed all over town (by himself, hair flapping) and swung from the cenotaph. It’s hardly low profile behaviour, and that’s not even factoring in his parentage.
In principle I’ve got nothing against him. He’s no bloody Rimbaud, and he looks like he was dragged through All Saints backwards and emerged as a cut-price Jethro Cave. Full of self-regard for no good reason and very very undignified. Perhaps you’re right and humility will come with age. I hope the whole unseemly incident was the result of taking acid, as has been suggested, and not self-promotion. My husband has bets on the exclusive interview and modelling spread being in the ES magazine – I say the Telegraph. We’ve got a tenner on it being before spring!!!
But the issue here is that his actions have trivialised an important issue and played smack bang into the hands of the right wing press and those who would portray students as undeserving. It’s not his right to speak for the thousands whose lives are affected by this and have no recourse to their parents funds – it’s not his story to tell. But by all accounts he didn’t go along to say anything coherent about a serious political issue – he just went along to show off. And what he showed up was the complete lack of empathy the rich have for the not-so-rich. Have a ‘rebel yell’ by all means but do it in your own time. Develop a smack addiction!! Discuss the redistribution of wealth with the real anarchists! Stay at home and retweet peoples experiences of the demonstrations!! But don’t get in the way of the real issue. In other words – fuck off.
Mrs G, I'm with you completely. By the way, my money's on the ES spread.
Sadly, your entire account of Charlie's actions falls flat as we know that his behaviour was premeditated. He has been filmed and photographed at a number of locations that day suggesting he is there to "trash" the place, and was seen behaving in a similar fashion in Cambridge recently. Unlike many in attendance, Charlie Gilmour was in no way there to protest about student fees. He clearly idolises himself as some form of successor to his (biological) father, without recognising that the world has moved on. We need protestors, we need people to disagree with the state., BUT we don't need people hijacking the issues simply to cause trouble.
Hey Richard,
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
“For a start his actions were clearly premeditated not just ‘possibly’. He was wearing latex gloves for God sake!â€â€¦â€¦.circumstantial and not definitive. Perhaps strictly speaking in a court of law that would be conjecture or hearsay and no one will be convicted based on that evidence. But really with hand on heart why do you think he wore latex gloves if it was not premeditated? Maybe, older, bigger boys made him wear them? Please….
Don't give me that rubbish about Gilmour having knowledge without wisdom. The cenotaph had THE GLORIOUS DEAD carved into it. How can any educated adult not realise that climbing on and desecrating such a monument was a bad thing to do?
You say why should he be treated harsher? I wasn't suggesting that but what makes people angry is the hypocrisy that's involved. He's not taking responsibility for his actions. He's claiming he got swept up by the crowd and then didn't know what he was doing or the significance of his actions. I think that as much as anything is what has antagonised the general public. Accept your actions, apologise sincerely, even defend your beliefs but don't use ignorance as a defence. It's patronising. He should have the courage of his convictions, except he clearly has none.
Also you have failed to explain what was so brilliant about what he did?
Finally, if he is to be treated in exactly the same manor as the rest of the rioters, perhaps he should have the same court appointed representative to argue his case like the majority of the rioters will have to make do with? Rather than the extremely capable barrister that, Mater & Pater will no doubt pay a small fortune, to defend him.
Going to take you up later on that Guy Lewis………..must go to daughter's carol service.
I happen to agree with you.
What is brilliant, setting aside the outrage and the stupidity of orchestrating a scandal that gained international attention, is his truth. Charlie is true to his Englishness and rebellion for the sake of human values.
Remarkable not once in all documented photos do we see Charlie harm anyone directly unlike the images we have of police brutality that will go to court.
On the contrary Charlie reads poetry to the police. And we must remember what is symbolic of Keats and Byron two leading Romantic poets who were themsleves leading a rebellion challenging the current time in which they lived influenced by the impact of the French Revolution.
The architects of the french revolution were responible for the theory of social choice, the capability to choose.
And this is the very heart of why The UK Student protest and this day at Whitehall ie protesting the circumstances as to what has led to the increase in university fees at this time.
Charlie is photographed carring the flag of Revolution. Charlie is pictured outside Top Shop the company responsbile for avoided £300million in tax on a £1.2 billion dividend payout; together with companies like Vodafone, big businesses avoid £25 billion in tax. And yes Charlie swung from the flag of our Union Jack at the Cenotaph celebrating those who have died to uphold the future of this country. It is concern for the future to which these acts are symbolic of a very specific rebellion for the student protests.
As with the romanatic poets they triumphed the belief that instinct, nature and emotion were the places in which one found truth; a poetry with “spontaneous overflow of feelings." And the like the romantic poets, many who wrote in a style of free verse, they were they are reactionary and humanist. Charlie's activities were a kind of brillance.
Coming of age… How funny… No one will swallow this.
@Kelly Pouss. What's eating you dear? Perhaps in need of your parent's attention with this swllowing disorder? No doubt you can add a spoonful of suger to help the medicine go down. Remember Mary Poppins was a Nanny for the children of the rich banker. His chldren rebelled when the father wanted them to invest in the bank .They caused a run on the bank!
having had time to digest this article and the after effects of charlie gilmour's actions, i think ultimately it is a real shame that he gave the credible demonstrators a really difficult time making their cause known. overshadowed by 'diamond daves' son swinging from the cenotaph and trying to set fire to the supreme court, the thousands of legitimate protestors might as well have not bothered making a stand. charlie gilmour should be ashamed, not only for being an immature and self-congratulatory little twat, but for doing his fellow students a huge injustice. he also hasn't been a particularly good advertisement for the university of cambridge's history programme… "cenotaph? what cenotaph?" etc…
naughty yes, disrepectful to the war dead?…he has some way yet to go if he wants to beat the politicians on that one!
Charlie me boy seem to got your self into a right pickle
Very interesting. thank you for sharing! You see, I'm currently working on my blog on similar subject to "Charlie Gilmour is a very naughty boy | The Economic Voice" and I might quote this post in it. I hope you don't mind
Be my guest Jina….:-)