I found myself, as the House of Windsor crumbled around our late and recently departed Queen Elizabeth II, increasingly toying with the idea that perhaps republicanism is not such a bad idea after all. As a former member of HM armed forces and a person of conservative values, I have always felt that we should tolerate a certain amount of tomfoolery from our ruling classes. After all, they are born into a gilded cage and lead a life most extraordinary that, along with centuries of inbreeding, it is a wonder they can get out of bed and dress themselves. In fact, some don’t; seemingly having never mastered the skill of squeezing toothpaste onto a toothbrush.
Now that the greatest gift the Royal Family could give to the republican cause has ascended the throne, I wonder even more about my position regarding the proper format for our head of state. I have concluded, however, that as Peter Hitchens once said, I remain a monarchist but not a royalist. By this I mean that I cannot genuinely envisage a system that would adequately replace it in the United Kingdom and recoil in horror at the thought of regular and divisive presidential elections and the prospect of, for example, a President Blair.
But none of this instils in me any confidence regarding our new King. Whereas the late Queen’s mask rarely slipped regarding her views on political issues, we are only too aware of what His Majestic Megaphone thinks on a range of issues. Apparently, government ministers and Prime Ministers know even more by virtue of his ‘Black Spider’ memos. Declaring that he was not ‘that stupid’ when asked about how he would conduct himself as King as opposed to heir to the throne, simply does not cut it. So outspoken has he been that these are more than rare insights or fleeting glimpses. We know, for example, that he has fallen hook, line and windmill for the zero-carbon agenda.
All this stems from his long interest in things environmental, encouraged as he was by his late father who wielded undue influence in his position as the Queen’s consort. It is obvious that he has infected the new heir to the throne, Prince William, with the same environmental bug and even Harry Markle dabbles in a bit of environmental preaching, usually from the comfort of a private jet. This is not good. Where once environmental issues seemed innocuous: a few rivers cleaned up; some natural environment saved; and another cute little furry creature saved from extinction, it has become a blatantly political cause and one with some sinister and dangerous outcomes.
Prince Philip never hid his Malthusianism and even the new King, fully signed up to the ‘climate emergency’ has expressed how people should limit family size to save the planet. Zero-carbon initiatives are ruining economies as I write, principally ours. Another cause célèbre of King Charles is organic farming and eschewing the use of fertilisers. That went so well in Sri Lanka, after all.
The problem we have regarding King Charles III is that we cannot unhear what we have heard and the same applies to government ministers. Anyone hoping for some Royal patronage, a Companionship of Honour or a Garter for example, will surely have to be signed up to the Royal agenda or they will die without an honour (which to my mind is better than dying without honour). I read somewhere recently amidst the fawning and extensive supplements that the weekend broadsheets produced to commemorate the Queen’s death and usher in our new King, that he does not surround himself with ‘yes men’ and likes to have his views challenged prior to announcing them. Notwithstanding the fact that he was under no obligation to share his views with us, it is all very well having your views challenged, but not so good if you always come to the same conclusion regardless.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
A cool, accurate appraisal of a royal who has shown he is not averse to meddling in politics. Of particular concern, with a new and obviously vulnerable Prime Minister in Parliament, is Charles’ close ties to Klaus Schwab and the WEF-driven Great Reset. One fears what influence might be brought to bear on Liz Truss were she to decide to repudiate her predecessor’s committment to this egregious project.
At least we know what Charles thinks, which is more than we did about the Queen. The idea that they can be politically neutral is utter nonsense. What does it tell us about them when they will read out any words given to them by any government? It tells us that they are the puppets of any political party and say anything and people believe they are above politics.