Lord Monckton invites ‘Chazza’ to spar over ‘unroyal’ global-warming remark
His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales,
Clarence House, London.
Candlemas, 2014
Your Royal Highness’ recent remarks describing those who have scientific and economic reason to question the Establishment opinion on climatic apocalypse in uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy and a return to the direct involvement of the Royal Family, in the Person of our future king, no less, in the cut and thrust of partisan politics.
Now that Your Royal Highness has offered Your Person as fair game in the shootout of politics, I am at last free to offer two options. I need no longer hold back, as so many have held back, as Your Royal Highness’ interventions in politics have become more frequent and less acceptable in their manner as well as in their matter.
Option 1. Your Royal Highness will renounce the Throne forthwith and for aye. Those remarks were rankly party-political and were calculated to offend those who still believe, as Your Royal Highness plainly does not, that the United Kingdom should be and remain a free country, where any subject of Her Majesty may study science and economics, may draw his conclusions from his research and may publish the results, however uncongenial the results may be.
The line has been crossed. No one who has intervened thus intemperately in politics may legitimately occupy the Throne. Your Royal Highness’ arrogant and derogatory dismissiveness towards the near-50 percent of your subjects who no longer follow the New Religion is tantamount to premature abdication. Goodnight, sweet prince. No more “Your Royal Highness.”
Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects. You will find us a cheerfully undeferential lot. Most of us don’t live in palaces, and none of us goes everywhere with his own personalized set of monogrammed white leather lavatory seat covers.
The United Kingdom Independence Party, which until recently I had the honor to represent in Scotland, considers – on the best scientific and economic evidence – that the profiteers of doom are unjustifiably enriching themselves at our expense.
For instance, even the unspeakable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accepted advice from me and my fellow expert reviewers that reliance upon ill-constructed and defective computer models to predict climate was a mistake. Between the pre-final and final drafts of the “Fifth Assessment Report,” published late last year, the Panel ditched the models and substituted its own “expert assessment” that in the next 30 years the rate of warming will be half what the models predict.
In fact, the dithering old fossils in white lab coats with leaky Biros sticking out of the front pocket now think the rate of warming over the next 30 years could be less than in the past 30 years, notwithstanding an undiminished increase in the atmospheric concentration of plant food. Next time you talk to the plants, ask them whether they would like more CO2 in the air they breathe. Their answer will be Yes.
The learned journals of economics are near-unanimous in saying it is 10-100 times costlier to mitigate global warming today than to adapt to its supposedly adverse consequences the day after tomorrow.
Besides, in the realm that might have been yours there has been no change – none at all – in mean surface temperature for 25 full years. So if you are tempted to blame last year’s cold winter (which killed 31,000 before their time) or this year’s floods (partly caused by the Environment Agency’s mad policy of returning dozens of square miles of the Somerset Levels to the sea) on global warming, don’t.
You got your science and economics wrong. And you were rude as well. And you took sides in politics. Constitutionally, that’s a no-no. Thronewise, mate, you’ve blown it.
On the other hand, we Brits are sport-mad. So here is option 2. I am going to give you a sporting second chance, Charlie, baby.
You see, squire, you are no longer above politics. You’ve toppled off your gilded perch and now you’re in it up to your once-regal neck. So, to get you used to the idea of debating on equal terms with your fellow countrymen, I’m going to give you a once-in-a-reign opportunity to win back your Throne in a debate about the climate. The motion: “Global warming is a global crisis.” You say it is. I say it isn’t.
We’ll hold the debate at the Cambridge Union, for Cambridge is your alma mater and mine. You get to pick two supporting speakers and so do I. We can use PowerPoint graphs. The Grand Debate will be televised internationally over two commercial hours. We let the world vote by phone, before and after the debate. If the vote swings your way, you keep your Throne. Otherwise, see you down the pub.
Cheers, mate!
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
=====================================================
Related: Chicken al la still not a king
Hector Pascal says:
February 5, 2014 at 11:43 pm
==============
Thank you for your explanation. That is what I was looking for. Have never had the inclination to try to understand the GB form of government or crown.
Apropos of,
Charles visit see it here from 1 minute and then scroll to 15.36 min – 23 mins and a little background on the climate change-CAGW BS they talk over here and of the convoluted culpability of who didn’t do what – [lack of or non existent dredging] related to the floods in the Somerset levels – a run of major precipitation events and a very stubborn Jet stream stuck over to the south of southern Britain.
And <a href="http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84687"another link and here which will further provide further enlightenment, in that, much of this mess is a plan – an operation of progressive Socialist green dogma [UNEP agenda 21] which is sent down from the authoritarian and real governors of the UK – ex the unholy Brussels Empire.
“Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects.”
Well, actually he’d be a rich commoner, wouldn’t he, unlike most of Her Majesty’s subjects?
“unlike most of Her Majesty’s subjects?”
There are not more “subjects” of the british monarchy. The people of that country are called citizens now.
Upchuck the First
Hmmm so please explain what ‘politics’ has he involved himself in? It is his opinion. As no one takes his opinons seriously who cares?
“In 2012, Charles was nominated for ‘THE GOLDEN DUCK AWARD’ for his achievements in promoting quackery; Andrew Wakefield beat him to it, but Charles was a well-deserved runner-up.”
http://edzardernst.com/2013/11/a-tribute-to-prince-charles-champion-of-anti-science-on-his-65th-birthday/
Funny how he dips in and out of ‘Science’ when it suits him!
Greg,
I might agree with you, except for the fact that we seem to be subjects of
King Obama now. ☹
It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
~Ronald Reagan’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981
Well, in that case you may want to go for some minor constitutional adjustments. I mean nothing radical, the realm may keep its proud monarchical status, except
1. access to the throne is no longer a hereditary right, but has to be earned by appropriate performance
2. it is not a gift for a lifetime, but is limited in duration and subject to revision
So, how about a King or Queen elected in every 4 years by popular vote, who can be re-elected only once? :)))
I guess the need to move the stone frequently back and forth between London and Edinburgh would only be a minor inconvenience compared to the current state of affairs.
James Abbott says:
Hi, James. Yes your storms are indeed happening as you say – one would have to be blind not to notice. May I point out however after studying many photos of the sea and your sea walls currently in place I am astonished why this has not happened previously. The sea walls are basically built at 90* angles which is astonishing. No massive boulder in front to break the waves before impacting, no modern concrete designed structure built to modern standards to break the energy of wave action before they hit current structures with full power and stored energy. The present structures, as one can see from photos, are subjected to wave erosion underneath and over time would collapse the structure itself result in flooding. Moreover, the flooding of so many communities was once swamp land and had dredging to lessen the flooding. As you well know the government has not been dredging for years resulting in silting up rivers leading to flooding in heavy rains. The citizens themselves were telling anyone who would listen of the danger to no avail. Suddenly, the government acknowledged their failures after severe flooding and are now gearing up to dredge once again. The government has accepted responsibility. Hopefully your government will produce modern sea structures on coastal areas better suited for the long term that almost eliminate so much damage. The Dutch next door are masters of sea wall engineering that is desperately needed in the UK.
“I say, Brenchley, who’s your stupid friend?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Brummell refers…
eyesonu:
At February 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm you ask
The monarch has very great power being – in effect – our equivalent of your President, your Constitution and your Flag all combined in the form of a person . And I have no idea why some people present such disinformation about this as Hector Pascal has in this thread.
The reality of the Crown was discussed in the thread concerning Prince Charles “headless chickens” comment. In that thread I answered your question here and M Courtney here. Those two answers are complimentary and I commend both together with the subsequent discussion.
As a taster, and to save you needing to find it, I copy my answer to here.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Gunga Din:
re your post at February 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm.
The UK is one of the few true monarchies remaining in the world and has a monarch with immense political power.
Americans often doubt this because their culture expects power to be overtly displayed. So, to prove the fact before explaining it, I point out that the Prime Minister (PM) has a meeting with the monarch each Tuesday. No politician would do that if the monarch had no power: the practice would have been dropped long ago.
The monarch has three great powers.
First, the monarch can appoint and can dismiss a Prime Minister (PM). And the monarch calls upon an appointed PM to form a government. Normally the appointment of PM is a foregone conclusion because one political Party wins an overall majority in a General Election and the Leader of that Party is appointed as PM.
However, the decision whom to appoint as PM is important when no Party gains an overall majority and, in that case, the monarch makes a decision. The most recent General Election was such a case but the problem was overcome because Cameron agreed to form a coalition of his Party (Conservative) and Clegg’s Party (Liberal) which together formed an overall majority. The previous occasion was when Heath’s (Conservative) government did not get an overall majority and no other Party did. Heath said he wanted to stay in office as PM but Wilson’s Party (Labour) had won more seats. The monarch considered the matter for more than a week before dismissing Heath as PM and appointing Wilson as PM. Thus, a minority government was established.
Secondly, and most importantly, the monarch has effective veto on a subject before Parliament discusses it. This is because the PM provides the draft ‘Queen’s Speech’ to the monarch before the annual State Opening of Parliament. The draft Speech is very confidential. Its contents are known only to the Cabinet and it relates all that the government intends to do during the coming Session of Parliament. The monarch assesses the Speech in collaboration with her advisors and decides which parts of it she will read: other parts are deleted.
At the State opening of Parliament the monarch reads the Queen’s Speech which she has amended. By reading those parts she agrees she is willing to give the Royal Assent to the announced proposals if they are approved by Parliament. And by having deleted items from the Queen’s Speech she informs the government that she will not give the Royal Assent to the deleted items. A Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament becomes Law if – and only if – it obtains the Royal Assent.
This is immense power. There is no point in Parliament spending time on a matter which will not obtain the Royal Assent, and the matters the monarch has not agreed are confidential. So, in effect, the monarch has vetoed debate of those matters before they are raised. Despite that, in the last century two Bills were passed by Parliament but did not obtain Royal Assent: they each called for Abolition of the House of Lords.
A government which broke the confidentiality of the draft Queen’s Speech would induce a constitutional crisis. It would put Parliament in conflict with the Crown and we had a civil war the last time that happened. The present monarch has done an excellent job. She has devoted her life to her subjects and the nation. And her decisions have enabled the Empire to be converted to the Commonwealth with surprisingly little bloodshed (consider what happened in the Congo when Belgium gave them independence). The armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and not Parliament while the people trust the Queen but not politicians. No government would dare to oppose the present monarch. However, you must have noticed the concern at Charles wearing the Crown which several Brits have expressed in this thread, and perhaps you can now understand that concern.
Thirdly, the power of the Royal Assent is – in itself – great power. The monarch has actual right of veto on all government decisions. Some of this is delegated and, importantly, the right to call a war has been delegated to HM government in the event of a crisis (nuclear attack could have happened with only 4 minutes warning during the Cold War).
Clearly, interaction between the monarch and Her government is important. And that is why the PM has at least one meeting a week with the monarch. And what happens in those meetings is one of the most secret of State Secrets which is only recorded in the memories of the monarch and the PM.
I hope that is sufficient answer to your question.
Richard
Bonnie Prince Charlie says: “We are not amused”.
Dafydd – you are quite right, the Abney-Hastings are the heirs to the Plantagenets. That makes it simpler … or does it??
There is a certain irony in a prince who goes by the name of Charles pontificating about losing ones head.
eyesonu:
I answered the purpose of the monarch in my reply to you at At February 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm you ask February 6, 2014 at 1:28 am. However, there is an alternative understanding of your question which was
The alternative understanding concerns the purpose of the Royal Family and not only the Monarch.
The Royal Family provides the succession; i.e. determination of who will inherit the Crown. This is important in avoiding loss a of a Monarch; “The King is dead. Long live the King”.
And it enables a future Monarch to be trained from birth to fulfill the job of Monarch. This explains the ‘problem’ of Prince Charles.
HRH Charles has been raised from birth to do one very special job and he is still waiting to do it now he is 65. His life has been purposeless, and he has looked for purpose by ‘playing’ with architecture (e.g. setting up a real-world toytown for people to live in on the edge of Dorchester), and doing good works (e.g. setting up the Prince’s Trust). He has adopted ‘environmentalism’ for because he is in the thrall of his Cotswold neighbour Jonathon Porrit who is an extremist eco-loon.
He was ripe for Porritt to offer him a ’cause’ which would give him purpose.
One can only hope that the period between Her Madge. leaving and William taking her job will be short. William is already schooled in the military matters he needs to know, is starting to undertake ceremonial duties, and it can be assumed he is getting the political education he needs. It would be a tragedy if he were to end up like his father before he wears the crown.
And that returns us to the issue of succession.
The eldest son of the monarch or future monarch inherits the position of next in line to the throne.
Charles is the eldest son of HRH Queen Elizabeth II. He is next in line to the throne and will inherit the throne (i.e. Charles is first in line to the throne). The eldest son of Charles is William so he inherits from Charles (i.e. William is second in line to the throne).
In the event that HRH Queen Elizabeth II outlives Charles then the inheritance of the throne still passes to Charles and through him to William because William is second in line to the throne.
The proposed change of rule is to alter the inheritance from eldest SON to eldest CHILD.
Elizabeth has a son, Charles has a son, and William has a son, and each of those sons is the eldest child. So, if the proposed change is adopted it will not alter anything until at least four generations have passed.
So, whatever the meaning of your question, I hope I have now answered it.
Richard
Ed Minchau:
At February 5, 2014 at 9:54 pm you say
Edward VIII was forced to abdicate before being Crowned because he was a Naz1 and in 1936 it seemed that we were about to go to war with H1tler. This was spun as being his desire to marry a divorced woman which – given the marital history of British monarchs – has to be one of the greatest pieces of political spin in the history of the world!
Edward then went off to spend the war in France. He was moved from there by Churchill by appointing him as Governor of the Bahamas and, thus, an alternative – and Naz1 – monarch could not broadcast propaganda for H1tler. But after the war, and as soon as possible, Edward returned to France.
If Charles keeps up his present behaviour then finding anywhere to retire may prove problematic.
Richard
Lets hope you do better in your debates than when with UKIP which you until recently led in Scotland. After being sacked by the party leader and NEC your parting shot was ” “There isn’t any UkIP in Scotland. It’s been wiped out.” As a leading light in that political party, your own political interventions don’t really add up to much either do they? Need I mention glass houses?
Hope for your sake there isn’t a Royalist revival as per the Restoration of 1660. Remember what Henrietta Maria did to the Regicides? Even being dead won’t save you.
Whilst I agree with the general point that Lord Monckton is making; Indeed I wrote a letter of criticism to The Daily Telegraph about the Prince’s headles chicken quote, (which as expected they did not publish) I think his message would have been more powerful had he been more restrained in his criticism of the Prince himself. A more deferential approach might just have had some affect on the Prince, but personal insult and silly ridiculing guarantees that the message will be ignored, thus the totally justified point of the article will have been lost.
Lord Monckton:
I write with complete sincerity to ask the intended purpose of your open letter to HRH Prince Charles.
Clearly, Charles will not now abdicate his line to the throne. That would present a Constitutional Crisis concerning inheritance of the Crown, and for what? If he wanted, upon inheriting the Crown then he could immediately abdicate in favour of William. But you know he cannot abdicate the succession at present.
Which leaves the challenge for Charles to debate. As you say, the debate would be on a matter of politics. Again, he cannot do that without inducing a Constitutional Crisis, so he would be subjected to immense pressure to not have such a debate whether he wanted to or not.
In these circumstances the only real response to your letter which Charles can make is to thank you for having sent it.
The important need is to remove Charles from the malign influence of Jonathon Porritt. Unless that happens before Charles becomes King then it can be assumed Charles will appoint Porritt as one of his advisors. Porritt is a rich, titled, and extremist eco-loon whose influence on Charles needs to be overcome before he becomes a personal advisor to the monarch.
Your letter can only strengthen Porritt’s malign influence on our future monarch.
Hence, I would appreciate an explanation of the intended purpose of your open letter to Prince Charles.
Richard
@richardscourtney
Why, the Falklands were kept for that very purpose at great cost, were not they? He should be appointed as Governor there, problem solved. He can also enjoy a plentitude of wind farms at that remote location.
A debate? Televised around the globe? With the opportunity to vote before and after? Oh if only…
Have a care Lord Monckton, remember The Prince Regent and Beau Brummell, ended with one dying in a lunatic asylum. Anyway Chuck has been talking to trees for years, and that’s not a reference to his first wife – he never spoke to her.
Re: Charles I of England
For a Prince of Wales called Charles to mention headless chickens must be as ill mannered as a chicken mentioning a headless King of England.
Berényi Péter:
I am making a reply to your off topic post at February 6, 2014 at 2:31 am because it is another example of misunderstanding in this thread. I provide this one response and will not debate your side-track whatever replies ensue.
The UK displaced the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands for two reasons and neither had anything to do with Prince Charles.
Firstly, PM Margaret Thatcher made the mistake of withdrawing the research ship which was the only British Government presence in the area. This was understood by the Argentinians as being an indication that the UK had lost interest in the Falklands which they call the Malvinas and for a liong time have (wrongly) claimed they own. The misunderstanding by the Argentinians as being an invitation for them to take over the Falklands. Thatcher had to overcome her mistake and decided to oust the Argentinian invasion.
Secondly, and importantly, the Queen was willing to approve and support the retaking of the Falklands because failure to do it could destroy much – if not all – of the Commonwealth. The many British Protectorates would know they have no protection.
An amusing and almost accurate explanation of the UK and the Commonwealth was provided by Richard Thal in the previous “headless chicken” thread and this is it
Richard