Essay by Eric Worrall
Queen Elizabeth II, beloved by millions, had sadly passed. Climate champion Prince Charles is now King. But Jacob Ress-Mogg wants “every last drop” of oil and gas extracted from the North Sea.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Climate change concern over new energy policy chief
Jacob Rees-Mogg, who now oversees the UK government department responsible for energy and climate change, recently called to extract “every last drop” of oil and gas from the North Sea
ENVIRONMENT | ANALYSIS 7 September 2022
By Adam VaughanThe new UK prime minister, Liz Truss, has appointed Jacob Rees-Mogg to head the department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), sparking concern among environmental campaigners over his views on climate change.
With the ongoing energy crisis, Rees-Mogg will play a key role in the new government and, based on his past statements, the appointment appears to be good news for companies extracting fossil fuels and bad for some firms wanting to accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy.
Earlier this year he rejected calls for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies “so they get every last drop out of the North Sea”. Fracking, which is currently under a moratorium imposed in 2019, “seems quite an interesting opportunity”, he said.
…
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2336860-jacob-rees-mogg-climate-change-concern-over-new-energy-policy-chief/
Jacob Rees-Mogg – New Scientist and the rest of the liberal establishment seem freaked out by his climate views, so he is probably the right man for the job. Jacob Rees-Mogg has a reputation as a low tax small government advocate.
King Charles by contrast is famous for being outspoken about climate change, which is widely seen as a breach of royal protocol.
The Question – will King Charles be able to do his job as king, and stay silent, if Prime Minister Liz Truss starts blatantly dismantling Britain’s Net Zero policies? The appointment of Jacob Rees-Mogg to a sensitive post like the Business and Energy Ministry is a strong indication this might be her intention.
The Royal Protocol, the unspoken historic political settlement which allowed Britain to remain a monarchy, includes the expectation that British monarchs are supposed to stay out of politics.
The best British description of the US Presidency I have seen, is the President wields similar powers to the British monarch of the 18th century. Since the 18th century, British monarchs have moved more into the political background than US Presidents, but they still wield enormous influence. Those powers to intervene, in principle at least, are still available to be used.
Very occasionally we see the power of the British Monarch exercised, even in the modern age – for example, the royal prerogative was used to topple the far left Australian Whitlam Government in 1975, during a constitutional crisis triggered by Whitlam’s apparent lurch towards revolutionary communism.
If ever there was a political crisis in Britain, such as a government which refused to relinquish power after losing an election, a blatantly rigged election, or in Australia’s case, an elected government which appeared to be about to seize dictatorial power, Commonwealth subjects would look to the King or Queen for a resolution, just as the American people would expect the President in such circumstances to fulfil his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
It is this unspoken reserve power, this understanding that in times of crisis the monarch might be able to transcend parliament, which triggers fear of political instability whenever King Charles expresses his radical personal opinions about the alleged climate crisis, especially when those opinions diverge from government policy.
Other than the Whitlam sacking, and possibly a handful of other incidents I can’t recall, Charles’ mother Queen Elizabeth II stayed out of politics her entire life, at least in public, and focussed on doing her job of protecting the integrity of the British political process, and the integrity of other nations like Australia which acknowledge the British monarch as head of state. Queen Elizabeth was loved by millions for her tireless dedication to doing her job, and her respect for the boundaries of her role.
Let us hope King Charles finds it in himself to embrace the wisdom of his mother, and starts keeping his climate views to himself.
…after around forty years of hinting strongly that he isn’t going to do any such thing..
If Charles can’t keep his extreme views to himself, he will severely damage the monarchy’s future prospects. If he does feel the urge to spout off, I am pretty sure that his advisors will politely tell him to shut up.
The examples given in the article were of the monarch and the UK government acting together; if the monarch went against the UK government then it would be the monarch that got replaced, not the government. Edward VIII was the last monarch to try to go against the will of the government and look what happened to him. The relationship between the monarch and parliament under the UK constitutional monarchy is a bit odd in that, although the monarch is the head of state, MP’s represent the elected will of the people (supposedly) so for the monarch to go against parliament and the people that they serve would be an act of betrayal of their oath and the trust of the UK.
Parliaments will is supreme, not the monarchy. Charles is 73 or so. He has been looking for a role for 50 years-his mother came to the throne when she was 25.
Charles has lots of interests of which the environment rather than merely the climate is one. That includes plants, wildlife, the look of towns and much else. Monarchs generally keep out of politics and I don’t expect Charles to have a high profile on the climate
Now that he’s king I hope he stays quiet on climate change, because he’s hopelessly deluded on the subject.
Needless to say, his prediction of a summer ice-free Arctic by a specific year turned out to be hopelessly wrong – just like all the others.
He famously talks to trees. Perhaps he should listen more. If trees and plants could talk they would say they want more CO2, not less.
Two good things: he’s opposed to wind farms and he’s a Goon Show fan!
Chris
Doesn’t mean Charles will listen to that good advice. He’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Remember what happened to Charles II…
Charles II? He had numerous affairs and left no legitimate heir in succession, leading to his younger brother becoming king? Not sure I understand the point you’re making there.
sorry, that shoud have been Charles I (oops)
Oh christ, imagine King Andrew…
Charles’s sprogs before him; and their sprogs, too!
Auto
He’s never been convicted in any court, unless “the court of public opinion” is what you mean – tried by the knowingly lying MSM I’d say!
LOL
Charles the first was beheaded for treason
Charles I was charged with tyranny and treason against England then beheaded after a mockery of a show trial. The trial and beheading aside, it ended absolute monarchy in England and established that the monarchy, when restored, would only exist with the consent of the people.
Charles isn’t even a good spoon.
RIP Elizabeth. God save the UK!
Charle’s views are not extreme – they are right in the middle of maintstream climate change thinking in the UK and Europe today. You and I don’t agree with his views on climate, but neither side, ours or his, is “extreme” about it unless he somehow advocates bringing down the UK’s constitutional system of government in order to address his concerns on climate. Charles has never spoken or written a single word to that effect in his life. He’s the sovereign of the UK and it is his job in life to carry out his duties as sovereign, which is to support the government and to unite the people of the nation.
they are right in the middle of BBC/Guardian climate change thinking in the UK and Europe today.
That, as you will soon see, is not in the slightest bit ‘mainstream’ except in Islington and Brighton.
.
Opinion polls and national elections say otherwise. Democrats currently control all three parts of the elected Federal government running on stopping climate change. Same in the UK and every European nation, and Canada, and Australia, and Japan.
Denying what you don’t like or disagree with doesn’t make it go away.
A clear majority of people are concerned about climate change or global warming. That does not mean that they’re correct – it only means that’s what people tend to believe. Which should not be surprising given that the media and the culture has been propagandizing about global warming for decades.
Charles is clearly in the mainstream of attitudes on global warming. And we here who support anti-warmunism are clearly in the minority, by a long ways. But the good news is that the vast majority of people are ambivalent and are clearly not willing to commit economic suicide over a threat that’s supposed to show up four generations from now.
I thought we only had two parts if elected government. The Federal judiciary is appointed. Also, the most powerful part of the executive, the swamp, is not elected but hired.
Not just hired, but protected from firing, no matter how corrupt or incompetent.
Even FDR knew better than to allow government workers to unionize.
What’s up Duane … I didn’t see a response yesterday.
“The only thing governments can do is get out of the way …”
What am I missing?
You repeatedly say the governments (Biden in particular) can’t get in the way, then you say the only thing they can do is get out of the way ….
I gave you a response that blew your entire argument out of water. Governments don’t manage markets … markets manage governments. Everybody who thinks that the President of the US or the King of England controls oil and gas prices and supply is an utter fool – that would be you, apparently.
Yep, that 800,000 Barrels a day of Canadian heavy crude is flowing to the Texas refineries as we speak. The Keystone XL pipeline was not blocked for 15 years by the Obama/Brandon administration, then the Brandon/Harris administration because “markets manage governments”!
That 800,000 barrels a day would be largely DIESEL, the most expensive fuel grade NOW in the US due to limited supply.
Duane, you are full of $h!tt.
I didn’t give an argument one way or the other, I was pointing out your apparent inconsistenties … I don’t know what or who you blew….
If the govt needs to get out of the way, then they are in the way. If they can get in the way, they can make things worse.
‘Everybody’ who thinks that the President of the US or the King of England controls oil and gas prices and supply … can be counted on one hand.
Anybody that believes (or professes) that Biden policies cannot create (bad) market waves is an utter fool – or a lying shill.
Within the climate change community, his views aren’t extreme.
However compared to the rest of the world, they are.
The “rest of the world” is ambivalent .about global warming. Virtually all opinion polls in the US and UK and the rest of the developed world state clearly that a majority or plurality of respondents are concerned about climate change. The anti-warmunist side – which includes me – has not convinced the world that the warmunists are wrong.
At the same time, the world population is not willing to commit economic and developmental suicide over global warming either. The energy shortages post the COVID recovery and the Russian war on Ukraine has certainly proved that people are not willing to freeze in the dark in order to “stop global warming”.
When the polls RANK the concerns of the polled, Climate Change comes in at the bottom of their concerns.
If you are only asking what iffs, almost any competent polling group can get the answer they want to indicate some sort of concern.
So like my previous comment to you, you are full on $h!ttt!
Polls are meaningless, they can be designed to say whatever those who pay for them want to hear.
Beyond that, these “polls” go beyond asking “are you concerned” and ask people to rank their concerns, global warming always comes in last or almost last.
Charles is part and parcel of WEF. (Trudeau of Canada pledged fealty to Charles and Schwab back in June 2021. Since scrubbed from Trudeau’s official website after it was publicly noticed.) What business has Charles supporting something like WEF when he’s king? He’s supposed to stay apolitical and neutral; if he can’t manage that, and I doubt he can, the monarchy will be toast.
Unfortunately he has passed on his ‘extreme views’ to his Son an heir – who seems equally to be scientifically-challenged.
Yep
That jug-eared inbred twat will wade into politics and wind up destroying the institution of the monarchy (good riddance IMO). As monarch, he may have some powers over the elected government, but it is nothing compared to their power over him. If Chuckles wants to play games stupid game, he can win stupid prizes, like having the royal budget chopped in half or selling off the royal estates.
How very nice.
You’re an obnoxious asshole.
Irony is lost on you.
it’s not even a pot/kettle/black thing
it’s more of a kettle calling a styrofoam cup black.
(I think he just got grumpy cuz you & Drake are picking on him too much)
The last words of a losing argument.
Monarchy?
Who are the current monarchs?
The decedents of the last murderers, who killed the previous monarchs.
They are just there due to good timing, to be “ruling” when the constitutional monarchy was established.
Oh, dear. Somebody needs to read a little more widely.
What about all the ultra rich inbred b…astards that sent 100s of 1000s of innocent men to the filthy muddy trenches to die for “king and country”.
Royality is about as guilty as communism for enslaving all and sundry then “do as I say, don’t do as I do”.
All forms of government are nothing more than the descendants of the last gang standing.
Our new King has pointed out that he is aware of the pitfalls, and something like ‘I’m not that stupid’ . . . .
I certainly hope he is right.
Auto
I read an article during the Obama years agyer he jetted to Hawaii for gold and threw a wedding all out of whack. From memory, it said the royals cost Britain $100M a year, while US Presidential security alone cost $1.4B a year.
The US has a much better deal.
Unfortunately for the American people, it is Joe Biden who is leading the charge towards an authoritarian and non-democratic state. Who overrides him?
Joe Biden is a clear example of why we should keep the monarchy in the UK.
Rubbish
Surrounded by regressive monarchists
interesting
An elected on some form of PR second house in parliament would do for me, possibly with members restricted to two terms.
An elected second chamber is a must, but be honest, you can’t even recall your MP; even if you wanted to.
“Claudia Webbe MP guilty of harassment”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/claudia-webbe-mp-guilty-harassment
Who can recall a MP? Only Mr Speaker can start the process.
It all has to go, it’s a mediaeval joke.
“…it’s a mediaeval joke.”
Maybe, but what are you going to replace it with?
The House of Lords acted as a good balance to the Commons before the idiot warmonger Blair came along and wrecked it. The hereditarys had a sense of duty and were mainly apolitical. With reason they often questioned socialist laws more often so the Blair creature smashed it up but never had any idea what to replace it with so it has become a Crony Zone full of political pygmies, troughers and failed politicians.
^x1,000
In the US, a collection of individual states United to form a country, the Senate was meant to represent the States.
The direct election upset that standard, and with no ability to recall a senator, became somewhat equivalent your house of lords.
If the US had never done the Progressive thing, the majority of states, always conservative in their state legislatures, would never have allowed the US to go down the toilet at it has over the last 100 years.
Today, Republicans would have nearly 60 senate seats, not the 50 currently held.
Ed B, you are wrong. Joe Biden is as muddled as the Grand Old Duke of York. It is his – behind the scenes – puppeteer who decides on his every action or inaction.
The House. The Senate. The Judiciary. The framers of the American constitution were bloody brilliant.
And the States demanded that they include the Bill of Rights before they would ratify the document as our Constitution. This makes the 2nd Amendment the Peoples’ control over the government. The Preamble to the Constitution starts out with a powerful message with where the power lies: “We the People”.
Actually they demanded that the states be presented with a bill of rights before approving the constitution.
The constitution was ratified by the minimum number of states before the bill of rights were sent to the states.
G’Day Drake,
“…be presented with a bill of rights before approving the constitution.”
History repeating itself. Before William of Orange was crowned he had to agree to the English “Bill of Rights”, from 1689.
A comparison of the English and US versions of their respective “Bill of Rights” articles makes interesting reading.
Note to self: The Second Amendment is only effective if ‘the people’ WILL it to be.
Brilliant, until you account for all the time since then used to devise ways to widen the cracks called court packing, executive orders, and “new” interpretations of the same Constitution with the commerce clause etc. A few “never let a good crisis go to waste” events also help out. And if the vote is painfully close on something big like ObamaCare, you can use the biased AG’s Office to take out an opposition Senator on grounds of alleged corruption and then cast up the Senate vote. Details matter in guarding against corruption in every system.
It was brilliant, but the progressive constitutional amendments of the 19 teen ruined it.
Direct election of senators. Taking the power of the states away.
Direct taxing of the population. Just for WWI and just for the very rich you know.
How is that functioning today? The fbi just raided (no asking the lawyers of those ‘raided’, for whatever it was they were after) 35 or so MAGA supporters. Clearly, (to me, at least) the clinton-obama-brandon dems are very afraid of the mid-terms, and the JD is attempting mass intimidation.
Somehow I don’t see a green loony keeping quiet. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Charles III will behave in the way our monarchs should behave. He perfectly well realises he can no longer be as “outspoken” as he was. He knows the score.
I doubt it. He’s really quite dumb and he’s fixated on this issue. Probably got hit with the genetic land mine of two people too closely related marrying.
You could see it when he chose Diana. It was like he was selecting a mail-order bride from a royal catalogue. He is incapable of functioning as a reasonably normal facsimile of an adult.
It’s too bad Elizabeth died, for many reasons. The best outcome now is for the British to end the monarchy, but that’s going to take a lot of time.
Distantly related, not closely.
Both third cousins (one line, direct descendants of Queen Victoria) and second cousins, once removed (another line). Not quite the same risk as brother and sister, but not distant enough to remove it entirely.
Third cousins is hardly ‘closely related’ though is it? You’d have been better off having a pop at his upbringing rather than his genetics, you might have found something there.
It’s called in-breeding
Likely, with some really ‘deep diggiing’, some of those “relations” will have come from a scullery maid, governess, or ???
(so the ‘inbreeding’ problem, may not be)
He didn’t choose Diana. He wanted Camilla, but she had been snapped up while he was away and he was under extreme pressure to marry and she was there, that’s all.
I can’t see how an elected head of state would be anything other than political and hardly an improvement. Who would want that turd Blair as president? How excited would you be if he came to your town? Or it becomes a small position that seems pointless – other than Mr Vorlich, who could name the President of Germany?
“He’s really quite dumb and he’s fixated on this issue.”
Oh really? You know him, do you?
I suspect Diana was chosen for him.
Charles has spent his entire life violating norms of how a royal is supposed to behave. Old dogs don’t learn new tricks. I sincerely doubt he will be able to restrain himself and do things the traditional way after 73 years of doing things his way.
True.
But I have a strong suspicion that Camilla will have a huge control on his out bursts. It in her interests.
A case of the woman behind the throne.
Camilla has the sense of, and the face of, a good filly. I actually like her tremendously. Proper royal. No politics. Horse and hounds . Tweeds. Plants and gardens. Probably can put a .22 round through a pheasant’s eye at 400 paces, and down 6 pink gins without noticeable effect…
Just to be sure, that wasn’t a typo of “peasant”, was it?
cute.
Is that you, Reacher?
Is that a movie reference?
I wish I had Tom Cruise’s money and babes though.
Charles is a man whose lead counsel is a petunia and wants to be reincarnated as a tampon
Wisdom is not on the horizon
A fatuous view. You have no idea just a cartoon caricature the man. Many keen gardeners “talk” to their plants. As for his views on climate change they are mainstream. You can’t blame him for that. After all he’s spot on about sustainable agriculture and most modern architecture.
I don’t have an issue with Charles talking to his plants, the issue is Charlie taking advice from his plants.
As for his views on climate, they are the ramblings of a know nothing, privileged man who has spent far too much time listening to Attenborough
Ask the Sri Lankans about “sustainable” agriculture, I’m pretty sure they would respectfully disagree with you
Sadly I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Charles desperately wants to Do The Right Thing, and unfortunately he has been told that that is what it is.
And, lacking any critical faculties, that is all he has to go on.
Charles is interested generally in the environment and nature as you rightly say.
That covers a lot of things including the appearance of towns. Poundbury is a wonderful place and a testament to his vision. What is this nonsense about tampons?
Apart from Charly, was fake, – was “prince of Wales” but couldn’t speak a word of Welsh.
Owns vast lands with absolute power over what they pay, – including charging vast amounts for their use….Predatory business practices in all respects, while remaining a true parasite.
Most insects except the praying mantis are less nasty, – the male should have got eaten in his case.
Charles doesn’t need a cartoon caricature – he has made his opinions known to all and sundry over the last 50+ years. And mainstream thinking was that ulcers were caused by diet and stress. Mainstream thinking was that continental drift was wrong. Up until the James Webb telescope, mainstream thinking was that it all started with a big bang.
I assume your last sentence about agriculture was sarcasm, right?
PS I am a lifelong supporter of the monarchy, I think Charlie will be a poor king. For the sake of the monarchy and the UK, I hope I am wrong
If he screws up then the government of the day will invite him to retire in favour of William.
What if Charles says no?
Edward VIII thought about it, then was ‘encouraged’ to change his mind. Parliament and the people hold the power over the monarchy, not the other way round. Charles would go and William would be installed as the next King, and that would be pretty much that. Parliament hasn’t survived as long as it has by taking chances on one bad apple in the basket.
Parliament is made up of people. The institution has lasted a long time, however the people involved are different from the people of Edward VIII’s day.
Just because those people had the fortitude to do the right thing is not proof that today’s people will also have the same courage.
I rather think that they will invite him to keep his bloody mouth shut next time.
Almost nothing a king or queen does is unscariupeted and unvetted. He will be on the reservation at all times.
“unscariupeted”
That sounds painful.
AUE got in there somewhere methinks – wonder if it was meant to be a Trumpism?
PS I agree. I like Charles. He is a typical toff of genial good humour, ill informed opinion and no brain at all. Great for opening a a fête worse than death, but totally useless at anything kingly.
With lucjk he will awaft around in a world of his own utterly oblivious to everything steered carefully past any rocks by Camilla, to die at peace and happy and surrounded by spaniels.
And let other members of his family run the Firm
Face it….the man is not bright.
Again, you know him, do you?
I have heard enough foolish things from him to know….dumb
I don’t know Biden, but I have no doubts regarding his lack of mental acuity.
Mr David Guy-Johnson, King Charles doesn’t get everything wrong, I was involved in the Princes’ Trust for a while. I just think he has listened to the wrong people on climate change.
I suspect he’s a man, like many others, who want’s to be remembered for the legacy he leaves, in his case, environmentalism, just as Boris’ ambition was to be remembered for NetZero (which he will be but likely not for the reasons he hoped).
The Queen left the true legacy she will be fondly remembered for – hard work and a lifelong devotion to the United Kingdom and its Commonwealth. I can only remember her once publicly expressing an opinion and it was over Cop26 when she said something like “I wish they would stop talking and get on with it” which angered me, but I guess one blunder in a lifetime is forgivable.
The problem Charles has is he’s set out his stall and will forever operate under the suspicion he’s meddling in political affairs from a biased perspective.
have to admit apart from the CC crud hes not that bad an option
wills is as goofy over the cc scam too so no relief there for later either
We will see how long the climate change scam actually lasts. BS seldom survives first contact with the enemy, which in this case is the reality of keeping the lights on. CC will be postponed quietly while ‘that gets sorted’; and a decade latrer, with the windmills falling to pieces and solar panels covered in birdshit and lichen, it will dawn on people that the electricity grid is decarbonised without them anyway. Decarbonisation will be de facto because fossil prices, not de jure because greentards
Mainstream amongst the lunatic left.
Re the tampon wish – a classic case of wanting to be in the right place at the wrong time.
Re the climate change wishes – a case of being in the wrong place at the right time.
Geoff S of
😂
Oh c’mon now. Just listen to JJ Cale’s ‘closer to you’. It’s not an uncommon male daydream
Grauniad must be going insane.
Warms my cockles
Hope Griff chokes on it
But the tipping points…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/03/climate-tipping-points-could-topple-like-dominoes-warn-scientists
The tipping point indicated would be 2000 included that the Sydney Opera House would be under water as the oceans were rising.
Today the Opera House remains high and dry, and the goal post has been moved again.
Typical nonsense from the Guardian. If these tipping points actually existed, why didn’t they occur during the Holocene Climate Optimum?
Writer had several tippling points last night !
And eventually tipped right-over. !
Hilarious
Rees Mogg has been notably ineffective in all his (few, fringe) government roles – notably he found no ‘Brexit opportunities’… I don’t expect him to achieve anything as energy minister.
The main renewables programmes are locked in, already approved and/or building, so no change there…
Fracking can hardly get off the ground before the next election (which must take place in 2024) and I think you’ll find as that approaches tory party will not do anything which will anger voters in areas they need the votes in (most of UK?)
Wishful thinking.
The only type of thinking griff does anymore.
Remove the government subsidies and the renewables will wither on the vine and disappear – they cannot survive on a level playing field. As to Rees-Mogg, let’s just see, shall we?
one fracking company has said it can have gas flowing by early next year.
griff talking out his a$$ as usual.
You mean they will push fracking so the people don’t freeze in the winter?
Is he still living rent free in you head ? You seem to be suffering from Griff derangement syndrome, you should probably seek help.
Griff lives in England which is why his comment about his country is always of interest.
If only to find out what the UK lunatic fringe are saying.
Nailed it.
Let us hope King Charles finds it in himself to embrace the wisdom of his mother, and starts keeping his climate views to himself.
?
Fat chance that Charles the Moron will reign with any moderation. I honestly hoped the Queen would outlive him. But now? God save England!
Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom.
In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.
Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.
You do know that without Royal Assent, no legislation can pass into Law? There is balance between the power of the monarchy and the power of parliament – the monarch serves the people and reigns with the assent of the elected representatives of the people – parliament. Both work together, usually – but when both are in disagreement, it’s the monarch that has to back down, to obey the will of the people. It’s a lot more complicated than you make out.
Read the UK Act of Parliament 1930s that removed the powers of a monarch there and in Commonwealth nations. The Australia Act of 1980s reinforced the UK Act.
Do not confuse constitutional ceremonial matters with power that doesn’t exist.
If you’re referring to the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster 1931 I think you are overstating it’s role in UK law. It curtailed the powers of the UK parliament to impose legislation on commonwealth countries, established that the UK and commonwealth countries were equal in status but didn’t actually reduce the powers of the monarchy where they remained the head of state of most commonwealth countries. Do not confuse powers that do exist with perceived ceremonial matters.
Yep! People don’t understand that power because Elizibeth did not wield it in any significant way.
The Elizibeth I think of is not the old lady that has passed. I think of a young lady that accompanied her father to visit the pilots and support personnel at their airfields during the Battle of Britian. An Elizibeth that stayed at the palace that was right at ground zero during the blitz as the bombs rained down on London. A time when most Londoners had sent their children out of the city. A young woman that later served in uniform as so many other young British women her age did.
That is when the foundation of what she was to become was laid. And it was obvious that she cared about and Loved her subjects and her country.
She came to the throne during Winston Churchills second go-round as Prime Minister. She was 25 years old. From the Winston Churchill Society:
“Young, Gleaming Champion” Elizabeth II – International Churchill Society (winstonchurchill.org)
It’s awesome for them. Because of their blood they live a life of luxury.
I think the Rockefeller’s and the Getty’s may have them beat in the life of luxury stakes.
The Rockefellers and Gettys don’t live off the public dime.
Not quite. The royal family has/had a very large income, but did a deal with parliament to hand most of it to the Treasury in return for the ‘Civil List’.
I suspect it was a raw deal!
They made their money. The Queen did nothing but have a name.
Custom and Ceremony have a (small) place in Society. Some persons make their Individual ‘mark’ within. Not a bad thing.
Derg
It seems someone objects to those stating the truth that Charles was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. This person keeps giving down arrows to those drawing attention to this. People like this ignore how the other half lives.
I was merely pointing out that there are many others far richer than the royals that, because of their blood, enjoy a life of luxury fare more luxurious than the royals. Also, I commented, I didn’t downvote!
Plenty of people were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Mostly in the USA.
It is almost irrelevant.
In real numbers because of their 330 million people, yes, but as a percentage I do not think so when you consider their cost of living. My point is that it is not poor and struggling middle class that determine government policy but those with wealth and influence who are minimally impacted by the economic mess of these policies.
Clearly THE important point.
Compare a middle class person in the US to 90% of the world’s population.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government, period.
It is the direct descendant of the village chieftain who was usually the strongest warrior in the tribe.
Yep: still she did manage to hold on long enough to see off the worst Prime Minister that has ever (dis-)graced the nation.
I think you mean she lived long enough to see off all the crap prime minister’s that we’ve had since Major and there’s been a lot of them
It’s totally relevant that Major had a very small majority and was unable to do anything stupid or contentious. Since then apart from Cameron’s coalition we’ve had huge majorities on minority votes. (Cameron and Osborne deserve some kudos for paying off a lot of the debts some dating back to the 18th century allowing Bunter and Truss to build up more.) The country has suffered as a result.
I would agree on the debt payments
I noticed, with some amusement, that Steve Baker has been appointed as Northern Ireland minister, which won’t go down well in Brussels. Things are certainly going to be lively.
As far as I can gather Chris Heaton-Harris is Northern Ireland secretary.
I don’t see Baker mentioned as a cabinet member.
Chris Heaton-Harris is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Steve Baker has been appointed Minister of State for Northern Ireland. I believe Chris Heaton-Harris has the senior position.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Interestingly I made a prediction that if two vocal opponents of NetZero, Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch were appointed to the Cabinet we would understand the direction of travel of this government.
I also said that if Steve Baker were given a cabinet position we would know for certain that NetZero was dead. I didn’t figure on Jacob Rees-Mogg getting a cabinet position because he was loyal to Boris.
I suspect Baker is being slipped in through the back door as he’s an out an out sceptic, being a trustee of the GWPF.
I think we can conclude that with all that firepower behind her, Liz Truss is more interested in the country than the climate.
I profoundly hope so.
The actual Tory party members who finally voted her in are about 70% Eurosceptic leavers, and so are a lot of switch voters in the North who supported Boris.
But having been elected she could have two years enjoying herself, lose the next election and take a fat pensions and retire to loads of executive directorships in windfarm companies.
But I think we have gotten ourselves a terrier with plenty
of bite, if a rather high pitched annoying yap…
It looks to be a pragmatic conservative government versus a lazy corrupt liberal left European elite.
I note Kwasi Kwarteng has sacked the top treasury civil servant….
HT to th Financial Times.
I think we have a sort of Trump emerging here. But not based on personality. There’s a sort or ruthless competence that only women can get away with, emerging. Not having to be ‘one of the chaps’ she can get on with some massive civil service enemas. And clear the blockages in government.
I might open a bottle of champagne.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the gender of our new PM. She happens to be a qualified accountant with a history of working in the real world.
Unlike any other PM going back to, and preceding Thatcher, she can actually count.
When she’s presented with a problem she can interrogate it from an analytical financial perspective. By contrast, Boris was a journalist. He couldn’t count the children he had far less the number of immigrants coming ashore at Dover.
I have said numerous times before her selection, don’t watch Liz, watch her cabinet. She has selected Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch and, much to my surprise, Reese-Mogg (he was a Boris supporter) all three vocal climate sceptics.
Steve Baker has been named named new Minister of State for Northern Ireland. He’s a trustee of the GWPF for goodness sake. he’s also a fantastic organiser and clever bloke who has also operated outside politics.
If there is a more anti NetZero political organisation out there, I can’t find it.
Furthermore, I have examined the voting practices of much of her cabinet, over the years none of them have voted in any meaningful way for climate policies.
I believe we have a political fight back against climate insanity. It won’t be dramatic but it will be persistent.
Interestingly enough, both Steve Baker and Chris Heaton-Harris are members of the ERG.
Baker is a trustee of the GWPF.
Both of them are profound EUrosceptics. Heaton Harris has fought onshore windfarms tooth and nail.
Decent couple of attack dogs. Wuff!
Charles III will behave in the way our monarchs should behave. He perfectly well realises he can no longer be as “outspoken” as he was. He knows the score
Are you serious?
Did the Chelsea Barracks fiasco, for example, pass you by?
The black spider’s chance has finally arrived.
Triple-Chuck is 73 years old. The habits of seven decades on this earth are not so easily shaken off. He won’t be able to stop himself.
Doesn’t matter – a coronation (being crowned) isn’t necessary to become King, Charles became King the moment that Queen Elizabeth died. Having the Archbishop of Canterbury place a crown on his head is a bit of pomp and pageantry but it doesn’t really accomplish anything.
Yes, Edwars VIII abdicated before a coronation. Edward V reigned in England for 86 days and didn’t have a coronation either.
The postage stamps for Edward VII show him without a crown.
Whether it matters or not is not what RoHa said, he said he hadnt been crowned yet.
This is entirely correct, and IIRC a coronation is an event where the lad swears to stay loyal to his subjects, the church and the army, or something.
In short to impress on him that the privilege and the loyalties cut both ways. He inherits a job that comes with responsibilities.
The oath he’ll make at the coronation is a repeat of the oath he will or has already taken, pledging his service to the people of the UK and commonwealth. He has got a job that has huge responsibilities and duty 24/7. I don’t know of any elected president or head of state that combines the different roles and that has to be ‘on’ all the time, 24/7, 365 days a year for the rest of his life.
You have ‘forgotten’ ? that our President Donald John Trump put in more fighting-hours-for-the-American-People-of-All-Races than any Monarch (or any President) ever has done, all the while being attacked by every Agency and MSM outlet in These United States. (My Opinion)
While playing golf more than any past president?
As king he has to keep out of politics
Charles the halfwit will find that difficult
Has Camilla no sway with Chuckles – couldn’t she rein him in bit, curb the excess?
Do a Nut Nutz but in reverse?
Charles is the man who ditched the blonde for a horse
Probably the most insightful thing he ever did.
Doubled the IQ in his relationship.
My view about his first wife is not shared by the majority. He should never have married her.
She should never have married him. Quite a lot of pressure was exerted.
All the available ‘babes’ were…. Catholic.
Which is a total no-no for the heir. We Catholics are still not liked much in the UK.
One outcome is Harry. But I don’t think Charles had anything to do with that.
Plenty of time for a DNA test if he ever looks like inheriting the throne, but FWIW he is almost certainly Charles’. Plenty of red hair in the Spencer Churchill line.
Correct. Harry has married his mother. Diana was a fantasist and a narcissist and deeply unpleasant when crossed. And almost no IQ.
I wasn’t happy to hear she had died in a drink and drugs related car crash, but I wasn’t in the least surprised.
I wasn’t a fan of Diana, but she changed the face of the Monarchy when they realised they could be exposed.
She resisted their standard tactics to keep people in line. She employed the media to ensure the public at least got a sample of her side of the story.
Diana was no less ruthless than the Royals themselves, only she was smarter and more determined.
Meghan is a gold digger, nothing more. She’s too late and too stupid to adopt Diana tactics, the Royals are wise to that, as is the public.
That horse is now Queen consort. Had she survived the blonde might have been worse than Me-gain.
Di wasnt a nasty pos like me again/ me always is.
By all accounts she may have had her moments.
Oh, but she was. Sure she came from a far more privileged class and acted in a far more polished manner, but underneath was just the same.
Looking forward to exchange of fireworks skirmishes between two extremely self opinionated toffs.
You really don’t understand the moggster, do you?
The opposition are terrified to debate him over the ballot box. Apparently they hated debating Boris because he was quick witted and funny.
Rees-Mogg is ten times quicker and funnier than Boris.
Also a damn sight more entertaining.
His father had brains in his head, the junior hangs only his top hat on it.
No, Moggster is sharp. And political. And successful outside of politics.
Boris pretended to be the Eton and Oxford educated toff, but Moggster is the genuine article. Has the noblesse oblige that Boris lacked. And the self discipline.
He will shred the opposition. Angie “bike shed” Rayner will hate him.
Watch and see.
Self discipline? He’s got six children – more even than Boris 🙂
Ummm
‘More than Boris has in any one relationship’ – maybe….
But I understand Boris has been prolific – if not always publicly so.
Two with Carrie Antoinette, four with the previous lawful wedded wife, and – per rumour – one or two [at least] others about London Town.
Auto
A Minister for Business who can’t use email is not going to be a challenge to any other source of political power. Moggy is a joke. A punchline.
Consider his track record as Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Achievements = Zero. Department wound up as unworkable.
This is the man who put hand-written notes on civil servants desks demanding they return to the office from working from home. Regardless of the decision between ‘in office’ or ‘working from home’ that is no way to get things done.
The only Civil Servants who saw the notes were the cleaners. The rest were… Working From home.
Muppet should have thought of that.
I think you missed the whole point. He’s not a muppet, a joke or a punchline and he can use email when it suits him. So why leave handwritten official notes from a minister to the civil servants on their desk and not in an email? Because the only way they could have read the note (which they are required to do) would have been to stop working from home and actually come into the office. I thought it was bloody hilarious personally – great move!
Nice spin. But they didn’t have to read it as it wasn’t sent to them in a practical manner.
And I note that even you didn’t try to defend his abject failure in his last role. No achievements. Department wound up as it was in such a terminal mess.
I don’t know much about what happened in his last position which is why I didn’t comment on that. As to the notes – no spin, Rees-Mogg only wrote and placed 3 notes, just enough to make his point. My point isn’t to defend or ‘spin’ Rees-Mogg but just to slightly counter your extremely critical view of the man – I’m willing to wait and see how he does.
Charles will be fine. The duty of the POW is to be reckless and sow his seed: provide an outlet to protect the monarchy. Now he is King he will do his duty.
And if he doesn’t, remember he did all this green stuff before it was fashionable and so now, if he resurrects it, he will as ever, be the ‘wrong sort of green’ for the self eating left.
I don’t have an issue with all the green stuff when it comes to protecting the environment (within reason), it’s the lectures on climate and hypocrisy that pees me off
Exactly.
Protecting the environment is good. Teddy Roosevelt creating the National Parks system was good environmentalism.
Destroying the environment in order to eliminate a trace gas that is vital to carbon-based life is bad. Promoting unreliable low energy-density, high land use renewables to replace reliable high energy-density, low land use fossil fuels and nuclear power is bad environmentalism.
Correct. I could even find myself agreeing with Attenborough and Greta if only they would restrict themselves to protecting the environment, and not diverting into unrelated political nonsense!
We live in interesting times
I would love to know what evidence there is for Whitlam’s “lurch towards revolutionary communism”? Which appears to be a retelling of history when in fact the only reason that Whitlam was dismissed was because various right wing state governors appointed senators from the opposite party something that went against all established norms and was subsequently made unconstitutional by the incoming PM.
Prime Minister Whitlam attempted to bypass the Loans Council of Australia that consisted of Federal and State representatives and bankers who approved foreign loans. The secret negotiations held in a Melbourne City Hotel were recorded and made public by the Age Newspaper (The Age Tapes) and exposed the plan to borrow many billions of dollars without the required approval.
The Fraser led Opposition decided to block money supply and did so successfully creating a constitutional crisis, meaning the Whitlam Government could not govern without money. So the Governor General on constitutional law advice called the Prime Minister first and then the Opposition Leader to Government House and appraised the PM first of the relevant law and asked him to become caretaker PM and to call a new double dissolution election as soon as possible. PM Whitlam refused so Opposition Leader Fraser accepted the role.
At the election the Whitlam Labor Government was defeated in a landslide and was replaced by the Fraser Coalition Government and they were able to get the money supply bill passed.
So the Governor General did not make a decision, he had no power to make decisions, but he did act in accordance with constitutional law.
A monarch’s role is similar in a constitutional monarchy.
The governor general did make a decision. He did not have to sack Whitlam and more importantly did not have to appoint Fraser as the caretaker PM. He could have appointed an independent outsider as PM who would have the power to call an election.
Absolute bunkum. The question that the GG put to both Whitlam and Fraser was “Can you guarantee supply?” Fraser believed he could (because the Govt were then a minority in the Senate) and Whitlam was ambivalent.
Whitlam was such a fool that, on returning to Parliament House after being ‘sacked’, summoned some of his senior ministers to lunch at The Lodge (the PM’s official Canberra residence) but did not include any Ministers from the Senate. The Govt leader in the Senate was totally unaware of the situation (the Labor senators took their places on the Treasury benches for the afternoon session) and, as he had done every afternoon in the previous weeks, moved that the supply bill be passed. The Liberal-National coalition stunned the Labor cohort by unanimously passing the Supply bill.
What had happened when Fraser returned to Parliament House? He called a meeting of his senior shadow ministers and immediately, without any prefacing, asked his Leader in the Senate: “How soon can you get me supply?” (The room now realised what was up!) “Today,” was the reply. The discussion then moved to how the coalition would operate in caretaker mode because they knew they were a minority government in the House of Representative and would lose the inevitable No Confidence motion that Labor would put and therefore be forced to an election.
Source: Former Liberal Senator for Victoria (and former RAN officer) the late David Hamer who was in the Senate at that time and with whom I had many enjoyable and informative lunches at the old Naval and Military Club in Melbourne.
IW.
It is the Governor-General’s JOB to make that decision.
When the Government is failing to function, by certain objective standards, it is the function of the GG to place that decision back in the hands of the Australian people.
Had the Whitlam Government genuinely been representing the will of the Australian people, we would have re-elected it. As it was, the electoral result was a complete rejection of Whitlam’s policies , and a de-facto justification of the GG’s decision.
Australia is a constitutional democracy. That means that there are laws which the Government of the day must obey. We do not elect short-term dictators and grant them the right to do whatever they want until the next election.
As for Her Majesty, there is no good reason to believe that she acted in any partisan fashion.
Whitlam was never attempting to be a short term dictator. He was trying to run the country while the oppossition was refusing to pass his budget in the senate.
Clearly the governor general had options since in the US for example they seem perfectly happy to shut down the government when the budget gets held up on a regular basis. So the governor general did not have to sack Whitlam and after sacking Whitlam he did not have to appoint Fraser as the caretaker politican.
And once again, the left declares that it’s only democracy when they are winning.
Izaak actually believes that it the job of Parliament to do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to do.
Eric was incorrect above. As Dennis stated, it was the Governor General (the Australian Head of State) exercising his power delegated by The Crown, rather than QEII.
This was a reaction to the government of the day attempting to govern without Supply
Neither the Government nor Opposition seem to have been entirely blameless, but the Governor General was vilified for doing his duty in trying circumstances.
Isaac,
Read up on the Khemlani affair in which a senior minister RFX Connor, was negotiating a huge Arab loan, with Gough’s knowledge. The money was needed to run the country because the Opposition parties had refused to pass the usual supply Bill because of its communistic intent and other reasons
In the wash, an election was the optimum course. It saw Whitlam’s party defeated by a large margin.
The scope for election tampering is tiny in Australia. That is good, it might attract some high calibre people to migrate from USA to Australia. Welcome. Geoff S
Governments with fiat money and a central bank do not need loans as they can make more money whenever they want.
Greg,
how exactly is trying to borrow money a “lurch towards revolutionary communism”?
You seem to be conflating different issues.
An Australian Government which cannot secure Supply is obliged to conduct an election ASAP..
The “lurch towards revolutionary communism” appears to be an opinion as to why the Opposition, which had a majority in the Senate, refused to pass Supply.
the bums rush was a yank setup shades of reds under the beds, used to get him out
I see ozspeaksup is still upset that communism was rejected.
And as always, it’s the fault of Americans. I’m surprised he didn’t include the CIA in his rant.
I would love to know what evidence there is for Whitlam’s “lurch towards revolutionary communism”?
Gough Whitlam cheered Hanoi’s brutal victory (published in The Australian).
Whitlam wasn’t being subtle about it. He never quite came out and said “OK, we’re abolishing elections today”, but he and other government ministers dropped some pretty strong hints about their sympathies.
I’ll never forget the time my dad came home and told everyone his union had just informed them the top Australian 100 companies were about to be nationalised, including the US owned company he worked for. He was a Labor voter all his life, so he had no reason to make up stories about the people he supported.
Thankfully Whitlam was dismissed before these insanely disruptive plans had a chance to advance.
Recent political action of the Queen for which the Monarchy got too little credit. (And I’m a lefty).
The day after the Brexit vote the UK had no foreign policy, no trade policy, no economic policy, no Government (Cameron quit), no regional funding set up without the EU and the country was proven to be split almost 50:50. Yet sterling did not stop trading and riots did not break out.
Hard to imagine any other country in the world which could change course so suddenly, so completely, and not have a collapse in confidence.
How did the UK cope?
1) The Bank of England took immediate measures to steady the currency. The Bank of England an institution over 300 years old.
2) The Archbishop of Canterbury declared that his churches would keep the foodbanks open and no-one need ear for their immediate needs. The Church of England, an institution almost 500 years old.
3) The Queen went to the Parliament that was still open (in Scotland) and gave a speech saying that we would be fine. Carry on. The course change is a momentary challenge. And pole listened and waited for a new Government to form over the next fortnight. The Monarchy, an institution over 1,000 years old.
There is little need for the Monarchy in usual days.
But when there was a need Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, did her duty.
The Queen gave a speech and called for certain actions to be taken, the Prime Minister and Cabinet apparently took the appropriate action needed.
Well done Her Majesty and well done the Government.
The monarchy is the fig leaf, nothing more and it really has to go
Brenda should be the last
Brenda should be the last
-4…..
Blimey, some people want Charles? Let them pay for him.
Hahaha. And I thought climate activists arguments were shoddy, poorly thought out and easily dismantled; they are consummate professionals in comparison.
You think a modern democracy – ie not Parliament above monarch and people – is a shoddy idea?
You think that the power for constituents to recall a MP is poorly thought through and easily dismantled?
That does make sense.
Monarchists are like Leopards.
Ah but I’m not a monarchist, just not a republican. We have a good system with a monarchy and you want to replace it with some time-serving profiteering career politician that’ll do half the job and retire, knowing full well he’ll no longer be accountable? Yes I’d rather keep the monarchy – it’s better (slightly) than the alternative.
Eric, any chance you could use the correct term to describe the transition from alive to dead rather than colloquialisms?
Why is London in such a mess?
Sadiq Khan to publish book on climate crisis and asthma diagnosis….
‘The Question – will King Charles be able to do his job as king, and stay silent, if Prime Minister Liz Truss starts blatantly dismantling Britain’s Net Zero policies?’
Well, hope springs eternal, but, actually, the real question (with a guaranteed negative answer) is whether Truss will do anything at all against Net Zero policies.
Another good question is; “Does she actually NEED to do anything at all against net zero policies?” She’s put a few interesting choices in cabinet positions and the next few months may be enlightening, we’ll just have to wait and see.
I am expecting net zero to stay in place until it becomes perfectly obvious to the voting public that it has to go . To govern, first you have to be elected. Most governments stop there. This is the first Government since Thatcher that seems to want to do more than that.
From the comments, I am alone in thinking that is the case.
Well, we shall see.Brew the coffee and break out the popcorn.
If the Guardian and La Grifflette are already dissing Liz, it gives me massive hope.
” To govern, first you have to be elected.”
In some cases, you must be ‘installed through massive Fraud, which you have previously and publicly announced as the method you will be using… following which, you will not ‘govern’, but instead, will engage the various LE and Judicial agencies to carry out your “commands”.
There will be no announcement on NetZero being scrapped or anything close to that.
The more normal course of event’s is for it to be gently shuffled into the long grass as time goes on. It’s already begun falling down the list of priorities. Covid started it, the energy crisis has succeeded that, Ukraine is continuing the process, and the need to get the country back on its feet will overtake all of them.
And don’t worry, there will be another crisis along soon.
So what happens if the UK doesn’t achieve NetZero, passed into law by Theresa May?
Absolutely nothing. The moment, and the law itself will disappear into the rear view mirror with no repercussions.
Whose to blame if it’s unsuccessful? Theresa May? Boris Johnson? Liz Truss? The next PM? or perhaps an opposition PM who happens to be in post at the stroke of midnight on the 31st December 2050?
Who is punished if we don’t achieve NetZero, whatever NetZero is? The only announcement that will be made, assuming the subject is even remembered in 2050 is “We have largely achieved our objective of meeting our NetZero commitments”. And as no one knows what NetZero means, that will be absolutely true.
‘Who is punished’? Well, whether achieved or not, it is all of us plebs who are punished by the process while the super-rich and super-powerful suck up more and more of our limited wealth and power. What’s that quote I’m searching for – you know the one about what will be given to them that have (etc)?!
Ian E, and HotScot,
Both of you appear to me to talk sense.
We will see, of course.
Auto
Thank you auto.
LO, yes, absolutely true and I should have included that no one else suffers but the man in the street.
Thank you for reminding me.
Now the king is named after small dog.
http://www.mywoofgang.com/images/CavBridie.jpg
I think it was actually the other way round.
Now if only King Charles III could be as wise, and limit his political activities to not minding the business and playing with a small dog, all would be well and God would be firmly in His Place, as it were…
How do I erase this from my brane…..
edit to ????
It showed the picture – fair enough – I hoped the link would show to explain that it’s Chuckles we’re seeing.
In a green car too.
In all fairness, it a lovely picture and very sweet – so where did everything start to unravel to what we now have around us?
LSD etc
Not with charles. I spent a year living 20 feet from him in Trinity College. I knew everybody ‘on the scene’ Sir Anthony Gormley, yes. Charly boy? Nope, A certain relative of Mr Rees Mogg…I count as a friend and will say no more.
You have my sympathy.
As have you, mine.
I don’t need your, er, charitable thoughts, Mr Page.
You get funnier by the post! Keep it up.
No, Had the time of my life actually.
When I was that age I had an identical car, albeit mine was red. It had a battery and the lights and horn worked.
Rather confused reporting from New Scientist. The title of the ministry does not even include the word climate !
That is because there id no Department of Energy and Climate Change any more.
Climate went to DEFRA IIRC.
More detail
Wiki:
Basically, climate change got tagged onto energy by the Blair or Brown government when they went all Eurocentric green and mushy with Milband.
Then energy got pushed out and into the BEIS, and DEFRA got actual real environmental responsibility back.
BEIS Mission statement does not mention ‘climate change’ at all,.
In expanded notes it aims to tackle climate change: reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 (whatever that means, as Prince Charles said about his ‘love’ for Diana).
How much of its ex DOECC employees will remain once the Moggstter has found them all placements in kindergartens remains to be seen
Ranil Jayawardena is the Environment Secretary.
And a bit of a nebbish by all accounts.
We will see.
Had to look ‘nebbish’ up.
Add’s to my schooldays. Thank you.
The quote states that the name of the department is “Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy”.
No claim that “climate” is in the name.
It does say that this department is RESPONSIBLE for energy and climate change.
I hope Watts readers will join me in raising a glass and declaring ‘God save the King!’
Done already.
I’ll raise a glass and say “God save us from this king”
Hear, hear.
Done already.
Not a chance, griff.
Why do 21st century lefties love monarchies etc when true socialists tend to execute them?
Why do socialists feel the burning irrational need to execute members of the monarchy when most lefties are more tolerant?
This changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace will give the new King Charles some difficult options.
He has made his position on Climate Change and Environment concerns known, very publicly.
He has even presented the WEF’s message of time for a Great Reset personally on prime time BBC TV and at the height of the first wave of Covid anxiety no less.
An example of the WEF’s ‘hit em while they are down’ policy.
He even managed to get the Queen to weave into her very last message the growth and need for ‘anxiety’ about man made climate change.
That was a very out of character position for the Queen to have taken. It clearly represented a stepping stone placed in the torrent of opinion for Charles to use. It was obvious, for all of us to see the preparation that was going on. It prepared the scene allowing Charles freedom to break with traditional Royal protocol (because the Queen had already done so) regarding political positioning of the Royal House.
On a more positive note.
It is great news so far from the new PM on all fronts. Her appointment of J Rees Mogg as head of energy is a good move. He is extremely well educated and very articulate with it.
I would love to see an exchange of opinions between him and the Guardian’s George Monbiot. I don’t expect that to ever happen though as Monbiot would take a lot of cleaning up after he was wiped all over the floor by Mogg.
We have lost one Liz greatly admired by most thinking peoples across the world and we have a new Liz to focus on. Let us hope our new Liz does not betray our trust.
God save the King. He will need all the help he can get.
Cockney rhyming slang for ‘turd’ is ‘Richard the third’. That may now change.
Charles is really more of a Winnie the \Pooh. He will build a heffalump trap at Balmoral, and float pooh sticks down the burn
Many Irish pronounce third as turd (and three as tree), the ones who do not follow the Queen’s (King’s) English.
Non PC Irish joke alert – look away now if you are easily offended!
Irishman goes for a job in the parks department. The manager applies his standard test and, pointing to three saplings in the forecourt says “how many trees are out there”.
The Irishman replies “There’s nine trees out there sir”
A bit perplexed the manager asks how he reached that number.
The irishman relies “Tree and Tree and Tree make nine sir”
The manager tries again. “How many trees are out there” at which point a little dogs appears, sniffs each tree and cocks his leg against each of them.
The Irishman pipes up “There’s ninety nine trees out there sir.
Astonished, the manager asks how on earth he came to that number.
The Irishman replies “Dirty tree, Dirty Tree and Dirty tree makes ninety nine sir”.
Shaking his head the manager gives it one last go and asks again how many trees there are.
Just at that the dog returns and deposits a little poo at the base of each tree.
The Irishman says “there’s a hundred trees now sir”.
Utterly bewildered now, the manager asks how he concludes that.
The Irishman replies “Well sir, Dirty tree and a turd, Dirty tree and a turd, and Dirty tree and a turd make a hundred.”
I don’t know if he got the…….. jobby.
Enjoyed it…. Thanks. (and I’ve got about a turd of Irish in me.)
“Cockney rhyming slang for ‘turd’ is ‘Richard the third’. That may now change.”
That’s dying out in favour of Newspeak. Newspeak usually means the opposite of what it says
Cockneys would call that ‘a la mode’.
Charles is very, very comfortable and will not have to switch off his gas or electricity at his 7 royal residences while many of his subjects are forced to shiver in the dark because of the green nuttery he has supported – unless he sensibly refrains from pushing his views.
I hope Charles III heeds history and takes care because he predecessor Charles I lost his head as he bashed heads with parliament.
The British Constitution is not formally documented in the same way as the Constitutions of many of the Commonwealth States, but it certainly does exist. Though there is no single document which defines it, there are many documents and practices which derive from it, and so can be considered to comprise its current physical existence, while there are myriads of commentary papers written ‘about’ it.
As well as traditional rules and activities, the British Constitution depends a great deal on understood practices which govern the relationship between the various parts of the governing establishment. Parts of it depend on understanbding what is ‘done’ and ‘not-done’ – concepts which derive ultimately from the feudal culture of honour from time immemorial. It is almost a ‘sociology of the ruling classes’. A strong reinforcement is applied from the fact that many of them were bred in these structures, and imbibed them during their schooling.
Central to this Establishment structure is the Monarch, and her (now his) Palace Entourage. You will hear many announcements over the coming weeks from ‘The Palace’ – these will be the ruling establishment speaking. Quite what King Charles III will be able to do will depend a lot on the relationship between the new king and the established Palace structures.
Among their central political activities, the Monarch traditionally has the right to ‘be consulted, to advise, and to warn’ (according to Bagehot). This means that the King will be informed at an early stage about political discussions which are taking place, and will be able to offer advice which may take the form of approval or caution.
This interaction is delicate. The advice from Queen Elizabeth II was always carefully considered, since it derived from a lifetime of political experience unmatched by any other current Head of State. By contrast, Prince Charles has form for lobbying for his own particular interests – cf his ‘spider letters’ of 2004-5 – and he sees environmental issues as non-political, a dangerous attitude, since this takes many decisions out of the remit of political discussion and places them into the authoritarian hands of ‘experts’.
Let us hope that he emulates the actions of Prince Hal in the final scene of Henry IV Pt II…..
Now he’s King, Charles must not express a political opinion.
He can say what he want’s. Tradition dictates he shouldn’t meddle in politics or he runs the risk of clashing with the government of the day.
But is the environment and climate a political subject or might it be considered a moral question?
The questions of renewable energy sources and fracking, oil and gas extraction etc. are most certainly political questions, and geopolitical ones at that, so he daren’t take a position on them or risk being accused of being politically partisan.
Politics, more and more, is about the moral case for something or not. The questions about fracking etc can be considered moral if you believe folk should not be left to freeze to death because of a moral objection to CO2 emissions. The people, through Parliament, decide, it’s called democracy. The queen very wisely, for 70 years, expressed no political views publically.
All laws are nothing more than codified morals. Things are either outlawed because the majority feels they are wrong. Other things get mandated or subsidized because a majority feels they are right.
Not working like that these days in The States. Please send your note to the dictator(s) at The White House, so that they can ‘mend their ways’.
The Government and King Charles may have more of an issue with the breakup of the UK than anything else. Ulster’s major political party wants a united Ireland. Scottish sports fans have long booed the National Anthem and at last nights Hearts match in Edinburgh when it was booed before the resart after half time. There will be a lot of people in Scotland who will mourn the death of Elizabeth whose Post Boxes in Scotland are different to those in England, but will they feel the same about Charles III
The question over Scotland’s position in the UK was settled in 2014.
Such questions are never settled permanently. Each generation gets to decide them for themselves.
Then we should definitely wait until it’s the next generations time for a referendum, not before.
There has been one referendum held on Scotland’s place in the Uk since the 1700’s. That’s a lot more than a generation.
Have the people been demanding a referendum? If not, then they have made their decision.
My sole consolation is that Charles was first born and not Andrew.
Agreed. Or Edward – although his one major accomplishment appears to be that he married fairly well.
At least Edward has kept his head down.
At some cost Anne learned in the 70’s/80’s to distance herself from her siblings and the media.
Anne also earned an Olympic medal.
A fine equestrian.
It doesn’t effect me either way, but I’d be much happier with a Queen Anne, a much classier act all round.
“first born”
So what happened to Anne? (The one with the family brain)
Charles was born in 1948, Anne in 1950.
And with the rule of male primogeniture being in effect, succession would have passed over her to the next male heir. I think it was rescinded just after the birth of Princess Charlotte, so she’s out as well.
Hi, Eric. I believe you may be partly mistaken, in that I believe the late Queen used her reserve powers to good effect on at least 1, and possibly 2 occasions.
Following the 2010 UK general election, Gordon Brown (Labour) was curiously reluctant to leave no. 10 Downing St., with only the slimmest of chances of heading an unwieldy multi-party “rag-tag” government (or “coalition of losers”). Whereas David Cameron (Conservative), with significantly more seats than Labour, needed only 1 other party to form a simple coalition government (with the LibDems), with a robust majority in parliament.
On the 6th day (IIRC), David Cameron was spotted entering and leaving a back entrance to Buckingham Palace. We may surmise that Her Majesty popped the question: “Would you be ready to form government, Mr. Cameron?”, to which we may surmise that he replied: “Yes, Ma’am”.
The following morning (day 7 IIRC), Gordon Brown was summoned to Buckingham Palace (through the front door), and presumably invited/asked to resign as PM. In any case he went back to no. 10 and announced his resignation.
David Cameron went to Buckingham Palace a 2nd time (through the front door this time), kissed the royal hands, and was appointed PM.
The late Queen had the gift of discretion in these things (as do her staff), and the episode was not trumpeted in the media (though it was spotted).
I believe that the Queen may also have played a not dissimilar role in getting Edward Heath (Conservative) to stand down after the February 1974 UK general election (which also produced a hung parliament) – though my recollection of that episode is far from clear.
Hope that helps.
King Charles III has no role in setting governmental policy, or in seating a government, other than the ceremonial role of inviting the leader of the majority party in Parliament to form a government. The monarchs are not supposed to inject themselves into any policy debates, as their job is to unite the nation. If Charles departs from that constitutional system, that itself would create a governing crisis, and it is likely that he would be forced to abdicate. Charles knows all of that, of course – he sat side by side with his mother particularly since the passing of his father.
Prince William is also a believer in human induced climate change, so even if he replaced Charles his heart would be basically in the same place. For all we knew, indeed, it’s quite likely that Elizabeth may have been a warmunist too – but doing her duty as sovereign, kept her mouth shut about it.
As far as I can see, none of the Royal Family (with the possible exception of Princess Anne) is particularly bright, which means they easily fall prey to superficially plausible narratives like anthropogenic global warming. If you want to see more of such narratives, many extremely banal, look no further than the WEF website under the Agenda tab. There you will find a collection of gormless opinions which form the ideology of the WEF. As we know from early members of the Young Global Leaders programme, the WEF brooks no scepticism or critical thought so all the more recent graduates have swallowed this stuff whole.
Monarchial Mnemonic
Charles I – beheaded
Charles II – much bedded
Charles III – bed wetter
You wish you could have lived the life of Charles II – who by the way was very well regarded, loved indeed, by the Brits – which is why they restored him to rule at the overwhelming demand of Parliament.
Charles I was executed following the English Civil War, bringing to an end rule by autocratic monarchy.
Charles II was restored to the throne after 10 or so years of Cromwell’s Republican theocracy, ushering in a new period of artistic, intellectual and economic freedoms leading eventually to the Industrial Revolution and the long road to a modern democracy.
Charles III – ?
Charles has lots of names to choose from. Off the top of my head his name is something like Charles William Arthur George and rumour had it that after a lifetime as Charles he will probably opt for George.
I like Rees Mogg, have to hope he is given a long leash.
He’s being called Charles III for the moment but not sure if that will be the name he chooses to reign as. We probably won’t find that out until nearer to the coronation.
The word going around is the Queen held on to keep Charles out.
King Charles is acting quite rationally for the sake of the monarchy, much like the Pope, in recognizing the loss of older traditionalists and the need to keep in tune with the younger generation, even if it means doing questionable things with advocacy groups, agenda science, and bad public policy. It’s someone else’s problem in the end that can be summarized in the venerable refrain from then Rep. Edward Markey–“Who could have known?”
I’m quite convinced the queen hung around for so long because she knew what buffoons her son and grandsons are..
Yes, and I am glad she did. I am also not enthused about seeing her son’s mugshot on new coins any time soon.
A minor quibble, Charles is King but has not yet been crowned, that will occur at the coronation.
Doesn’t really matter – the important bit is sometime today with his Accession Council ceremony – then he will formally become the King. The coronation is just a bit of pageantry for general consumption.
“Whitlam’s apparent lurch towards revolutionary communism”
and
“or in Australia’s case, an elected government which appeared to be about to seize dictatorial power”
I’ve spent half an hour googling and can find not even a hint of dictatorial ambition for Whitlam. The worst I can find is legislation for free tuition, universal health care, and ending conscription.
Can someone enlighten without the inflamed rhetoric? Hyperbole like this makes me doubt the objectivity of everything else.
Pretty much as is the case with the US government, the UK royalty/bureaucracy has no idea of what they mean by their attempts to “fight climate change™”.
To wit:
— “Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the UK are provisionally estimated to have increased by 6.3% in 2021 from 2020, to 341.5 million tonnes (Mt)”
source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064923/2021-provisional-emissions-statistics-report.pdf
— Meanwhile, according to the IEA, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion metric tons.
Therefore, if the UK stopped ALL CO2 emissions from ALL sources, it would account for only 0.34/36.6 = .009 = less than 1% of global CO2 emissions into the atmospheric. There you have it, 1% tops.
Now, put that 1% reduction—accomplished at the expense of devastating the economy of the UK—against the above-stated fact that worldwide CO2 emissions rose 6% in 2021 alone.
Having a new king will not change the above facts by one pence.
Charles gave a speech this evening (his first as King) which hinted at a bit more of a hands off attitude to some of his charitable and other interests
Most, if not all, of his patronages will likely be passed on to William or one of the other active, working Royals.
“working Royals” . . . is that an oxymoron or what?
The Queen did not sack the Whitlam government and there is no evidence of her involvement in such an action.
The powers employed – were employed by her ‘representative’, as appointed by Whitlam himself.
Whitlam was sacked because he could not fund the operation of government – having been refused his budget by the then opposition (that held the majority in Aus’s Senate).
This crisis of ‘confidence’ lead the Whitlam appointed representative to cancel Whitlam’s commission and declare an new election. An Election Whitlam lost in a landslide.
Just to repeat, the Queen had no active participation or demonstrably involvement in Whitlam’s downfall.
Basically, Whitlam effed about and then found out.
I wonder if Charles’ links to the WEF go further and encompass the whole royal family. I heard a snippet from someone talking about the Queen saying that at one point she supported an initiative to identify young people with potential across the Commonwealth as potential future leaders of their countries. I wonder where they were schooled once identified – the Young Leaders programme? It might explain the strong WEF affiliations of Canada and NZ, plus whatever others that are not so obvious.
He won’t be able to…he’s ‘full-woke’…he’s a believer on a mission. He’ll wait awhile but then slowly but surely he’ll ease back into the fear-mongering. I’d bet my next pay check on it.
You’d bet your next pay-check that sometime between now and his death he’ll say something about climate change? Who’d take THAT bet?
This article is mistaken about the role of the Queen in the sacking of the Australian Prime Minister. This occured by the action of Sir John Kerr, the Governor General, who was technically the Queen’s representative. It is unlikely that the Queen would have approved of such drastic action
Unfortunately Charles is not too bright , the evidence for this is overwhelming . Therefore, he will inevitably do the wrong thing . It’s a law of nature !
“the appointment appears to be good news for companies extracting fossil fuels and bad for some firms wanting to accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy.”
How is it bad for firms wanting to roll-out renewable energy? It doesn’t stop them from doing that. What it will do is stop some folks from freezing this winter.