Essay by Eric Worrall
A hilarious dynamic has emerged in Commonwealth nations, in which the most committed anti-monarchists also want King Charles to help them win the climate war.
Charles Is Not Your Climate King
Angely Mercado
Published 4 days ago: May 6, 2023 at 7:00 pm…
It’s true that, compared to other public figures or wealthy celebrities, Charles has a pretty impressive resume of caring about the environment. He’s been championing environmental causes since the 1970s and has been touting crunchy practices like composting for decades. In 2021, as Charles was travelling to the UN climate summit, the Washington Post branded him “the 21st century’s first eco-king.”
But Charles III is not your climate king. He is a wealthy man who takes private jets and was born into a rich ruling family. He’s now the figurehead of a nation facing rising income inequality and more risks and deaths from climate change-related extreme weather. Any actions he’ll take on climate as king will be cosmetic, at best. His job as royalty will be to maintain the status quo — which is the last thing we need as the world keeps getting hotter.
…
As the head of the royal family, Charles III will unfortunately be called to political neutrality. He can support his preferred causes, but he is limited in straight-up calling out the fossil fuel companies and politics that have made our climate crisis possible.
…
King Charles III is inheriting the throne during a pivotal time for global climate action. It’s a huge responsibility, but he is not among those on the frontlines of the problems. People displaced by wildfires and victims of heat waves throughout the UK don’t need more words — they need action that Charles won’t be able to take on as king.
…
Read more: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2023/05/charles-is-not-your-climate-king/
The idea of Conservatives being opposed to ditching the royals might seem strange to Americans, but its only strange until you take a closer look at the slimy rogues gallery of recycled neo-communists who are drooling over the opportunity to become our first president, and the partisan constitutional settlements being offered by our far left anti-royalists.
The constitutional settlements being offered by predominantly left wing Aussie anti-royalists bear no resemblance to the US constitutional settlement. For example, in 1999 Australians were offered a puppet presidential Republic, an emasculated figurehead presidency, which would just have been an opportunity for failed former leaders to be appointed by their friends to an easy job with lots of perks, where they could continue sponging off the public purse. Strangely this plan for a Republic didn’t appeal to the Australian public.
Charles might be a climate clown, but his presence as a mostly powerless figurehead in the political systems of commonwealth nations blocks the emergence of something worse – the ascension to high office, of all the despised unwanted politicians we long ago rejected at the ballot box.
If you think this is a bad situation for conservatives, the dilemma for climate activists is even more acute. They are desperate for King Charles to speak out about his climate beliefs, because they believe royalist conservatives in Australia and elsewhere might listen to Charles’ green ravings, like some do in England. Yet at the same time, being mostly communists or far left socialists, ditching the royals and installing a left wing partisan constitution is a priority for them.
It’s going to be very interesting to see how all this plays out.
Personally I think Charles will crack, and restart his ranting about the need for climate action. How can the king stay silent, when he clearly believes the fate of the world hangs in the balance?
Perhaps when Charles politicisation of the throne makes keeping the monarchy intolerable for everyone, we’ll just have to accept whatever insipid, partisan republican settlement is offered, just to get away from the mad climate king.
King Dong.
As mad as many of his predecessors after generations of in-breeding.
The late Sir Nigel Hawthorne could have done a marvellous King Charles III on screen.
A talking heads episode with Sir NG as KCIII doing a skit with his alter ego Sir Humphrey Appleby – now that would get some (up?) ticks – anyone on the pages got any sway with Jonathan Lynn …..
Ahh, such a marvellous documentary series.
What inbreeding?
Charles’s father was born of two other royal families, Greek and Danish, and was a a member of a family with ties to Germany as well. Phillip was a third cousin of Elizabeth II. In the early 20th and prior centuries it was extremely common for cousins of various degrees to marry throughout Europe as well as much of the rest of the world. If Charles is an inbred, then so are you, inasmuch as we all descend from a single line of homo sapiens coming out of Africa.
“What inbreeding”
Did you know, consanguinity has been a mainstay of royal families for about as long as there have been royal families?
“Much of European royalty in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries could be traced to Queen Victoria in some way or another. Prince Albert, was actually her first cousin, meaning that all of her children were inbred”
https://historycollection.com/16-royals-who-suffered-from-hereditary-mutations-and-defects-caused-by-inbreeding/6/
That’s why haemophilia used to be known as the ‘royal disease’. And you have to remember that the British monarch cannot wed a Catholic – and Europe is heavily Catholic in its aristocracies….
Phil and Betty were cousins by more than one line. Up to the 20th century marriage between royals was political and for no other reason.
In this case Both were great-great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria.
Prince Philip and the Queen were also cousins through King Christian IX of Denmark.
Prince Philip had the same great-grandfather as Queen Elizabeth’s father, George VI, making Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth second cousins once removed.
This sort of marriage between cousins led to the Hapsburg Chin.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/distinctive-habsburg-jaw-was-likely-result-royal-familys-inbreeding-180973688/
Again, third cousins is not an issue genetically. The Brit royal family is mostly related to Protestant royals in Germany, Denmark, and Greece, so your argument about “heavily Catholic Europe” is completely moot. Where the hell do you think Protestants came from? Pakistan? Certainly it didn’t start in England, Scotland, or Wales. You apparently don’t know anything about religion or family history amongst the Brit Royals … but it didn’t stop you from commenting or gaining upvotes from the usual mindless idiot commenters here at WUWT.
The first Danish king of Greece converted to Orthodox Catholicism, as did his brother and son, Philip. until he converted to Anglicanism. Philip’s mom, great granddaughter of Victoria, became an Orthodox nun. Her congenital deafness might have been from in-breeding, but at least she didn’t spread hemophilia.
I don’t see how anyone who has studied European history can deny in-breeding among royals. The past two generations have however recognized the dangers and accepted mere nobles and even commoners as consorts. But Diana Spencer shared a lot of ancestry with Charles.
When you add up their consanguinities from both common ancestors, it’s about 10%, comparable to first cousins, at 12.5%.
Good thing ERII’s dad, not expected to be king, was able to marry a noble Scottish woman rather than yet another German or Danish princess.
There are problems with inheritance and with a constitutional monarchy.
Most obviously when you end up with a GangGreen loon like Charles III.
Sorry, inbreeding is way down any sensible list.
You really think that having a head of state combined with a purely party political president is better?
You’d love a President Blair or President Cameron in the UK?
Get lost.
Perhaps you think the US system with Sleepy Joe and Giggling Kemala is working well?
Good luck.
IMO, Strativarius’ point about Catholic aristocrats in Europe is that British monarchs’ spouse choices were even further limited, mainly to Lutherans and the odd Calvinist, willing to convert to Anglicanism.
The problem goes a lot further back than the previous generation.
PS: I hadn’t previously voted on any of these posts. At least not till I read your final comment.
Beyond that, because of historical inbreedng, those “3rd cousins” are a lot closer genetically than are any non-royal set of 3rd cousins.
I might add that ERII’s great grandfather Edward VII, grandfather George V and father George VI all died from nicotine addiction. All were beyond heavy smokers.
That’s why she viciously attacked Philip whenever he smoked in her presence. Which of course just increased his interest in showgirls. Yet Betty’s anti-tobacco campaign is probably while he lived so long.
Can’t blame Eddie VII for smoking though, given his mom and dad. Which bad habit gave his sons and grandsons permission slowly to kill themselves.
Betty at least was blessed with a lovable dad and sympathetic mom, who survived half a century as a widow by being pickled in gin, plus with the best colostomy bag available, ie not from the NHS.
Then there were Betty’s two first cousins, shamelessly shut away:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon
OTOH, two of the Queen Mother’s brothers served in WWI, one being KIA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_Bowes-Lyon
It wasn’t the only thing known as the ‘royal disease’.
A mainstay, yes, with serious historical consequences, such as hemophilia among Vickie I’s descendants, which contributed to the 1917 Russian Revolution, a huge catastrophe for Russia and the world.
King George V’s brother was so defective and deviant, he has been suspected as Jack the Ripper. His grandparents, Vickie and Al, were first cousins, and his mom and dad, also closely related.
Edward VIII was a perverted Nazi and his youngest brother shut away as too defective to be exhibited. ERII’s dad stammered and she and dwarf sister Margaret were produced via artificial fertilization.
Do you seriously believe in-breeding has had no effect on the UK royal family?
That in-breeding has been a mainstay doesn’t mean it has had no effect. Please see the Wars of the Roses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England
This perhaps most defective of English kings inherited his insanity from his French king grandfather, aided by the close relationship between his French princess mom and (great but short-lived) English king dad.
Note that Henry V’s mom was an English noble woman, not an inbred foreign princess.
Edward III and Philippa of Hainault, HRV’s great grandparents, were second cousins in at least one line, and had some defective kids among their large brood.
If you want to see first cousins marrying, try Bradford, Manchester, Tower Hamlets, Rotherham, Leeds, etc etc.
Abolish the inbred Monarchy and its supporting, special-interest hierarchy, no more titles and the income that comes with them, and sell their “priceless” trinkets and palaces at auction to private entities, and use the annual savings to build EACH YEAR tens of thousands of highly efficient/highly sealed, off-the-grid houses.
Communist Stupidity – don’t sell off the priceless trinkets, just put them in museum’s to collect the gawker tax. Any sell off would just enrich insiders and their cronies; more money to be made in tourism.
Having millions gawking at royal baubles in enlarged museums to collect fees from tourists will do nothing to make the UK (the sick man of Europe) more competitive with the rest of the developing world, such as China and India.
It is way past midnight for the UK to blame self-inflicted woes and non-performance on others.
The UK should start a serious PERESTROIKA
Abolishing the bloated, royal boondoggle would be a first step
Good day HotScot my friend. Best wishes to you and yours as we enter the miracle of Spring.
Charles is a dim-witted elitist who clearly does not give-a-damn about the average British family.
The imbecilic green-energy policies enacted in Britain have driven energy costs so high that manufacturing is leaving and most people could not afford to heat their homes this winter. This was all predicted by competent analysts decades ago. The GWPF has been warning of this policy disaster since 2009. My co-authors and I published clear warnings about the future failure of green energy in 2002, and in 2013 I precisely predicted the current British energy catastrophe, to the year, in an Open Letter to Baroness Verma, Undersecretary of Energy and Climate. Germany also followed the same imbecilic green-energy path with the same disastrous results as Britain.
The two great global Fascist scams of our Age, Climate failed energy polices and Covid toxic “vaccines”, caused the needless deaths of ~172,000 innocent Brits in 2021 and 2022, and this carnage is far from over. Only a mild winter saved Britain from a greater death toll. That’s on YOU, Charles. You were an outspoken supporter of both these global frauds and even gave a major speech in support of Klaus Schwab’s neo-Fascist Great Reset.
Our long term, accurate predictions of this energy catastrophe were not even that difficult – it is basic physics, math and logic – the inability of intermittent, diffuse wind-and-solar generation systems to provide cheap, reliable, dispatchable, abundant power to the grid. You simply “cannot get there from here’. Fantasy solutions like “storage” are not practical either – they are just more wishful nonsense.
None of this carnage was justified. It was all foreseen, the British ruling Class was forewarned decades ago, and still proceeded with the ongoing Great Cull of your population. One can only conclude that the Cull was deliberate – to “thin out the plebs”.
On 30Mar2023 I published my new free online book. Please send it to everyone you know.
COVID & CLIMATE CHRONICLES – THE BIG CULL
I called the Covid-19 Lockdowns and Vaccines scams in Feb2020 and published on 21Mar2020, We called the Climate and Green Energy scams in 2002. All correct!
The newest Chapter is:
AN OPEN LETTER TO KING PRINCE CHARLES ON CORONATION DAY
Your false friends have filled your head with lies that have done enormous harm to humanity and to the Crown.
For those who are British monarchists, I have probably offended many of you. Just be thankful that our beloved, hardworking, dedicated Queen Elizabeth II lived as long as she did. We are now in the reign of mad
KingPrince Charles, and it’s going to be a rough ride.Good evening (in the UK) Allan.
As you know I was a monarchist many years ago but the behaviour of that family in the intervening years has been appalling.
These are the people we send overseas to represent the British Isles and the Commonwealth yet most of them can’t keep their dick’s in their trousers or their hands out peoples pockets.
Any allegiance I had to QE2 finally ended with her comment about covid ‘vaccinations’ and I seem to recall her saying something like “I wish they would just get on with it” about the COP held in Glasgow and the NetZero scam she will never suffer from.
Nor do we need a constitution, we have common law in the UK although we pay about as much regard to it these days as Biden does to the US constitution.
Hi HotScot, we have an upcoming Alberta election, and it will determine whether Alberta will economically survive or fail. And If Alberta fails, Canada fails, because our Alberta energy industry is the mainstay of the Canadian economy,
The decision is between the compromised Conservatives and their new leader Danielle Smith, and the corrupt Leftist NDP led by the uber-corrupt Rachel Notley. The NDP is closely allied with Justin’s federal Liberals who, like both your British federal parties, are subservient to Klaus Schwab’s Fascist WEF. Notley gained power once before and was an economic disaster. This time she is pledging Net Zero by 2035 – economic suicide!
We can expect our traitorous bought media to root for Notley, and a billion or more of foreign money to enter Canada to buy leftist votes.
Here is the latest Chapter of my free book.
COVID & CLIMATE CHRONICLES – THE BIG CULL
OPEN LETTER #2 TO RACHEL NOTLEY, ALBERTA NDP LEADER
– Shame on you Rachel
The Liberals and NDP caused the deaths of 115,000 Canadians to 1May2023, increasing to 145,000 by end 2023, due to harmful Covid-19 Lockdown and Vaccine policies – vs 105,000 Canadian deaths in WW1&2
As Stanley Johnson said on GBNews, he would like to see the UK population fall to 15M, better still 10M. And another time, intimated that flying should only be for the wealthy.
Charles; problem, is that his brain is in two halves. In the left half, nothing is right, and in the right half, there’s nothing left.
Hi Bob,
I was direct and honest in my harsh criticism of Prince Charles – not my King.
I found it difficult to resist the personal attack – I’ve never liked him. He always struck me as a weakling and a person of less-than-average intelligence – easily influenced by scoundrels and quick to embrace the woke idiocies of our age – such as Climate and Covid that have killed and injured many millions around the world.
Again I am resisting the easy, tempting personal attack – the cheap shot – on Prince Charles. Let him stew in his own woke lunacy.
[One of my friends insists on calling him Prince Richard – because he is such a Dick.]
I could never understand how he managed to get a pilot’s licence for helicopters and jets. I don’t trust him either.
I certainly would never fly with Prinney as my pilot.
They probably gave him the pilot’s license as a goodwill gesture, on one condition:
“Sir, you must agree to NEVER actually fly an aircraft!”
Especially, that cockup he made landing at Inverness Airport. He landed the jet with the wind, not into it, and ran out of runway.
My suggestion from across the Pond, but as a descendant of Scottish and English immigrants and graduate of an English univertsity, is to get rid of the dysfunctional Gluecksburg dynasty, but keep the monarchy. Just make it elective. In effect your head of state would be a president, but anointed for life. Most of the Gluecksburgs’ ill-gotten private gains should revert to the Crown.
The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had elective monarchs. Time to revive the wise system which produced Alfred the Great and Aethelstan.
Choosing the monarch would give the House of Lords something to do, now that it is slimmed down and no longer acts as the UK’s supreme court.
On the other hand you can end up with a Joe Biden.
IMO unlikely, given election by Lords.
Eminent scientists, business and labor leaders, generals and even senior bureaucrats are more likely. If Commons voted, then, yes, you might end up with hack politicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mackay_(British_Army_officer)
The inheritance system produced three traitors in a row, ie Charles I, II and III, plus assorted idiots, crooks and crazies.
Or distinguished former Commonwealth governors general.
I disagree – with most marriages introducing an outsider to the Family, that description is untrue. And though Charles is obviously under-educated, he seems to have turned over a new leaf and has stopped interfering in state matters since inheriting the crown. If he tries to recommence that, I suspect he will be swiftly put in his place by those in a position to do it and no longer in reverence of the monarch. Mind, that does pre-suppose that those people are opposed to his rantings, which is a big ask!
The ‘Commonwealth’ is nothing more than a loose association of former colonies and above all the Commonwealth was Brenda’s end of empire thing. And now she’s gone.
“Charles III is not your climate king.”
He’s a very expensive Parliamentary bauble.
“People displaced by wildfires and victims of heat waves throughout the UK “
Utter nonsense. Australia or California the UK ain’t.
“blocks the emergence of something worse”
Blimey. Not a chance. They’re all at it at the UNhinged, anyway.
The bottom line is Elizabeth II should have been the last of them. It would have been a great ending to monarchy – a long reign consisting of duty to the nation.
Do you know, Eric, who was Charles’ spiritual mentor? Laurens van der Post, the South African writer. Van der Post sexually abused a 14-year-old girl who he was given responsibility for during a sea voyage to England. He later abandoned her after he impregnated her. The girl gave birth to a daughter. That’s real spiritual, innit.
I say off with their heads. Even if Charles keeps his half of the bargain with Parliament.
NB
“makes keeping the monarchy intolerable for everyone”
Parliament won’t give up its fig-leaf.
It’s up to the Brits whether to maintain the monarchy, and they clearly want to maintain the monarchy, as expressed in both opinion polls and the voting booth (their elected members of Parliament could end the monarchy at any time – just as their predecessors did in the mid 17th century).
“It’s up to the Brits whether to maintain the monarchy, “
Don’t be daft. That’s just so naive and laughable. Have you any idea how the British state – the Parliamentary dictatorship – works, Duane?
Not so clear. At 55%, support for the monarchy is lowest since 1994, when annual surveys began. It’s negative among younger Britons, but of course that could change as they age.
Charles, Andrew and Harry have heavily damaged the institution. Expect more Commonwealth members, if not yet the UK, to abandon the toxic, corrupt, parasitic, pedophilic Gluecksburg dynasty.
The problem is none of the “republicans” are offering a direct popular vote or electoral college system, the only option on offer is a puppet presidency.
The Brits would face the prospect of President Cameron, President Blair or President Brown.
We would face the prospect of President Keating or President Turnbull or President Rudd.
When you think about having to watch any of these has-beens on the news doing head of state stuff, Charles suddenly doesn’t seem so bad.
There is nothing on offer
Unless you can show a Parliamentary proposal
The likes of an in-the-basement, senile, open borders, trans-loving, “professor” Biden?
We’re going to need royal reparations.
Lords wouldn’t favor ex-PMs.
Spot on, Eric.
They might even import King Justin or Queen Jacinda.
Hard to imagine anything worse.
Except the nomination from the Religion of Peace (who would no doubt be widely supported for political advantage and out of sheer cowardice).
If only we could get sensible and hard working Queen Anne II. A tragedy she wasn’t born first.
I tink it was still the oldest son who inherited the throne, but there are ways around such things.
Doesn’t the example in the Kremlin show that a mad king is to be preferred over a mad president?
Apples and Oranges….
Charles is an instrument of Parliament. It’s a very different setup.
To me a bigger problem is an unelected second chamber, filled with mates of former PMs and, more recently, minor celebrities, children’s TV presenters and a rump of hereditary peers.
So we have a second chamber of appointees and heridatary peers and the House of Commons with a party that received less than 44% of the vote having a majority 80 seats.
A constitutional monarchy as we have is the least of our problems.
Mad as a box of frogs.
Kinky Charlie Chump wants to be reincarnated as a tampon …
In 1993, the British press published the full transcript of a private conversation between then-Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles in which the two had an intimate and sexual exchange. The conversation was notable for a number of reasons, not least of which because it involved the heir to the throne saying that he would like to “live inside [her] trousers” and joking that he would be reincarnated as a tampon, hence the name of the scandal. ‘Tampongate’ ( “Tampongate” actually took place on Dec. 17, 1989,)
To mark his coronation, Charlie Chump is releasing a new single …
‘Tampon Charlie is my name, Tampon sniffing is my game ! ‘
Prince Philip, Prince Charles & Prince Andrew.
Three examples of the British “upper class” inbreeding.
Funny how scum always floats to the top !!
So you disagree with him, and that makes him “mad”? Maybe you are the mad one. He is just a person with a collection of viewpoints on policy matters that he expressed freely as a prince but is no longer allowed by the Constitution to do as the monarch. So far he has kept to that role.
A majority of the world now believes in climate change as a threat, according to ALL of the polls. So you think that makes a majority of the world’s population “mad”? Again, maybe it’s us that don’t believe in man caused climate change who are the mad ones.
Disagreeing on policy is not how anyone should ever define madness. It’s just a difference of opinion. Which is OK, because humans are NEVER going to agree on many things in life – and if one lives in a free country like the USA, having and expressing those opinions is a Constitutional right, and is what we fought and died for in many battles since 1775.
“So you disagree with him, and that makes him “mad”?”
No, I agree he has the intellect to become a tampon.
Most people want to be an engine driver, an airline pilot, a spaceman, a brain surgeon; BUT, the new king of Britain wants to become a tampon … what a tw@ !!!
Charles peddles things that many people find attractive if a they only give them a cursory examination. Things like organic farming, Renewable energy and cutting the use of Fossil Fuel to Zero.
Your claim that “ALL of the polls” show that the world believes climate change is a threat is accurate (true).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/19/concern-about-climate-change-shrinks-globally-as-threat-grows-survey-shows
If you just ask, is Climate change a problem, you will get a lot of agreement.
If you give the people a list of problems, and ask them to rank them, climate change comes in last or nearly last every single time.
If you ask people how much they are willing to sacrifice in order to fight climate change, most people are only willing to give a few dollars.
Get your dictionary and look up the word “Gullible”.
That, coupled with relentless GangGreen agit-prop explains why the majority of the population etc etc.
‘A majority of the world now believes in climate change as a threat, according to ALL of the polls. So you think that makes a majority of the world’s population “mad”?’
If you are using the phrase ‘climate change’ to mean what the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change has perversely redefined it as meaning, i.e. man-made global warming, please consider the following two points:
1: There is no real, verifiable empirical evidence for any man-made global warming whatsoever, let alone for any of the purportedly threatening kind;
2: There is no theory of man-made global warming that makes rational scientific sense and the alarmists’ existing theory of the ‘CO2 control knob’, based on the greenhouse effect, is in conflict with the well-known operating principles of the global water-cycle.
If you believe that the majority of the world believes in a nightmare-fantasy for which there is no empirical or theoretical evidentiary support and which is even at odds with our existing scientific knowledge and understanding of how the water-cycle works, how can you not also believe that the ‘majority of the world’, who you suggest believe in this psychotic delusion, are ‘mad’?
…Story Tip —
Meanwhile Australian Labor/Greens government throws $2billion at “green hydrogen”. Those subsidies are provided courtesy of the fossil fuel industry, that saw record tax receipts to the federal reserve from the 21/22 tax year.
In classic Labor speak the bureaucrats must give this cash splash a name — “Hydrogen Head Start Program”
Thanks to coal oil and gas, Australia can now become a “Hydrogen Superpower” according to the Minister for Energy Poverty, Chris Bowen.
Old mate billionaire Twiggy Forest must be rubbing his hands in glee after this latest example of green/socialist political capitalism from Canberra.
Hydrogen is ‘critical’ to Australia’s future in renewable energy (msn.com)
It’s rather mystifying not why the Brits want to retain the monarchy – and they do, by all opinion polls for the last 100 years … it is that anyone thinks that it matters what the King or Queen thinks or says about anything. Under the UK “constitution”, such as it is, which is not a written document but a collection of historic precedents, only the Parliament makes policy, and most of that is controlled by the elected House of Commons, with only minor involvement by the unelected House of Lords. The monarch only serves as a ceremonial leader, not a decision maker, nor is even allowed to weigh on on their personal opinions on matters of policy. King Charles stated quite clearly on multiple occasions that the policy matters he commented on, including but not limited to climate change, as Prince of Wales would no longer be expressed if/when he became King.
Is there symbolic value to having King Charles weigh in? Possibly, but if he did he would immediately imperil the monarchy and probably push the country into a parliamentary vote to abolish the monarchy – albeit leaving King Charles the Third with his head intact, unlike Charles II.
“leaving King Charles the Third with his head intact”
his head hasn’t been intact for years … needs re-booting with a size 12.
The monarch is protector of the constitution. They have one job – if a democratically elected government ever tries to pass a NAZI style enabling act, and install themselves as dictators, the monarch could call on the army to save the kingdom and restore democracy, in the much the same way the President of the USA could in theory declare a national emergency and rule by decree, if the senate and congress conspired to overthrow the US constitution.
The very real possibility such a call would be heeded is a check on the ambitions of the powerful.
This actually happened once – in Australia in 1975 the royal prerogative was used to overthrow the Whitlam government and force fresh elections, which Whitlam lost.
At the time I clearly remember my dad came home one night, and told us his union leader had called a meeting and told everyone that the top companies were about to be nationalised, and that unions would now run the country – so I fully believe claims that the exercise of the royal prerogative saved Australian from a Cuban style communist dictatorship.
But for this to work, there has to be a level of political tension between the head of state and parliament. A republic in which the president is appointed by parliament at dismissed at will in my opinion would represent a weakening of constitutional protections for ordinary people.
Ruling by decree is similar to uni-party government, which finally came to an end, somewhat, after 2 years
“Well may we say……”
One of Norman Gunston’s best gigs.
And the unions now do run the country !
I think you have a good point, and one that is easily missed. As a Canadian myself, I see constitutional limitations on federal lawmakers as worth having, even if such limits seem imperfect or insufficient at times. As another somewhat limting institution, apart from the monarchy, here where I’m from, talk of dismantling our unelected Senate has generally grabbed attention at times.
However, the Senate is the only mechanism for second guessing whatever Parliament pushes through, even briefly.
“they do”
Say’s who?
They will never ask the people – especially post-Brexit. I suggest you read up on Parliament starting at 1660 and working up to the present day.
You mean Charles I.
The UK cannot get rid of the monarchy; its tourism-based economy would collapse. Its the only reason Americans visit the dismal place.
One reason why I suggest keeping the monarchy but getting rid of the pestilential Gluecksburgs.
The People who Most Support Ditching the Monarchy are Climate Alarmists
Oh, the Irony. Trying to appease these people will only embolden them, and hasten your demise.
The “King”…
This helps explain the climate claims by Charles to stay on the good side of extremists and Parliament members doing the same. The Pope learned that lesson also. Making stupid statements is a fair price to pay for keeping the status quo or deflecting criticism on unrelated issues. It’s all about the price issue and tradeoffs.
Climate stupidity is a low-cost fee for survival and relevancy. It keeps the pitchforks down.
“The People who Most Support Ditching the Monarchy are Climate Alarmists”
Harry being a good example.
So basically, they’ll be rooting for a royalist economic reversion back to the middle ages where the titled elite live off the toil of the serf class in the name of saving the planet. Except this time the non-titled expect not to be relegated to the serf class.
There are 5 monarchies in the top 10 countries by democracy index, and 4 more in the next 10.
I suggest the US gets its own king to advance its democracy. I think Prince Harry is available. Queen Meghan of the US sounds just right.
I don’t want Congress to have as much power as Parliament.
I believe HRH Chuckie 3 has a clear conflict of interest in regards to climate action – correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there rent and fees that go into the “King’s Trust” (used to be Queen’s Trust) from all the wind farms going up, and so lining Charles’ pocket?
No, it is the Crown Estates. Charles picked up 25% of the enormous profits but that now goes to William.
I’d be much more in favour of forgiving and welcoming back Guido Fawkes. Not that I’m a Catholic. Just so long as it isn’t someone from the Religion of Peace.
Reply to Kalishek.
Well, I’m not an alarmist, but I support our ditching the Monarchy as we did back 1776 or so. Getting the well past the need to ditch our Wannabe Monarchs as well.
England ditched its monarch in 1649, not 1776. That was we here in the USA.
Unfortunately, England, hence the UK, returned to hereditary monarchy in 1660. Charles I, rightfully beheaded, his son Charles II and younger son James II, were all traitors and all should have been executed as well.
Regardless of how Britons and Commonwealth members feel about Charles, they, like the rest of the world, consider climate action to be a low-priority item and don’t intend to make any major lifestyle changes to combat it—end of story.
Charles is not that clever despite his degree, he needed help to get it. Also very detached, he went on a tour of the UK to promote climate change and being conscious of previous criticism he took the train instead of his gas guzzling Aston Martin or the Royal plane. Only issue was it was the Royal Train, so he travelled with some hangers on in a 5 carriage diesel powered train. That was him thinking green !!!
It’s even more cynical than that.
Matthew J L Ehret wrote an interesting piece covering the Crown Estates.
Upshot: since CE owns ~1/2 the coastline and the seabed, who ultimately draws the rent from all these offshore wind farms?
The Head of State might be a dimbulb, but he’s not stupid.