Amid all the speculation over an event that is inevitable, as “no-one can slow the passage of time”, perhaps a more fruitful (and respectful) enquiry might be into the role and qualities of the Head of State of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
Firstly, a comment on the speculation. Any household that has suffered a bereavement knows that divulging the news and dealing with the reaction of others is an exhausting task. People do not limit themselves to expressing sympathy but demand that you mourn with them, right here, right now. When perhaps you’ve already spent hours doing that and have just managed to pull yourself together sufficiently to phone, it’s simply selfish of them to try to pull you apart.
When the head of the household dies, there are also all the extra legalities. Now scale up that experience from a household to a state, remembering the public hysteria over Princess Diana, considering the past two years of restrictions on public assembly and the general mental health of the populations subject to this monarchy and you can begin to have some idea of the problem.
So let me state clearly, that if the public actions of the royals and dissemination of news about them seems scripted, I don’t blame them. Every family deserves privacy and there are reasons of state for news about this one to be carefully controlled.
Respectfully, therefore, let us as a second consideration acknowledge that the heir presumptive to these 4 thrones (which are not, technically, one, in the way that applies to the UK, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories) is the present Prince of Wales and ask: if Charles is to be king, what kind of king will he be?
Let’s get all the slurs out the way, otherwise they’ll hamper us. In order of barking madness (starting from guano and moving up to bovine manure) they are that Charles & co. are:
- shape-shifting reptile aliens
- baby blood-drinking vampires
- murderous eugenicists
I’m not going to waste energy on the first three, I don’t believe in guilt by association, I do believe in the rule of law and, as for the last, yes, Charles could certainly keep better company.
Why doesn’t he?
I could be wrong (I’ve never met or spoken to him) but Charles, in his own archaic, elitist and paternal way, appears to believe he’s doing the right thing. I don’t think that can be said for Klaus Schwab or any of the trillionaires funding Big Pharma or Big Data—including those under cover of Big Philanthropy.
What I do know about Charles, and this is from people who have witnessed his support and participation in local projects, is that he comes across as genuinely interested in the kind of thing that is generally nowadays named (by secularist mistranslation of Aristotle) as “human flourishing”.
So why is he supporting those who want to kill us off like weeds? I have 4 hypotheses:
- 1. I’m wrong about that list.
- 2. He’s being blackmailed because of his brother.
- 3. He’s stupidly naive.
- 4. He thinks he can harness rapacious commercial interests for the good of the planet while controlling their worst excesses.
At the moment, I’m prepared to believe a combination of the last two, because the evidence of just how much misinformation, wishful thinking, misguided policy and downright evil people can continue to deny is all around us.
Charles is a great believer in Public Private Partnership projects of cultural and environmental regeneration. From Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the Gaelic college on the Isle of Skye, (£??M) to the Eden Project, the eco-centre in Cornwall, (£134M) he has been specifically supportive of, or directly involved in, combining corporate and public money for creative projects. That do benefit the local community and do do what they set out to do.
So what’s the catch? Well, PPP is problematic because public spending is so wasteful and disorganised whereas corporate funding is so self-interested and predatory. Managed extremely well, it can work but the required skill set is basically that of an ambitious Renaissance magician conjuring demons and trying to control them.
Heard of Faust?
Many who are awake have highlighted in alarm the militarism and clear call for unelected global governance in a section of Charles’ speech at the opening of COP26 when he called for:
a war-like footing … a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at its disposal—far beyond global G.D.P. and, with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders—it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.
This is to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. (Presumably he meant global warming which, presumably, is actually happening.) However, there is a later COP26 speech of his, to the chief negotiators, that I believe contains the key to Charles’ patrician mentality:
I remember going to the Amazon in 1992 and managing to create a gathering on the old Royal Britannia in the Amazon, with the then President of Brazil, just before the Rio summit, the first one.
“Managing” and “gathering” tell us all we need to know. This is someone with the power to persuade the president of a country of 127 million people (then) to come to an unofficial meeting organised by royal fiat, with no oversight or accountability, on a superyacht, in the middle of the Amazon.
Charles may genuinely wish to save this sick world but he doesn’t live in it, and his Boy Scout attitude to big business may mean that, under the unelected global military dictatorship he’s (perhaps) naively seeking to install, the disease is a hell of a lot less deadly than the cure.
Thanks to Dawn Hudson who has released her image Crown into the Public Domain.