- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,616
- 56,252
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
By recklessly tying the Crown to progressive issues, Charles erodes the neutrality on which his constitutional role rests.
The pillars of the British state are not the bastions of conservatism they used to be. The Church of England, flagellating itself over its “links with slavery,” bends the knee to the gospel of BLM. The headmaster of Eton College—which educated 20 of our prime ministers—declares himself “woke.” Judges still don their robes and wigs, but now they spout the dogmas of critical race theory. Britain’s Civil Servants, once known for stiff-upper-lipped efficiency, fritter away their time in endless diversity lectures. And presiding over all this is a so-called Conservative Party that has allowed UK immigration, both legal and illegal, to reach extraordinary new highs. So total has Britain’s cultural revolution been that it “has emptied every symbol of its former nature so that nothing is any longer what it claims to be,” as Peter Hitchens, its foremost chronicler, wearily concludes.
Nowhere is this grim reality starker than in the figure of King Charles III. Earlier this month, King Charles addressed the annual COP28 climate-change conference in Dubai, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (the world’s climate clerics, it seems, do not see the contradiction in piously jetting off to the gulf petrostate to spread their gospel of decarbonisation). Charles has long been obsessed with environmentalism, having addressed COP26 in Glasgow back in 2021, while still Prince of Wales. But now that he is Britain’s constitutional monarch, he is obliged to be politically neutral, following the example set by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, throughout her long, stoic reign. “Me, meddle as King,”he assured the BBC in 2018, “I’m not that stupid.”
Charles’s speech, however, was rather more than meddling. He called for trillions of dollars to be poured into attempts to transform the global economy in order to reach Net Zero carbon emissions. And, to gin up support for the cause, his speech was suffused with climate apocalypticism, the ever-favoured alarmist motif of green elites. Attributing various recent extreme weather events to climate change, he called the burning of fossil fuels a “frightening experiment” that is taking the world into “dangerous, uncharted territory.” The “hope of the world,” he said, rested in COP28, lest we face a “starker and darker” future.
There can be no doubt that the King’s speech was a political intervention. The global liberal press certainly seemed to acknowledge it as such: the Guardian hailed it as a “call to arms;” the New York Times praised Charles’ “evangelical urgency;” and for Politico Europe, it was a “rallying cry.” After all, the climate-change agenda is quite clearly political. The quest for Net Zero would see the world abandon the fossil fuels which account for over 80% of the world’s energy, choosing instead to embrace unreliable, expensive renewables. This would have enormous implications for the economy, for industry, and for people’s standard of living. Climate rationing—deemed necessary to achieve Net Zero will mean eating less meat, travelling less, and generally being colder and poorer. There are people up and down Britain who are far from on board with this agenda for eco-austerity, even if they have scant representation in the Westminster uniparty. By recklessly tying the Crown to this contentious issue, Charles erodes the ground of neutrality on which his constitutional role rests.
Continued below.
europeanconservative.com
The pillars of the British state are not the bastions of conservatism they used to be. The Church of England, flagellating itself over its “links with slavery,” bends the knee to the gospel of BLM. The headmaster of Eton College—which educated 20 of our prime ministers—declares himself “woke.” Judges still don their robes and wigs, but now they spout the dogmas of critical race theory. Britain’s Civil Servants, once known for stiff-upper-lipped efficiency, fritter away their time in endless diversity lectures. And presiding over all this is a so-called Conservative Party that has allowed UK immigration, both legal and illegal, to reach extraordinary new highs. So total has Britain’s cultural revolution been that it “has emptied every symbol of its former nature so that nothing is any longer what it claims to be,” as Peter Hitchens, its foremost chronicler, wearily concludes.
Nowhere is this grim reality starker than in the figure of King Charles III. Earlier this month, King Charles addressed the annual COP28 climate-change conference in Dubai, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (the world’s climate clerics, it seems, do not see the contradiction in piously jetting off to the gulf petrostate to spread their gospel of decarbonisation). Charles has long been obsessed with environmentalism, having addressed COP26 in Glasgow back in 2021, while still Prince of Wales. But now that he is Britain’s constitutional monarch, he is obliged to be politically neutral, following the example set by his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, throughout her long, stoic reign. “Me, meddle as King,”he assured the BBC in 2018, “I’m not that stupid.”
Charles’s speech, however, was rather more than meddling. He called for trillions of dollars to be poured into attempts to transform the global economy in order to reach Net Zero carbon emissions. And, to gin up support for the cause, his speech was suffused with climate apocalypticism, the ever-favoured alarmist motif of green elites. Attributing various recent extreme weather events to climate change, he called the burning of fossil fuels a “frightening experiment” that is taking the world into “dangerous, uncharted territory.” The “hope of the world,” he said, rested in COP28, lest we face a “starker and darker” future.
There can be no doubt that the King’s speech was a political intervention. The global liberal press certainly seemed to acknowledge it as such: the Guardian hailed it as a “call to arms;” the New York Times praised Charles’ “evangelical urgency;” and for Politico Europe, it was a “rallying cry.” After all, the climate-change agenda is quite clearly political. The quest for Net Zero would see the world abandon the fossil fuels which account for over 80% of the world’s energy, choosing instead to embrace unreliable, expensive renewables. This would have enormous implications for the economy, for industry, and for people’s standard of living. Climate rationing—deemed necessary to achieve Net Zero will mean eating less meat, travelling less, and generally being colder and poorer. There are people up and down Britain who are far from on board with this agenda for eco-austerity, even if they have scant representation in the Westminster uniparty. By recklessly tying the Crown to this contentious issue, Charles erodes the ground of neutrality on which his constitutional role rests.
Continued below.
An Activist King is Bad for Britain
By recklessly tying the Crown to progressive issues, Charles erodes the neutrality on which his constitutional role rests.
europeanconservative.com
