Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?

24 July 2010

James Delingpole says You Know It Makes Sense

I do wish the Prince of Wales weren’t such a terrible prat because then I wouldn’t have to say it in print and quite ruin my chances of a knighthood. But he is a prat. A dangerous prat at that — as he reminded us yet again just the other day in a speech he gave to ‘business leaders’ at St James’s Palace about what he thinks is happening with ‘climate change’.

He said: ‘It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are apparently able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse. For too long we have treated the planet like a perpetual cash machine which doles out money without there ever being any need to check the bank balance. But now finally the money is running out.’

There are so many idiocies, false assumptions, inversions of the truth and malevolent yearnings in just that one paragraph that I’m not sure where to begin. The phrase ‘so-called climate sceptics’, for example. What exactly is the Prince suggesting that the rational, decent empiricists who oppose global climate change alarmism ought to be called instead? Is ‘deniers’ perhaps the word he’s straining for? Or would he prefer something a little more robust? Untermenschen, maybe.

And these ‘all sorts of people’ who have been intimidated, surely he can’t mean those corrupt, mendacious, bullying scientists who were exposed in the Climategate emails breaching FOI laws, fantasising about beating up their opponents, conspiring to smear scientists who disagreed with them and to close down journals which published their work. Sounds like those thugs are quite capable of looking after themselves, not to mention their generous grant funding.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: James Delingpole | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Tim Hedges

July 22nd, 2010 4:37pm Report this comment

Prince Charles is within his constitutional rights and duties, though I disagree with him, too. Of course the only way to shut him up is for his mother to abdicate and then he will be constitutionally bound to silence.

Herbert Thornton

July 29th, 2010 6:20am Report this comment

Tim - I doubt very much that the monarch is "constitutionally bound to silence". I don't believe that there is any law that binds the monarch to silence, nor is there any formal way - other than political pressure - to compel the monarch to be silent.

There is, I believe a "convention" about how our monarchs behave but it amounts to no more than an expectation and when it comes to expectations about behaviour, Charles has a clear history of ignoring them - as his cynical and insincere wedding service promise about "forsaking all other" demonstrated.

I doubt very much that Charles will ever change his character any more than can a leopard in order to become what might be called spotless.

Reader

July 29th, 2010 6:39pm Report this comment

Rocket science.

John Richardson

July 31st, 2010 12:03am Report this comment

Oh, if only what you say about The Queen were true.....

Unfortunately, the truth is rather depressing.

When our Law, Common Law, was supplanted by the alien and twisted UCHR, where was our Head of State ?

When the country was illegally given away under Lisbon, our Head of State deserted us to secure her family's future role.
Not even pretending to want us to have a say; the promised referendum.
Thanks.
The Common People have never wavered in their affection for, and loyalty to, The House of Windsor. Despite years of provocation and disappointment.

They deserved better.

They were betrayed.

What is any constitutional monarchy for if not to attempt to preserve the Law ? The Settlement ? The Nation ?

She has failed us terribly and totally.
If she even tried to resist the foreign globalist forces set against us then it was kept an air-tight secret.
She did not try, did she ?
Treachery against the (once her) People.

I know it's unpleasant, but it's true.

Tell me I'm wrong.

maddy1

August 5th, 2010 6:34am Report this comment

In a negative sense, like Gordon Brown, you could argue Prince Charles is a natural and ideal figure to represent the UK. Indeed he is what we deserve!

Post comment