Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?

24 July 2010

James Delingpole says You Know It Makes Sense

Her dismal heir, on the other hand, seems determined to rule over us like 1649 never happened, sowing division and contention among his subjects before his reign has even begun with his shrill, half-baked views on everything from modern architecture and GM food to homeopathic medicine and climate change. Some of these opinions you may agree with, but then even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. And the point, anyway, is that we shouldn’t be placed in a position where we have to take a view on what Prince Charles thinks. (Or what his sinister puppet masters tell him to think he thinks.) He’s supposed to be above creating such petty factionalism. Did his Cambridge tutors not explain to him why it was that we cut off his Mk I predecessor’s head?

I might have a scintilla more respect for Prince Charles’s, er, bold, refreshing outspokenness if he were to subject his ill-digested opinions to the crucible of open debate. But of course he never would because he’s way too grand and because anyway he’d get eaten alive. I’ll explain exactly why he’d get eaten alive in a future column. Suffice to say that the kind of neo-Malthusianism to which Prince Charles has become prey — no doubt with much input from deep green fanatics like the Hon Sir Jonathon ‘Wormtongue’ Porritt, who may or may not have written that truly appalling St James’s Palace speech — appears terribly convincing on the level of gut feeling but is entirely confounded by the last 2,000 years of history.

No, it is not climate change sceptics who, as Charles would have it, are playing ‘Russian roulette with the future of our children’. The real danger are those neo-Malthusian loons who, on no scientific basis, are planning to deny our children the economic growth which would bring them jobs, security, material comfort and happiness. Yes, ‘Sir’, as I believe I’m meant to call you. I mean you, you great princely prat!

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

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