Main Edition
US
FR
A great Carolean restoration is needed (Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)
When, in the early years of her reign, Queen Elizabeth II first met Europe’s last true monarch, Charles de Gaulle, and asked for his advice on leadership, the great statesman advised her: “In the place where God has placed you, be who you are, Madam. I mean be that person around whom, thanks to your legitimacy, everything in your kingdom is organised, around whom your people see their patrie and whose presence and dignity contribute to national unity.”
It was her fate to preside over perhaps the fastest and most dramatic decline of any nation’s wealth and power in recorded history, a bitter function she fulfilled with compassion, quiet dignity, and a sincere Christian devotion to her duty. She oversaw the creation of 21st-century Britain, and if she felt the same ambivalence over the results that we all do, she kept it to herself. Through it all, she kept a fractious nation united in turbulent times, the one calm and steady certainty we have all known through lives of constant, and unsettling change.
Listening to the BBC radio news reporting her last great task of state, the appointment at Balmoral of Liz Truss as Prime Minister, I noticed that our state broadcaster made a point of explicitly recording that the nation had undergone yet one more smooth transition of power. Not every nation is blessed with such orderly transitions: no wonder the reaction from quarters of less happy realms, where such peaceful continuity can only be dreamed of, has at times been as bitter and jealous as we have seen. A nation is a family writ large. As Orwell wrote, Britain is “a family in which the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts. Still, it is a family. It has its private language and its common memories, and at the approach of an enemy it closes its ranks.” And as at any time of loss and change, it is in moments like this we are shown who mourns with us, and who does not, who our family and friends are, and who they are not.
For these are solemn mysteries, not readily understood by other tribes. Anyone who meets a member of the Royal Family remembers the occasion for the rest of their lives. The encounter is shared, brought out in conversation over decades. And in the same way, anyone who has lost a parent will feel a part of themselves sharing this moment of our King’s loss: witnessing the Royal Family’s grief we remember our own loss, an entire nation joined in a collective act of remembrance and contemplation. For as the Austrian political theorist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote: “a monarchy involves all the troubles, problems and joys of family life, on a large and public scale.”
My mother was born in London, two years into our late Queen’s reign, to a family of strong Irish republican sympathies with little love for the Royal Family. Yet even so, the collective rituals of our state, embodied in the Royal Family, would come to envelop her, as she lived and died under one Queen’s long reign. Just as we all remember that strange, disordered time, I remember, as a callow and cynical teenager, my late mother respectfully attending the crowds that watched Diana’s cortege pass down the M1 motorway through Hertfordshire towards London and her funeral. The collective act of sympathy and commemoration that reinforces the nation as a unit had brought her too, with no inherited links of blood or sentiment, within the British family fold.
And in the same way, this liminal moment of transition from one way of life to another will live on in my own family story, just as it will in yours or in any other British family’s. On Thursday evening, I went to pick up my eldest son from Scouts just after the news broke; we strolled along the harbourside to get fish and chips from a chippy where the radio played national anthem and we heard the Prime Minister paying her respects. At six years old, he will remember this moment for the rest of his life: what he was doing, what we said, what we ate together sitting, as we never do, in front of the television, watching the state broadcaster like every other British household. In such a way are nations strengthened and maintained as a collective body by the family unit around whom our state’s rituals revolve.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis seems extraordinarily naive and – no matter how worthy a monarch’s personal interests and concerns – who would wish for this? The author 1. doesn’t seem to understand Constitutional Monarchy, 2. Doesn’t seem to appreciate exactly why Elizabeth II was such a popular and successful queen 3. Seems to be oblivious to the fact that environmentalism and climate science are political 4. quotes a Chinese saying that is remarkably similar to the profoundly undemocratic idea of ‘never letting a good crisis go to waste’ 5. Seems not to have heard of The Great Reset and Charles’s connections to the WEF and Davos.
Personally I hope that Charles is as good as his word in his address to the nation on Friday and hands over his activism to others.
“The mythic power …” This is a strange phenomenon that’s suddenly begun to appear in the media. Suddenly attributing things to the monarchy that were never spoken of a week ago. I cannot understand someone seriously thinking this is possible. Why must he be able to exert his influence over anyone else? Does he know more than anyone else? Charles is likely a very intelligent individual with a very unusual upbringing and unusual access to power. But his ideas, so far, are very idealistic. I think he has even suggested over the last few days that he will be stepping back from this sort of public/personal politics. So, yes, an incredibly naive article.
He emphasised that God will guide him, so he can pass on the blame when it all goes wrong.
I’ve enjoyed 22 years of mystic autocratic rule over my three sons…but I don’t take it beyond that..unless you shit me…
Mr. Brett H, I quote you, “Does he know more than anyone else? Charles is likely a very intelligent individual with a very unusual upbringing and unusual access to power. But his ideas, so far, are very idealistic. ” I wonder if the people who run for office and then do what politicians do to scramble up the political ladder have qualifications that come anywhere close to King Charles’. Very few politicians come anywhere close to the qualifications needed in any democratic country. Yet, they make extremely serious decisions that never seem to hit the mark. I wonder why?
Agree, I almost always like Aris’ articles but this one seems so wrong. The King can’t be taking sides on issues of the day (even if I agree with him on nearly everything). Fortunately, he knows that and said in his speech that he will be leaving advocacy to others.
“As he wrote: “I wonder if we might see wisdom in the Chinese word for ‘crisis’, which also means ‘opportunity’?”
I hope he didn’t write that. The Chinese word for crisis is weiji, which just means crisis. The two characters which make up the word are wei which means danger, and ji, which means ‘a crucial point, a turning point, an occasion, opportunity’. I hope King Charles recognises a crisis as dangerous, as well as a chance for change.
Agreed on all counts. It is rare that I find myself in such total disagreement with any article appearing here.
Deleted by Author
Yes, the environment is political but it can also very persuasively be argued that it transcends politics. The “ecosphere” is much, much bigger than us, and any pig-headed refusal to acknowledge this is at our peril. Extinction is a very real possibility, and we won’t be the first … I’m not an authority on WEF or Davos, but I think I can safely say that King Charles is very much an advocate of localism, which sort of militates against any conspiracist-fuelled theories about global domination by a tiny elite.
“Extinction is a very real possibility”
Only if the likes of Charles have their delusional way.
I’m afraid that one cannot argue that the environment transcends politics, because politics is surely the means by which a democracy arrives at a policy to be pursued without resorting to force. Only if everyone agrees to a policy can politics be transcended. Fighting a war tends to qualify (although a small number of nations including this one allow the right of conscientious objection), but I cannot discern that there is yet universal agreement that the climate is at risk, let alone a policy to halt it, complicated by the fact that King Charles does not ‘rule’ in a country with enough emissions to make a difference.
There are some autocracies, not to mention powerful autocracies at that, which are very much in favour of pursuing environmental policies. What hard evidence do you have that there is no universal agreement that the climate is at risk? And isn’t a consensus enough? I mean isn’t that what democracy is about, consensus? I think I would sooner take my cue from David Attenborough. What is it in your background or area of specialisation which qualifies you to speak with such conviction on the matter of environmentalism? Could you corroborate your claims with some hard evidence?
There is an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that climate change is a very real and very urgent matter. There will never be universal agreement on an issue which is as politically loaded as the environment. But the climate issue, not to mention over-fishing of the seas, and so on, could ultimately could overwhelm humanity as a whole, and in that sense it is totally and utterly transcendent.
Wow..chick’s are really cooked huh? Why isn’t it always females who fall for this guff?
Well said. The cynics have no idea about why our organic constitution is stronger than a written constitution. It has a firm core but can move around it within boundaries. This is how ancient buildings in Japan survive earthquakes. I’m sure Charles will not be autocratic. But I for one am pleased there will be someone with his sights further ahead than the next election talking through the day to day decisions of the executive…
“ … our organic constitution”
What exactly is that?
It evolved, was not written down in a document and significantly depends on convention (although parts are written in Acts of Parliament).
Such nonsense. Overwhelm humanity as a whole. What exactly does that mean?
Assuming for the sake of argument that we accept this, the issue still becomes political as soon as you raise the obvious question “what are we going to do about it?”.
Actually climate science is far from a settled matter.. you might find this a useful starting point – nice summary from Peterson recently published in the telegraph but you can read here without paywall: https://archive.ph/kZFkz
He cites Bjorn Lomborg, Marian Tupy, Matt Ridley.
You might also find that subscribing to the Daily Sceptic and reading Chris Morrison’s updates on climate science might give you a different perspective.
This is also an interesting and important antidote to widespread hysteria that opened my eyes. I’d recommend:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691
I didn’t bother quoting science anymore…They don’t care about the science..it’s just a feeling they get in their waters..
You’ve cited three serious authors/researchers who are climate skeptics to one degree or another. (Lomborg has come around to a lukewarmist position, which is about where I am.) I respect them all, and two of them have prominent roles in my (also serious) book, Fewer, Richer, Greener.
But there are many outright science deniers who think that the whole global warming scenario is a scam or lie, designed to give more power to somebody – the Davos or Bilderberg crowd, the Democratic Party, the Illuminati, or whatever. They are completely full of s*** and an impediment to actually doing something about climate.
“They are completely full of s*** “
Always a compelling argument.
If you pay me my princely hourly rates I will write an article saying why climate-scam conspiracists are full of s***, and if you pay double my rates I will leave out vulgarity.
The downvoted here show the level of intellect on unherd. It’s tribal I think. I mean you expressed the lukewarm position (which is mine) and still the guys with Ds in O level maths are downvoting.
Chill out Mr Bhoto, it’s only disagreement.
it’s certainly true that there are large uncertainties. unfortunately almost all of them are potential further downsides. orthodox Green thinking – unfortunately espoused by the new king – has all the wrong answers (pssst – nuclear!). That doesn’t mean the diagnosis is wrong. As for Peterson… I was with him in his original stand against enforced speech. But here, as far too often, his argument is all ad hominem. Why? Well I know he’s a psychologist so in a sense everything is ad hominem for him. But also: he hasnt actually bothered to immerse himself in the numbers. He had a couple of useful points a while back and since then has been in massive overstretch.
Peterson has served on a UN panel reporting on sustainable development. While no expert, he is well read on global economic matters. That doesn’t mean he’s always right, but he’s not just an outspoken psychologist.
Oh and Lomborg, btw, is a kind of Lego modeller – or “Gaussian Slave”, as its known in the business. his numbers have lots of incremental progressions and smooth curves… as if the whole world were Denmark! he seems not to understand the entire opus of people like Danny Kahneman and Nasim Taleb over the last 20 years – what really constitutes responsible decision making under high uncertainty. ironically, Lomborg’s approach to modeling is exactly what Peterson takes to task in his article. one sign Peterson was in a hurry to get to the culture wars again.
David Attenborough was not a scientist. He was a biologist and a broadcaster. He was repeating what he heard. As you are.
One does not need an advanced degree in any scientific sphere to realize that our climate has been changing for eons and will continue to change regardless of what energy source is used on the spec of dust that we call home. In addition, mankind cannot change the earth’s tilt, the movement of the tectonic plates, volcanic activity, solar flares or even the trajectories of meteors, which hurtle through the known universe. Thinking otherwise is simply hubris.
To drastically change how humans live life on earth in order to change the earth’s climate a million years from now is nothing more than a form of insanity.
You ask for evidence but supply none yourself! Do you mean perhaps China, which is currently building an enormous fleet of coal fired power stations, utterly dwarfing any reduction in emissions of the UK. It will certainly continue to put its economic interests first
https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/thegreatreset
Not sure what part of this is a conspiracy theory? Looks like he’s interested in a bit more than encouraging the preservation of dry stone walls to me…
As Louise already suggested, the conspiracy theory part comes in when folk seem to think theGreatReset & other WEF/Davos initiatives related to plans for “global domination by a tiny elite.” Not saying you yourself think that, but some seem to. The partly reassuring / partly sad reality re the Davos crowd is for all their power & influence, they’re no better at understanding the world than many of us BTL commentators.
Let me tell you why Im quite sure of that. Back in Jan 2015, Ed Balls invited me to a small event at the FT to launch his Commission on Inclusive Prosperity. Only about 50 people were there, near half of them big name WEF types who stopped off in London on their way to Davos. It’s one thing that their plan for inclusive prosperity ran off the rails just a couple of months later (When the Eds lost the 2015 GE, & even more so when Hilary lost to the Donald). But its another that even the top Davos folk had so many gaps in their knowledge looking back. I spoke to several of them (Larry Summers, Glen Hutchins, Neera Tanden etc) after the presentation & several didnt even know about relevant research that been posted on related topics in their Wikipedia articles. The world is now too complex for even the top elites to fully grasp – like in Mary Harrington’s “Do we need Caesar Elon Musk” it’s probably more correct to say global society is now governed by a huge swarm. To give a specific example of where conspiracy theory comes into it, conservative / libertarian parts of said swarm picked up on a WEF 2016 post saying “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy” – which was intended to describe a possible future scenario – and instead convinced themselves it reflected evil plan to steal much cherished property from rightful owners.
Anyway, even King Charles probably wont have much influence on said Swarm, but he may be able to help parts of Great Britain retain some life enhancing traditions, and theres a tiny chance any influence on policy might make the difference between certain climate tipping points being tripped. Assuming we get nuclear fusion or some other breakthrough that lets us reduce GHG levels without the economic disruption your man Jordan Peterson is so concerned about.
No, extinction is not a very real possibility. That is nonsense and nothing in the IPCC reports justifies it. No wonder we are traumatising our kids!. We have problems, we have always had problems, and we always will. We will overcome them using rational thought, evidence and science, not mumbo-jumbo.
The concept of ‘sustainability’ is utterly dubious, as David Deutsch argues. Increasing understanding of many traditional peoples, including the native Americans, shows that they engaged in massive transformation of their environments. As with all human beings, they were clever and inventive, and got some things right but others wrong, including in all likelihood driving scores of large mammal species to extinction.
Exactly; the author’s call for “hope that he will play a more active role in governance than his mother felt her due” shows nothing so much as his complete lack of understanding of the correctness of her wise choice to not utilize her formal powers – a choice whose intelligence is shown by the quiet homage being shown to her in the streets all over the country.
Then again, that sort of thinking is typical of progressives, who, in pursuit of their goals, are happy to seize any node of power they can – not understanding the lasting damage that will be caused in the long run, not just by their goals, but by the means they are willing to adopt to advance them.
Charles is mourning his mother and assuming the burden of the monarchy. In normal times, a sense of civil decorum and common courtesy should prevent anyone of conscience from voicing strong criticism.
But these are not normal times, indeed we are at an extremely dangerous moment in world history. Charles is an entitled, low IQ, anti-democratic fool who should be given no further opportunity to influence the future direction of this country, or to collaborate with like-minded globalist idiots in the WEF, IPCC, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission or elsewhere.
Aris Roussinos has written some impressive articles for Unherd. This is not one of them.
Ah, so these very abnormal times permit you to describe someone as a low-IQ, entitled, anti-democratic fool simply because you don’t share the same views! Nice!
Well you speak for yourself..his coronation has inspired me to dispose of all my motored engines, my 100 head herd of limousine cattle and I’m enjoying my life very much weaving baskets and living of cockroaches…thankyou
I wish him good luck, but I hope he saves his opinions for his plants.
I totally agree with his sentiments. I for one dearly hope Camilla is removed from her post and he replaces Greta as queen consort of the kingdom of Howdareustan!
Britain was built on entrepreneurship, individualism and sheer grit to get things done.
Then after WW2 along came the big State and its been downhill ever since with a brief interlude with Maggie.
Our new King will be a success and hopefully can emulate his Mother’s great reign but please remember he is not elected by the people in our great democracy.
We are not going to put this Country right by building up state institutions, we have to go back from whence we came .. the small state & individual freedom
No the “divine right of Kings” was ended by our civil war in 1649 and the strength of our current system is that the Head of State is above politics which must be left to the elected Government. He can advise or warn but must make sure it is private or he will be seen as political.
Again why do journalists always come out with ” a British state in sharp and calamitous decline” when in reality the country is in a state of change which has possibilities for a new collaboration with other countries independent of whether the Monarchy is their Head of State.
“Again why do journalists always come out with ” a British state in sharp and calamitous decline”
Like politicians they are narcissistic and out of touch with the world they write about. The world they write about they don’t live in and don’t believe in. “Calamitous decline”: that’s just business as usual.
Very well said. In what way is the UK in calamitous decline? We have reverted in the last hundred years from a world powerful empire to a small but successful island kingdom, our natural place in the world. We are inclined to grumble and mutter, but still we are one of the most prosperous nations in the world, peaceful, friendly, socially mostly settled, and generally well educated and read.
Not without problems, as nothing living is without problems but they are minor in the context of our true standing and happiness.
The last thing we need is an unelected old man, with inherited wealth beyond belief and a banal, mediocre brain, who needs a servant to help him get dressed, interfering in our democracy.
Just carry on doing your duty please, King Charles, and stick to smiling and waving.
You’ll get lots of down votes from all the Monarchists on this site.
Thing is, I’m not anti-monarchy. The Queen has done a great job, and I hope Charles can continue in the same vein – never complaining, never explaining. And certainly never over-reaching in his duties.
So why the vulgar and untruthful abuse?
What’s untrue? He is old, he’s unelected, he inherited astonishing riches, and he has a butler to dress him. All these things are surely the objective truth? Perhaps you think it’s unfair to describe a man, who, with the benefit of the best education a person can buy, scraped two A levels at lowly grades, as possessing a “mediocre brain”?
a claim that can probably be made of our last PM
Wrong. Mr. Johnson got a perfectly respectable 2nd in Greats.
Presumably it’s the valet who dresses him. The butler is the organizer or boss of all the domestic help, including the valet. In a small household one person may do all the roles, but probably not in Buckingham Palace.
Being unelected is a strength. It means no taint of party politics in the actions of our head of state. It means, if there is a controversy involving the King, half the population won’t be blaming the other half for voting for him.
It’s not as if elected heads of state have a great record of success around the world.
His age he can not deny but he is in good shape. His unelected status coms with the job, and puts him above politics. He is rich but so are lots of people and that is not as important as character where he seems fine to me. Butlers do not dress people, valets do and I don’t suppose you have any insight into HM’s dressing arrangements – except for formal occasions when uniforms and decorations and all that takes much work and sorting. And like quite a lot of people he was not good at exams, but he shows every sign of good intelligence, and a business brain, and an understanding of people.
No thank you.
Do these instincts you claim that Charles has including his prediction that we had a limited time to save the planet from destruction with all the dates long gone and we are still here. As defender of the faiths why doesn’t he speak out about the rape gangs and all the increasing murders?
“….a British state in sharp and calamitous decline,..”? Only if one judges a nation’s status on its empire or its armed forces. (I believe we have decreased the latter too much, due to the normal parsimony of British governments and an illusory ‘peace dividend’ from 1990, but I’m thankful we are no longer responsible for the security of states scattered around the world, although I’m not sure that their inhabitants are the better for it.)
In the past, I remember great cold, such as when getting out of bed in winter, or shivering in front of an open coal fire in the evening. There was little central heating, and many houses lacked internal lavatories. The government had serious worries about nutrition and embarked on unusual schemes to increase supplies. No one could have imagined the supermarket of today. There were smoky cities, with streets lined with pubs, out of which tottered inebriated men. But I remember also green fields long since covered in housing. I remember numerous swallows and bats in our garden where now there are none. I remember that a lone policeman was often to be seen on his beat, looking and listening, giving a reassurance of safety to the streets, and they’d actually turn up if a crime were reported. The BBC had a world-wide reputation for impartiality, and yet successfully lobbied against any competition. And I think people were no less happy then than today, despite the improvements.
Decline? Only if one makes comparisons with earlier times or with other countries on a highly selective basis.
A key imperative mission for Royal Household staff, must be to prevent their charges from being Naively “hi jacked and kidnapped” by the National Socialist woke fifth column over global warming, racism and LGBT, for whom they are soft target easy prey…
What on earth is wrong with all these commentators and journalists bigging up their fantasy that Britain is divided, on the verge of breaking up and in some unfixable crisis ?
Do they have no sense of historical perspective ? And no real grip on reality ?
Are things really worse today than they were in 1940 ? Or the 1970s ? Or the early 1980s ? Is Britain actually more “divided” and less well off ?
When will these people (tones of it in this article, endemic in the papers and BBC) desist from trying to shoehorn whatever agenda/narrative they wish to push onto everything ? It’s beyind tiresome now.
For what it’s worth, I’d put the chance of even holding a new Scottish independence referendum (currently illegal remember without UK parliamentary and sovereign approval) even lower than it already was. Does anyone now seriously believe that could happen in October next year ? Or that it is even a priority right now ?
I like the monarchy and don’t dislike King Charles, but I’ll respect his views on the environment when he gives up flying in private jets and riding in big expensive cars. Same goes for all the other Green hypocrites, not least the flyers and drivers to that disgusting trougher-fest COP 16.
Every Green is a hypocrite, just like every Socialist. Not one practises what they preach.
Thanks so much for this. I could never have imagined such an inspiring start to the week, even from Unherd. God save the King!
Guess Aris got the gig on the back of this. Well done, Aris!
Just remember, you are now slightly less important than an inkwell.
As an American I see a desire on the part of the writer to bring about some hopeful change, but reading the comments I can see the same divisiveness that exists in the U.S. King Charles can lead by example and encouragement. But in the end, the political leadership has to respectively find a middle ground for success.
“we must hope that he will play a more active role in governance than his mother felt her due.” Well we probably includes only Aris! It certainly doesn’t include me.
“Our constitution grants our monarch greater political power than the Queen chose to exercise” Such as?
“we are fortunate that our new King possesses a willingness to intercede in public life that has at times tested the patience of Prime Ministers. He must be encouraged to continue: whatever his personal foibles” Good grief does Aris have any contact at all with real people? I have literally never met anyone that doesn’t detest Charles’ interferences.
A dreadful essay.
As much as I hope he is influenced by, inter alia the traditionalist school of the early 20th century, I don’t expect much. It is likely too late to right the wrongs that have been allowed to fester in British society since the Great War.
Perfect pitch so far. Lets hope he understands the change in mission and quits calling for gas masks on cows.
https://www.newsweek.com/prince-charles-climate-change-cows-masks-1701794
What a belter of an essay!
I do hope Aris is right and the new king isn’t just a woke, Blairite liberal with the usual eco-Doomsday posture as I feared. I will order Charles’ book today and read it with interest.
The idea of a hundred Poundburys is fantastic.
If you want to catch up with the backlog of housing it’s more ‘modular’ than Poundbury.
The reliance on the state by reverting to nationalisations doesn’t work .. we find that out in the 70’s and then dismantled them in the 80’s
Spot on, thanks, and really important to articulate in this moment when we can feel it.
Further, I think Charles’ mystic mentors are of this land too, given his spiritual director was Kathleen Raine, poet and scholar of William Blake, as Charles himself confessed in his remarkable eulogy at her memorial – https://www.idler.co.uk/article/mystic-monarch
I think you are beginning to place expectations on him that he cannot fullfill. Quite a bizarre turn of events if this is what people are thinking.
Well, if he’s truly channeling more, he’s really catalysing it in others. I sense he understands the power of symbols and a phrase to do that. The question is whether we can feel it and respond.
Poor King Charles. I suspect he’ll be torn to bits by his followers, like a sacrificial animal.
I had not known that HM was associated with Kathleen Raine. Her memoir of childhood Farewell Happy Fields is gripping. And she also promoted the serious study of Neoplatonism (which is why she understood Blake as rooted but rational and not as some Sixties hippy).
God Save the King!
The Queen oversaw the managed decline of the Empire and i expect many more Commonwealth countries will declare themselves Republics.
Frankly, who cares a damn? We/ the Labour Governments gave away/ destroyed our useful post colonial relationships with the Gulf states just before oil and gas started to flow, with Rhodesia and Asian states, and what is left, is not worth having, bar NZ, Australia and certain tax havens.
If they want to do that, it’s their call – wise or not.
Could he really support a British “build back better” agenda, rather than hand even more of our sovereignty and national assets over to the GloboCaps?
Well, another inspiring, sermon-like (in the positive sense) address from the author. I find it more balanced and grounded than his previous call for British Futurism. God save the King!
It is, for example, beneath the dignity of our state that the Royal Mail, founded by Henry VIII in 1516, be parcelled off and sold to foreign investors at the behest of EU directives, a course of action that 96% of CWU members opposed.
Can you provide any proof whatever that the Post Office privatisation was done at the behest of the EU? I know there were some EU proposals g to open up postal services, but I see no evidence that Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc sold of their national postal services.
I usually don’t like people saying one single article has made them cancel their subscription. But this piece came close. WEF stooge Charlie is the final death knell of a once great nation swirling around the toilet bowl. It’s almost like you have been “got at” by the establishment and this essay was written with a pistol nestled in the writer’s back.
The idea of a powerful monarch is good when the monarch is good, and bad when etc etc. Mindless monarchists such as this could be the death of us. The idea must be that our royal family could never need moderation like Putin does. What is it about the Windsors, inherently, that makes their power over me acceptable? Yes, Elizabeth 2 did her job well. And I hope Charles 3 does similarly. The wrong idea is that this job exists as it does currently. The idea of the nutter king, the evil king, with the power encouraged here? Silly article, stupid author.
CIIIR started well by promising to adopt the conventions of his new role.
The very minute he deviates from same, he is down the road.
Humility, Chas, humility.
Thankyou Aris: passionate and heartfelt, with a grounding perspective
I enjoyed this until he put Charles on a pedestal. Methinks Charles doesn’t want to return to tradition, but rather help the WEF rule in the New World Order. Unlike his mother, who was extremely classy, understated, and appropriately stand-offish given her symbolic role and unearned fame, Charles seems to enjoy using the accident of his birth into royalty as proof that he is wise and destined to direct us plebs. In short, he scares me. His mother was a rock of tradition who calmed me.
I think, to be fair, he has certain ideas about things that he believes are important and valuable. He also has the position to make his voice heard. I imagine most of us in that position would behave the same way. I think he’ll step back from that. Not because he doesn’t care but because he values the position of the Monarchy more than his feelings. Not many of us would do that.
I loved this article and strongly resonate with its sentiments. As a ‘colonial’ I haven’t experienced the same depth of attachment to the Royal family that is embedded so deeply in British culture, but I’ve always loved and admired Charles, and felt that his view of the ugliness and pitfalls of hypermodernity was one that the world needed, and needs more than ever now. That he is both a ‘Defender of Faith’ and a defender of the natural world on which we depend makes him a rare treasure indeed, as many who recognise the importance of the latter, disregard and dismiss the importance of the former. I think he is right to focus on showing care and leadership for his people at this time of loss and transition, but I do hope that he can find the courage to show the leadership his country and the world needs in the future, pursuing this through moral rather than material authority.
Charles’ idea of traditional values involves non-constitutional monarchies and serfdom. Like his son Harry, Charles’ lectures on climate change fall on deaf ears due to his own lifestyle.
Over the week since his mother died, King Charles has indicated on several occasions that he is a Christian but has not said so categorically. If he is a Perennialist as this article states, he cannot be a Christian.
The BBC is a national broadcaster rather than a state broadcaster. Though if the Tories continue with their meddling and manipulative ways, it may well end up as Pravda TV.
Everyone loves to nitpick another’s well-thought-out article. Yes, some pieces are not, but this one is. And the complaints are typically short, with no reference, often hitting argumentative fallacies. Are we to believe these nitpicks over the points raised and referenced in the article? Instead of attacking every viewpoint that doesn’t match your scheme of the world, Why can’t you simply sit back, listen and reflect?
I wonder if the people who run for office and then do what politicians do to scramble up the political ladder have qualifications that come close to King Charles’. Very few politicians come anywhere close to the capabilities needed in any democratic country (Trump). Yet, they make grave decisions that never seem to hit the mark. Why? Does it make sense that people who wish to become politicians must first qualify to run? We demand qualifications from our lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants and even labourers, yet little is required from our politicians, who are involved in the most severe decision-making.
I did sense a form of foreboding/reminiscence/regret of the current status of the UK in the world. A once mighty and prosperous empire. It’s a legitimate concern. This nation has a wealth of experience and knowledge that it can share with the world community for a more sustainable world. But would present-date “empires” such as The United States, Russia, and China listen? Yet, there are glaring solutions. The article mentions opportunities. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK can form a partnership called CANZUK (ref: Canzuk International- Canada). Time has allowed these countries to evolve into nations that can co-exist with minimum stress. Unlike the UE, the same language, similar laws, government, head of state, customs, and history. It’s an opportunity worth taking.
Or we can kick up our heels and nitpick.
King Charles ambitions and return to traditional roots are to be admired. Consuming local produce and a reverance for our environment are important. However, the world cannot escape the need for mass agricutural production and transportation. In addition, a country is never in a happy place. It is always one crisis after another.
God save the King’s compassion and his opportunity to make constructive use of it among his people.
Charles and I are the same age, and as an American, I really did not follow the Royal Family but admired Queen Elizabeth. After the background on Diana and Charles, I came to the conclusion that not only is Charles a boring twit, he is not much of a man. He ruined the life of a young girl because he did not have the guts to say no and possibly lose his position and all that it brought. I wouldn’t want him to be in charge of cleaning the silverware, much less weighing in on governing the country.
This article reminds me of a spin piece that celebs in the US pay for to insert in news orgs. That has me wondering how much the author was paid to write this propaganda piece.
That’s right, we should put all our hopes in the figurehead of an aristocratic institution from a bygone era that definitely reflects the needs, concerns and life experiences of the ‘commoners’ to which the majority of the population is so grateful to belong to. Charles may or may not be right about the ‘wrong path’ this country is heading down, one where more traditional values and environmental harmony plays a larger role in society, but if he truly believed in getting on the right path, he would recognise that a constitutional monarchy is not fit for political purposes in what should be a more egalitarian age (yet which is sadly far from a reality)! He might well be right about certain aspects of what this country needs to change for the better, but why should he, and he alone, be afforded a position of power to influence these decisions in lieu of some birthright?
Our elected officials are far from ideal, and recently have been downright incompetent and incorrigible, but I’ll take the Boris Johnsons of this world, however elitist and myopic and born into privilege as they are, over any purely hereditary system of rule any day. The standards of our reperesentative democracy (a flawed system to begin with) may have dropped drastically over time, but it will always be preferrable to reverting to exclusionary notions of divine right and authority by blood.
Bottom line: so long as the monarchy outright exists as a part of the nation state, classism in Britain is not going anywhere any time soon, and the divisions between rich and poor are not going to get any narrower. This is not to say the monarchy itself alone is the cause of said divisons of course, but it inherently reflects them through its very structural preponderance. A change in thinking (doing away with class divides) requires a change in the societial structures that holds up that thinking in the first place, the two inevitably feeding into each other. I’m skeptical such a radical change will happen in my lifetime, but it must happen eventually if human societies in general are going to evolve beyond their currently grasping means. It starts by transforming how individuals think about and see their own grasping reflected back at them, and applying this insight to those around them.
Well, he was for years a close friend of Jimmy Saville, so I trust his judgement implicitly…
We must remember that Charles married Diana because his father told him to and divorced her because his mother insisted. The idea that he will do anything other than go along with what the PM tells him to do.
We saw the limitations of Royal power back in 2019 when Johnson illegally prorogued Parliament to avoid discussing Brixet. The queen was advised by 3 members of the Privy Council (there are over 600 of them) that she should agree this and she did. It was over-ruled in court but that legal remedy has now been removed. If Liz Truss decides that there should not be another election for 10 years then Charles will agree that.
He will be allowed to indulge his green spiritual and architectural fantasies because, ultimately, to the Conservatives they are harmless.
God save the king!