The Tale of Two Tragedies
First tragedy: the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. Second tragedy: the ascension of her son, Charles.
You can’t fully prepare for someone’s passing, even though you know it’s coming. Look at Great Britain today. Queen Elizabeth II - God rest her soul - was 96 years old. The country mourns, and most of the world pays tribute.
I’ll add my two cents worth. While I am no fan of monarchies, constitutional or otherwise, there’s something to be said about such an exemplar of grace, humility, service, civility, and duty. She swore in her 15th prime minister some 48 hours before she died. She was the ultimate institutionalist, in a good way - preserving and protecting the continuity of the British throne for 70 years and 214 days, British tradition, and her extraordinary marriage to the late Prince Phillip. Her children? Well, not so much, but no one is perfect. At least Prince Edward, her youngest, and his bride, Sophie, are wonderful examples of happy and successful royals in their own right.
But Edward is not ascending to the throne. His older brother, Charles, has.
While I hope he lives up to his mother’s example of not engaging in policy and politics, it is an ascension worth watching. He will be influential, whether publicly or privately.
I mean no disrespect, but he is a quirky, globalist left-winger who advocates for food policies that are now starving people and inspiring riots, bad policies, and protests from Sri Lanka to Canada. There are reasons that Charles’ “approval ratings” (as if they matter for accidents of birth) are hoveringly only slightly above Joe Biden’s (42 percent, according to YouGov.com, but an interesting 30 percent have no opinion). Worse, he’s pals with the World Economic Forum crowd, who seem dedicated to eliminating personal property ownership (“You will own nothing, and you will be happy,” says WEF President Klaus Schwab).
I know what many of you are asking. Why should we care? We’re not Great Britain, we rebelled from the British Throne some 250 years ago, and our systems, gratefully, bear little resemblance. But we are branches from the same very old tree of Western Civilization. We have much-shared history, values, and interests. Great Britain is and remains our strongest ally in the world. Their 1215 Magna Carta, a replica of which can be found in the US Capitol Rotunda, established the rule of law and inspired our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. So it matters.
While it’s true that British royalty holds mostly ceremonial roles, at best, they still possess global media platforms and billions of dollars that can be used to advance causes. While the Queen herself wasn’t engaged in “advocacy,” - will Charles hold to that tradition? - Charles has long spoken of “modernizing” the monarchy. Whatever that means.
Why should we be concerned about Charles? A few snippets from journalists and bloggers, this one from Jordan Schachtel:
Most notably, Charles is both a climate catastrophist and an advocate for the depopulation agenda. Last year, he demanded a “war-like footing,” in calling for the sabotage of reliable energy resources to tackle the so-called climate crisis. Charles’s initiatives, and his promotion of the destructive Paris Climate Accords and the U.N.’s Climate Change Conference objectives, has helped position the U.K. on the precipice of energy disaster.
The newly minted king is also an avowed proponent of depopulation, having on multiple occasions called for population control of broader civilization.
At the onset of COVID Mania, Charles sat down with World Economic Forum leader Klaus Schwab, in which the pair excitedly championed a “Great Reset” to “solve the climate crisis and restore the natural world.” In a podcast with Schwab, Charles advocated “carbon pricing” of goods and a “net zero” agenda, which, of course, would result in mass human suffering.
Obviously, none of these demands apply to the British royal family, who are free to deploy infinite tons of carbon into the atmosphere, unlike the peasants who did not inherit castles and other forms of enormous wealth.”
Humans have been genetically modifying foods to feed populations for millennia. Hybridization, a form of genetic modification, is credited for saving billions of lives by increasing crop yields. That’s why 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug’s statue can be found in the US Capitol. Borlaug is considered the “Father of the Green Revolution.”
Today, cattle genetic modification prevents the painful “dehorning” of young cows, so they don’t grow them in the first place. We need a way to feed nine billion people in a world by 2050 where farmland is on the decrease. It requires higher yields per acre. You don’t get that from organic foods. But Charles thinks genetically modified plants will be a “disaster.” They’ve been around for nearly 30 years, and there’s no evidence other than they work to increase yields and keep prices low. Including, by the way, reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides.
Fortunately, you can choose between Organic and conventional produce and foods in America. Notice the price difference? This is just one small example. The differences between organic versus conventional in the packaged foods aisle can be larger.
This is yet another example of the growing differences between our privileged elite - fresh off of having $10-20,000 “forgiven” from their graduate school loans. Foods for me (Organic), but not for thee (conventional). Prince Charles - pardon, King Charles III - has long led a privileged and entitled life where he is free to pursue his organic food dreams. Price has never been an issue for him. And there is scant credible evidence that organic foods are safer or more nutritious than conventional counterparts.
What some find weird, even insulting, about Charles is his penchant for bringing his own food unannounced when visiting the country homes of friends.
While Charles has appeared to be at the forefront of the produce trend, some of his habits have raised a few eyebrows.
Lady Colin Campbell, speaking during the documentary, recalled how he has become famous for arriving at homes in the country with bags full of his own produce — something she claimed was not necessarily to everyone's taste.
She said: "Prince Charles is notorious in country house circles for when he comes to stay.
"He often brings his own food.
"Not everybody thinks it's a good thing to do, but people put up with it.
"It's one of his eccentricities."
And he’s done well, give him credit. After a rough start, his organic food company, now Waitrose Duchy Originals, experiences annual profits approaching 2.8 million British pounds.
King Charles, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinions. Let’s hope he lives up to his mother’s example, keeps his policy prescriptions to himself, and doesn’t try to impose them on the rest of us through his “realms” or international organizations. Otherwise, his ascension may truly prove to be a tragic one.
Thanks for the story around the new King. I thought he was a liberal, but I didn't realize that he has the potential to make such an impact. Well said, Kelly.