Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Tale of Two Tragedies: Elizabeth II’s Passing and Charles’ Ascension
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. 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. Queen Elizabeth 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.
King Charles and Crown Prince William of Great Britain. With cows.
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).
World Economic Forum’s 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.
Prince Charles opens Paris climate talks and calls on world leaders to act now https://t.co/cTIhkQDxUC via @guardian pic.twitter.com/qfj81MdQ3e
— EIT Climate-KIC (@ClimateKIC) November 30, 2015
The newly minted king is also an avowed proponent of depopulation, having on multiple occasions called for population control of broader civilization.
Prince Charles: “Prince of Wales calls for population control in developing world.”https://t.co/MihPNbg74m
— Michael (@HegKong) July 7, 2022
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 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 I find weird, even insulting, about Charles is his penchant for bringing his own food 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.
Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 20 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Some of that popularity may be likened to bulk purchases of our politicians’ riveting memoirs.
He is entitled to his opinions but the world at large is entitled to his lack of opinions. May he reign quietly and with the reserve that the British are famed for.
An activist king would be a despot in his own right.
“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.”
Why do I have the feeling that the chance of this is absolutely zero?
Liz was generally inoffensive as monarchs go. She seems to have been a very fine individual. However, the only moral act a monarch can make is to abolish the institution of monarchy. King Charles III is why. He will not be inoffensive, and he will be bold with his cockamamie ideas that will require the elected government to find a way to shorten his leash. Perhaps he will finally be the impetus for the UK to further curtail their odd admiration for birth right royalty.
Someone said that the best that can be said about Charles in that he is a well-dressed man.
I think his success, in what ever counts as success for a figurehead, will depend upon how much he can unite the nation by staying away from controversial political opinions.
My recollection is that he wanted to put even uglier architecture in place.
This is a requirement for the job. If he doesn’t at least give lip service to the church, he could be deposed. That’s one of his main job descriptions.
Yawn.
His craziness is baked in. He won’t avoid it, I believe.
On that we agree. Better yet, he can begin the process of doing away with the monarchy and aristocracy altogether.
Yes, yesterday I was summing up Charles and could only say that his one accomplishment (or at least good position on things) was that he favored aesthetically pleasing buildings rather than clunky concrete, glass and steel. This seems as relevant as saying that one’s favorite cake is vanilla with lemon icing. It’s a great cake, but praising and promoting it shouldn’t be the standard by which your life’s accomplishments are measured.
And yes, he was in the military; I remember him in a beret. Don’t know how his path rising through the ranks or what his final rank was, or what he achieved there. According to the BBC:
Almost no matter what he did, you can’t trust it to be realistic. He joined the Air Force, didn’t do much. He then joined the navy and didn’t do much, eventually getting command of a small ship, I think a tug or a minesweeper, and all of it was done as the heir apparent and no one would be so bold as to say he didn’t do a good job. All we can conclude is that he wasn’t so awful that they overcame their reluctance to be critical. How awful does a royal have to be? Well, in WWII the heir apparent was collaborating with the Axis and they quietly sent him to some small islands in the Caribbean. So, even that isn’t bad enough to raise criticism. So we know nothing about his experience at all.
I’m just finishing up another rewatch of GoT (Why bother with the new one when you have the original? – seasons 1 – 6 of course.)
Most of the kings there had at some point been in battle, and had stabbed another person in violence.
But I’m not sure this is a good qualification. Jeoffrey was a sniveling little coward, but he loved killing people if they were tied up, or no threat to him. Terrible king.
Ramsey was quite a badass, never afraid in a fight. But also a complete psychopath. This would not have been a good king. (Although there wouldn’t have been much dissent in his kingdom, I suppose.)
Tyrion was courageous in battle – much to his own surprise, I think. He was better at politics, thinking ahead, making deals, while not being afraid or too sentimental about killing if it’s necessary. He would have been a terrific king.
Jon Snow, terrific in a battle. Would be a lousy king. Too whiny and unsure of himself.
So, King Charles 111? Not sure his military standing is relevant- it’s more ceremonial. I’m a lot more concerned about his climate insanity, and his ties to the WEF. Look at how that is working out for Canada.
Maybe he’s afraid of someone poisoning him. Good food tasters are hard to find these days . . .
Anyone that would run around on Lady Di is plainly an idiot…
I dunno, she struck me as high maintenance.
Could be but Chuckie could afford it. From all that I read in that esteemed research publication (The National Enquirer), he was running around on her after the 2d kid was born.
It’s amazing what you can learn while you’re waiting in the grocery store checkout line.
I’m always bothered by Americans paying any attention to them.
She didn’t seem all that special.
“Let’s prevent/stop land mines!”
Boy, that’ll get the attention of those starving and or dying of diseases.
Eh, they’re a dime a dozen. They have to be.
But — but, he was in love with another man’s wife. So it’s completely excusable.
As opposed to , “Let’s stop bad architecture!”
I wasn’t a fanboy but Di was involved with something like 100 causes/charities such as HIV/AIDs, disabled chldren, homeless, etc. When you top it off with the fact that she was extremely photogenic, you can understand why the media was all over her (and may have contributed to her death).
She was just another example of a depraved system and a depraved family, the queen excluded. It must have been hard for Liz to deal with all those wretches.
As a Canadian I find it hilarious. You guys are WAY more interested than we are.