Royal Smackdown

by Brad Nelson   2/9/14

This story is just a plain hoot.

Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of American Thinker, posted this blog post regarding the smackdown of Prince Charles by the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley over the issue of global warming. It’s worth a read. Here’s the highlight of the Viscount’s open letter as excerpted by Lifson:

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales,
Clarence House, London.

Candlemas, 2014

Your Royal Highness’ recent remarks describing those who have scientific and economic reason to question the Establishment opinion on climatic apocalypse in uncomplimentary and unroyal terms as “headless chickens” mark the end of our constitutional monarchy and a return to the direct involvement of the Royal Family, in the Person of our future king, no less, in the cut and thrust of partisan politics.

Now that Your Royal Highness has offered Your Person as fair game in the shootout of politics, I am at last free to offer two options. I need no longer hold back, as so many have held back, as Your Royal Highness’ interventions in politics have become more frequent and less acceptable in their manner as well as in their matter.

Option 1. Your Royal Highness will renounce the Throne forthwith and for aye. Those remarks were rankly party-political and were calculated to offend those who still believe, as Your Royal Highness plainly does not, that the United Kingdom should be and remain a free country, where any subject of Her Majesty may study science and economics, may draw his conclusions from his research and may publish the results, however uncongenial the results may be.

The line has been crossed. No one who has intervened thus intemperately in politics may legitimately occupy the Throne. Your Royal Highness’ arrogant and derogatory dismissiveness towards the near-50 percent of your subjects who no longer follow the New Religion is tantamount to premature abdication. Goodnight, sweet prince. No more “Your Royal Highness.”

Hi, there, Chazza! You are a commoner now, just like most of Her Majesty’s subjects. You will find us a cheerfully undeferential lot. Most of us don’t live in palaces, and none of us goes everywhere with his own personalized set of monogrammed white leather lavatory seat covers.

The United Kingdom Independence Party, which until recently I had the honor to represent in Scotland, considers – on the best scientific and economic evidence – that the profiteers of doom are unjustifiably enriching themselves at our expense.

For instance, even the unspeakable Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has accepted advice from me and my fellow expert reviewers that reliance upon ill-constructed and defective computer models to predict climate was a mistake. Between the pre-final and final drafts of the “Fifth Assessment Report,” published late last year, the Panel ditched the models and substituted its own “expert assessment” that in the next 30 years the rate of warming will be half what the models predict.

In fact, the dithering old fossils in white lab coats with leaky Biros sticking out of the front pocket now think the rate of warming over the next 30 years could be less than in the past 30 years, notwithstanding an undiminished increase in the atmospheric concentration of plant food. Next time you talk to the plants, ask them whether they would like more CO2 in the air they breathe. Their answer will be Yes.

So, it is possible to openly, publicly, and articulately face down this Leftist and politically correct nonsense. The world will not end if you do. If only the wimpy Republicans could learn this lesson. Alas, they are too wimpy.
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (2783 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Royal Smackdown

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Having lived in a British colony and former British colony, I probably heard more of the Prince’s nonsensical musings that most in the USA. The man is “daft as a brush” as the Brits would say. He mistakes sentiment for science and feelings for fact. The fool appears to seriously believe he understands what he is taking about on subjects as unrelated as architecture and global warming. This may be the result of having a rather unhappy childhood, apparently fractured relationship with his father, a mother who looks like she will keep going strong for another twenty years and the innate pointlessness of being a modern day royal, in general, and the Prince of Wales in particular.

    Some believe, if he ascends to the throne, he will be the last English/British monarch, he’ll kill an institution over 1,000 years old.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Judging from your description, Charles is simply a typical American liberal. He would fit in perfectly in the Obama Gang (though he probably isn’t vile enough for MSNBC).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Mr. Kung, Dennis Prager has called Leftism the world’s most dynamic religion. I don’t disagree. He also says that anything Leftism touches, it makes worse. We can now include the British monarchy in that.

      I chuckle, because it indeed looks as if “she will keep going strong for another twenty years,” as you noted. That must drive Chucky nuts. Should Charles abdicate (which seems unlikely, for he is “entitled” to be king), that wouldn’t necessarily improve things. Whether Prince William is any less a product of British popular culture is not very likely. Still, could he be any more daft?

      The answer is “Yes, of course.” He’s Diana’s son. It’s in his genes. But I don’t wish to denigrate a man I don’t know. And I do not at all follow the tabloids so I don’t even know his popular image.

      But there is still some British class and understated spirit remaining as denoted by the Viscount’s letter. I hope that is true of America as hopefully evinced by this site and its participants.

      What we can’t ever do is start saying the two plus two equals five. And yet this kind of madness is rife in our culture (to the extent that we can call it a culture anymore). As a man who honors science (as apart from scientism, secular humanism, and/or atheism), I’m quite alright with letting the facts speak for themselves. I have no agenda regarding global warming…not even in outing Al Gore as a fool (to those for whom this reality needs “outing,” they are far too drunk on the Leftist kool-aid for facts to ever matter).

      It could be, as Timothy stated, that Charles is a liberal. And yet, are liberals actually liberal? Isn’t much of this posturing simply about pandering to what one presumes is the predominant conceit (as apart from an idea, fact, or reasonable theory)? Science, of course, could care less (in theory) about what the predominant conceit is. It’s about what the results of experiments suggest.

      But liberals live in, by, and for the celebrity culture. Image is everything. (And would a king be a king without the mere popular idea that he is something special?) Charles is at the pinnacle of that celebrity culture (the monarchy now being little else than that). How could he not genuflect to the various liberal equivalents of the Stations of the Cross?

      Still, it’s quite possible that the man is just not that deep. Maybe he’s not pandering. Maybe he’s just an imbecile.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    The Crimson King seems to have the same basic notion that he, with his self-professed superior knowledge of everything, can determine all truth. The difference is, I’m not sure Charles quite realizes the implications of what he says, whereas the Fascist Messiah definitely does, and would be happy to suppress any form of dissent.
    As Calvo Sotelo argued in 1936 during an important debate in the Cortes, it’s like the difference between Kerensky and Karolyi in paving the way for Bolshevik control of Russia and Hungary.

  3. steve lancaster says:

    Where, oh where is Oliver Cromwell when the Brits really need him?

    Of course it doesn’t matter what the current, or soon to be monarch says. The monarchy is something that the people play with like tinker toys, but you can not build anything with it.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The monarchy is something that the people play with like tinker toys, but you can not build anything with it.

      Hahaha. I think that’s funny because it’s substantially true. Whether one is for a monarchical style of government or not, look at how truly pathetic (but crazily rich) the British monarchy has become. They can’t even engage in politics, which was the hammer the Viscount was using to clobber Prince Charles with.

      So what is a monarch left to do? They are now basically window dressing. But even being relegated to window dressing (as they have been for some time) isn’t all bad. The monarchy can be a symbol of dignity, class, and tradition.

      But now they are losing even that. No one has time for mere window dressing. Now the measure of what matters is via pure celebrity (a product, in part, of Diana). And the window through which this celebrity is judged is the vapid leftist pop culture one. And we see the pale reflection of this royal family as they react to this circumstance. Even the vaunted Queen has caved on a few issues.

      There would be dignity in leading, rather than just pandering. But Britain is so far gone (we’re not far behind) that the language of tradition, class, and dignity is a long-forgotten tongue. So, like many others today (including on this side of the pond), you see the monarchy playing to the mob. The reserve and stiff upper lip is all but gone in the monarchy, as we see in contrast by the Viscount’s letter. The adults are definitely not in and around Buckingham Palace.

      • steve lancaster says:

        I am not sure that adults have been in the monarchy since the time of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, altogether too many family trees that don’t fork. It used to be that the English monarch was there not to be an example of what not to do, but what one should do.

        Still, I suspect that when the last days of dear old earth are happening somewhere in the distance we will hear, Vera Lynn, “There will always be an England” and the pipes of “Scotland the Brave”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *