IN a modern adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen, amid the flag-waving, fawning throng singing ‘God save The King’ and attributing previously very rare virtues to ‘King Charles III’, I shout: “The King has no clothes!”
He isn’t physically naked but, as in the Danish author’s brilliantly insightful The Emperor’s New Clothes, Charles, laid bare as a person, has no more right to be worshipped than the subject of the original story.
A child, not yet indoctrinated into saying and believing ‘the right thing’, called out the Emperor.
And those who go against the grain today are also ‘outsiders’, commonly cast as ungracious, cynical, stupid and downright rude.
For most of my soon-to-be 61 years, whereas I’d never be one of the flag wavers, I’d have left Charles be.
Aside from a minor awakening when I listened to the late and, in my view, uncommonly great Princess Diana telling her story about her marriage, I never gave him much thought.
He was that elite who ‘talked to plants’ – I now believe this to be one of his virtues – espoused alternative therapies – likewise – and referred to modern day architecture as carbuncles – far be it from me to argue.
Then a friend and one of the most insightful ‘psychics’ told me she had received a copy of Diana’s famous letter – ‘in the event of my death in a car crash, it will have been organised by my husband’.
A stronger, deeper stirring occurred years later after the death and (semi) exposure of Sir Jimmy Savile (knighted, let’s recall, by the late Queen).
I was truly shocked when I began to realise the depth of the relationship between Savile, first brought into Royal circles by the odious manipulator Lord Mountbatten, and the Prince, who summed up his feelings on the crooked DJ and TV star: ‘Nobody will ever know what you’ve done for this country, Jimmy’. Jimmy Savile and Prince Charles’ Close Relationship Revealed in New Letters Published by Netflix (yahoo.com)
He even wanted the dreadful paedophile to mediate between him and Diana in their increasingly strained relationship (I understand from the same good source, she wasn’t keen!).
I’m sorry but, when you consider other key figures in the Prince’s life including paedophile Bishop Peter Ball, I simply don’t buy he was oblivious to what Savile was really about. Prince Charles’ History With a Pedophile Priest Peter Ball (insider.com)
Again, I’d almost be willing to forgive and forget Charles’ highly inglorious past, all-too-recently highlighted by reports of monies being taken by his charities from what could politely be described as highly inappropriate sources Prince Charles’ charity took money from Bin Ladens: report – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) , if it wasn’t for his current views.
Charles is a fervent proponent of the anti-human dogma of the World Economic Forum led by the sinister Klaus Schwab.
Here are his words at the 2021 climate change conference: “here we need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector with trillions at HIS disposal, and power even beyond the governance of world leaders “.
Who can doubt that Charles will continue to exercise his extreme political views from his now significantly advanced position as Monarch?
And for those who argue that the King or Queen can do no more than rubberstamp government policy, I suggest you read former Home Office minister Norman Baker’s brilliant book And what do you do? confirming the former Prince’s long-term interference in public life. See Prince Charles’ ‘black spider’ memos: What are they and what impact will their publication have? | The Independent | The Independent
One caveat I feel it is fair to add is that Charles and even the late Queen herself are themselves victims of the same ‘system’ that us ‘outsiders’ complain of.
Not many have to deal with the trauma of being effectively abandoned by his parents when his mother was elevated to the throne and the life he has led has always been anything but ‘normal’.
Even the Diana tragedy would presumably never have happened had he, like 99.9 per cent of us, been free to marry the woman of his choice.
And he has, of course, through his charitable works achieved much good.
But even this and the nation’s sympathy, extended now as a grieving son, are no reasons we should pay homage to a very damaged and flawed man – not when he has been handed a position that affects so many, not only in Britain but throughout the world. My voice and my words will be largely drowned out in the manner of the child in the fairy-tale yet, if and when the masses