CHARLES’ Christmas speech has been described as a “declaration of civil war by the King against his people”.
According to former Anglican Bishop Gavin Ashenden, Charles III is now collaborating with the State, “which we know is already at war with its citizens”.
- This shows how far removed Charles is from the British people.
- To put out a Christmas speech like that, knowing what has been going on, is unforgivable.
- When the umpire sides with the State against the people, what is the point of it?
Ashenden may not mean that much to Australian readers. For many years he was chaplain to Queen Elizabeth II (2008 to 2017) as an Anglican bishop. He then converted to Catholicism.
He is a theologian and has taught literature at university level. He has written a book, and did his doctorate, on Charles Williams, one of the forgotten Inklings.
DECODED
He has been an advocate of free speech. He participates regularly in podcasts, Merely Catholic and Catholic Unscripted, with fellow editors and writers at Britain’s Catholic Herald.
Which brings us to the King’s speech. Not the film starring Colin Firth. Charles’s Christmas message has helpfully been decoded – and excoriated – by Ashenden.
Ashenden called it a declaration of civil war by the King against his people. The Monarch, he argues, has joined with the State, which we know already is at war with we-the-people.
Especially in the aftermath of the Southport “riots” – and Starmer’s own war on the people of Britain – where, after little girls were fatally stabbed and the Government lied about the identity of the perpetrator.
What many saw as righteous anger, Charles described as “lawlessness”. Righteous anger is a duty, not a crime.
Starmer had the good guys locked up. Show trials as per the Stalin era reappeared, only this time in the country that boasts the mother of all parliaments.
Just as during the COVID plandemic, democracy went missing.
As Ashenden says, there are two sides in this civil war, and the King has picked his side.
The speech was, says Ashenden, relativist and platitudinous. Charles spoke of “vibrant community spaces”. Oh dear.
Diversity provides strength. Err, not it doesn’t, it provides weakness, lack of focus and the loss of what the fictional British PM, Francis Urquhart, called “bottom”. We might call it spine.
Interestingly, the original House of Cards trilogy pitted Urquhart against a fictional king not a million miles from Charles, played by the wonderful Michael Kitchen.
Ashenden says that the DEI core values lauded by the King are weapons employed to destroy our society.
Yes, he has picked a side. That of the new Marxists, that of the soft (are they that soft?) post Southport police State.
And Charles had a crack at theological insight, too. Ashenden’s verdict? Sad and stupid. Guilty of intellectual and philosophical barbarism. Dangerous and threatening. Guilty of the lack of discernment to which we are all called in turbulent times.
If you come to us as a king of diversity, then you are not our king.
As always, many commenters are on the money and summed up the thoughts of many: “King Charles belongs to the WEF (World Economic Forum). Every year he travels to Davos for their meeting. He does what is in their plans.”
UNFORGIVABLE
And this: “This shows how far removed Charles is from the British people, to put out a speech like that, knowing what has been going on, is unforgivable.
Finally: “I’m a monarchist, but Charles has effectively just made himself King Charles the Last.”
It has a certain ring to it. Charles is to monarchy as Pope Francis is to faithful Catholicism.
With Francis, of course, Charles shares religious indifferentism, as his Christmas speech showed. All faiths are peaceful, n’est-ce pas?
The King has form, of course. He has been a goonish climate catastrophist for decades, for example.
It is only a year since Lord Christopher Monckton said this of Charles: “Cancel the King. He disgraced himself, the monarchy & the UK with his half-witted speech to UN climate summit.”
How do you solve a problem like Charles?
You probably don’t. He will die, possibly sooner rather than later. He will then be replaced, other things being equal, by William III, even more woke than his old man, and certainly no conqueror.
WOKE MONARCHY
Friend of New Zealander Jacinda Ardern, speaker at Davos, William was interviewed at Davos by Sir David Attenborough. Of course he was.
In an era of woke monarchy, at what point do monarchists abandon ship and turn elsewhere?
Should Charles the Last be, well, the last? I have never been an outspoken monarchist, simply a believer in Australia’s Constitution as a workable model.
Certainly better than the others, such as those offered at the 1999 Constitutional Convention.
Even with a Leftie, Charles-like mini-me, Sam Mostyn, as Governor-General, the current system still works. At least for Australia.
Yet the advantages are dimming by the day and, as Gavin Ashenden argues, last week was a turning point.
When the umpire, the friend of the people, sides with the State against the people, what is the point of it? The gig is up.
Ashenden has said elsewhere that the monarchy can only survive if the Queen (or King) “has no thoughts”, if the monarch keeps her or his thoughts private. Especially political thoughts.
Well, things don’t now look too rosy.PC
What’s going on? Charles’ speech was political and obviously written – or edited – by Starmer’s radicals.