Concluding his speech at the Copout28… sorry, I mean Cop28, HM Charles III said: “The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth.”
Such statements are never queried, but I’d be curious how a man who holds meaningful conversations with his plants would respond to counterarguments. One such would invoke HM’s coronation, on 6 May 2023.
The King had to take an oath, which included his promise to uphold “the laws of God and the true profession of the gospel.” That was a noble undertaking, and an essential one.
For our kings are neither appointed nor elected. They are anointed, which surely strengthens their claim to legitimacy and places them above politics. Hence, when the laws of God come into conflict with quotidian political concerns (which is what Cop28 is all about), our monarch is duty-bound to put divine laws first.
Anyone who understands our constitution has to agree, whatever his own religious beliefs if any. For the issue is indeed constitutional, not confessional.
If so, then His Majesty flagrantly violated his sacred oath. For the laws of God specifically state that the Earth does belong to us and not the other way around.
Thus Psalms 115:116 are unequivocal on the subject: “The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s: But the earth hath he given to the children of men.”
Genesis 1:28 expressed the same thought in different words: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Such are “the laws of God” that the King has sworn to uphold. Instead he sank into a primitive form of heathen pantheism, which would be his privilege to do if he were a private individual. But he isn’t and it isn’t.
However, if King Charles continues to put hare-brained political fads before his constitutional obligations, he may well become a private individual before long, a citizen of the British republic.
Republican sentiments may be dormant at the moment, but if the King becomes a crowned version of Greta Thunberg, people may begin to question his legitimacy. Or perhaps invite Greta to become our woke queen – why settle for a copy when you can have the original?
The rest of the King’s speech was usual scaremongering demagoguery, complete with tear-jerking references to his grandchildren who will be “living with the consequences of what we did or didn’t do”, and heartfelt regrets that we aren’t destroying the economy fast enough to save the future generations.
His Majesty describes such destruction as “transformational action.” Perhaps that’s what his plants call it – the more advanced of them must be capable of producing the intellectual content of the King’s speech.
I especially liked his reference to “unprecedented floods”. Has HM heard of Noah’s Ark? If not, he should go back to the book that contains the laws of God he has sworn to uphold.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury helpfully explained before administering the Coronation Oath, “This next bit is a load of obsolete nonsense, but the words have a nice rhythm and it all adds to the fun for the punters watching at home, so here goes.” I may not recollect his exact words, but that was the gist. Neither the Archbishop nor the King expected the oath to be kept, so why should we?
A possible solution to our problem is for the King to be declared insane and his sister to be appointed Regent. But if that doesn’t happen, there may be some consolation in the words dictated to me today by the ghosts of E C Bentley and O Nash:
Even the King is better
Than Greta.
Witness the fact that he doesn’t end his infantile ranting
With anti-Jewish chanting.
Once again the monarchy shows its utter contempt for monarchists. When will they learn?
As global warming activist Steven Schneider, a professor at Stanford University has stated, “To capture the public’s imagination… we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” He has been spewing his drivel for over two decades. His argument for what he calls the “double ethical bind” can basically be boiled down to “it’s ok to lie about the science if you are determined to convince people.” Well, then, let us push on.
Politics has devolved to the point that it’s all become “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Whichever fringe group yells the loudest gets the most attention and the most political action. We used to ignore such whinging, now we set state policy by it.
Here in California, where we have set a limit on the obsolescence of the internal combustion engine (no new ICE cars sold after 2034), car makers are howling for a change, as EVs sit on the lot, collecting dust (and subsidies). I like to remind people that when Henry Ford wanted to sell cars, he did not petition (bribe, extort) the government to make horses illegal, he just made a more desirable product.
Every time I see an image of that Greta I swear my visceral juices begin churning. For some reason of which I am not sure. Where is the father of Greta? He needs to give her a good spanking.