Here’s Why Britain’s Monarchy Could End With King Charles

Posted by:

Charles III may do more damage to the British monarchy than Charles I. An assessment of his highly politicized Christmas Day speech.

By GAVIN ASHENDEN

In the U.K. and to some extent across the world, the Monarch’s Christmas speech is an essential part of the Christmas festivities. It used to be that the majority of the nation settled down around the TV at 3 p.m. on Christmas afternoon for a “feel-good” broadcast that had the temporary but welcome effect of making the populace feel like an extended family.

But several things have changed. The old queen, who somehow glued a rapidly evolving transitional culture together, has gone and a new king has come.

As the prince in waiting, Charles was famous (or infamous) for several things. A few decades ago they may have seemed innocuous, but more recently they have become charged with political implication. Charles is well known for having a passion for ecology; as one of the richest men on Earth, he has cultivated close, long-standing connections with powerful globalists, including the Davos crowd and the World Economic Forum. (Remember the WEF’s promise to all of us: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”)

There is a strong and essential convention that the king or queen of the United Kingdom should have no politics. The reason for this is obvious: If your role is to be monarch of the nation, and the nation is divided by politics, you can’t have any politics.

Will the Monarchy Survive King Charles III?

There are several reasons why the Mountbatten-Windsor family may be on their last king.

Monarchy is a Christian concept; the coronation service is a deeply Christian (and paradoxically for a Protestant line, a largely Catholic) ceremony. Charles has downplayed his understanding of and promotion of Christianity. No one was quite sure how serious he was about this, but one thing has always been clear: Only Christians are likely to defend the monarchy when it comes under pressure. So alienating his main support base was never a sensible idea.

But the question a lot of people were waiting to have answered was where his political and religious allegiances really lay. This Christmas was a game changer. Everyone was watching his speech carefully.

The first thing he did was to move the venue from Windsor Palace to a hospital chapel. At first glance, this might have been a strength. But it quickly became clear that he was choosing optics over substance. It was a former chapel that had been changed into a community center — no longer a center for the worship of the Christ child. Rather, it had become a “vibrant community space.”

Theology had given way to sociology, worship to social cohesion, the hierarchy of the King of Kings reduced to communitarianism and the celebration of relativity.

But far worse was to come.

Charles Sides with the Elites Who Punish the People on Behalf of Foreigners

One of the most shocking moments of this last year involved a Muslim who stabbed three young girls to death at a morning dance class, then went on to viciously wound and nearly murder seven others in Southport, a small town in Wales. The government went into overdrive to hide from the public that the killer was the African son of a refugee who had been downloading Islamic propaganda from the internet for some years until he decided to go on a killing spree of his neighbors’ children.

Ordinary British people erupted in fury. The knew perfectly well that the hallmarks were those of immigrant Islamists. The government tried to deflect and deflate their fury and fear by releasing news that the killer had once been a Welsh choir boy.

Unconvinced, there were protests on the streets. Rushed into the criminal courts with astonishing speed, citizens were arrested and sentenced to years in prison for anything from shouting at the police to making social media posts reflecting their distrust and misery in the face of the mass immigration that was destroying their communities.

The rage and power and disinformation the government brought to bear against the protestors was of an unusual intensity. It had obviously set out to keep the lid on the political pot, and succeeded by the skin of its teeth.

The King Played Politics, and Sided with Repression and Censorship

It was too much to expect the king to reflect on the anxieties of his people in the face of this soft totalitarianism. This was the kind of political dynamite which was best avoided.

Astonishingly, Charles not only did not avoid it, he sided with the repressive socialist government and its misuse of the justice system against his people.

He talked soothingly and misleadingly of those communities which came together to repair trust after the protests, which he condemned as “anger and lawlessness.” By implication, these communities must have included the Islamic communities — some of whose members inflicted the terrorism in the first place. But there was not a word of recognition for his subjects who have had the terror inflicted upon them, and then suffered at the hands of the politicians, state, and media who resort constantly to euphemisms to obscure the fact that uncontrolled immigration and Islam are responsible for the “terror.”

Nor was there any mention of the Muslim grooming gangs which have raped more than a thousand girls in Telford and nearly twice that number in Rotherham, with the Pakistani perpetrators largely going unpunished by the white authorities for the latter’s fear of being thought “racist.” A member of the House of Lords recently said in a speech that 250,000 young British white girls had been raped in the last 25 years, mainly by Muslim men.

A Second English Civil War?

On Christmas Day, Charles decided not simply to steer away from the serious social tensions that have broken out with such disastrous force, but to use his speech to back up what has been widely perceived as an abuse of the justice system by a nervous and angry far-left government.

It is hard to calculate how much resentment this has stirred up in people who otherwise would have  passionately supported the monarchy under Queen Elizabeth. But like  many of the current tensions, it bubbles under the surface.

When former Prime Minister Harold MacMillan was asked what he most feared in politics, he answered, “Events, dear boy.” The events of the Southport killer were not foreseen, nor was they way they sparked furious protests on the street. But every resource of the state was brought to bear to crush the protesting citizens — not to acknowledge that there was a problem to be addressed.

Someone in government decided that the King’s Christmas speech should be added to the repertoire of attempted repression.

But this was a very high-risk strategy, putting on the line the integrity of the monarchy itself. It was astonishing that Charles agreed to it. It suggests either a high degree of political pressure or, if he personally endorsed the views of his speechwriter, a degree of being out of touch with his people that constitutes a danger to the integrity and use of the monarchy in any state, at any time — but particularly now.

Commentators have focused on the growing de-Christianization of the monarchy as one of its chief vulnerabilities. But this is as nothing compared to the danger of it being used as a repressive tool of the state to keep its people ignorant and subservient while an increasingly authoritarian far-left government misuses the justice system.

These circumstances require the monarch to be on the side of the people, not against them.

Original Here
Join the Conversation!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
We have a wonderful, active, and engaged community. Come join us in the comments section below! You'll need a Hyvor account (100% free) if you don't already have one.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐