Thursday, 10 February 2011

Green King.

Not the beer, the next actual King. King Jug-ears the First, King Foliage the Second (remember George III) and King Charles the Third. I will resist the obvious for now.

I had to look it up. I've spent quite a bit of time looking it up because there was Bonnie Prince Charlie to consider. He claimed to be Charles III but was not recognised, not even by Mr. Pope. The trouble with looking things up is that you get into all sorts of interesting asides. So now I know there is a second Royal family claiming the throne. The Jacobite kings still exist and we are currently on King Francis II. Oddly enough, they don't claim Kingship of Wales but then that's probably because they've been there.

I'm a mongrel with a lot of Welsh, brought up in Wales and the observation noted by Radio Free Britain is spot on. The Welsh just don't care. The country has always been an unmanageable collection of inter-fighting tribes and that will never change. You can say you're in charge of Wales and the Welsh will say 'okay' and then ignore you. They never oust dictators, they ignore them. Eventually the dictators give up and move on. So it will be with the Welsh Assembly which came into being after a resounding vote of 'Don't care, boyo'.

The Prince of Wales is always English. Do you really imagine the Welsh have ever paid the slightest attention?

The current Prince of Wales is set to be King Charles III on the demise of Mrs. Queen (may she live forever, or at least ten seconds longer than he does). After that we are at least spared the devastation of yet another King Charles, because we'll have King Bill. Wasn't David Carradine in that? Or have I mixed up the future King with some other sword-wielding maniac?

Charlie Two was whipped by Cromwell at Worcester. Not a great record for the Charlies. They don't tend to win much. Charlie One, as everyone untainted by modern teaching knows, lost repeatedly during the English Civil War and eventually lost his head.

Anyway, a look at history tells us that previous King Charles incumbents didn't do too well. Charles the bonny but not Third sparked the Jacobite rebellion and had his arse kicked at Culloden. Charles the Second was unfaithful to his wife (what's in a name, eh?) and was only restored as monarch because Cromwell was a bit of a twat. The biggest bit of one, and not one of the useful parts. Even so, Charlie Two didn't get back in until Cromwell died because this particular twat was almost as Puritan as Dong Shaper or the Dreadful Arnott. Next time, we need to choose a liberator who doesn't have dictatorial tendencies of his own.

It was once said of Charles II -

We have a pretty witty King,
And whose word no man relies on;
He never said a foolish thing,
And never did a wise one

We won't be able to say that about Charles III because the third line won't work. In fact only the second and fourth lines are worth keeping.

Our jug-eared cretin, set to succeed to the throne once he's had it painted green and had his most trusted tree installed as his principal advisor, rarely says anything that could not be described as derisory. Spike Milligan was right about him. He will be Charles the Third but not Bonny.

The country is on the brink of uprising. Comfortable people won't riot, which is what our masters are counting on but they are pushing and pushing for what they hope will be a little bit of easily containable civil unrest. Then they can apply the smackdown.

The events in Tunisia and Egypt went beyond what they wanted. When we have another King Charles, especially one who is just as greenery-deranged as George III, it's likely to go beyond the easily containable here too.

What we don't want is another Puritan Cromwell. Maybe a Farage?

I'd like to see UKIP win whichever constituency includes Marston Moor. It would be deeply symbolic.

Well, it would be if there are enough people left who remember why.


James Strong said...

I think Prince Charles has said he is going to reign as George, hasn't he? It's his fourth name, but they can choose any name when they ascend. Rather like the Pope,the current one is not named Benedict on his birth certificate.

Having split that hair over our future king's chosen name, I'd be interested to know what you think of the UK monarchy.

It seems to me that the hereditary principle is absurd, ludicrous and ridiculous as well as preposterous and outrageous.

However it does serve to separate the function of Head of State from head of government.

So you can badmouth the lying scumbag in No 10, whoever he is, without being accused of treason. (In an ideal world,that is. In reality I do foresee a time when the freedom of otherwise peaceful lippy dissidents will be further curtailed.)

I think you are right that the authorities would welcome an unsuccessful uprising that could be put down with some bloodshed and then be followed by more oppressive laws and regulations.

I have no evidence for that I'm afraid. It's based on my loathing of government and those attracted to go into it.

As for the rebellions in Tunisia and Egypt, well, we don't yet know how successful the Egyptian uprising has been or will be.

banned said...

Have the post-Charles Heir and the Spare expressed any views on Dads Greenery?

I'm all in favour of the hereditary monarchy since it means the Head Of State has not had to climb the greasy pole to get there and is in fact Mr Everybody. President Blair? President Prescott? President Mandelson? YUK!

delcretin said...

Spooky you should post this. Just yesterday, I was at the pub, world famous in my village, next to Swarkestone Bridge and Causeway which is as far south as the Bonny Prince got before his generals packed up and went home.

Anonymous said...

Revolution Harry posted a good link about Jug Ears some while back

An excellent read that I commend to the house:-)

Anonymous said...

Ahahahaha, check out the Captcha that your blog gave me when I was posting my comment above LI

Chris said...

...King Foliage the Second (remember George III)...

Unfair to Farmer George! Although as mad as a bag of squirrels he was actually interested in scientific farming (ways of feeding more people more efficiently), not in the anti-scientific woo and fairy stories that seem to appeal to Jug Ears.

The country is on the brink of uprising. Comfortable people won't riot, which is what our masters are counting on but they are pushing and pushing for what they hope will be a little bit of easily containable civil unrest. Then they can apply the smackdown.

Doubtful. I still think the mandarins and oligarchs are shooting for their traditional 'orderly management of decline'. With the help of the Gaia Cult they might manage to take us all the way back to feudalism.

hangemall said...

L-I, concerning the rhyme about CharlesII, the article you linked to gives his reply

To which Charles is reputed to have replied "that the matter was easily accounted for: For that his discourse was his own, his actions were the ministry's."

I am mostly with Banned on the subject of hereditary, but bearing in mind that we should still be able to get rid of them as we have done in the past, one way or another, and find another one.

Alternatively, how about offering Putin a 20-year contract?

W.V. = rhypsol. Isn't that what they put in the water so we don't know what's going on?

SadButMadLad said...

"Charlie One, as everyone untainted by modern teaching knows, lost repeatedly during the English Civil War and eventually lost his head." - alledgedly by one of my ancestors.

Angry Exile said...

Banned, I believe I saw an article a while back reporting that Wills was spouting some depressingly familiar sounding eco-wibble and googling just now I found a couple of articles that mentioned that he 'shares his father's interest in the environment' or words to that effect.

I've said this more than once but I'm going for an encore: republic, please. Fucking now.

Foreign Entity said...

Lateral news.
Pass the Dutchie...

Junican said...

Dear Prince Charles is enamoured of the Climate Change movement. Why? JUST IN CASE it proves to be correct. Just in case. No science, no proof. Just in case. Of course, he pays lip service to the 'science is settled' brigade, but he personally knows nothing. If he knows nothing, he should keep his mouth shut, and, if he is a believer, should certainly not be driving about in limosines - he should walk (no cycling, because bicycles have to be made). He should walk, even if he has to be surrounded by hundreds of security men (masquerading as the household cavelry, riding about on their massively expensive and shitprone bob-horses).

If the 'precautionary principle' were justified, THE GREATEST EMPERIMENTAL PHYSICIST OF ALL TIME, INCLUDING EINSTEIN, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FUNCTION. I speak of Michael Faraday. Michael Faraday discovered that a spinning magnet can induce an electic current in a wire. He proved it to himself by putting two ends of a wire in his mouth and spinning a copper disk (attached to the wire) in a magnetic field. He felt the electricity pass through his mouth from one end of the wire to the other. Without MF, we would have no power stations and no electric motors. Not only that (and this is very important) he showed that the magnet does not lose its power. In other words, it is THE SPINNING of the magnet which moves the electricity. Another 'scientist' (medical) drank a glass of bacteria to show that that a particular bacterium was not 'activated' by ingestion, but via wounds. He took the risk - he was unaffected - he did not obey the precautionary principle.

People who embrace the precautionary principle cannot possible be wrong, can they? If you never cross a road, you can never be knocked down, can you?

It strikes me that the whole Tobacco Contol principle is based upon the precautionary principle. Not long ago, there was a possibiltythat one might get lung cancer from smoking. Now, it is a certainty - even though mortality statistics indicate perfectly clearly that this is not so.

Erm...have I been on topic here...I'm not sure!!

Leg-iron said...

Banned - 'the Heir and the Spare' - heh, I'll have to remember that.

Chris - he's madder than George III? Holy crap!

Interestingly, after the restoration, all documents were changed to show Charles II gaining the throne when his dad went topless. Winston Ye Smith was apparently already in ye Ministerie of ye Truth.

Leg-iron said...

Junican - there was talk of the nuclear bomb setting fire to the atmosphere. Okay, I can see where the precautionary principle could have been a good thing there, but it would also have meant no nuclear power stations.

The drinking scientist you refer to (I can't remember his name) drank cholera to prove it was hard to catch. He was right, it takes repeated exposure through contaminated water sources to get infected. If he had followed the precautionary principle we'd have to boil every drop now.

If I followed the precautionary principle, I'd never work at all!

Leg-iron said...

Foreign Entity - so, Holland are the first to ditch windmills. Don Quixote will be distraught.

Still, he can move to the UK where he can tilt to his heart's cntent.

Angry Exile said...

The greenies are misusing the Precautionary Principle anyway. On the one hand they're saying we must assume the worst case scenario is true and act in response to it, which does make a certain amount of sense. But on the other they say that the worst case scenario is man made warble gloaming and that in order to reverse it we must therefore go back to the Middle Ages unless we need to jet off to a climate change conference at a five star resort somewhere. Really? A worst case scenario that we have a simple solution for, even if it is a very unappealing solution? Load of bollocks - the worst case scenario is one that we can't solve because the forces are beyond our control even if we understood them all, which almost certainly we don't.

In other words the worst case scenario is not warble gloaming that we can stop but plain old natural variation that has always and will always be out of our hands. Certainly we must have some effect but correct use of the Precautionary Principle, as advocated by the tree-shaggers, would tell us to assume that our contribution is no more significant that the effect of a fat bloke falling off a pier on the tides.

The news is dire, folks, the worst possible kind. We must assume the climate will change anyway and direct all our efforts into being able to adapt to it. The Precautionary Principle says so.

opinions powered by