Just because Charles talks to the trees will not make him a bad king

I quite like Charles, he is perhaps not the strongest of personalities, spoilt certainly and a sitting target for the Republicans but amiable. Attacking him from this and other conservative outlets because he is green is not a wise idea unless you want President Abbott in Buck House.

I talk to my trees too. Contemporary chemical studies show that trees talk to each other via microtubules in their roots. ‘It is talk that my be not as we know it Spock,’ but a forest is an integrated communications network, measuring the health of all its members and  siphoning nutrients to those in need or diseased. How the Bonnington Jagworths laughed when they heard about Charles talking to plants.

  • J. Bonington Jagworth — leader of the militant Motorists’ Liberation Front and defender of “the basic right of every motorist to drive as fast as he pleases, how he pleases and over what or whom he pleases”. Suspicious of his Marxist chief-of-staff Royston Cylinder but good friend of Rev John Goodwheel. Anticipated Jeremy Clarkson by three decades. Peter Simple character invented by Salisbury Review Writer Michael Wharton.

You may have noticed how few birds and insects there are in your garden in the last few years.  40% decline in species in UK. Why not a 4th, 5th, 6th runaway at Heathrow, a 20 lane motorway from London to Liverpool, and drones filling the skies ?

Subscribe to Digital magazine

Subscribe to Print Magazine




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


17 Comments on Just because Charles talks to the trees will not make him a bad king

  1. One of his first actions must be to strip Harry of any Royal entitlements and rank. In Harry, I see David Windsor, aka Edward VII. This time we should cast him and his wife adrift, rather than give them any air with which they can cause trouble during their lifetime.

    • @ Reg Wilson
      Not Edward VII but Edward VIII, who said to a friend in post-war France: “I’m rather relieved at not having to spend a Reign pulling down the Union Jack from one flagpole after another around our former empire”.

  2. Our new King cannot even handle the stress of a pen, and you expect him to be great. No wonder Diana begged for a divorce.

    Wasn’t it Gandhi who said “if you lose patience, you lose the battle”.

    • @ barbara
      Check out what the problems actually were over the “pen”. He was patient with Diana’s fragile personality, and it is a great pity that he was in earlier years advised to avoid Camilla and then take on the “people’s princess”.
      Gandhi was free with advice, amusing in his dismissal of western “civilization” but ridiculous in his letter to his “dear friend” Hitler.

  3. I think Charles has a good taste in architecture (certainly not women). Problem is that he is too close to the likes of Klaus Schwab and The New Davos Globalist International to serve his nation well. Sad but true. Even a monarch can espouse revolutionary goals. British monarchy is doomed unless it returns to Catholic creed.

  4. It is very common to read and hear anti-green discourse in conservative-leaning circles. But however many or few score people may or may not come to be established on Mars, the stark fact is the planet Earth is the only home in a vast, freezing and desolate universe, on which the mass of human beings or any other complex living thing can hope to exist and sustain its kind. It is extremely important the the Earth be kept in good operational condition and disappointingly few people seem to care and fewer still to understand the systems involved. It is refreshing that Charles III has a love of the land and a genuine appetite for ecological understanding, while not being a dirty-dreadlocked ‘Green’, glued to a road somewhere, who wouldn’t know oats from barley or which end of a cow to milk.

    • Mr McSproat. From the current editorial. 1.9.22

      “How serious is this problem? In 1950 the population of the UK was 50 million. It is now 75 million, some say 80. While the average population density in Europe is 34 people/sq km, in England it is 426 people /sq km. There are not enough trees, flowers, wildlife, grass or moorland that can sustain such a vast population squeezed on such a small island. As a result, Britain is one of the most biologically depleted countries on the planet with an average 40 per cent loss in animals and plants.”

      • Mr Harris, Your Editorial in full needs wide distribution, especially to suitable MPs. There is no doubt that HM The King personally knows the situation and shares inner concern. As you say, British governments have embarked on a policy of uncounted population expansion paid for by “cheap money”.
        We need to assess what private advice and counsel will be exchanged by the designated Head of the Commonwealth with people like Truss and Starmer. Careful exegesis of his speech in Ghana on 6 November 2018 will show his positive and amicable concern for the past and future of the former colonies, but in the context of environmental degradation and, after tactful pieties, tactfully referred towards the end to “unsustainable population growth”, and solutions inside the affected areas on the basis of shared advice and external assistance; mitigation at home not migration outside. Elsewhere he has noted the implications for western “security” from mass-movements from the “global south”. He has also noted the “cultural” hindrance to birth-control in Islamic and “developing” countries (see e.g., “Daily Telegraph”, 10 June 2010). His son Prince William identified Africa as the chief area of concern, but the form of words must be sensitive.

        It is our responsibility to see that politicians give him appropriate, not “appalling”, advice on demographic pressures on our island and the import of ethnic tensions, gang warfare, weapons and narcotics. Fashionable white-wokism and black-racism have shifted the goalposts of organisations like the former OPT of Jack Parsons and the newly “actively anti-racist” Friends of the Earth, from the days when the latter launched its environmental handbook for the UK with essays from Garrett Hardin, Paul Ehrlich, Ed Mishan and Kenneth Allsop. I have briefly explained the origins and other impacts of this bouleversement in an article that only the Council of European Canadians agreed to publish.

        My suggestion would be for suitable people to form a parliament group to advise Ministers on racial replacement dangers. Rishi Sunak published an original and constructive critique of the Equality Act and asylum criteria; Lord Green of Deddington, former diplomat, founded Migration Watch UK; Nicholas Soames, a close acquaintance of HM, co-authored “Balanced Migration”; the “Common Sense” Group of MPs may have a few useful ethnicity-aware members.

  5. I don’t mind that he talks to the trees. I like my plants too, but that is irrelevant. I don’t like him because he’s philandering buffoon, who lacks almost every quality that made his mother so well-loved. She was reserved, intelligent, beautiful (when younger), had tremendous resolve in the face of hardships, understood the common people, and upheld the cultural institution in which she served, and she did so with dignity. And she never faulted, not once in over 70 years.

    Charles is none of that.
    I prefer William, and I wish she had the courage to bypass Charles, but
    it is what it is. I will refrain from further insults, because I suppose now is the time to try and support a guy who has very few endearing qualities, but I will only support him because I oppose the woke neo marxists who are attempting to destroy English culture.

    • A buffoon is a ridiculous and brainless clown.
      How does that admitted “insult” fit the books, essays and speeches from the former Prince of Wales, or his hard work for the Prince’s Trust and other charities, or his initiative as a modest entrepreneur and competence as a gardener, or his cordial reception from people of all ages and walks of life?
      Will he defend English culture against the woke neo-Marxists in his now restricted capacity to “advise and warn” his First Minister in private? One can only hope so, but the political and cultural future of England and Englishness are ultimately matters for the English people and “ethnic others” who also value us. He has done much for us in the past, with a far from “dystopian” vision of beauty, harmony and prosperity, accompanied occasionally with a friendly sense of humour.
      The King is on record as saying: “I love this country and I want to see Britain great again.” Amen to that.

      • Not getting married until you are 40, simply because you prefer to play the field for as long as you can, and then cheating on your wife incessently, and with a former lover, is the sign of a man whose not only immature but lacking any sense of conviction and morality. He certainly doesn’t have the disposition and maturity of William, who appears to be more intelligent.

        And I doubt the essays were written by him. I’ve heard him speak; he’s not that articulate. But yes, let’s hope that age has brought him some degree of wisdom. Let’s hope he’s capable of handling the task.

        And btw, landscaping is not a high iq endeavor. And clearly, he didn’t do it entirely by himself. He hires architects. Anyone with money can setup a charity, and hire people to carry out the mission. I founded a charity, and I do nothing. It takes less than 1% of my time. I sit on the board and show up once a year.

        • It is wearisome to reply to those whose private scepticism is applied to public evidence. Court Circular archives, collections of the King’s previous off-the-cuff remarks, and testimony to hands-on work for the Prince’s Trust (more committed than your own charity work) are available. His knowledge of flora and their cultivation may not be as close as his Mother’s familiarity with horses, but we need not press this point. His “meddling” letters on numerous issues to MPs and others must now cease, but not his patriotic motivation.

    • >Charles is none of that.

      True; but how many people are? Elizabeth II was an extraordinary monarch and an extraordinary person in many ways. Charles III is no Elizabeth II – or Elizabeth I, for that matter – but he isn’t likely to be a Charles I or George IV, either.

      • @ Skeptic
        Charles III won’t be a Charles I because instead of an actual assassination by republicans he will be subject as long previously to character assassination not only by republicans but media ink-squirts in the prolonged “royal tradition” of the “conservative” Daily Mail.

  6. Spoilt? In his schooldays, naval service, endless charity efforts? Oh yes, a servant cleans his teeth for him, and a butler dips his “soldiers” in the best yoke of the breakfast egg selection. He has in reality a dressing valet, essential to his public appearance.
    Like him or not, he is our King. He will prove a good one. He has to act on the advice of ministers henceforth, not vice versa, and IT IS OUR JOB – NOT HIS – TO GET THE RIGHT POLITICIANS IN THE AGE OF MASS MIGRATION AND CYBER DOMINATION, tempting dream as was the film “King Charles III” when he told the MPs to get lost, like his unsuccessful progenitor and Bernard Shaw’s King Magnus. We can hope that, as in Layamon’s “Brut”, an “Arthur” may yet come to rescue England in its final hour, the third name of our new Sovereign.