Rohan Dean sees himself as a ‘conservative’. He has two misgivings about King Charles III – one is political; the other is personal.
The political objection is that Charles ‘has embraced left-wing politics’ and that he has ‘played a significant role in promoting the environmentalist agenda that has empowered Vladimir Putin.’
The second is that Charles got angry with his then wife in 1985 at a black-tie charity event at Royal Albert Hall when she accepted an invitation to dance from a ‘brash young and perhaps slightly inebriated Aussie larrikin’ (Dean) who just ‘seized the moment.’
It is hard to say which is the more banal or repellent. But it does something about ‘conservatives here’.
Expressing concern about the environment and the climate is as controversial as doubting the literal truth of Genesis. Unless of course you subscribe to the views of Rohan Dean, the IPA, and Sky After Dark.
The views expressed by the then Prince of Wales were in accordance the views of the Ministers advising the Queen at Westminster – at least since David Cameron became Prime Minister. But they may not have been within the advice given to Her Majesty by her then Australian Ministers – although they are within the range of the current government.
The question then is: What happens when the King of Australia is asked to express views that are contradicted by the views he must express as the King of England?
If the answer is that the king is a poodle who must just do as he is told at Westminster or Canberra, why do we need to import a head of state – and possibly embarrass him at home?
The Crown – apolitical – climate change – political where?