Charles pushes confrontation with Russia


PRINCE Charles’s comparison of President Putin with Hitler, and Putin’s actions in the Ukraine as comparable with Hitler’s treatment of the peoples of Poland and Czechoslovakia, is not just offensive, but proves that the future Charles 111 is made of the same stuff as Charles I.

He believed in divine right and that the correct place for parliament was under his thumb, the alternative choice being under his thumbscrews.

Charles I was incapable of compromising with the parliament and ended up on the scaffold and headless.

His reign led to the abolition of the House of Lords, the declaration of the English Republic and rule through the Lord Protector.

Charles has already let it be known on a number of occasions that he considers that he is much better prepared to rule than the politicians, that is why a number of his royal subjects are already of the opinion that his coming to the throne would equal a disaster both for the remnants of feudalism and capitalism itself.

At the moment he is in a state of waiting, being maintained by the public purse provided by the Duchy of Lancaster, his feudal domain of 46,000 acres valued at £429 million, all to provide him with an income. He has no worries about bedroom taxes.

In fact, his attacking Putin is an arrogant assault on the whole of the Russian people and all those who were at the heart of the war against fascism.

Behind that attack is a hereditary fear. It is a matter of record that George V, a relative of Tsar Nicholas, refused him asylum in the UK in 1917, because of his fear that his own subjects might be inspired to carry out their own revolution.

Of course, a number of Royals were not in that fight to the finish against fascism. Amongst them was his illustrious predecessor Edward VIII. He visited Hitler and numbered him a friend. After his abdication when the war started, he had to be transported to the West Indies to keep him as far away from the fascists as possible. Hitler had him marked down as a potential puppet ruler of the UK.

In fact he was not alone among the ruling class aristocracy, who favoured a separate peace with Hitler so that they could make war on Russia together.

The truth of the matter is that Charles is only contemplating occupying the throne because, in Churchill’s words, the Red Army tore the guts out of the German army, at the cost of over 24 million dead.

Meanwhile it is a popular saying that you know a person by the company he keeps. As far as Charles is concerned he is at home in the Gulf and Jeddah where he hobnobs with the Gulf feudalists. He loves the birds of prey with which they go hunting in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

However, what makes him feel really at home is that his feudal friends do not tolerate parliaments. Not only do they not have to put up with taking orders from their inferiors, they can jail them, or whip them or beat them as they like. Charles loves the Gulf feudalists with a special ardour, because they embrace the same outlook as Charles I, they believe in the Divine Right of Kings, and that their subjects are very lucky to have them. Charles believes in the same theory.

Charles has brazenly attacked Putin. We await his attack on the Gulf feudalists and demands for democracy in the Gulf. Charles’s love of reaction and reactionaries is revealed by his stance on the issue of the Ukraine.

On March 21 there was a violent coup, when real fascists organised in gangs of stormtroopers, seized the power in Kiev and overthrew the legal government and the elected president. Charles had nothing to say about this coup and the fascists that led it. He kept quiet about it.

In fact, he supports it.

Behind all of his pose of nobility and grandeur lies a would-be monarch that is barely tolerated, but is subsidised by the state in the most shameful way, while his subjects suffer under Cameron’s austerity. He is the kept man of the bosses and bankers and nothing else.

Charles I refused to compromise and went to the scaffold believing in the Divine Right of Kings. In its own way it was a tragedy that he was unable to change with the revolutionary times.

The reign of Charles III, on a state subsidy, whose mission is to try and maintain the allegiance of the middle class in a period of revolution, will be a farce.

The English revolution of the 1640s abolished the House of Lords, the monarchy and declared a Republic, before the bouregeoisie managed to rein it back with the Restoration.

The British revolution that lies directly ahead will declare a a socialist republic as its first action, before going on to expropriate the bosses and bankers and bring in socialism and a planned socialist economy, based on the satisfaction of people’s needs, and not to provide profits for the rich and hand-outs for their royal servants.

There will be no place at all for a Charles III.