Andrew Bolt: ‘Activist’ Prince Charles is gone

Charles knows being a King isn’t about backing causes or winning popularity contests. It’s about keeping traditions and the constitution safe.

THANK God, King Charles made clear on day one he’s not the complete fool that royalists feared and republicans hoped.

What a fine first King’s speech he gave on Friday.

I don’t mean the soft touches – “darling Mama”, “darling wife” – or his generosity to the son and daughter-in-law who’ve treacherously abused him and his family: “I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.”

I mean instead the bits of steel – like that reminder that Harry and Meghan are of course finished as royals – that showed duty counts as much to King Charles as it did to Queen Elizabeth, and the activist Prince Charles is gone.

He’s saying there will be no King Charles the Green, and republican vultures must wait for their feed.

How those vultures hungered for this moment, thinking they’d feast when the Queen died and her awkward son took over.

King Charles and Camilla, Queen Consort, look on during his proclamation as King. Picture: Getty Images

In fact, the Albanese government counted on it, insensitively appointing Matt Thistlethwaite as Assistant Minister for the Republic, ready to pounce when the already ailing Queen died.

As Thistlethwaite salivated last month: “We’ve got this unique opportunity with a queen coming to the end of her reign, for us to now lay the groundwork so that when that does happen in the future, we’re ready to go with a campaign.”

Some republican activists couldn’t wait even a day to crow over her yet-unfilled grave.

Just two hours after the news of the Queen’s death, Greens leader Adam Bandt tweeted, “We need to become a republic”.

His appalling deputy, Mehreen Faruqi, three hours later said not only was it time for a republic, but she “cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire”.

And Peter FitzSimons, head of the Australian Republican Movement, explained why he thought this was the republicans’ big chance: “Charles III ... does not enjoy the same deep wellspring of affection and loyalty that Her Majesty did.”

FitzSimons even gloated that his loss-making movement would finally see “a surge of interest, of membership, of donations”.

Queen Elizabeth II. Picture: Getty Images

Mind you, conservatives did fear Charles would play right into republican hands.

How we’d despaired at that meddling and divisive Prince.

We’d shuddered to see his gullible crusading over global warming, including his promotion of teen hysteric Greta Thunberg.

We’d groaned at his crass attempts to interfere in politics, sending British ministers memos lobbying for everything from better equipment for troops to – of all foolish causes – making alternative herbal “medicines” more available.

How could we defend this royal pain?

Other critics cared less about Charles forgetting his place as an unelected royal and more about him forgetting his marriage vows when cheating on his former wife, Princess Diana.

But if we all knew this, King Charles knows it even better.

And in his first speech as King he stressed he really was the son of his much-admired mother, and would now act so.

He said Queen Elizabeth kept a “promise of lifelong service I renew to you all today”, to show an “abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as nations” so that no matter how much Britain changed, “our values have remained, and must remain, constant”.

Greens Leader Adam Bandt wasted no time calling for a republic. . Picture: Martin Ollman

Either did Peter FitzSimons. Picture: Adam Yip

Perfectly said. Conservative, but not reactionary.

In particular, he said he would “hold in the greatest respect the precious traditions, freedoms and responsibilities of our unique history and our system of parliamentary government”, and “uphold the Constitutional principles at the heart of our nation”.

If his critics hadn’t got the message that activist Prince Charles was now conservative King Charles, he stressed his new job meant “new responsibilities”: “It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply.”

We should have suspected four years ago Charles would change, after a journalist asked him if he’d keep crusading as King.

“No, I’m not that stupid,” he snapped.

“The idea somehow that I’m going to go on in exactly the same way if I have to succeed, is complete nonsense ... If you become the sovereign then you play the role in the way that it is expected.”

Let republicans weep and monarchists take heart.

Charles knows being a King is not about backing causes or winning popularity contests. It’s about keeping safe the traditions and constitution that have made Britain great, and Australia, too.

So for as long as he honours his word: God Save the King.