CNN knows exactly what propelled Charles to Britain's throne

I once heard an internal medicine doctor say of surgeons, "To a hammer, everything's a nail."  In other words, no matter what the problem, his contention was that the surgeons' solution involved anesthetics and a scalpel.  At CNN, there are only two narratives or nails: Trump and climate change.  When it comes to covering Charles's ascension to the throne, the Trump storyline isn't working.  Fated to fall back on the climate narrative, CNN may have come up with the best CNN chyron ever.

Charles III has been waiting 73 years to become the King of England.  He was created Prince of Wales (that is, the official heir to the throne) in 1958 and had his investiture in 1969.  And then he waited...and waited...and waited.

Over the years, he cut bazillions of ribbons, met world leaders, lavished amazing amounts of love on Islam (including accepting its wildly antisemitic view of a "Jewish lobby"), married the narcissistic and neurotic Princess Diana, fathered two boys, cheated on his wife, remarried, and enjoyed his entirely unearned wealth (estimated at around $100 million, although it will increase now that he's king).

Image: King Charles III.  YouTube screen grab.

Charles also got involved in the anthropogenic climate change movement.  What minimal respect I had for the man cratered once that obsession came along.  But while I might think less of Charles, for CNN, his buying into the climate change narrative proves that, at long last, someone worthy will finally sit on England’s throne.  And that's how we end up with this priceless CNN chyron about Charles’s ascension:



(Don't be confused by the date in the upper-right-hand corner.  That is the date on which the video footage was taken.)

The royal mother, the ribbon-cutting, the affairs, the fatherhood, the making nice to world leaders, the Islam love affair...none of it matters.  What got Charles on the throne was that "climate change advocacy."  Naturally, people had fun:

We're living through serious times with totally unserious people at the helm: they're in the White House, in Buckingham Palace (although mercifully merely symbolic there), and throughout the media.  The old-time TV newsmen all leaned left, but they at least had the appearance of gravitas.  This current crop is drawn from the back of the classroom and the bottom of the heap.  They are ridiculous, ignorant people who risibly believe that they have both wisdom and knowledge.

As for Charles, I consider it an ill-fated name.  The first King Charles was a pompous little man who ended with his head on the chopping block.  The second King Charles was a man who was both incredibly charming and extraordinarily corrupt.  Also, despite being the head of England's church, he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, showing a hypocrisy that's unsettling in the modern era.  Let's hope Charles III does better during his life and dies peacefully and honorably in his bed at an advanced age.



If you experience technical problems, please write to