King Charles III is not ‘in’ with the cool rocker crowd
The last coronation in England was 70 years ago when Queen Elizabeth sat on Edward I’s chair (dating from 1296) as the Archbishop of Canterbury placed King Edward’s crown (dating from 1661) on her head. It’s an ancient ceremony and, in the modern era, an infrequent one. You’d think there’d be a queue of rock stars lining up to be part of this historical moment, but they’re not. Even a king all-in on climate change can’t override a soap opera monarchy associated with colonialism, so top rockers are saying “no” to being a part of the event.
Back in the 1960s, when Charles was invested as Prince of Wales, he was definitely seen as cool or, at least, as a good marital prospect for the young women of England (and probably other places as well). He wasn’t very good-looking, and his nasal, posh accent was a bit off-putting, but he was young and heir to the British throne.
By the early 1980s, when he was engaged and then married to Diana, Charles essentially vanished. It was all about her. I still remember when I was enjoying my junior year abroad in England in 1981-1982, how my biker friends had posters of Diana in their rooms, while everyone, biker or not, laughed uproariously at photographs showing Charles wearing dress pumps with little rosettes (very early 19th-century style) at an ELO performance. He was the epitome of not cool.
Image: King Charles III. YouTube screen grab.
The years went by, Diana died, and Charles married his true love, which ought to have been romantic but wasn’t. His sons grew up, with one marrying a lovely woman who never missteps in her role as the wife to the heir to the throne, while the other married a shallow, leftist, narcissistic woman and went on to write books revealing details about his father’s truly private life (an invasion of privacy that no son should commit). All this, of course, meant that Charles continued to be the epitome of not cool. And now, he was a bit of a fool, too.
But on the “cool” side, as far as leftists are concerned, there’s the fact that Charles has always been all-in on climate change. For well over a decade, leftists have been applauding Charles’s climate activism.
In 2005, he was praising Tony Blair for the latter’s climate change work…and demanding more of the same. In 2007, he set up the Rainforests Project to stop tropical deforestation to prevent the dreaded climate change. In 2015, he was insisting that climate change explained the Syrian Civil War.
Despite increasing (and, so far as I know, uncontroverted) evidence that we’re entering a sun-driven period of global cooling, Charles has continued his fanatic commitment to anthropogenic climate change. In 2020, he spoke at a Green Horizon Summit outlining ways to drive a “green” economy. In 2021, he gave a statement at the COP 26 United Nations Climate Change Conference, insisting on the need to “radically transform our current fossil fuel-based economy….” No wonder that, after Elizabeth II died, ABC News celebrated that “Charles III will be known as the 1st climate king, experts say.”
Considering that anthropogenic climate change is the left’s religion, along with abortion and transgenderism, and that this secular (or pagan) faith has been relentlessly drilled into young people through educational institutions and entertainment, one would think that leftists in the entertainment world would desperately want to become a part of his coronation. I mean, what young leftist wouldn’t want to have his name associated with the world’s “1st climate king”? And yet…. Charles still isn’t cool:
A number of British pop artists have turned down the opportunity to play at the new king’s coronation in May, with Adele, Harry Styles, Robbie Williams and Elton John reportedly declining invitations to perform. When asked for their reasons, the musicians’ reps have either cited scheduling conflicts or declined to comment altogether.
However, U.K. publicists and some fellow musicians and fans told Rolling Stone that these stars may be turned off by the barrage of royal scandals in recent years, or they may be reluctant to associate with an institution that younger generations see as unfairly privileged or representative of a racist, colonialist past. Charles, 73, moreover isn’t as globally beloved as his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who died in September, while artists also may fear it would be bad optics to participate in a lavish, heavy-on-the-pomp celebration while ordinary Britons struggle to afford food or heat amid the country’s cost-of-living crisis.
Britain’s imperial legacy ended either before or in the early years of Elizabeth II’s reign. In other words, the institution has adapted. It’s now just a colorful, meaningless tourist attraction with an impressive history (for better or worse) behind it.
But that’s never going to be enough for leftists who, since the French Revolution, have slavered at the idea of bringing down kings. And when you have a really embarrassing family—where Charles dreamed of being Camilla’s tampon and Harry put his mother’s face cream on his penis—well, just…ick.
It's possible that Kate’s unusual charm will manage to pull the monarchy out of its tailspin. However, when a monarchy lacks cachet, it really has nothing at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ancient British monarchy doesn’t simply implode in a decade or two from the weight of its own irrelevancy.