One of the most remarkable aspects of Prince King Charles’s long, long apprenticeship was how little he learned from it, despite the example of his mother, someone who understood the role of the monarch in today’s democratic Britain in a way that her son does not.

The monarch is a symbol — supposedly a unifying symbol — of the nation, a “living flag,” in Lenin’s phrase, nothing more (except in extraordinarily rare circumstances). That means that he or she must avoid speaking out on (or becoming embroiled in) anything remotely politically contentious. Elizabeth II generally got this right, as did her father, George VI, with one significant exception (inviting Neville Chamberlain to appear before cheering crowds on the balcony of Buckingham Palace in the wake of the Munich Agreement).

But, as I wrote in November 2021:

Charles . . . seems to feel hemmed in by this idea, presumably as it is an affront to his well-developed sense of self-importance. Charles has been sharing his thoughts with the rest of us for a long, long time, whether on architecture, the environment, “organic” food, homeopathy (#science!), or on talking to plants. Sometimes he’s been right, and sometimes he’s been wrong. (Say what you will, the food brand he established does make some good biscuits.) His Prince’s Trust charity has carried out some truly remarkable work, too.

Unfortunately, Charles has failed to understand that his opinions have any significance only because of what he is, not because of who he is. If he were just Charlie Mountbatten-Windsor, he wouldn’t get much of a hearing, but because he is the prince of Wales, he does. If he were just Charlie Mountbatten-Windsor, he wouldn’t have become a Davos regular, but because he is Prince Charles, he has. And because he is Prince Charles, he is being held out as a key figure in the launch of the “Great Reset” — a proposed remodeling of the global economy on supposedly more sustainable lines — despite his enjoying a lifestyle known neither for its asceticism nor its light carbon footprint. Then again, who could not be impressed by the fact that he has converted his Aston Martin so that it now runs on (English) white wine and whey? Well . . .

Charles’s environmentalism — among other causes — has led him to cross the line into the political, almost certainly knowingly and, it seems, increasingly.

Prince William has shown some signs of following a similar path, but, as I wrote back in 2021:

There is little to no chance that either will do the honorable thing and renounce their inheritance, a renunciation that would allow them to speak their mind without compromising their constitutional obligations. Some sacrifices are apparently too great, planet or no planet. Inertia and tradition, and — republicans will be disappointed — the absence of an obvious non-monarchical alternative with sufficient backing, will probably keep each, when the time comes, on the throne, even if they continue to pontificate on topics that as constitutional monarchs they should not, despite the damage it will do to an institution of which they are nothing more than stewards. But neither Brits nor anyone else should pay them too much attention. If these royals’ role is to be living banners, then their political views should be of no more relevance than those of any other piece of cloth.

And so now here we are. Charles is on the throne, and he shows a certain reluctance to do his job properly.

Here’s a tweet today from the mayor of London, a Labour politician with, among other failings, a pathological hatred of cars:

Today with His Majesty King Charles III we launched the Climate Clock—a visual reminder of the urgency of the climate crisis. The climate emergency poses a threat not only to the future of our city but to the future of our world and that is why it must remain a key priority.

Ridiculous.

Making it worse, Charles has already made a fool of himself over climate timetables before.

The Independent (July 9, 2009):

Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned in a grandstand speech which set out his concerns for the future of the planet.

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the “age of convenience” was over.

The Washington Times (July 28, 2015):

Prince Charles is warning that there are only 35 years left to save the planet from climate disaster, which represents a 33-year extension of his previous deadline.
In March 2009, the heir to the British throne predicted that the world had 100 months “before we risk catastrophic climate change,” as pointed out by Climate Depot’s Marc Morano.

Rupert Darwall in RealClearEnergy (May 2023):

A 2021 paper on extreme climate forecasts tabulates 79 predictions of climate-caused catastrophe dating back to the first Earth Day in 1970. Charles has the distinction of being the only individual to be featured three times, with separate predictions of climate apocalypse. As the paper’s co-author David Rode of Carnegie Mellon University comments, alongside Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, Prince Charles has “warned repeatedly of ‘irretrievable ecosystem collapse’ if actions were not taken, repeated the prediction with a new definitive end date. Their predictions have repeatedly been apocalyptic and highly certain . . . and so far, they’ve also been wrong.”

Charles is, of course, entitled to his opinions on climate change. He is not, however, entitled to use his throne as, so to speak, a platform to express them. This presents him with a choice he should not be allowed to dodge. As noted above, if the crisis is as grave as he suggests, it is surely his duty to step down so that he can be free to speak out about the approaching apocalypse, beginning, perhaps, like his younger son, with a book, and an interview with Oprah.