The BBC tells us that "King Charles III has hosted a
reception to discuss tackling climate change, as
global leaders prepare for the United Nations climate
summit COP27."

We're told that "about 200 politicians and campaigners
met at Buckingham Palace, including British Prime Minister
Riski Sunak, US climate envoy John Kerry and COP President
Alok Sharma."

"The king is internationally known for his climate work, but
it was agreed he would not go to COP27. The United Nation
Conference begins on Sunday in Egypt."

King Charles has worked on the issues of climate for 50 years
to find solutions - long before the first UN COP meeting.
It makes sense for him to now take this stance.

Your views please.

It seems that King Idiot might have been lying about dropping the climate ratbaggery he practised as Prince Idiot.

I found this on the web and thought it worth sharing:

"It really bugs me and yes I am sorry to single you out
because there's a few people on this forum who are also
being dicks but here's the thing. I don't understand
why you get any support at all for being an asshole.

You make the world a worse place to live. I don't know you,
but I do know you don't have to be an asshole. It's your
choice. You don't have to start conversations the way you
do. You don't have to make me feel disgusted to write on
a website that people like you comment on.

You don't have to make the world a worse place. It's not worth
it. You can be a bigger man. You can be a better person.
And you're not.

Now back to the topic:

The get-together was held to discuss sustainability
and the next steps against climate change. The sovereign
inherited his great passion for environmental causes
from his father, Prince Philip. Both of the new King's
sons Prince William and Prince Harry have also taken on
the fight.

There's more at the following:

http://people.com/royals/king-charles-hosts-cop27-kickoff-reception-buckingham-palace/

Foxy,
Try & mix "Living in the latter Days" with this Climate Change Rig & see if it's of any relevance now ?

During the emotional time of the Queen's passing and the pomp of the funeral, a majority of Australians confirmed their support for the Monarchy. His Silliness, King Charles will, I think, erode that support pretty damn quick.

The whole point of a Monarchy is that it is above politics; His Dimwittedness doesn't get that. Climate change is all about politics; all about wealth transference; money making; nothing to do with the environment. Herr Scwarb of the WEF would be so proud of Charles, who is already madder than George 111.

Someones mad and it ain’t the King.

160 months ago then Prince Charles confidently assured us that "we have less than 100 months to act before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible."

Let's all swoon at the latest predictions of doom.

Of course, I do realise that all previous falsified climate predictions should be ignored and all current climate predictions treated as established fact.

The conference was attended by around 200 international visitors, all of whom arrived via row boat because flying is verboten, dontchya know.

Is Mise

Who is it? I know: Foxy for thinking it's OK to call people "assholes" because they don't belong to her loony left cabal.

Another nutty thing is being "disgusted to write on a website that people like you (ttbn) comment on", but still continuing, far in excess of most posters, to write (a bit grandiose to call it writing) on the same website as the awful ttbn.

Dear Foxy,

Good on him. Don't support the monarchy I'm afraid but if we are to have it in our lives it is great that the King is supportive of action on climate change and willing to continue to facilitate discussion around addressing it.

Charles and the next Lefty-in-line look to be wanting to drag the Monarchy back to the days of that other Charles, who was 'deposed' in a most horrible way. The rapidly failing British Parliament will make it easy for them until another Cromwell comes along, or the Brits decide on a republic before Australia does. Maybe the oldest King to ever take the thrown won't last long; but William is a wet as a boiled turnip, and will make daddy look tame when it comes to stupidity.

ttbn,
It’s easy for you to call the King stupid, but do you have the brains to be a ship’s navigator (in the days when they used a sextant and maths), to be a ship’s Captain or to fly a jet fighter?
The King did all three and then some.

Dear Steele,

I'm not pro monarchy either - however I also admire King
Charles for standing up for what he believes in and puts his
money where his mouth is - so to speak. His get together was
held to discuss sustainability and the next steps against
climate change. He's worked for that for over 50 years
and he inherited his great passion for environmental causes from
his father, Prince Philip. Both of his sons have also taken up
the fight. All I can say is - BRAVO! These royals are not just
symbols. They are achievers!

Is Mise

Yes. It is easy for me to call the King stupid because it so obvious. And yes, I do have the brains to do those things you mention.

Citing from something found on the web that refers
to assholes - is perfectly acceptable when appropriate.
However, personal attacks, on strangers, calling strangers
by all sorts of derogatory names, and trying to push their
buttons - is not. It is simply "making the world a worse
place." And "you can be a bigger man. You can be a better person.
But you're not."

King Charles is a well known environmentalist.
For decades he has spoken on green issues. He made the
world aware of the dangers of climate change long before
many world leaders did.

He'd been invited to attend the 27th UN climate change
conference in Egypt to give a speech. However he listened
to Liz Truss the then newly elected British Prime Minister
who advised him strongly not to attend. King Charles felt
obliged to listen to her.

Liz Truss did not want the King to go there because he
disagreed with her government on climate change. As a
new PM she had already lifted a ban on fracking in the
UK which was banned earlier because of the risk of
environmental damage and the possibility of earthquakes.

Had Sunak been Prime Minister then perhaps things would have
ended differently.

In any case King Charles made the most of what he had to deal
with. And for that he should be congratulated.

Climate change alarmism has always been about massive wealth transfers from the poor to the rich...

Some of the Charles' attendees:

Billionaire Charles - inherited wealth.
Billionaire Kerry - inherited and married wealth
Billionaire Sunak - married wealth
Billionaire Stella McCartney - inherited wealth
etc etc

Seems about what you'd expect.

ttbn,
Then you must be just as stupid.

OK then Foxy. But I will have to call you an arsehole. I don't use American English. I take that it is OK for me to call you an arsehole now that you have declared it "acceptable".

ttbn,

It's your choice. 90% of all problems are caused
by people such as yourself being assholes - and
then blaming others.

As Winston Churchill once said:

"Some people's idea of free speech is that they are
free to say what they like but if anyone says anything
back that is an outrage.

Foxy

You get madder by the minute; too stupid to realise that everything you accuse other people of, you do yourself. You run whining to SteeleRedux for help, but you ignore his advice: you just have to keep on nagging and demanding attention. You give women a bad name.

Charles has become king at a particularly tumultuous
time. There's the war in Ukraine which is causing
ripple affects throughout the world, Brexit is still
fresh, there's a brand new Prime Minister and then
there's the scandals against his younger brother plus
the ongoing reckoning with the monarchy's violent
colonial past and legacy of oppression.

Also each of his interactions will be analyzed and
compared to his mother.

Then we now have Prince Harry's book about to be released.
King Charles has weathered public scorn in the past but the
timing of Prince Harry's book (tell all) could be lethal.
It's due out soon and could land right in the run up to
his father's coronation.

As someone pointed how:

"How damning might it be for a son to come out on the eve
of his father's coronation and say - well he's not a fit dad -\
but he's not a fit man to be king either."

All King Charles can do is try to keep everything going.

We've got to feel sorry for the man.

"Some people's idea of free speech is that they are
free to say what they like but if anyone says anything
back that is an outrage".
Foxy,
That's the Leftie mentality to a T !

indyvidual,

How would you know?

How would you know?
Foxy,
Because you prove it to the World with just about every post !

"During the emotional time of the Queen's passing and the pomp of the funeral, a majority of Australians confirmed their support for the Monarchy. His Silliness, King Charles will, I think, erode that support pretty damn quick."

Not me, I only ever confirmed my disdain for them.

Like I'm going to worship people that have their shoelaces and pyjamas ironed for them, has someone to wipe his bot-bot and sends his toilet seats in advance before he goes visiting anywhere.

""How damning might it be for a son to come out on the eve
of his father's coronation and say - well he's not a fit dad -\
but he's not a fit man to be king either.""

I don't think there's any chance that Harry's father will become king....
http://www.newidea.com.au/media/23757/prince-harry-mark-dyer-sidebyside.jpg?width=720&center=0.0,0.0

mhaze

Good one. Nobody wants to talk about that, but it is bleeding obvious that Harry is not a Windsor.

Mhaze,
Interesting photos, and if you look closely Prince Harry looks like King Charles.

I thought that this old chestnut was well and truly buried
ages ago. Some tried to make a link between Prince Harry
and James Hewitt way back then until it was found that
Harry was already several years old when Princess Diana
met Hewitt. We need to ask - why would anyone want to dredge
all this nonsense up again now?

mhaze,

Here's a link for you:

http://harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a25202853/prince-harry-looks-like-prince-charles-beard-photos/

Lighten up Foxy. I was just joking around.

None of us know his true parentage and I for one couldn't care less.

mhaze,

Back-peddling again?

Tsk. Tsk.

Foxy, you really are a dill sometimes. As usual, you dig up some article that tells you what you want to hear (Harpers Bizarre, for Christ's sake!) and then think the issue is resolved.

You can't know his parentage and it doesn't matter in the slightest anyway.

Why so sombre?

Harry looks nothing like Charles, absolutely nothing like the royal males, all of whom have large ears and noses like Philip.

The only person he does resemble is his mother. The alleged father never did respond to media questions. Just stared at interviewers. I would have thought a firm no would have been the response of an innocent man.

ttbn,
Suggest you hone up your analytical skills.

Is Mise

I suggest that you visit an optician.

ttbn,
Been there, done that;20/20 vision in the right eye and only slightly less in the left.
Shoot pistol, rifle and shotgun without glasses or optical sights and read most print without spectacles.

Is Mise

You are doing better than I am, then. However, I can still see that Harry looks nothing like like Charles, or his brother for that matter. Come to think of it, William doesn't look much like Charles either, but he has the thinning hair and the general Windsor look.

mhaze,

Did you read the earlier article and look at the photos
prior to knocking it?

Me sombre? I'm not sombre at all. Just frustrated that such
an old chestnut raises its ugly head under the supposed
guise of humour. Wondering why you brought up this
old innuendo in the first place if as you say it -
"doesn't matter al all?"

Prince Harry's parentage has been well and truly established.
Prince Harry was born in 1984. Princess Diana did not meet
James Hewitt for the first time until 1986. There was no overlap.

As for the red hair? both Diana and Charles come from families
where the redhead gene was present. There is red hair in both the
Royal and Spencer families.

If you didn't like my earlier link perhaps this one may appeal:

http://hellomagazine.com/royalty/20211214128945/prince-harry-resemblance-late-grandfather-prince-philip/

King Charles wants a reconciliation with his younger son. And
who can blame him. It apparently was also a great wish of
the Queen. She bought Prince Harry and Meghan a luxurious
apartment in New York to ensure that they were looked after
they moved to the US. There's a lot of love there between
father and son as well as his late grandmother. We should wish
them father son, and older brother - well.

"Wondering why you brought up this
old innuendo in the first place if as you say it -
"doesn't matter al all?"

It was a joke. I was joshing with you over something that is utterly unimportant. Sorry it went over your head.

Why do you think Harry's parentage is important?

Oh, and the picture I posted wasn't of James Hewitt. Seems the joke's on you....again.

Dear mhaze,

"You can't know his parentage and it doesn't matter in the slightest anyway."

Except it mattered to you enough to raise it.

Didn't peg you for a royalist old boy but there is a fair bit of disowning poor Harry from your cohort so your little jibe fits.

Who wouldn't think these two weren't brothers?
http://i.insider.com/5d02541cdaa4822b743a0733?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

mhaze,

Sometimes jokes don't work if the timing is wrong.
They also have to be funny.
Facts not innuendo are more acceptable.
The Royals are such easy targets. But Prince Harry's
parentage has well been established years ago. As for
your link on Mark Dyer and Prince Harry? I do know
what James Hewitt looks like - and who Mark Dyer is.

Foxy,

I was rather shocked and dismayed by the whole "arsehole" sub-thread you wallowed in, thinking it was beneath you and most definitely beneath the dignity of OLO and was trying to lighten the atmosphere. But some aren't up to that and would rather constantly play the attack-dog. Go figure!

" I do know....who Mark Dyer is."

Well you do now.<grin>

_____________________________________________________________

Having, in two posts, mocked Charles', his wealth and his environmental stance and then mocked the parentage of his son and, by implication, the fidelity of his wife, SR determines that I'm a royalist. I wonder which queue SR was in when they were giving out the logic gene.

"Who wouldn't think these two weren't brothers?"

Well they certainly have the same mother.

mhaze,

If you
were so concerned about attack dogs you would have
spoken up when it was consistently happening to me
on this forum. You only see and criticize when I
fight back. Why is that?

As I explained I came across
the asshole article on the web - and I felt it said
what I was unable to say in language that was easily
understood. It was also a plea - directed at the attacker
to be a better person. But I guess you missed that.

In any case - as I've stated earlier - I've got few regrets
in my life - but I do regret in being silent when I should
have spoken up. I regret apologising when I did nothing wrong.
And I regret for allowing unworthy people into my life.

As for the "dignity of OLO," I will take that as another
attempt at humour by you.

I was more shocked by “asshole””, what have the equines got to do with it?

King Charles's coronation will be coming up.
I'm sure that Prince Harry and his wife will
receive an invitation. Hopefully they will
attend this momentous historical occasion.
It would be an appropriate olive branch -
and a step in the right direction.

Fingers-crossed that Prince Harry will do the right
thing by his father.

Foxy,

"You only see and criticize when I
fight back."

I didn't initially criticise. I simply tried to lighten the toxicity with a joke about something I considered to be utterly unimportant ie Harry's paternity.

The way you spoke was beneath you. The way ttbn spoke was disgraceful.

But it seems the toxicity has a life of its own.

mhaze,

I'll take on board what you're telling me.
Hope about you being a bit more even-handed
yourself in the future? We can all do better
if we try can't we? Sometimes we seem to forget
that there are human beings behind those computers.

Here's a link on Prince Harry's book that's due out
in January 2023:

http://booktopia.com.au/spare-prince-harry/book/9780857504791.html?gclid

iirc Harry regretted some passages in the book following the death of his grandmother and sought to do some last minute edits. But the publishers put the kybosh on that and it'll come out as originally written (or ghost-written).

There might be some interesting things said/revealed.

mhaze,

I guess we shall have to wait and see.

I cannot believe though that Prince Harry would
allow anything too lethal to be published.
I think his Royal birthright and training would
prevent that. When all is said and done - this is
his family after all.

Kinng Charles and Queen Consort Camilla were pelted with
eggs during an official visit to York, England on Wednesday.

The eggs narrowly missed them and they simply stepped over them
and continued to greet royal fans. The crowd booed the protester
and began to chant - "God Save The King!"

Activist Patrick Thelwell was heard shouting - "This country
was built on the blood of slaves!" He was detained by police.

It was amazing that the King didn't flinch during all this
hooha. Both he and Camilla were there to unveil a new statue
of Queen Elizabeth II. The statue was completed one month
prior to her passing.

Christmas is just around the corner. Goodness me -
what a year it's been for us all. Surely it is time
for us to relax with family and take a break? We've
had our ups and downs this year on the forum. May
next year be better for everyone. I'm looking forward
to reading Prince Harry's book - as well as wishing
him a reconciliation with his Royal family. A new year,
a new start for us all!