Prince Philip was a climate change skeptic.
In correspondence to Spectator Australia contributor and author Ian Plimer back in 2018, the Duke of Edinburgh not only compliments Professor Plimer on his most recent book, the Climate Change Delusion, but also praises his previous book ‘Heaven and Earth’, which similarly questioned the ‘missing science’ behind the global warming scam.
Furthermore, in the letter which Ian has kindly provided to The Spectator Australia, the late Prince — who was never one to mince his words — described the wind turbines now blotting the landscapes globally as ‘monstrosities’.
Here is the letter from Windsor castle, dated 29 April 2018:
What a great question. … Prince Philip, a Patron of the Royal Geographical Society, admired the work and writing of geologist Ian Plimer.
In fact, in 2010 the Prince attempted to invite Professor Plimer to London to address the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) on the topic of climate change.
That invitation was swiftly rescinded by the mandarins at the Palace, as was documented by James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph at the time. As Delingpole wrote:
Here’s part of the embarrassed kiss-off Prof Plimer received from the RSA’s chief executive:
I am afraid I am writing to you with some disappointing news regarding the Prince Philip Annual Lecture on 5 May.
As you well know, the debate around climate change has recently become highly politically charged, both globally and especially in your home country. Equally, as I am sure you are aware, members of the Royal Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance of advocating or supporting a particular political stance. The RSA’s charitable status also requires us to maintain absolute political independence in our program of events and research events.
After discussion with Buckingham Palace, it is therefore with great regret that we must withdraw your invitation to give this year’s PrincePhilip Lecture. The Duke of Edinburgh is personally disappointed as he read your book with great interest and was looking forward to hearing you speak, but I know that you will recognize that the now highly controversial debate surrounding this issue would make it inevitable that he was seen to be taking a particular position.
What is extraordinary about that letter is that as well as confirming the Prince’s admiration for the Professor, it points out that the Royal Family should have nothing to do with the politics of climate change.
Yet today, a decade on, both future monarchs Prince Charles and Prince William, the former in particular in advocating the Great Reset and embracing Greta Thunberg, and the latter in his fondness for Sir David Attenborough, are in climate politics up to their eyeballs.
Prince Philip, now that he’s finally in his grave, will surely spend a great deal of the years ahead spinning in it.
Read more at Spectator AU
Prince Charles just another royal pain in the backside with his silly ideas Prince Phillip could,nt get to him so the good prince rests but is not still in the grave
No sense in championing Prince Philip as a common sense martyr. He couldn’t convince his own progeny. When Queen Elizabeth II passes, I’m over and done with the monarchy. Sack the rest.
The media coverage of Prince Philip’s passing is a microcosm of what is wrong with modern politics. Those to the left talk of a lifetime of privilege, while those to the right talk of a lifetime of service. Both are right and, equally, wrong. Neither attempt to give more than half of the story.
Prince Philip may well have been a conservative climate-catastrophe sceptic but this is also only half of the story. Equally, he was a conservative monarchist as well. The Royal Family always came first, for without the Royal Family the institution of the monarchy is made redundant. Thus, it appears that it was more important to keep the monarchy than keep his descendants out of the weird Wonderland that is the catastrophist rabbit-hole.
I understand that Royal advisors warned Prince Philip not to speak out, but it must be said that the Duke of Edinburgh was more than capable of thinking for himself.
Instead, we have Prince Charles as next in line, speaking out in an opposite manner, seemingly repeating what others, or trees, tell him. The woke luvvies love the Prince of Wales’ politics, but hate his position. The arch-conservatives love his position, but hate his politics.
I always thought the Westminster system better than the American executive version, but the former now gives just the safe (soft) option. The latter would have delivered a second term to a prominent and forthright Carbonageddon sceptic if it hadn’t been so corrupted.