Blogs Coffee House

So where is the ‘ecosystem collapse’ that Prince Charles warned us about?

21 June 2013

21 June 2013

It is traditional for me, at this season, to remind readers of the Prince of Wales’s prophecy, spoken in Brazil in March 2009. His Royal Highness warned that the world had ‘only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse’. So only four years now remain.

But as I write, the Met Office is meeting in Exeter for an unprecedented summit to work out why it has predicted for the past 13 years that the British climate will get warmer only to find, in 12 out of the 13, that it has got colder. No one is admitting, of course, that the end of the world is not nigh, but one does notice much self-exculpatory talk of how weather is affected by ‘a host of other factors’.

Subscribe from £1 per week


I cannot prove it — and nor can anyone, either way — but I think it is a reasonable working assumption that the climate will not collapse in 2017. I suspect that Prince Charles quietly thinks so too. Why else does he bother to take on his mother’s duties as she grows older?

This is an extract from Charles Moore’s Spectator’s Notes in this week’s magazine. Click here to subscribe.


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • john

    The eco system that needs to change is the overblown British monarchy.

  • Maidmarrion

    Dead and dying bees just might influence the eco system – nae bees ,nae fertilisation ,nae us!
    What a happy little world it would then be!
    Ach! I forgot Monsanto et al – their chemists will keep those that can afford it alive , maybe growing ever more grotesque with each passing generation ,but alive!

  • BundyGil

    Just look around the world at continuing global climate disasters, warming seas and glacial melting, plus a thousand other very detrimental effects of climate change and you will see Price Charles is not only completely right but is underplaying the problem.
    Readers, politicians, business people, and commentators taking isolated climate incidents like a cooler summers in the UK to say climate change isn’t a problem are just plain stupid. Climate change is just that, change. Some will get cooler, but the vast majority will be warmer to such and extent that many areas will become uninhabitable and so many will become agriculturally unsustainable with water supply security becoming the new global source of international conflict.
    Think of your grandchildren. The effects aren’t so bad now for us, but for them the effects will be truly disastrous, People criticise saying that for bring emotion into the argument. I totally disagree. If you don’t feel emotional about the effects of climate change on your grandchildren and after, there’s something wrong with you.

    • Baron

      Choose a road, BundyGil, preferably one that’s busy, go lie down on it, preferably today.

    • Augustus

      “Climate change is just that, change.”

      And ‘Climategate’ was just that: Revelations that a small group within the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were deliberately falsifying their climate models. The Earth’s climate is a force that is so vast and powerful that calls for renewable energy, energy conservation, and carbon taxes on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are utterly false, a danger to human life, a threat to global economic development, and the work of scoundrels and charlatans.

      • BundyGil
        • Augustus

          Global Warming theory has failed all tests. See the full essay on Watts Up With That dated: June 5, 2013. You mention the detrimental effects of climate change in the remote future – say 2075 and beyond. But the question is, with so much volatility in such future estimates, how much confidence do you have in these computer simulations? Why are you so anxious to put your family’s wellbeing in the hands of scientists who change their estimate of key variables so dramatically within the space of two or three years? And the very concept of the ‘social cost of carbon’ is unscientific. It is based on subjective human decisions as to which scenarios to include in the models. In any event, the public should realize just how unsettled the economic side of the carbon emissions debate is. The estimates keep bouncing around all over the place, and they’re driven by very controversial governmental choices, not objective assessments given by physicists and climatologists.

          • BundyGil

            Global warming theory? How about global warming reality?

            Just look in the newspaper every week for the latest unprecedented weather disaster caused by global warming/climate change.
            I’m still now trying to recover from a flood of unprecedented severity that went two metres high through my home in January, two years after the previous unprecedented flood that went up to the back door. Prior to that I had never seen flood water anywhere near my place, Maybe it hasn’t happened to you,,,yet, but it will.
            It’s called the ostrich syndrome. Head in the sand, and if I can’t see it, it can’t be real. It is real and sometime soon it is going to affect you, badly. You won’t be prepared, because to you it’s all bullshit, but bullshit or not is is still going to hit you hard. I’m not wishing it on you, it’s just that it’s inevitable.

            • Augustus

              Sorry to hear your news. Luckily I live on a hill. Have you read the essay?

  • Augustus

    I’m surprised that nobody amongst his team of advisors has explained to him that the warming we have had since his great-great grandfather, King Edward VII, was alive is so small that, if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it, we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.

  • Faceless Bureaucrat

    One must only hope that he does the decent thing and stands-aside when his Mother passes-on and lets William (and Kate) take her place.

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    Dear old Wales, if he didn’t exist we’d have to invent him; he’s the National Fruitcake.

  • Blorgh

    I agree that the prince has a tendency to put his foot in it… But let’s not equate his misunderstanding of ecosystem and climate processes with some general scientific buffoonery. As a professional on the ecosystem side of things, I know enough to realize both Charles Wales’ and Charles Moores’ erroneous conclusions.

    • Ron Todd

      It is the hypocrisy, living like a later day sun king while telling the rest of us to live in hairshirt austerity to save the planet.

      • Blorgh

        Oh, I completely agree with that.

  • Bluesman_1

    Citizen Windsor’s apocalyptic warnings fade into shadow compared to the stark lunacy of the Climate Change Act 2008. And if the good citizen is mad, what then of citizen Davey?

    • ArchiePonsonby

      Easy. Round the bend and back again!

  • jazz606

    You have to make allowances for Charles, he isn’t very bright.

    • ArchiePonsonby

      Likeable bloke but rather batty.

      • jazz606

        Absolutely.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        Agreed, apart from the likeable bit.

    • johnslattery

      True of a lot of Daily Telegraph columnists unfortunately. Quite admire the prince’s intellect, though.

      • stickytape

        How did you discover it? Genuinely interested.

  • therealguyfaux

    Is there anyone else out there who thinks that even John Goodman might be a better King?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Ralph

  • john

    Who is this clown? Why do the Brits put up with Charlie and his sponging family. He has nothing to contribute on anything other than his primary concern of ensuring the Windsors keep on pocketing millions and maximising their use of tax payer funds. The monachy costs 100 times as much as the Irish Presidency – what an appalling waste.

    • Macky Dee

      The Monarchy brings in nearly 2 billion £ every year through tourism, so a few million to keep them (in comparison) is good value for money!

      Although, it is probably the Queen that brings in the dough – Charlie won’t!

      • john

        Can we stop this B/S about a royal tourism income. There is NO evidence of any income brought in by the royal family. Britain’s tourism inflows are from very obvious sources – culture, history, architecture, language etc. Buck House stands #40 on the tourism income generation scale – behind the York Railway museum.
        If the Windsors were dumped (O happy day) we could get some serious bucks out of Buck House and the rest of the council properties occupied by the W family.
        Dear Colonel: Do you not believe that 60 million Brits are capable of choosing their own HofS? Pretty much every other country can do it!
        I doubt Baroness (ugh!) Ashton or the loathed TB would win the necessary 51% of the vote.

        • Macky Dee

          You would have loved Tony Blair as head of state for 13 years! I suppose one of the best things about the UK is it is diverse. I think the complete opposite of you!

          • john

            Macky: So you like diversity – I agree. But how about 1 family as Head of State in perpetuity – not much diversity (different racial groups, religions, income bracket, life experiences) there.
            TB I (sort of) liked as Labour Leader till about 2000, then down hill and then catastrophe around the Iraq war. But he had limited terms and a vocal opposition, electorate and media – would that the Windsors had the same.

            • Alexsandr

              I dont think having some failed politician as head of state is a better bet than HMQ. We have enough of the idiots in the commons. we dont need them on buck house and windsor castle too.

              • john

                Again, like the good Colonel, you need to show more faith in your 60 million fellow countrypersons. Just throwing out random insults about voters and potential candidates isn’t very helpful. With a 1000 year history of democratic struggle, I think we Brits can choose our leaders. Why do they have to be “failed politicians”? Mr Charles Windsor would be entirely free to stand for election – so a royal tie in could be feasible (God forbid!).
                Of course, a President would be on strictly defined constitutional basis – quite unlike our dear Queen.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I don’t “need” to do anything. I am perfectly at liberty to hold my opinions and disparage the current characteristics and behaviours of my “fellow country persons” if I want to. It sometimes feels like living in a foreign country or amongst half-wits. Many of my generation feel the same, that the goal posts have been moved and the values drummed into us in our youth abandoned and discredited without a by your leave by successive governments of increasing stupidity. We were not at liberty to expect our education or training to be “relevant” to us, or tailored to our idiosyncrasies, or for all to have prizes.

                  If there really were to be an election for head of state the thought of the peasantry voting for Russell Brand or Eddie Izzard or Stephen Fry or some teenage singing woman or lollipop lady from up the road or whomsoever happened to be the current “national treasure” is quite ghastly. And no doubt the vote would be offered to 16 year olds just to compound the barminess of it all.

                • Blorgh

                  Colonel, there is a contradiction in your opinions. On the one hand you tell us, “I’m afraid I don’t have your faith in enfranchisement.” On the other, you tell us, “I am perfectly at liberty to hold my opinions.” The liberty you speak of in the second statement is the basis of democracy – the very democracy you want to deny your fellow citizens. Ideologically, you’re going in circles.

                • john

                  Vous avez verite!

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Ah, I thought you must be French with your anti-monarchy views!

                • dalai guevara

                  If that was flawless French, then I will change my avatar to dalai magritte.

                • john

                  Moi, je suis anglais!

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Not at all. You are confusing the right to hold and express an opinion with the right to vote. They might be connected in the minds of some but they are not the same thing.

                • john

                  I’m probably the same age you are (hint: I watched mrs Windsor’s coronation on a neighbour’s TV.) Imagine a similar event for King Charles and Queen Camilla. If that doesn’t turn you into a republican nothing will.
                  The punters you mention wouldn’t get elected so don’t worry.
                  Again, Charles Windsor or Willi Windsor could stand so oldies like you could vote for someone of that ilk.
                  No goalposts have been moved. Britain is still stuck in a 1950s time warp and Old Etonians run the country just as they did when SuperMac was declaring war on the Gyppos.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “No goalposts have been moved. Britain is still stuck in a 1950s time warp and Old Etonians run the country just as they did when SuperMac was declaring war on the Gyppos.”

                  Ha ha! If only… Britain changed completely from 1997. The current clown in No. 10 might have gone to the same school but that’s about the only similarity between the two.

                • Barakzai

                  Your suggestion that Cameron and his cabinet are 1950s style Tories is laughable, as their ‘Hug a hoodie’ and gay ‘marriage’ ‘progressiveness’ exemplifies.
                  And Eden, not Macmillan, was the prime minister who opposed Nasser.

                • john

                  You’re right about Eden/Suez – I couldn’t be bothered checking. It does nicely emphasize my Old Etonian point – Britain was and still is a class ridden society – with the Windsors at the top, titled deadbeats next and the rest of us serfs curtseying to order.

                • Tom M

                  Quite agree colonel. The trouble with democracy is that someone always gets elected. There is no “null vote” that can be cast for “none of the above”. And as someone pointed out above we the public have little choice over who stands for election. Observing who does get elected makes me want to start a revolution. Why would this change just because the job on offer was Head of State or for that matter House of Lords?

                • Baron

                  We’ve got enough snouts in the public purse trough, thank you.

                • ArchiePonsonby

                  You spout rubbish! See my comment above about how “successful” we have been at choosing our leaders!

            • HookesLaw

              Shocking tell it to all the other countries in the world with constitutional monarchies.
              A socialist in France still lives in a palace.

        • Colonel Mustard

          “Do you not believe that 60 million Brits are capable of choosing their own HofS?”

          Well the fact that 30 odd% of them (and they are odd) would apparently vote for a Labour government, 20% and falling for the unliberal anti-democrats and about 12% for assorted loony parties including the water melons, fills me with no particular confidence on that score.

          But you and I both know it would not be who we voted for but who was nominated to stand. Look at the “reformed” HoL. How much better off we are without all those hereditary Lords . . . . hmm.

          Besides you probably need to distinguish between your rant against the Windsors as a family and the Monarchy as a generally successful constitutional element of the government of the United Kingdom.

          • john

            Colonel, I think you need to be a little positive about the abilities and contibutions of your fellow citizens and voters.
            The HoL was not reformed, it was tinkered with. There is no place for any herditary – or awarded – positions in our public affairs. The HoL should be ended and an elected 2nd chamber set up. Ditto the HoS/monarchy.
            By what criteria is the monarchy an asset? Britain has not been too successful during Queenie’s rule. The Scots probably want out, the Aussies are also on track to drop the royals and the Commonwealth is a joke. National income is hugely concentrated in London.
            In my view, the national infantilism implied by a monarchy has a deeply depressing impact on individuals aspiration. Note the endless stream of overblown “royal events” foisted on the country.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Oh, I don’t know, I think the national infantilism imposed by New Labour and encouraged by their various “institutions” is far worse.

              I’m afraid I don’t have your faith in enfranchisement. The rot started long before HM Queen Elizabeth ascended to the throne, in 1928 probably.

            • HookesLaw

              You make endless spurious correlations and talk undiluted rubbish.

            • ArchiePonsonby

              Mass enfranchisement has been a HUGE success! look about you – especially in London – to see the spectacular results……………………………………..NOT!

        • Baron

          John, but culture, history, architecture, language (well, language to a point) are all to one degree or other tied to the monarchy.

          • Blorgh

            Baron, do you mean in the sense that the monarchy had all the money to pay for these things in the first 900 years of British history? Well, then “yes”, they are tied to the monarchy. But that doesn’t mean that the history of Britain is the history of the monarchy. I’d actually argue the “political” history of Britain is one of ever-increasing democracy.

            • RobertC

              “ever-increasing democracy” is EUro-speak for ever closer union..

              • Colonel Mustard

                Correct. It is a hi-jacked word that has nothing to do with individual freedom or elected politicians who actually represent their constituents.

            • Colonel Mustard

              “I’d actually argue the “political” history of Britain is one of ever-increasing democracy.”

              Yes, you could put that spin on it. Unfortunately the history of the police service and its activities under government sponsorship since circa 1840 rather belies your quaint notion. You have already conflated the franchise to vote with individual liberty. You are now conflating “democracy” with freedom.

              • Blorgh

                I hate responding several days later – sorry. I accept the basic point you are making, but not all the details. Surely you cannot believe that you have less freedom today than you did in 1689 or 1840. You can, of course, produce one-off examples to the contrary, but I think the course of history stands against you. Whether or not Britain continues to be free is another matter entirely. There, I agree with you, things seem rather gloomy.

          • john

            A bit of a stretch! Certainly the monarchy shows up throughout our history but that doesn’t mean the current incumbents have any relevance. The very powerlessness of the Windsors means that they are just an expensive sideshow.
            I understand that Fontainbleu is the biggest tourist draw in Europe but the Bourbons haven’t been back since 1789.

          • 2trueblue

            Not very quick is he? he=John.

      • Ron Todd

        Cost should not be the determining factor in the type of government we have. Every time the royal family is debated the royalist will come up with the claim that if we were allowed to elect a head of state we would inevitably pick Cherie Blair, Ken Livingston or some other appalling lefty who would only have support within a few metropolitan enclaves.

    • Colonel Mustard

      Leave our monarchy alone. The alternative, a Baroness Ashton type head of state, doesn’t bear thinking about. There is plenty of waste to worry you about elsewhere.

      As for the Irish Presidency . . .

    • chan chan

      “The monachy costs 100 times as much as the Irish Presidency”

      Well, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, as in Ireland’s case.

      • 2trueblue

        Have you worked out that it is a smaller country? How much does our parliament cost comparing it to Irelands? How much would a president cost? Frankly thank God for the monarchy it saves us the horrors of going down that route.

    • Augustus

      It’s a very positive thing to have a head of state that is always above party politics. Someone who has a direct interest in the people, yet with no direct interest in a majority voting system. The Queen has embodied this ideal perfectly for many decades. One can cite its undemocratic nature, but in the Europe of our day it is a positive thing to have an enduring national symbol. Britain and its monarchy belong together. A dependable permanence in an ever-changing political landscape.

      • john

        What evidence is there that the Queen ” has a direct interest in the people, yet with no direct interest in a majority voting system”?
        What in interest in the people has she evinced – turning up to cut a ribbon once a week? She is not above party politics and has always favoured Tories (surprise?).
        The Windsors’ interest is maintaining their wealth and privilege. Charlie writes to Ministers to complain whenever he feels like (do you?) and has clear class-based preferences (Tory).
        I like your modest reference to its “undemocratic nature” – end of story!
        Britain has been held back by its unwillingness to create a modern constitution and its preference for vague, class-based governance.

        • Augustus

          “I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”
          – Queen Elizabeth II

          • john

            She said it so that proves it? What services do you idebtify as being delivered by HMQ – ribbon cutting, watching parades, handing out gongs? BTW Whatever happened to our great imperial family? Virtually all gone – a bit colonial is it not?

  • Graham Thompson

    Sigh.

    There is a time lag between emission and impact.

    If Charles is/was right, it means the climate will collapse thirty or forty years after the deadline, so some time after 2047.

    But, if he is/was right, 2017 is our last opportunity to prevent that.

    The fact that you know this, and yet deliberately misrepresent the science, is one reason why no-one trusts the Telegraph’s science reporting.

    • jazz606

      “……no-one trusts the Telegraph’s science reporting……’

      As opposed to the Guardian or the BBC ?

      • Graham Thompson

        Since you ask, no-one trusts the Guardian either, but everyone trusts the BBC.

        Odd, but there you go.

        • jazz606

          “….but everyone trusts the BBC…….”

          YMBFJ

          • Graham Thompson

            No, actually. Here’s the polling –

            http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/161837/trust.png.jpg

            Well, not everyone, admittedly, but three times as many as trust any newspaper.

            I can see how you might have a distorted view of the public’s attitudes to the Beeb if you hang around right-wing comment threads, but I’m afraid they are pretty trusted.

            • jazz606

              “…but I’m afraid they are pretty trusted……”

              By gullible fools.

        • johnfaganwilliams

          Parallel universe heard from. Amazing views expressed from another time continuum where BBC is trusted. Read all about it!

  • Rossspeak

    I bet he won’t be able to keep quiet now that a Government Minister is openly promoting the benefits of GM.

    Red rag to a Royal bull – expect more tortured hand wringing bullshit about how we are all doomed.

    • telemachus

      We might be doomed unless we get rid of this shower in 2 years time
      Remember 2017 is their projected referendum on Europe
      And that will be the end of prosperity as we know it

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        I would happily settle for the possibility that we ‘might’ be doomed in 2017 rather than the certainty of being doomed if the scabrous filth that constitutes the Labour party was elected in 2015 and then replaced by the IMF in 2017. Assuming that cataclysmic disaster does not happen, the British people might then get to decide whether or not we want to remove the strait-jacket of socialist madness that is the EU. We could then concentrate on trading with the World, including Europe, without being told what to do by a group of unelected, incompetent leftist scum in Bruxelles.

        • telemachus

          A little englander then

          • Whyshouldihavetoregister

            Where does it say ‘England’ above, oh cliché crapper?

            • telemachus

              It is the mindset
              Why should we be denied the advantages of the dynamic market and political clout because of a few Tory iconoclasts?

              • ArchiePonsonby

                Why should WE be denied the freedom to make our own laws and suffer interference by an unelected, corrupt and unaccountable foreign body because of a few internationalist nutters?

                • telemachus

                  It is not a matter of being denied freedom
                  My local council cannot declare war on the next town or decide to put people in the stocks for non payment of the council tax
                  My Westminster Parliament even before accession in the 70’s could not decide to intervene in the internal affairs of a foreign country without UN mandate
                  You see we live in a community of nations and with increasing internationalism we have to decide to be in a dynamic world body such as the EU to have some influence in the world
                  Yes we need to direct and change the EU just as we have always directed and changed the governance of our great land

                • ArchiePonsonby

                  Nonsense! We have consistently been fed this line of bullshit for forty-odd years that we can “change the EU from within”! That’s turned out REALLY well!

        • HFC

          Hear, hear!

        • ArchiePonsonby

          Now you’re talking!

    • 2trueblue

      The jury is still out on the benefits of GM. Monsanto have a good tune but it does not mean that they are right. Go figure it out. Monsanto will of course continue to sell you the new seed…..

  • Austin Barry

    His weather lunacy is as nothing compared to his declared wish to be annointed ‘Defender of Faith’ at his Coronation, in the interests of community cohesion.

    Quite how he will resolve in his ecumenical reign some of the more challenging sectarian conflicts will be interesting to observe.

    We can only wish the Queen continued longevity.

    • judyk113

      I think it’s “Defender of Faiths”. However, I’ve never seen any other religion than the Church of England interested in having him as a Defender. May Her Majesty live in good health and happiness to be 120!

      • Steve Brown

        The title is “Fidei Defensor” (Defensatrix for The Queen), it is the “FID DEF” printed on the coins of the realm and is singular in its reference to ‘The Faith’. The title was given to Henry VIII by Parliament as being the defender of the Anglican Faith.
        I wonder if that title can be revoked if the Anglican faith is not ‘defended’?

        • rob232

          Why not? It was originally given to Henry VIII by the pope and revoked when he broke from Rome.

        • ugly_fish

          Henry received this title from the Pope for his written defence of the
          “seven sacraments” and his refutation of Martin Luther’s arguments. It
          was his personal title. Parliament, in 1534, made the title heritable. Although the act was subsequently revoked, monarchs have continued using it. It is ironic that the Protestant monarchy, bound by the Act of Succession such that a Roman Catholic can never sit on the throne, keeps the title that was given to Henry for his defence of the Catholic faith against Luther, the first “real” Protestant.

  • Macky Dee

    He’s a bit of a fruitcake, like his Dad bless him. In fact, to all the others that say such ignorant things… “Ah Bless” that’s cute that you think that but no-one cares!

    • HookesLaw

      The fruitcakes are the scientists who spread the nonsense that become accepted as fact.
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

      ‘SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

      Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers,
      delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact
      that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against
      one another’

      In fact the Climategate people do not like Storch, as he is too fair minded.
      one leaked email (1051190249.txt) said
      ‘Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably
      not work — we must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will
      eventually be filled with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen,
      Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard the publishers are not happy with
      von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too’

      • Macky Dee

        Some Scientists know the facts but they tell lies (career scientists) to further themselves – The Fruitcakes are the ones that just believe what they’re told. Do you believe your car produces 170 grams of CO2 for every 1000 metres you drive – I don’t. But it is stated as fact and anyone who says the opposite are deemed Fruitcakes / conspirasists etc Scientists are not fruitcakes purely because they are aware of the deceit.

        • HFC

          Sad I am to relate that my car produces £475 p.a. for this government to squander.

          While it is reputed to spew out CO2 at the rate of 0.25gm/metre a probe stuck up its orifice during the government annual test (another £47) finds none (0.00%).

          Then, whenever I fill the tank, the government take is around £50.

          Why are our roads so potholed? Can it be that their rough state discourages motoring and they want to forgo the income from motorists…

    • judyk113

      Whatever the oddities and idiosyncracies of the Duke of Edinburgh, he has never taken to interfering in public policy (as indeed the Prince Consort did in Victorian time) either through writing green-ink type letters to ministers, or through running overtly political campaigns of the type you mention above. The Duke of Edinburgh set up the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, which has helped a huge number of young people take on challenges they wouldn’t otherwise have done, and has remained entirely uncontroversial. I wouldn’t call him a fruitcake. He also has a distinguished war record which he has never boasted about. Prince Charles on the other hand…..

      • Macky Dee

        And he has controversial opinions on World population growth.

      • Alexsandr

        prince charles started the Princes Trust.

        • judyk113

          And among the things done by the Princes Trust is to set up a so called academic organisation given a royal charter and headed by an authentically fruitcake “professor” plus a school for drawing which is promoting sub-sub-sub template Islamic art.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here