CK15
THE KING WHO IS DESPISED
In the book of Daniel ,a king commonly linked to the beast king of revelation is depicted as one who is despicable and has not yet recieved the honour of king and so not popular ,even despised
by his own people.
It is another coincidence that , (along with everything else mentioned on this site), in the past Prince Charles fitted this description very well.
( not so much recently as his popularity has recieved an amazing recovery due to his work for the enviroment , his RESPECT programme(see here) ,
and the obvious PR campaign to promote him as a changed man.
And this is how the king described in daniel seems to aquire the honour of kingship eventually, whith much intrigue and playing behind the scenes to gain the throne with public honour and blessing .
In modern terms this could be seen as the results of a clever PR programme that in anyones' book involves some deceit and a certain amount of intrigue in order to present a good picture of the focus of the P.R work. )
The below article demonstrates this sentiment about how people have viewed prince charles disfavourably and questioned his fitness to be King ,in the recent past , especially because of the way he and the royal family in general were percieved to have treated (the late) HRH Diana Princess of Wales.( Prince Charles ex wife.)
CHARLES SEEN AS UNFIT TO BE KING
As related in a previous edition of this newsletter, there is a
growing body of opinion in the country which would want Scotland to
have a devolved form of government or even to be completely
independent of the rest of the U.K. Consequently, an "anti-monarchy"
vote in Scotland could actually be an expression of a desire for
separation. Those so inclined would not necessarily be against the
notion of having a monarch; but he or she would have to be of the
home-grown variety. However, with the European Union very keen to
embrace anything and everything,(see here )
it would be difficult to see an
independent Scotland being anything other than a republic. The
Scottish National Party has - as one of its slogans - "Independence
in Europe." This, however, is a contradiction in terms and a totally
unrealistic ideal. Any country which integrates with the rest of
Europe (to the extent that the E.U. would want) will inevitably
become part of a federalist structure with a loss - probably more
rather than less - of national sovereignty. With or without a monarch
in Scotland, Europe - if it has its way - will rule; O.K.! The
other "embedded" question - which might have muddied the issue and
may have been politically incorrect to ask overtly - was whether the
U.K. would want Prince Charles to be King. It is generally felt that
the question, if asked, would result in a huge "No" vote. Even
establishment figures and leading churchmen are now declaring that
Prince Charles is unfit to inherit the throne. Even to suggest this,
a few years ago, would have been viewed as treasonable and would have
resulted in -at best - eternal banishment from polite circles and -
at worst - the offender being dragged off to the Tower and beheaded.
The 2:1 vote in favour from England and Wales is being interpreted as
a vote of confidence in the monarchy but the result must surely
contain a substantial show of support for our present Queen - given
the lack of esteem in which Prince Charles is now held. The Northern
Ireland vote was no surprise given that the majority of the
population in the province is Unionist / Protestant and any threat to
the monarchy would weaken the Unionist fight to remain part of the
U.K.
It is a plain fact that Prince Charles has been seen as a Despicable person.
Just as the King in Daniel is described.
