Just a few weeks ago I published a blog entitled Colonel Richard Kemp of the British Army predicts that the country will descend into civil war in the next few years. Will the reign of Charles III follow in the footsteps of his 1600s predecessor Charles I? Since then the political situation in the UK has become even more heated and the prospect of civil war now seems even more plausible. For example, modern warfare professor David Betz has appeared on several influential podcasts talking about how he believes civil war in Britain is inevitable.

Last month, the country also launched a political campaign calledOperation: Raise the Coloursin which millions of nationalist Britons have raised in public places the national symbols of England, such as the Union Jack or St George’s flag, also known as the crusader symbol, representing the bloody cross of Jesus in the white robes of the saints. A good overview of the situation is given by the fact that the country’s police are tearing down these British national symbols while allowing the flags of the trans and LGBTQ movements and the Palestinian flags to be widely displayed in public protests. This has sent a clear message to many: pride in one’s country is hate speech while Islamist and far-left hatred of Jews, Western civilisation, Britain and especially the country’s white Christians is perfectly acceptable.

The message of Operation: Raise the Colours is not ethno-nationalist or racist, even if the country’s political elite and the mainstream media would like to paint it as such in order to keep those who still believe the mainstream media narrative in the dark. These events did not happen overnight but are the accumulation of several decades of political instability where the people have lost confidence in the political institutions that govern them – on both sides of the political spectrum. This distrust began to fester in the nation back in the days of the Iraq war, but the 2016 Brexit vote was a major watershed, with the majority of people voting to leave the EU, while most of the country’s political elite campaigned against it and the media smeared Brexit voters as far-right racists.

This sent the message that the country’s upper-class Westminster elite and red-green cosmopolitan journalistic class often live in their own bubble and are disdainful of the real concerns of the people. The Covid-19 crisis of the 2020s further deepened the rift between the people and the elite, as the government was seen to be following health policies dictated by international institutions that restrict citizens’ freedoms rather than taking account of their own voices. In July 2024, Keir Starmer was elected prime ministerand his party won the election with 33.7% of the vote, the smallest margin by which any party has won since World War II. In July 2025, the Starmer administration’s popularity plummeted to its lowest levelwith only 13% of voters satisfied with his administration and 67% saying they were dissatisfied. In another poll, two-thirds of Britons say they are disrespected by Starmer.

However, popular dissatisfaction with the Labour government reveals much deeper cracks than the traditional right-left split. The Conservative Party is seen as almost as bad an option, and – as the country’s former prime minister Liz Truss has said in several interviews – the people yearn for a “Trump-style revolution” that would completely shake up the status quo of the country’s political power elite. The extent of corruption in Britain’s political power structure was exposed earlier this year when the authorities were found to have covered up the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in so-called grooming gangs where at least 1,400 young children were gang-raped, often daily, by men of Pakistani origin. Police officers were also allegedly involved in raping children. In one report, a 14-year-old girl was raped with a water bottle filled with boiling water, as Charlie Downs reports in the excellent Heretics podcast below.

The authorities and the country’s political elite looked the other way for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic, as the rapists were often Muslim men of foreign origin. Meanwhile, the country’s police are using all their resources to arrest law-abiding citizens as they pray silently in their minds for unborn children near an abortion clinic. ChatGPT reports that “statistics show that over 12,000 Britons will be arrested for online messages, including memes, in 2023. These cases have included ‘rude, derogatory, unindexed or threatening messages’ via an online communication network, and were mainly arrested under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.” More recently, a British comedian was arrested over a “transphobic” joke – an incident that was widely condemned in the US conservative media.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wXURFRSUS9U?feature=oembedA woman praying silently in her mind is arrested by UK police near an abortion clinic.

Elon Musk, the world’s most powerful billionaire, gave these issues a major international profile at the beginning of the year when he posted about them on his social media platform X and called on King Charles III to dissolve Parliament to remove Keir Starmer and his government. Not many people know that this is indeed part of the monarch’s prerogative. In 2011, this law was repealed by the country’s parliament, but was re-enacted in 2022 shortly before the death of Elizabeth II. Newsweek reports:

Under the new law, the monarch regained the right to dissolve parliament at the request of the sitting prime minister. Whether the monarch is entitled to do so on his own initiative remains to be tested, but the text of the new law makes it unlikely. The play King Charles III, which premiered in 2014, examined this question and depicted a possible future King Charles monarchy, in which Charles uses his power to dissolve Parliament when Parliament tries to pass a bill that could restrict press freedom in the wake of the phone tapping scandal. In the play, the dissolution of Parliament is met with widespread opposition and massive demonstrations as the people revolt against the monarchy in its attempt to override the will of the people, represented by the elected government.

However, we are now in a situation where the government is no longer considered to represent the will of the people. The cost of living in the country has risen to 23% in two years, net immigration is at record levels (764,000 in 2025) and parliamentary support has plummeted to 19%. Meanwhile, the government is pandering to the radical Hamas mass protests on the streets of London calling for genocide of the Jews, while restricting the peaceful protest campaign of nationalist Britons for their country’s freedom. This spirit of revolution is already evident in the many AI-generated YouTube music videos, which have already attracted millions of views. For example, the very touching protest song below evokes patriotic feelings in me, even though I’m not British. The cover and lyrics of the video refer to a young “Braveheart scottish girl” who threatened a man who sexually harassed her sister with an axe and a knife. “They can take our lives, it’s true – but they’ll never take our flag”, the protest song sings.

The video above shows how mass protests have spread to major UK cities and protesters are calling for King Charles III to use his royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament. In modern times, this has usually only happened at the Prime Minister’s own request if his party’s approval ratings are high – as dissolving Parliament allows for early elections to be held at a time when the ruling party is at its strongest. This will allow the Prime Minister to consolidate his position, gain more seats in the House of Commons and secure the implementation of his political programme for the coming years. But now the opposite is the case, as Starmer would lose the election if it were held today.

But the king is now between a rock and a hard place. As the video shows, both options – action or inaction – threaten the stability of the whole country and the continuity of the political system, even the survival of the monarchy itself. Even conservatives, seen as advocates of a constitutional monarchy, have joined these calls for royal intervention, saying that unusual times call for unusual measures. But if Charles were to act in accordance with the will of the people and dissolve Parliament, he would trigger the biggest constitutional crisis since the English Civil War. Labour voters and supporters of Keir Starmer would see him as an autocratic absolute monarch, dismissing a democratically elected government.

This measure would put him on a par with his predecessors of the same name in the 17th century, Charles I and Charles II, who were often at war with their country’s parliament and arbitrarily dissolved it several times. It was Charles I’s autocratic rule that eventually triggered the English Civil War, which led to the loss of the king’s head in 1649 and a brief republican period when Charles II lived in exile. As a result, the monarch has not dismissed Parliament autocratically since the 1688 Maine Revolution, which defined the limits of power of the current constitutional monarchy. The only exception is probably 1834, when William IV dissolved Parliament against the wishes of the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne.

But at least as risky as dissolving Parliament is now not dissolving it. For if the great majority of the people feel that their government no longer represents them and is acting in every way contrary to their own interests, and the King decides to side with the Prime Minister and his government when the electorate demands the Prime Minister’s dismissal, the King will alienate himself from the people, just as the Prime Minister did. Instead of being seen as the saviour of democracy, listening to the concerns of the ordinary people, the King is seen as the enemy of the people, together with the Prime Minister and his government. It was precisely this chain of events that triggered the American Revolution in the 13 North American colonies of George III. ChatGPT reports:

The logic you describe—where the king’s role as “savior” or “oppressor” depends on the majority’s trust—closely resembles the situation that led to the American Revolution.

🔹 King George III and the Colonies
– In the 1760s–1770s, the British colonies in North America felt that Parliament in London did not represent them.
– Their slogan was “no taxation without representation.”
– They saw neither the government nor the opposition as legitimate, but considered the whole system “corrupt” and hostile.

At first, many Americans believed that King George III could serve as their protector against Parliament:

• The idea was that the king would dismiss unjust ministers or block oppressive laws.
• The disappointment was enormous when George III sided with Parliament’s decisions and eventually sent troops to suppress the rebellion.
  👉 Thus, in their eyes, the king became a tyrant, even though he himself believed he was only defending the unity of the realm.

🔹 Parallels with Today’s Scenario
– If the current king (Charles III) were to dissolve Parliament unilaterally, part of the nation would see him as a tyrant interfering in party politics.
– But if the majority of the people felt the system had collapsed and the king acted by dissolving Parliament, he could be seen as the savior of democracy.
– If, however, he refused to act, he might become part of the hated elite—just as George III did.

🔹 The Difference Between Then and Now
In the 18th century, a monarch still held significant personal power: George III had far more political authority than Charles III does today.
Nowadays, the British monarch is constitutionally bound to the parliamentary system → if he acted independently, it would be seen as a massive constitutional crisis and could even threaten the monarchy’s very existence.

📌 Summary:
Yes, the American Revolution demonstrated precisely this dynamic: the king could have been seen as a safeguard against Parliament, but when he aligned himself with the system, he became “the people’s enemy.”
In modern Britain, a similar scenario is theoretically possible, but far more dangerous for the monarchy, since its legitimacy rests entirely on remaining neutral.

One of the ironies of history is that King George III was not in fact a tyrant, but a constitutional monarch, acting within the laws and constraints imposed on him by the British constitutional system. He did not rule as a monarch, but acted in accordance with the will of Parliament and the ministers. Therein lies the paradox: if George had acted in accordance with the wishes of America’s founding fathers and started dismissing his ministers against the will of the government, he would have violated the principles of constitutional monarchy and come to rule autocratically – making him a veritable tyrant in the eyes of his own countrymen.

Yet he was seen as a tyrant by the colonists, who felt that he no more represented their interests than the Westminster Parliament. For the Americans, the king was part of the same system that refused to give them full representation. Thus was born the historical contradiction: the monarch, who in his homeland acted with legally limited powers, was seen in the New World as a symbol of tyranny. The same fate now threatens the reign of Charles III, if the British people feel that neither Parliament nor the King any longer represents them, but that both are seen as instruments of indifference and oppression. When the Crown and Parliament merge in the eyes of the people into a single system that neither listens nor serves, the legitimacy of the whole constitutional monarchy is lost.

This puts Charles in a situation where any choice is dangerous: inaction reinforces the image of a powerless and futile institution, while intervention raises doubts about sovereignty. It is here that the future of the monarchy will be decided – and the irony of history is repeated: a ruler who acts in accordance with the system may be condemned just as much as a ruler who breaks it.

But I find it highly unlikely that the King would side with the people against Parliament in this budding constitutional crisis. After all, he himself shares much of the same political ideology as Keir Starmer’s Labour government. As I have said several times on my blog, Charles has been the most influential advocate of multiculturalism and Islam for decades. In addition, he is an outspoken globalist, more interested in ruling the planet than running his own people.

It is hard to imagine him taking up the cause of brave patriots like Tommy Robinson, for example. Mr Robinson is known for his outspoken criticism of Islam, but he has also openly criticised the King for his sympathy towards Islam. The King is not interested in defending Christianity but all religions, as he said in his infamous 1994 TV interview. And I doubt that his priorities include the cries of working-class British girls who have been raped, when his best friend Jimmy Savile was also a child gang rapist, with at least as many victims as the Rotherham scandal, according to official figures – although the actual number of victims of grooming gangs may run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands.

In both scenarios, the prospect of civil war now looms very large. If the king acts like his 1600s predecessor, he could become the nation’s saviour in the eyes of the country’s patriots, but an autocratic tyrant in the eyes of the country’s left. If, on the other hand, he does as George III did with the American colonies in the 1760s, i.e. ignores the demands of the people altogether, he may launch a nationalist revolution in which the patriots will eventually take up arms against a government and a king they see as traitors to the fatherland.

Most likely the violence would be the result of some escalation where the police themselves fire the first shot against peacefully protesting patriots. There are many examples in history of revolutions that have begun as peaceful mass protests against the government but eventually escalated into violent clashes between citizens and the country’s police forces. The video linked earlier explains:

If Charles is unable or unwilling to act when the people desperately need leadership, then what purpose does the crown serve in Britain today? This moment will define Charles’ entire reign. History will judge him not by his speeches or his ceremonies, but by this single decision. Will he be remembered as the king who saved Britain’s democracy, or as the monarch who watched it crumble?

Pressure is now coming from unexpected sources. War veterans have begun to organise demonstrations against royal intervention, arguing that their oath is to the Crown, not to Parliament. General Sir Richard Barren, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, caused a stir last week by saying that constitutional duty sometimes requires extraordinary measures. It is not just rhetoric: more than 15 000 former service personnel have signed a petition calling for the dissolution of Parliament.

Trade unions, which have traditionally been republican, are also divided. The Unite executive held an emergency meeting, with some leaders privately admitting that dissolving parliament might be the only way to break the current political deadlock. GMBB General Secretary Gary Smith went further, saying that Parliament has completely lost touch with working class families.

Even religious leaders are taking a stand. The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a cautiously worded statement in which he appealed to constitutional wisdom and the service of the common good. However, sources say he has privately told Charles that extraordinary times may call for extraordinary measures. Catholic Archbishop Malcolm McMahon was more outspoken, telling BBC Radio 4 that when democracy fails the people, other constitutional mechanisms must also be considered.

Whether this development is planned or not (I myself have grown less conspiratorial as I have got older), the course of events now seems to offer the King a unique opportunity to do what he has always had wet dreams about: seize dictatorial powers under the pretext of a national emergency. When there is relative peace, stability and economic prosperity in a country, there is also no need to take radical measures to change the status quo. But if a country enters into a constitutional crisis, and large-scale mass protests against the prevailing system, it also provides an opportunity for radical measures, because a crisis is always an opportunity.

In January 2021, royal expert Clive Irving stunned viewers in an interview with Sky News Australia when he said Prince Charles had “traits of a tyrant king.” He has also expressed admiration for some of the most brutal tyrant kings in the country’s history, such as Henry VIII (1509 – 1547), and equated himself directly to him. During Henry VIII’s brutal reign, he tortured tens of thousands of his subjectsand sometimes in very sadistic ways. Of his six wives, he beheaded two and boiled alive his own cook. Whether or not Charles III’s prophecies of the biblical Antichrist came true, I saw the trajectories that are taking shape right now a decade ago, as I wrote in my blog in September 2015, seven years before Charles ascended the throne:

But what about Charles III, who has promised to be as memorable as Charles I? This third Charles also seems to believe that his power is God-given. Worse. He believes God has appointed him to save the planet! What will come of all this? Is he prepared to hold on to the “divine rights” of his power until he leads his country, in the footsteps of Charles I, into a bloody civil war?

Will the United Kingdom under his administration become a battlefield similar to Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya or Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, whose military forces have already killed 300 thousand of its own citizens, and  tortured thousands of children in dark solitary confinement (most of the European refugees facing death come from Syria, where they have fought for their lives first against Bashar al-Assad and now also against the equally brutal ISIS).

Just months before Gaddafi’s death at the hands of the rebels, he declared that he would be prepared to burn the whole of Libya to destroy the rebels and fight to the last bullet for his position. This is the mindset of every dictator at the end of the day. “If I go to hell, I will take everyone else with me. I will not surrender and relinquish my position until tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions have died at my hands.”

And what will happen to those who dare to fight against Charles III’s future tyranny – hanging, tearing and dismemberment? I wish I were wrong, but I fear I am not.

I may not have a crystal ball, but I believe that the past often echoes into the future. I see history as an exemplary reflection of a story that does not repeat itself as such, but which gives us clues to what lies ahead. This is one reason why I have been right in many of my predictions. Only the future will tell how this story will ultimately end.