No one can be sure if by stirring up controversy, Prince Charles is trying to raise his profile above that of his mother and his two sons or if he really does believe the nonsense that he spouts is true. It is without doubt that his mother, Her Majesty the Queen, remains as popular as ever judging by the public reaction during her birthday and Jubilee celebrations.
Likewise the marriage of Prince William to Catherine Middleton, now the Duchess of Cambridge and the birth of their son George, has thrust them into the limelight and won over a new army of admirers both at home and abroad.
Prince Harry appears to be popular because he has a natural ability to connect with people across the generations. This has been put down variously to his front line military service, his laddish behavior and a natural charm which many Royal watchers believe he inherited from mother.
Love her or loath her, Princess Dianna was unarguably the most recognizable and famous woman in the world, who was universally popular and admired for what people saw as her compassion and love of children.
This phenomenon, coupled with his staid choices in everything from his double breasted suits to his new wife, left Prince Charles in danger of slipping into obscurity with the calls for skipping a generation in the line of succession getting ever louder.
He had to do something to keep himself in the public eye but courting controversy in the way that he did displayed a lack of awareness and media savvy that left him open to ridicule as opposed to endearing himself with the people.
It appears that the public at large, unfairly perhaps, have never forgiven him for his treatment of Lady Diana but Prince Charles has only himself to blame for his reputation for wackiness. This is due to his religious attachment to hippy style environmentalism, organic farming and his doomsday warnings about the climate change apocalypse if we don't mend our ways while excluding himself from the sacrifices.
If he is chasing positive publicity with the intention of convincing the public of his fitness to be King then he needs to sack his advisers and replace them with a team which are more in touch with the people and their attitudes to the issues of the day.
Ignoring the fact that Russia lost twenty million people fighting the Nazis during Word War II, his recent public utterance comparing President Putin to Adolf Hitler came across as amateur, ill informed, petulant and crass.
President Putin is a vastly experienced if malign, political operator who is attempting to return mother Russia to her former glory. His geopolitical strategy is paying dividends because of the weakness of the western political leaders.
The ex-KGB chief and master political operator is pitted against two inexperienced media creations in Obama and Cameron together with a Royal Prince who's main interests in life are perceived to be tree hugging, organic vegetables and 'combating climate change'.
Bearing in mind his great uncle Edward's relationship with the German tyrant, comparing President Putin to Adolf Hitler, Prince Charles left himself wide open to a counter attack and subsequent public ridicule by allowing President Putin a free punch to his metaphorical chin.
On global television, Putin reminded the world that Edward the VIII and his consort, Wallis Simpson, were not only friends and regular visitors to Hitler and his henchmen but also mildly sympathetic to the Nazi cause.
If the Putin/Hitler controversy didn't leave Prince Charles open to ridicule then his pronouncements about capitalism certainly did. It is plainly obvious that his religious attachment to environmentalism and 'combating climate change' has not only robbed him of his ability to analyse information and the ability to form logical conclusion but it has also clouded any common sense he may have had. (See article here)
How does he imagine the informed people of the world will react to his assertion that if capitalism fails to reform itself the world will come to a cataclysmic fiery end with poverty, hunger and civil strife?
What Prince Charles is effectively saying is that living standards, especially in the west, must be slashed in order to reduce energy use and therefore every individuals carbon footprint - excluding his own that is.
Like all the other high profile climate change disciples they don't include themselves when proposing a cut in living standards or carbon emissions.
The climate change Messiah himself, and first carbon billionaire, Al Gore, rarely travels on commercial flights, preferring a private jet. He never uses public transport or rides in a Prius, preferring a limousine. One small house or yurt is not enough, only mansions with carbon footprints the size of a small village.
It is rumoured that Al Gore is building himself another mansion in a part of California that will soon be under water according to his own predictions.
Another climate change disciple is Richard Branson, who's airline is responsible for dumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. If he is serious about convincing people to reduce their carbon footprint then I suggest he is in the wrong business.
And so it goes, on and on, the loudest voices advocating the end of capitalism and prosperity are those who have benefited most from the system itself.
Bill Gates, Michael Moore, Ted Turner, Richard Branson and the Hollywood glitterati to name but a few.
The British people already have to suffer multi-millionaire socialists railing against the capitalist system from their taxpayer funded ivory towers from whence they occasionally descend to lecture them about income inequality and the need to cut their living standards to save the planet.
They have to endure enough lectures on income inequality from socialist millionaires such as Ed Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair without Prince Charles joining in the fray.
He should be aware from his exclusive education that there is no reforming capitalism, there is no Blair/Clinton third way, there are only two choices and those are capitalism or socialism/communism
History has shown us over again that socialism is a totalitarian philosophy and no matter what resources are available it always ends in poverty, enslavement and bloodshed.
What Prince Charles and the anti-capitalists are saying is that the planet is doomed unless the west rations energy to match the carbon footprints of North Korea as opposed to those South Korea. (See here)
History has also shown us that socialism is always imposed by violent revolution which is accompanied by a massacre of the principle players from the previous regime together with anyone who is considered to be a counter revolutionary.
Socialists hold a particular animosity toward Monarchies as his Romanov relatives could testify if their ancestors, man, woman and children, plus Jemmy the family dog, hadn't been shot to death by the incoming anti-capitalists.
If Prince Charles really believes that anti-capitalists will leave him alone in his many palaces to pursue his tree hugging environmentalism while urging everyone else to live in yurts then the Romanov's really did die in vain.
See the Royal Palaces.
See a low carbon footprint yurt.
See Tony Blair's country pile.
See Lord Mandelson's humble abode.