Prince William is learning from the best

Pop produces many revolting characters. If I were a less timid character, I’d say it produces only such characters.

Yet Lady Gaga stands out even against that background, which has served her well. Since success in that genre is directly proportionate to repulsiveness, that creature has sold zillions of records and amassed a fortune measured in hundreds of millions.

Some of it is donated to charitable causes, mainly of the LGBT variety. Such causes are close to Lady Gaga’s heart, and not entirely for disinterested reasons.

Well, it’s her money and she can spend it as she sees fit. I happen to be uneasy about mixing charity with political activism in general and propaganda of sexual perversion in particular, but obviously Lady Gaga sees no such problems.

Neither, by the looks of it, does our future king Prince William, and that does look like a problem – specifically because he’s our future king. In that capacity, HRH has a constitutional duty to maintain the honour and dignity of the monarchy, which is his main role in life.

It’s not immediately clear how well that role is served by associating with creatures like Lady Gaga, especially taking their advice on any matters. After all, monarchy is a conservative institution by definition, an axis linking generations past, present and future.

Hence conservatism is an essential job requirement for any member of the royal family, and especially one in the direct line of ascent. Whether or not this includes political conservatism doesn’t really matter because British royals have few opportunities to make their political views known.

But cultural and social conservatism is to the royals what a good voice is to opera singers: a sine qua non. This is an institutional requirement that ought to be unaffected by any innermost personal preferences.

Now my contention is that Lady Gaga’s pseudonym is actually an aptonym, for she surely must induce a gagging effect in anyone blessed with good taste – and certainly in any conservative. Yet HRH not only associates with that creature, but actually takes her advice on worthy causes.

Under her guidance, the prince is going to become the patron of The Albert Kennedy Trust (Akt), devoted to the needs of homeless LGBT children.

What I like about this charity is its portmanteau quality. It blends together several worthy causes – the homeless as such, homeless children specifically and LGBT rights all come together in one entity. But why stop there?

How about homeless black Muslim LGBT children blown up with landmines by fracking whalers in the Amazon rainforest?  It’s always best to concentrate one’s resources rather than splitting them up among various causes.

It would be heartless to sneer at the plight of any homeless children, whatever their sexuality. Children aren’t stray dogs; they mustn’t be allowed to roam the streets in neglect.

Any real charity devoted to finding loving homes for those poor souls goes back to the Christian roots of our civilisation; few causes are worthier than that. (‘Real’ is the operative word: most vast charities spend around 90 per cent of their income on themselves, not their raison d’être.)

But the moment this overall cause is particularised into a sexual subset, it acquires a political aspect, and an objectionable one at that. Lady Gaga clearly doesn’t mind that because she has a warm spot for the B part of LGBT. But how come Prince William doesn’t either?

One would hope HRH could enlist less disreputable advisors than Lady Gaga. Then again, perhaps he can’t.

For even before this new friend began to teach him the facts of life, someone had steered HRH to appear on the cover of the homosexual magazine Attitude and state his commitment to easing mental problems arising from “homophobic, biphobic and transphobic” bullying.

Since people of any description shouldn’t be bullied, why single out this narrow aspect of that objectionable practice? Why not just decry bullying in general?

The reasons for such particularism are all political, or rather politically correct. Our royals aren’t allowed to say what they think of Brexit, but they’re welcome to pontificate on other issues of great political and social import. However, politicising sexuality doubtless makes the problem worse.

A massive propaganda effort is under way to brainwash people into denying any moral difference between normal and perverse sexuality. This incites homosexual militancy, throwing down a gauntlet to millennia’s worth of moral and social tradition.

Most people bend under the weight of zeitgeist, but some stubborn souls don’t. Those among them who aren’t overburdened with conventions of civilised behaviour resist in the only way they know how: bullying.

True, homosexuals had been bullied long before they began to use their proclivity as a form of political expression – people are often uncomfortable with those who are different, and they may display their discomfort in reprehensible terms.

Yet the remedy for that would be to teach the nature of humanity, the meaning of charity, the essence of our civilisation, and plain good manners – not to impose a newly contrived morality of universal equality. The deeper the inroads thus made on our tradition, the more brutalised our masses become, the more likely to bully anyone they don’t like.

Someone ought to have explained to HRH such basics. Our monarchy is hanging by a thread as it is, without turning into an extension of pop sensibilities and taking sides with dubious issues.

Instead HRH chooses to hobnob with the likes of Lady Gaga. And worse still, rely on them for advice.