King Charles III era now begins!
Discussion
Ivan stewart said:
President Blair or Johnson !!!
They would be voted in, that is the difference. Wealth, power not derided from treating other people as lower than themselves based purely on who their parents are. Not profiting off slavery and servitude. List goes on. Maybe it is time for change and people to ask questions?Leithen said:
threespires said:
Tango13 said:
Charles will be King out of duty and to ensure William can lead as normal a life as possible for as long as possible before having to do the job
I agree. His mother's example of service is not something I believe he will shirk from.
Newarch said:
To be honest the UK would do well to follow suit, this deferential class system thing that some people still insist upon is outdated and is holding the Uk back as a country.
Indeed - in a world of equality, a hereditary system where one family gets loadsa free stuff and put on a pedestal is an anachronism and very strange if you stop and think about it objectively…..one would assume that most people would actually be against the monarchy if they did. Does anyone know what will be the cost to coronate a 74 year old man?
ellroy said:
Tyre Smoke said:
I posted on the QE2 thread that he's got a huge pair of court shoes to emulate. I don't think he'll manage it. Especially with Queen Camilla. That just doesn't sit right with me. Can't say why, but it doesn't.
I feel Jamaica, Australia and New Zealand will push for Republics sooner rather than later.
He's got a job on his hands keeping the Commonwealth together that's for sure.
How so? A large proportion don’t have the king as head of state, in fact a number of nations have joined in recent years with no ties at all to the empire? Rwanda for example. The Commonwealth has gone from strength to strength in recent times.I feel Jamaica, Australia and New Zealand will push for Republics sooner rather than later.
He's got a job on his hands keeping the Commonwealth together that's for sure.
He's never struck me as being 'in touch' with his people. The Queen Mother always struck me the same. Despite her touring the East End during the Blitz in her fur coat. He seems aloof and detached, like he's going through the motions rather than actually engaging. QE2 gave the impression of being interested. Diana too.
His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
Tyre Smoke said:
He's never struck me as being 'in touch' with his people. The Queen Mother always struck me the same. Despite her touring the East End during the Blitz in her fur coat. He seems aloof and detached, like he's going through the motions rather than actually engaging. QE2 gave the impression of being interested. Diana too.
His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
It's not just his green ideas either, for decades he's tried to pressure the NHS to adopt quack science like homoeopathy and Gerson Therapy, whilst opposing GMOs that would massively improve the lives of people in the third world His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
Major revisions are surely now required to royalty and monarchy?
As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
Countdown said:
Good luck to him.
I think it will be a good thing to have a Monarch who is prepared to give an honest opinion (even if it upsets some people) rather than somebody who was purely a figurehead.
Constitutionally he's not allowed to voice publicly his views. Which I think he will find frustrating. I think it will be a good thing to have a Monarch who is prepared to give an honest opinion (even if it upsets some people) rather than somebody who was purely a figurehead.
We have returned (in the last 24 hours) to a monarchy before Diana. Aloof and apparently better than all off us subjects. He's got a lot of work to do. I suspect William will be given a much more public role.
fat80b said:
Newarch said:
To be honest the UK would do well to follow suit, this deferential class system thing that some people still insist upon is outdated and is holding the Uk back as a country.
Indeed - in a world of equality, a hereditary system where one family gets loadsa free stuff and put on a pedestal is an anachronism and very strange if you stop and think about it objectively…..one would assume that most people would actually be against the monarchy if they did. Does anyone know what will be the cost to coronate a 74 year old man?
Just have to look at the other thread to see how crazy it all is.
Tyre Smoke said:
He's never struck me as being 'in touch' with his people. The Queen Mother always struck me the same. Despite her touring the East End during the Blitz in her fur coat. He seems aloof and detached, like he's going through the motions rather than actually engaging. QE2 gave the impression of being interested. Diana too.
His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
It's going to be hard for the public to warm to Charles, he really doesn't come across well at times and the Diana business doesn't sit well with people either. William also seems to lack personality, comes across as dull and boring and pushed his politics at times too. His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
QE2 managed to stay pretty apolitical during her reign and she was around since the beginning of most people's lives so was accepted / adored.
Personally i'd like to see the monarchy crumble over the next few decades but am fully aware the flag waving monarchy lovers will be lining the streets for hundreds of years.
MC Bodge said:
Major revisions are surely now required to royalty and monarchy?
As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
If you complied with historic agreements I am sure they would love the idea.As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
They live in a gilded cage now, with their entire day planned out for them as a series of meetings, visits and correspondence.
If you insisted of giving back the entire crown estate portfolio and told them they could sit home and watch television every night, I’m sure they would bite your hand off.
Who would run the government though? I guess you would need to keep the prime minister and cabinet in place as the new president would be busy all day doing all the visits, letters and charity stuff on behalf of the republic.
He would also need a big White House for entertaining, his own staff to organise the presidential activity and some public money to cover his expenses and salary.
Win win… apart from the taxpayer.
Tyre Smoke said:
He's never struck me as being 'in touch' with his people. The Queen Mother always struck me the same. Despite her touring the East End during the Blitz in her fur coat. He seems aloof and detached, like he's going through the motions rather than actually engaging. QE2 gave the impression of being interested. Diana too.
His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
You are wrong about the Queen Mother. Stories abounded about her back in the day, including those on her relationships with us plebs. She was a bit of a character as well.His 'green' ideas are going to grate with the politicians and I think he will be more vocal in his ideas at weekly PM meetings.
Let's face it, he's not well liked.
Hol said:
MC Bodge said:
Major revisions are surely now required to royalty and monarchy?
As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
If you complied with historic agreements I am sure they would love the idea.As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
They live in a gilded cage now, with their entire day planned out for them as a series of meetings, visits and correspondence.
If you insisted of giving back the entire crown estate portfolio and told them they could sit home and watch television every night, I’m sure they would bite your hand off.
Who would run the government though? I guess you would need to keep the prime minister and cabinet in place as the new president would be busy all day doing all the visits, letters and charity stuff on behalf of the republic.
He would also need a big White House for entertaining, his own staff to organise the presidential activity and some public money to cover his expenses and salary.
Win win… apart from the taxpayer.
It may have passed you by, but not every republic has the US or French systems.
As in other countries, the PM could remain as the Head of government and "running the country", as now. The Monarch/honorary president is just a figurehead.
MC Bodge said:
Hol said:
MC Bodge said:
Major revisions are surely now required to royalty and monarchy?
As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
If you complied with historic agreements I am sure they would love the idea.As others have said, the concept is an anachronism. If it was introduced as a new idea now, I cannot imagine that many of the people who are currently in awe of the royals would be in favour of it.
QE2 was a remarkable (and unnecessarily dutiful, really) individual, but that was more by good luck than due to the system of monarchy.
They live in a gilded cage now, with their entire day planned out for them as a series of meetings, visits and correspondence.
If you insisted of giving back the entire crown estate portfolio and told them they could sit home and watch television every night, I’m sure they would bite your hand off.
Who would run the government though? I guess you would need to keep the prime minister and cabinet in place as the new president would be busy all day doing all the visits, letters and charity stuff on behalf of the republic.
He would also need a big White House for entertaining, his own staff to organise the presidential activity and some public money to cover his expenses and salary.
Win win… apart from the taxpayer.
It may have passed you by, but not every republic has the US or French systems.
As in other countries, the PM could remain as the Head of government and "running the country", as now. The Monarch/honorary president is just a figurehead.
I’m sure you have thought everything through in detail before proposing your idea. So, how do you propose to fund the new presidential office?
The monarchy is funded from part of the profits from the crown estate, under the historic terms of that agreement. You won’t be able to use that money.
To think of it another way, imagine the personalities who end up in positions such as president, prime minister - their journey to the position and how long it takes and how long they're their. A gilded cage containing a person (or persons) who are trained from birth to fulfill the role isn't such a crazy way to end up with someone taking on such a role.
MC Bodge said:
As in other countries, the PM could remain as the Head of government and "running the country", as now. The Monarch/honorary president is just a figurehead.
i suspect the queen was more than a notional figurehead but i think the idea of an inherited role doesn’t fit modern times - how about we introduce an elected monarchy role with a generation (20-25 years?) term limit…Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff