King Charles III era now begins!
Discussion
vaud said:
PurpleTurtle said:
I guess The King’s Speech on Christmas Day will be his first opportunity to speak directly to the nation.
He can do it anytime, as the Queen did during the pandemic. A short "thank you for the support and kind words, etc" wouldn't be a crazy idea. The "thank you for the support" message can be done via press release. Monarchs don't address the nation to say thank you, they address the nation at Christmas and in times of crisis.
It sounds a little weird but not being too familiar/accessible was part of The Queen's (and her predecessors') success. You knew if The Queen got involved in something or addressed something, it was important - significant. If she'd have been on the telly talking to us every week, her gravitas would have been reduced.
It's part of the reason she never gave individual sit-down interviews.
Times change of course, but these fundamentals still apply.
Edited by Muzzer79 on Wednesday 21st September 12:13
BOR said:
"I’m not a monarchist but I was very fond of the Queen and so was my mum and gran. They’re both not here anymore so I wanted to go for them".
I've seen this expressed in various forms during the Jubilee through to The Queue and the Funeral itself, so hopefully it signals a lack of support for the strange king.
You need to be aware that television promotes the image it wants to promote. It doesn't signal anything, and you would be best to treat it with great scepticism. I certainly hope that he doesn't do a Greta, because that whole thing stinks of elitism and hypocrisy. But as for the 'strange King' as you call him, I have seen what he has done at Dumfries House in Ayrshire, and the impact that has had on the surrounding area. He prevented us having an 80's office building attached to the National Gallery. He stopped the Candy Brothers building three Mies van der Rohe-style skyscrapers down the Kings Road. The Princes Trust has a fantastic track record of helping people in the real world and of committed professional management. I've seen this expressed in various forms during the Jubilee through to The Queue and the Funeral itself, so hopefully it signals a lack of support for the strange king.
God bless the man, I say!
cardigankid said:
The Princes Trust has a fantastic track record of helping people in the real world and of committed professional management.
God bless the man, I say!
This, having seen the direct impact of his work over many years I agree. Just because he hasn't been on the radar by choice doesn't mean he hasn't done a huge amount. Many many examples if someone cares to look, particularly in helping underprivileged young people.God bless the man, I say!
cgt2 said:
cardigankid said:
The Princes Trust has a fantastic track record of helping people in the real world and of committed professional management.
God bless the man, I say!
This, having seen the direct impact of his work over many years I agree. Just because he hasn't been on the radar by choice doesn't mean he hasn't done a huge amount. Many many examples if someone cares to look, particularly in helping underprivileged young people.God bless the man, I say!
cuprabob said:
over_the_hill said:
If people in the reign of Georges, Edwards and Elizabeths are Georgians, Edwardians and Elizabethans,
what are we now? I don't know the correct term is for Charles.
Caroleans or Carolines.what are we now? I don't know the correct term is for Charles.
OzzyR1 said:
cuprabob said:
over_the_hill said:
If people in the reign of Georges, Edwards and Elizabeths are Georgians, Edwardians and Elizabethans,
what are we now? I don't know the correct term is for Charles.
Caroleans or Carolines.what are we now? I don't know the correct term is for Charles.
M3ax said:
OzzyR1 said:
cuprabob said:
over_the_hill said:
If people in the reign of Georges, Edwards and Elizabeths are Georgians, Edwardians and Elizabethans,
what are we now? I don't know the correct term is for Charles.
Caroleans or Carolines.what are we now? I don't know the correct term is for Charles.
Latin forms of William are: Gulielmus, Guglielmus, Willelmus, Wilelmus, Uiliemus, Vilelmus
Willelmeans?
But then he has other names he can use: Arthur, Philip, or Louis, or George - he doesn't have to use William,
[quote]
1. Yes the monarchy intrenches hereditary inequality – but so does passing anything on to one’s children. Republicanism in this regard begins at home. Helping your children with a deposit? Hoping to pass on a nest egg after you die? You’re perpetuating the same problem as the monarchy you allegedly dislike.
2. Yes the monarch is unelected. But if monarch is not exercising any power of the legislature, executive or judiciary then s/he is as unelected as a billionaire who got a headstart from mum and dad. Again – if the republican is doing anything mentioned in point one then said person is not being logically consistent by criticising this.
3. By way of detour, a pertinent question to ask is whether meritocratic inequality - the main alternative to hereditary inequality any better? A meritocracy is just as unequal as a hereditary system but uses different dice. Luck moves from who your parents are to what gifts of intellect and ambition you were born with. A society based on inherited wealth privilege allows someone who isn't very bright or gifted to have a shot at a comfortable life.
In a meritocratic society there will also be inequality, but it is harder to argue against as it is seen as 'just desserts' for a person's effort and intellect and skills. Some undeserved wealth allows people to accept paying out benefits to those 'less fortunate'. In a meritocratic society, poor people are not 'unlucky' they are defective
5. Next criticism involves a strawman idea that subjects are cap doffing to the monarch as we allegedly see them as our betters when they have ‘done nothing’ to earn that rank in the hierarchy. This meritocratic argument is firstly very much one that only values people for what they do rather than who they are, but it also misses the point. This is because it foists a contractualist value paradigm onto a more ancient role-based system. In a meritocratic society wealth and status want to be seen as ‘just desserts’ for actions done. Within this paradigm people choose to have someone rule over them in exchange for promises made to fulfil their interests. In this system people’s leader status is seen as a reward for services rendered or promised. Respect and status and wealth isn’t inherent in a person or role – it is exchanged for something earned. The logical folly in this is that it doesn't treat intelligence, aptitude, ambition and hard work as inherited luck.
In a role-based society a queen or king isn’t seen as ‘better’ by virtue of their status. The status is accidental. Rather they are playing a role which has been passed to them - the role as king and subject. The head is not more important than the stomach, etc. A monarchist pays dues to the king as part of his/her role as subject out of a sense of role-play duty - not out of a sense of contractual obligation.
[/quote]
Nicked from a Guardian comment, but I thought it had some interesting views on why a voted-for head of state isn't intrinsically more democratic.
1. Yes the monarchy intrenches hereditary inequality – but so does passing anything on to one’s children. Republicanism in this regard begins at home. Helping your children with a deposit? Hoping to pass on a nest egg after you die? You’re perpetuating the same problem as the monarchy you allegedly dislike.
2. Yes the monarch is unelected. But if monarch is not exercising any power of the legislature, executive or judiciary then s/he is as unelected as a billionaire who got a headstart from mum and dad. Again – if the republican is doing anything mentioned in point one then said person is not being logically consistent by criticising this.
3. By way of detour, a pertinent question to ask is whether meritocratic inequality - the main alternative to hereditary inequality any better? A meritocracy is just as unequal as a hereditary system but uses different dice. Luck moves from who your parents are to what gifts of intellect and ambition you were born with. A society based on inherited wealth privilege allows someone who isn't very bright or gifted to have a shot at a comfortable life.
In a meritocratic society there will also be inequality, but it is harder to argue against as it is seen as 'just desserts' for a person's effort and intellect and skills. Some undeserved wealth allows people to accept paying out benefits to those 'less fortunate'. In a meritocratic society, poor people are not 'unlucky' they are defective
5. Next criticism involves a strawman idea that subjects are cap doffing to the monarch as we allegedly see them as our betters when they have ‘done nothing’ to earn that rank in the hierarchy. This meritocratic argument is firstly very much one that only values people for what they do rather than who they are, but it also misses the point. This is because it foists a contractualist value paradigm onto a more ancient role-based system. In a meritocratic society wealth and status want to be seen as ‘just desserts’ for actions done. Within this paradigm people choose to have someone rule over them in exchange for promises made to fulfil their interests. In this system people’s leader status is seen as a reward for services rendered or promised. Respect and status and wealth isn’t inherent in a person or role – it is exchanged for something earned. The logical folly in this is that it doesn't treat intelligence, aptitude, ambition and hard work as inherited luck.
In a role-based society a queen or king isn’t seen as ‘better’ by virtue of their status. The status is accidental. Rather they are playing a role which has been passed to them - the role as king and subject. The head is not more important than the stomach, etc. A monarchist pays dues to the king as part of his/her role as subject out of a sense of role-play duty - not out of a sense of contractual obligation.
[/quote]
Nicked from a Guardian comment, but I thought it had some interesting views on why a voted-for head of state isn't intrinsically more democratic.
Maybe speculation but reckon Andrew is stuffed now Charles is King.
Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
FiF said:
Maybe speculation but reckon Andrew is stuffed now Charles is King.
Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
Hmm, a biography released just after Camilla becomes Queen Consort... with salacious rumours... to sell extra copies by any chance?Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
I take it that it's not an authorised bio?
boyse7en][quote said:
1. Yes the monarchy intrenches hereditary inequality – but so does passing anything on to one’s children. Republicanism in this regard begins at home. Helping your children with a deposit? Hoping to pass on a nest egg after you die? You’re perpetuating the same problem as the monarchy you allegedly dislike.
2. Yes the monarch is unelected. But if monarch is not exercising any power of the legislature, executive or judiciary then s/he is as unelected as a billionaire who got a headstart from mum and dad. Again – if the republican is doing anything mentioned in point one then said person is not being logically consistent by criticising this.
3. By way of detour, a pertinent question to ask is whether meritocratic inequality - the main alternative to hereditary inequality any better? A meritocracy is just as unequal as a hereditary system but uses different dice. Luck moves from who your parents are to what gifts of intellect and ambition you were born with. A society based on inherited wealth privilege allows someone who isn't very bright or gifted to have a shot at a comfortable life.
In a meritocratic society there will also be inequality, but it is harder to argue against as it is seen as 'just desserts' for a person's effort and intellect and skills. Some undeserved wealth allows people to accept paying out benefits to those 'less fortunate'. In a meritocratic society, poor people are not 'unlucky' they are defective
5. Next criticism involves a strawman idea that subjects are cap doffing to the monarch as we allegedly see them as our betters when they have ‘done nothing’ to earn that rank in the hierarchy. This meritocratic argument is firstly very much one that only values people for what they do rather than who they are, but it also misses the point. This is because it foists a contractualist value paradigm onto a more ancient role-based system. In a meritocratic society wealth and status want to be seen as ‘just desserts’ for actions done. Within this paradigm people choose to have someone rule over them in exchange for promises made to fulfil their interests. In this system people’s leader status is seen as a reward for services rendered or promised. Respect and status and wealth isn’t inherent in a person or role – it is exchanged for something earned. The logical folly in this is that it doesn't treat intelligence, aptitude, ambition and hard work as inherited luck.
In a role-based society a queen or king isn’t seen as ‘better’ by virtue of their status. The status is accidental. Rather they are playing a role which has been passed to them - the role as king and subject. The head is not more important than the stomach, etc. A monarchist pays dues to the king as part of his/her role as subject out of a sense of role-play duty - not out of a sense of contractual obligation.
Nicked from a Guardian comment, but I thought it had some interesting views on why a voted-for head of state isn't intrinsically more democratic.2. Yes the monarch is unelected. But if monarch is not exercising any power of the legislature, executive or judiciary then s/he is as unelected as a billionaire who got a headstart from mum and dad. Again – if the republican is doing anything mentioned in point one then said person is not being logically consistent by criticising this.
3. By way of detour, a pertinent question to ask is whether meritocratic inequality - the main alternative to hereditary inequality any better? A meritocracy is just as unequal as a hereditary system but uses different dice. Luck moves from who your parents are to what gifts of intellect and ambition you were born with. A society based on inherited wealth privilege allows someone who isn't very bright or gifted to have a shot at a comfortable life.
In a meritocratic society there will also be inequality, but it is harder to argue against as it is seen as 'just desserts' for a person's effort and intellect and skills. Some undeserved wealth allows people to accept paying out benefits to those 'less fortunate'. In a meritocratic society, poor people are not 'unlucky' they are defective
5. Next criticism involves a strawman idea that subjects are cap doffing to the monarch as we allegedly see them as our betters when they have ‘done nothing’ to earn that rank in the hierarchy. This meritocratic argument is firstly very much one that only values people for what they do rather than who they are, but it also misses the point. This is because it foists a contractualist value paradigm onto a more ancient role-based system. In a meritocratic society wealth and status want to be seen as ‘just desserts’ for actions done. Within this paradigm people choose to have someone rule over them in exchange for promises made to fulfil their interests. In this system people’s leader status is seen as a reward for services rendered or promised. Respect and status and wealth isn’t inherent in a person or role – it is exchanged for something earned. The logical folly in this is that it doesn't treat intelligence, aptitude, ambition and hard work as inherited luck.
In a role-based society a queen or king isn’t seen as ‘better’ by virtue of their status. The status is accidental. Rather they are playing a role which has been passed to them - the role as king and subject. The head is not more important than the stomach, etc. A monarchist pays dues to the king as part of his/her role as subject out of a sense of role-play duty - not out of a sense of contractual obligation.
vaud said:
FiF said:
Maybe speculation but reckon Andrew is stuffed now Charles is King.
Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
Hmm, a biography released just after Camilla becomes Queen Consort... with salacious rumours... to sell extra copies by any chance?Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
I take it that it's not an authorised bio?
FiF said:
vaud said:
FiF said:
Maybe speculation but reckon Andrew is stuffed now Charles is King.
Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
Hmm, a biography released just after Camilla becomes Queen Consort... with salacious rumours... to sell extra copies by any chance?Excerpt from forthcoming Camilla biography alleges that when the question of Charles marrying Camilla was up for debate in Royal circles that Andrew lobbied the Queen very hard to prevent Charles marrying Camilla and in the hope that Charles would not become King and the throne pass to William with Andrew as Regent.
Clearly little brotherly love going on.
I take it that it's not an authorised bio?
A few people on this thread have been assuming that Charles III will be looking to slim down the monarchy to be a bit more in line with the other European monarchies and going from this Telegraph article
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/1...
It seems that will start with the coronation being a smaller affair than Elizabeth II's back in 1953, but they also point out that Charles in 73 (our oldest new monarch) and all that standing may not be healthy...
And I hate to come across as a junior mod but the HM Queen Elizabeth II thread got closed when it all got a bit Republic vs Monarchy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/1...
It seems that will start with the coronation being a smaller affair than Elizabeth II's back in 1953, but they also point out that Charles in 73 (our oldest new monarch) and all that standing may not be healthy...
And I hate to come across as a junior mod but the HM Queen Elizabeth II thread got closed when it all got a bit Republic vs Monarchy.
MesoForm said:
A few people on this thread have been assuming that Charles III will be looking to slim down the monarchy to be a bit more in line with the other European monarchies and going from this Telegraph article
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/1...
It seems that will start with the coronation being a smaller affair than Elizabeth II's back in 1953, but they also point out that Charles in 73 (our oldest new monarch) and all that standing may not be healthy...
And I hate to come across as a junior mod but the HM Queen Elizabeth II thread got closed when it all got a bit Republic vs Monarchy.
A conversation about a King in a modern western democracy in 2022 is inevitably going to get a bit Republic vs Monarchy though. What else is there to talk about? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/1...
It seems that will start with the coronation being a smaller affair than Elizabeth II's back in 1953, but they also point out that Charles in 73 (our oldest new monarch) and all that standing may not be healthy...
And I hate to come across as a junior mod but the HM Queen Elizabeth II thread got closed when it all got a bit Republic vs Monarchy.
The Coronation. King Charles & Camilla to be crowned on 6th May next year....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63172425
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63172425
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff