We Need To Talk About Charles
Discussion
I'm not a royalist. On the other hand, I think the Queen has performed her task of head of state impeccably. I doubt any other form of h-o-s would have done so well with so little fuss or bother. Royalty is expensive, but it has been worth it.
Charles as king fills me with dread. I think he will turn many people like me, who are ambivalent with regards monarchy, towards a republic.
The bloke is an embarrassment.
Charles as king fills me with dread. I think he will turn many people like me, who are ambivalent with regards monarchy, towards a republic.
The bloke is an embarrassment.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not a royalist. On the other hand, I think the Queen has performed her task of head of state impeccably. I doubt any other form of h-o-s would have done so well with so little fuss or bother. Royalty is expensive, but it has been worth it.
Charles as king fills me with dread. I think he will turn many people like me, who are ambivalent with regards monarchy, towards a republic.
The bloke is an embarrassment.
It all pivots on whether he embraces - and is seen to embrace - that what he could do and say as PoW, he absolutely won't be able to do and say as King.Charles as king fills me with dread. I think he will turn many people like me, who are ambivalent with regards monarchy, towards a republic.
The bloke is an embarrassment.
Heirs to the throne have had a tendency to court controversy going all the way back to the future Henry V (and probably before). George IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII were all controversial heirs to the throne. George VI less so because, until a few days before he became King, no one expected him to be King and so didnt take too much notice of him and Victoria and the current Queen because they ascended to the throne so young that they didnt have time to do anything contraversial.
Suitcases full of cash would be accepted by zero respectable banks, especially if the source of wealth / source of funds is not documented, and double especially if the payer is a politically exposed person. This seems to be riding a royal coach and horses through anti money laundering regulations.
I don't mind Charles. He's harmless enough
The issue he has, PR-wise, is he is paying now for the immaturity and pomposity he displayed as a younger man - up to when he married Camilla really.
He also has the hardest act to follow. The Queen is one of the longest serving and most successful monarchs.
In layman's terms; it's a little like taking over Manchester Utd from Sir Alex Ferguson. You want to be the guy that follows the guy that took over.....
The issue he has, PR-wise, is he is paying now for the immaturity and pomposity he displayed as a younger man - up to when he married Camilla really.
He also has the hardest act to follow. The Queen is one of the longest serving and most successful monarchs.
In layman's terms; it's a little like taking over Manchester Utd from Sir Alex Ferguson. You want to be the guy that follows the guy that took over.....
I'm not the biggest fan of Prince Charles, but I don't think he's awful by any stretch of the imagination. I think he's improved a lot over the years. Clearly his early decades of affairs and so on were a disaster, but I respect him for things like The Princes Trust, The Princes Charities, the way he has built up the Duchy brand and Highgrove, and his enthusiasm for the architecture, building preservation, and the environment. He's clearly not an imbecile.
Given the choice though, I would much rather usher William straight in there and bypass Charles. William clearly knows the score and knows that the future lies in a much slimmed down monarchy. A handful of working Royals and the rest can be told to sod off and find their own jobs. He has been instrumental in blocking Andrew from getting back to ceremonial or public duties.
I think though, William Is having an influence on the decisions of Charles, which can only be a good thing.
Given the choice though, I would much rather usher William straight in there and bypass Charles. William clearly knows the score and knows that the future lies in a much slimmed down monarchy. A handful of working Royals and the rest can be told to sod off and find their own jobs. He has been instrumental in blocking Andrew from getting back to ceremonial or public duties.
I think though, William Is having an influence on the decisions of Charles, which can only be a good thing.
GTO-3R said:
William is at a perfect age to take over now as he can relate to both younger and older people. Lets face it, how many 20-30 year olds can relate to Charles? I think William will be a great King and bring the monarchy in to the modern times.
His kids are still young. I think he'd be quite happy taking on the role when they're somewhat older and it doesn't impact the family life he seems to work quite hard for (perhaps with his relationships in mind).GTO-3R said:
William is at a perfect age to take over now as he can relate to both younger and older people. Lets face it, how many 20-30 year olds can relate to Charles? I think William will be a great King and bring the monarchy in to the modern times.
He is a product of the Royal court and his father, he is as detached from day to day life of people as both the Queen and Charles are. He won't slim down the Royal family, it will be more of the same, vasts sums of money wasted on a bloated monarchy that have very little relevance with a modern democracy.
sugerbear said:
He won't slim down the Royal family, it will be more of the same, vasts sums of money wasted on a bloated monarchy that have very little relevance with a modern democracy.
It's happening right now. Our Andrew is toast. The Kents are retiring. Various other succubi won't be replaced when they croak. Many of the younglings have careers of a sort. sugerbear said:
GTO-3R said:
William is at a perfect age to take over now as he can relate to both younger and older people. Lets face it, how many 20-30 year olds can relate to Charles? I think William will be a great King and bring the monarchy in to the modern times.
He is a product of the Royal court and his father, he is as detached from day to day life of people as both the Queen and Charles are. He won't slim down the Royal family, it will be more of the same, vasts sums of money wasted on a bloated monarchy that have very little relevance with a modern democracy.
William can say what he likes, and it remains to be seen what action he takes, but he has made it clear over the last 12 months or so that he feels then monarchy needs to change, slim down, and adapt to the modern world.
I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
GTO-3R said:
William is at a perfect age to take over now as he can relate to both younger and older people. Lets face it, how many 20-30 year olds can relate to Charles? I think William will be a great King and bring the monarchy in to the modern times.
Much as we can admire the Queen's unshakeable belief that Monarchy is a God-granted moral and spiritual obligation that can only be broken by death the pragmatist in me prefers the model used by many of the European monarchies where you take the gig on from your predecessor in your early-mid forties, do it energetically for 20-30 years and hand it on to your successor in your late sixties/early seventies. At that point you can decide whether to quietly retire like Albert of the Belgians, skidaddle to somewhere outside the legal jurisdiction of your kingdom with your floozy and your personal fortune like Juan-Carlos of Spain or carry on doing all the public engagements and supporting charities side of the gig without all the bind of being constitutional head of state like Beatrix of the Netherlands
Lord Marylebone said:
We will just have to wait and see.
William can say what he likes, and it remains to be seen what action he takes, but he has made it clear over the last 12 months or so that he feels then monarchy needs to change, slim down, and adapt to the modern world.
I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Would you give the same benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't have hereditary privileges. If not you have double standards my lord.William can say what he likes, and it remains to be seen what action he takes, but he has made it clear over the last 12 months or so that he feels then monarchy needs to change, slim down, and adapt to the modern world.
I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm very much the wrong person to ask on opinions of the royal family but I'd be quite happy for them to relinquish any constitutional powers and become a tourist attraction. As of now they do have constitutional powers than in my view they shouldn't but Charlie boy is likely to make it more obvious than lizzie ever did and make it open to question. I do believe that he'll be the best advert for a republic that doesn't require violence to achieve it.
roger.mellie said:
Would you give the same benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't have hereditary privileges. If not you have double standards my lord.
I'm very much the wrong person to ask on opinions of the royal family but I'd be quite happy for them to relinquish any constitutional powers and become a tourist attraction. As of now they do have constitutional powers than in my view they shouldn't but Charlie boy is likely to make it more obvious than lizzie ever did and make it open to question. I do believe that he'll be the best advert for a republic that doesn't require violence to achieve it.
I think that there is an argument to say that the current Queen hasn't flexed her constitutional muscles enough during her reignI'm very much the wrong person to ask on opinions of the royal family but I'd be quite happy for them to relinquish any constitutional powers and become a tourist attraction. As of now they do have constitutional powers than in my view they shouldn't but Charlie boy is likely to make it more obvious than lizzie ever did and make it open to question. I do believe that he'll be the best advert for a republic that doesn't require violence to achieve it.
roger.mellie said:
Would you give the same benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't have hereditary privileges. If not you have double standards my lord.
I'm very much the wrong person to ask on opinions of the royal family but I'd be quite happy for them to relinquish any constitutional powers and become a tourist attraction. As of now they do have constitutional powers than in my view they shouldn't but Charlie boy is likely to make it more obvious than lizzie ever did and make it open to question. I do believe that he'll be the best advert for a republic that doesn't require violence to achieve it.
I would give anybody the benefit of the doubt until they proved me right or wrong.I'm very much the wrong person to ask on opinions of the royal family but I'd be quite happy for them to relinquish any constitutional powers and become a tourist attraction. As of now they do have constitutional powers than in my view they shouldn't but Charlie boy is likely to make it more obvious than lizzie ever did and make it open to question. I do believe that he'll be the best advert for a republic that doesn't require violence to achieve it.
I agree that Charles has a tendency to express his viewpoint on occasion, whereas the Queen has been incredibly good at staying as neutral and kept her opinions to herself, as much as you could reasonably expect. I don't think the constitutional powers are anything to be concerned about, although as per the above, I think at times I would like to see the Queen summon Boris Johnson or other MP's to her office for a massive b
king, and to issue the threat of being put in the Tower.We will just have to see how Charles gets on. I think he will be 'fine' and probably William will be having more of a say in the matter than Charles ever did with the Queen. I have no doubt William will be 'better'.
I've said before on threads regarding the monarchy that I'm a 'practical royalist'. If on balance, they are good for Britain, then keep them, if they are bad for Britain, get rid of them.
At present I believe the monarchy are good for business in our country, good for our reputation abroad, and good for tourism, and so on. I read some figures a while ago that even just the 'Royal Warrant' programme boosts British business and exports by around £4 Billion. The 'uplift' to the economy is generally considered significant, and I'm a strong believer in that is as a result of us actually having them in place at this present time, not just as a piece of history.
I do not believe, that if you binned the monarchy tomorrow and opened Buckingham palace as a museum, the revenue generated by our 'former royal family' and their homes would be anything like what it is now.
The figures are complicated, granted, but on the whole the sums have been done to death, and the value they add to our economy very much outweigh the cost.
My decision of 'monarchy or no monarchy' would be based purely on the figures and if they assist our status globally, and not on arguments about being born into lives of privilege or other such things. Yes, the extended family can be plonkers at times, but as long as overall they are money making plonkers, I really don't care.
I would whole heartedly vote for a reduction in official royals though. Keep it just to the direct line. Queen, Charles & Camilla, William & Kate, Prince George etc. Don't see much of a reason to keep the rest. Once they know they aren't in line to the throne, they should be made to stand on their own feet.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 27th June 16:32
ClaphamGT3 said:
I think that there is an argument to say that the current Queen hasn't flexed her constitutional muscles enough during her reign
When the self interest of the parasites is at risk, apparently she has....https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/qu...
Ouroboros said:
Not a fan of the king or queen staying out of politics.
It is great Charles can't keep his mouth shut and takes back handers, might win a few contracts in middle East/ Africa etc.
I imagine him as king will do wonders for this country, like a Royal Boris on crack.
Like brother Randy Andy jetting around the world on "business" trips batting for Britain at trade shows.It is great Charles can't keep his mouth shut and takes back handers, might win a few contracts in middle East/ Africa etc.
I imagine him as king will do wonders for this country, like a Royal Boris on crack.
Lord Marylebone said:
I've said before on threads regarding the monarchy that I'm a 'practical royalist'. If on balance, they are good for Britain, then keep them, if they are bad for Britain, get rid of them.
This was my position for a long while - i.e.the finanical / practical / tourism benefits kind of made it bearable. But I'm increasingly thinking that in a world of true equality, there can be no justification for a class based society / privilege that ends up with a royal family and so it has to go,i.e. How can we claim to live in a truly equal world (be that an anti-racist world, an LGBTQIA+ inclusive world, or a class-less world) when we have even the concept of a King or Queen by birth? - we can't as it is massviely hypocritcal position....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff