King Charles III

[Ronin]

Why is he a complete muppet?

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

how can you trust the decision making of a man who made that choice??


either he is completely bonkers or he desperately needs to be referred to a good optometrist

[Kralizec]

He knows all too well the wearisome burden of the Crown's inability to comment on almost anything - save in private. This has been tradition pretty much since the usurper William of Orange.

It was my understanding that the throne was still a pretty strong position until it passed to the Hannoverians, who didn't speak English and weren't particulary interested in British politics anyway- paving the way for a more dominant position of the cabinets.

The rest of your post is true enough, but I don't think that changing the head of state to a president (in the German mould) would make much difference at all, except that it would be marginally cheaper. It would be more acceptable for such a president to give his or her opinion about stuff (even though they're expected to distance themselves from petty politics, too) but the tasks of the office would still be mostly ceremonial. That is, unless you abandon the parliamentary system entirely.

I myself am a republican in principle, but it's near the bottom of my priority list

[Louis VI the Fat]

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

how can you trust the decision making of a man who made that choice??

I dunno...was Diana all that great? I think Charles made a poor choice in marrying Diana, not in seperating from her. She was his junior by many years, not on his intellectual level either. I can see how a man in his early thirties like Charles would fall madly in love with a nineteen year old, and will think the fascination will last forever. But then he turns forty, it becomes ever more painfully obvious that he really didn't have much in common with her in the fist place, he slowly starts to realise that his old youthfriend Camilla more than makes up in mental connection what she lacks in looks.
A young glamorous bride loses will lose her appeal to a man after the infatuation has worn off.

[Tribesman]

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

5 minutes with Diana is enough to make you put her in a car with a drunken driver , noytonlywas she bloody annoying she was thick as pig **** too

[JR-]

I dunno...was Diana all that great? I think Charles made a poor choice in marrying Diana, not in seperating from her. She was his junior by many years, not on his intellectual level either. I can see how a man in his early thirties like Charles would fall madly in love with a nineteen year old, and will think the fascination will last forever. But then he turns forty, it becomes ever more painfully obvious that he really didn't have much in common with her in the fist place, he slowly starts to realise that his old youthfriend Camilla more than makes up in mental connection what she lacks in looks.
A young glamorous bride loses will lose her appeal to a man after the infatuation has worn off.

agreed, there was not much to recommend diana barring her looks, and a great deal to dislike.

[edit] the world just ended, i agreed with tribesman too. ;) [/edit]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ouch, I also agree with Tribesman. Although the flipside is that Charles was clearly never in love with Diana, Heir and Spare was the purpose of that marriage and the spare is still supsect so she couldn't even do that.

The only people who didn't know this at the time were the masses, and Diana. I'm sure her parents and her brother were well aware of what they were getting her into, though.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I thought you favoured an Interventionist King?

Yes, but only within the appropriate system. The King should also remain dignified and diplomatic when doing so.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think Charles is a nice guy, he means well, and probably has a romanticised view of the monarchy and its role.

But when you consider that his decisions could influence the running of the country, especially at a time like this (or maybe we will be coming out of the economic problems, but still feeling the effects), is it really wise to let him have too much influence?

This is the whole problem of a heriditary monarchy - not all monarchs will be up to the job. I can't remember your exact views EFMF, but do you not think an elective monarchy might be better?

[Mangudai]

Britain is an unconstitutional monarchy. Most people think the House of Commons rules. But, in fact every bill passed by the House of Commons must be signed by the monarch before it becomes law.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I can't remember your exact views EFMF, but do you not think an elective monarchy might be better?

That's called a President.

[Strike For The South]

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

[CrossLOPER]

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

It's like American Idol.

[Incongruous]

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

Well tbh the way certain democracies behave the people may aswell not have a say anyway, the way the Commons is acting these days we may as well give up voting now. I really do not understand the growin British dislike for the the Lords or the Monarchy, the Commons will end up being far far worse, in fact it already is.

As for Charles being a muppet, clearly those who think he is, have no real reason to think so but are simply keeping in step with the popular line

Unless an effective form of Republic is thought up, I see none at present, what is the point of changing?

[Strike For The South]

Unless an effective form of Republic is thought up, I see none at present, what is the point of changing?

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

[Incongruous]

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different vagina they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

I do not have a problem with the idea of bowing to him, none at all, but lets remember that in the UK it should not just be the Monarch who rules, but the two Houses as well. I just dislike the Commons continued accumulation of power.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

So all inheritance tax should be raised to one hundred percent so that everyone has an equal start?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I always knew you were a communist at heart SFTS!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[CountArach]

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

So, so true.

[Jolt]

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

[Banquo's Ghost]

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

Largely in a pit at Tyburn.

[Captain Fishpants]

Just as a small point of interest: it's unlikely that a "Charles III" will ever sit on the British throne. He's more likely to be George VII when (if?) he ever succeeds to the Crown.

The previous two monarchs called Charles were both Stuarts, and their dynasty wasn't exactly a rip-roaring success overall, having caused a civil war, and provoked serial rebellions for (1688) and against (1715 and '45) and even between bits of the family (Monmouth's rebellion against James II). Charles I remains the only English/British monarch to declare war on his own people, and the only one to be tried and executed by his subjects. Charles II is often portrayed as a romantic figure, but he was a serial womaniser with poor impulse control was almost certainly receiving a subsidy from the French Louis XIV and is likely to have converted to Catholicism. These are not good precedents for a name.

As a sprig of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (hurriedly renamed "Windsor" when having German antecedents was a problem during the First World War), the current Charles Philip Arthur George is more likely to go with the more-recent family tradition by being George VII.

[rory_20_uk]

I was wondering who was going to pick up on that. Charles has already stated that he would change his name to George when he became King.

Having Prince Albert then King Edward VII as a predecessor there is a good stock of randiness in the current bloodline.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, to summarize, the most common response to Mr. Windsor's comments would be something like:

"Shut up, twit! You're supposed to be a quiet, vaguely regal-looking figurehead. If we want you to express and actual opinion we'll beat it out of you."


Followed by a substantial minority assessment of:

"Abolish the monarchy now (& House of Lords?); tradition is bollocks anyway."



Given the tenor of Charles' "supporters" on this thread, he might as well acede to the monarchy (such as it is) under the name of Katerina der Grosse -- but that would start all the "horse" comments again, wouldn't it?

[Prince Cobra]

Monarchy has certian advantages:

You have a certain figure that can be mentioned truly independent from any source of power in our society. No need to be elected and to be responsible to those who pay the money for the election campaign. In addition, each house prepares its heir since childhood for that task.

A long reigning monarch could give precious advises to his prime-ministers who excercise the real power.

In moment of crisis the authority of the monarch could stop any attempts to establish dictatorship of any kind (most often than not)

The disadvantages: Yes, the personality of the monarch matters. But nowadays he has few power and I believe that if he lacks the qualities for the monarch, he would be simply ignored and left in the political background. And yet, if he really creates big problems, he can simply resign and be replaced from one of his relatives. As far as Prince Charles is concerned if he continues in this way, it is easy to predict that he will be by-passed and replaced by his son.

Yes, it is true his right is inherited but there are many heads of state that do not deserve the honour to rule their country.

Republic or modern monarchy: there is not such a great difference!

As far as the monarchs of Great Britain: many of them were famous with their scandals. But none of them had ruined the country...

[Rhyfelwyr]

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

[CountArach]

Monarchy has certian advantages:

You have a certain figure that can be mentioned truly independent from any source of power in our society. No need to be elected and to be responsible to those who pay the money for the election campaign. In addition, each house prepares its heir since childhood for that task.

A long reigning monarch could give precious advises to his prime-ministers who excercise the real power.

In moment of crisis the authority of the monarch could stop any attempts to establish dictatorship of any kind (most often than not)

The disadvantages: Yes, the personality of the monarch matters. But nowadays he has few power and I believe that if he lacks the qualities for the monarch, he would be simply ignored and left in the political background. And yet, if he really creates big problems, he can simply resign and be replaced from one of his relatives. As far as Prince Charles is concerned if he continues in this way, it is easy to predict that he will be by-passed and replaced by his son.

Yes, it is true his right is inherited but there are many heads of state that do not deserve the honour to rule their country.

Republic or modern monarchy: there is not such a great difference!

As far as the monarchs of Great Britain: many of them were famous with their scandals. But none of them had ruined the country...

That ignores the fact that it is my right to pick who rules me - Monarchy is incompatible with a Democratic society.

[Prince Cobra]

That ignores the fact that it is my right to pick who rules me - Monarchy is incompatible with a Democratic society.

Well, the modern monarchs are not rulers in the real sense of the word. It is the Parliament and the Prime-Minister that rule.

Many monarchies are really democratic and liberal. You can not say that modern Spain and Great Britain are not democracies. Juan Carlos, the King of Spain, even prevented a military coup-de-etat that could have resulted in something non-democratic. I also think the monarchies are far more resistant to totalitarian regimes than the others.

[CountArach]

Well, the modern monarchs are not rulers in the real sense of the word. Many monarchies are far more liberal and democratic in the true sense of the word than many states ruled by presidents.

If they were truly Democratic they would step aside.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A democracy in the true sense of the word would be mob-rule. A dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Prince Cobra]

If they were truly Democratic they would step aside.

Democracy is a compromise.

There is no absolute democracy.

Do you really think that the politicians only serve the common voters and not those who pay the money for their campaigns?