London Bridge is apparently down

[ajohn]

King Charles the idiot's reign.

He has done something the Queen never ever did. Talked directly to the media and news people and expressed opinions - which he is entitled to have. The royals are in an odd position in that area. Politically speaking they aren't allowed to have them. Your opinion is based on this area.

HRH did express an opinion once that ended his public speaking. CBI meeting where he said that their is nothing wrong with the british workman, get your fingers out. Given what was going on in a number of countries at the time in many ways he was perfectly correct.

The Queen was a brilliant figure head and did a good job of it also obvious why the so called firm approach is needed. A different sort of politics.

I view the passing of the Queen in a slightly different way. The end of a UK era from where we have been to where we are now. I hope the trend ends with her. There has been a number of "interesting" changes during her reign that have indirectly had an effect on society. Just one eg - reported crime increasing and rather related to the increase in the number of people who could afford to have a land line. I wont go on. There are others.

It seems Charles will be downsizing some areas.

 

[JohnD]

It seems Charles will be downsizing some areas.

He pushed to reduce the number and cost of second-stringers and hangers-on. Fergie's family and ex-husband for example. This caused much rancour among a few of the entitled spongers, but it needed doing.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

Because I think wills and Kate are more personable with the general public.

Charles is still seen as the old guard, whereas William is seen as fresh and something needed to help move the country forward

Being a monarch isn't a popularity contest. I think that Charles has a lot more depth to him, concern for the nation and its' people as well as knowledge of the constitution and the country and the workings of the monarchy. I also think that certain parts of the media, most notably the Daily Mail, have taken this stance because they consider that Charles, quite rightly in the view of some people, is more likely to be openly critical of a right-wing government which itself is only supportive of the "haves", is anti-environment and is actively pursuing a policy of "the rich getting richer whilst the rest can rot"

Charles now has the task of preparing his eldest son to take over in the future, hopefully for William after his (William's) children have grown up

Just across the water:
Queen Beatrix signing the instrument of abdication, 2013.

But that was her choice.

Having lived in the Netherlands, and been there at the time of Juliana's abdication (Beatrix's mother) I'd like to point out that whilst Juliana was very popular among the Dutch population, despite her husband Bernhard being German and involved at one time with the Nazi party, Beatrix was a lot less popular (at least among the people I knew/know, such as my ex's family).

 

[ajohn]

Charles, quite rightly in the view of some people, is more likely to be openly

He announced a while ago that he wont. On his 70th birthday. Be interesting to see if he manages to do that.

It's a problem with being a symbolic head - not interfering with politics.

Politics probably will interfere with him at some point. The Commonwealth. He will be the symbolic head of that too. A bloke from NZ said not dropping out at the moment as that would be bad taste but ........................................

 

[ajohn]

LOL Over the years I have sometimes thought a return to older days would be a good idea - do a crap job off with their heads. Bring back the axe. Some heads would fall for the wrong reason but nothing is perfect.

 

[Deleted member 174758]

LOL Over the years I have sometimes thought a return to older days would be a good idea - do a crap job off with their heads. Bring back the axe. Some heads would fall for the wrong reason but nothing is perfect.

Don't tempt me to make suggestions...

 

[JohnD]

King Charles is already in his 70's.

What's the life expectancy for a prosperous white Englishman*? About 77?






*Scots life expectancy is not the same.

 

[Pat ex]

King Charles is already in his 70's.

What's the life expectancy for a prosperous white Englishman*? About 77?

Isn't life expectancy defined partly by your genes?

 

[Deleted member 174758]

*Scots life expectancy is not the same

Isn't Scots life expectancy calculated by using the number deep fried battered Mars bars consumed?

 

[Odds]

He announced a while ago that he wont. On his 70th birthday. Be interesting to see if he manages to do that.

It's a problem with being a symbolic head - not interfering with politics.

Politics probably will interfere with him at some point. The Commonwealth. He will be the symbolic head of that too. A bloke from NZ said not dropping out at the moment as that would be bad taste but ........................................

His role as Prince of Wales and heir to the throne allowed some discretion to his opinions on matters concerned with the Body Politic; as head of state, however, he knows his role is more constrained by the constitutional necessities required of him.
And the Monarch is not so symbolic as many people suppose...

 

[Vinty]

Because I think wills and Kate are more personable with the general public.

Charles is still seen as the old guard, whereas William is seen as fresh and something needed to help move the country forward

I think Charles is a decent bloke and will make a good King but is Camilla legitimate.

 

[Vinty]

Scots life expectancy is not the same

Too many deep fried Mars Bars.

 

[Vinty]

What's the life expectancy for a prosperous white Englishman*? About 77

When was the time when an Englishman was actually King of England.
King Harold perhaps.

 

[sxturbo]

Being a monarch isn't a popularity contest. I think that Charles has a lot more depth to him, concern for the nation and its' people as well as knowledge of the constitution and the country and the workings of the monarchy. I also think that certain parts of the media, most notably the Daily Mail, have taken this stance because they consider that Charles, quite rightly in the view of some people, is more likely to be openly critical of a right-wing government which itself is only supportive of the "haves", is anti-environment and is actively pursuing a policy of "the rich getting richer whilst the rest can rot"

Charles now has the task of preparing his eldest son to take over in the future, hopefully for William after his (William's) children have grown up


Having lived in the Netherlands, and been there at the time of Juliana's abdication (Beatrix's mother) I'd like to point out that whilst Juliana was very popular among the Dutch population, despite her husband Bernhard being German and involved at one time with the Nazi party, Beatrix was a lot less popular (at least among the people I knew/know, such as my ex's family).

To an extent it is a popularity contest, he needs to have the public on side to be considered relevant.

He seems to be an alright bloke, but personally I don't see him as a strong personality, someone that people wish to follow, whereas William seems to have strong leadership qualities, and Kate by his side is a bonus. Few people like Camilla which is another mark against charles

 

[Deleted member 174758]

When was the time when an Englishman was actually King of England.
King Harold perhaps.

Harold Godwinson was Anglo Saxon, though, nor English...