Prince Charles > King Charles. How do we feel about this inevitability?

I thought he was not going to keep using Charles once he's crowned as that name is considered unlucky?

Charles III. He won't be anything else. Waiting 50+ yrs to get the "top job"? He won't change his brand.

Queen Camilla !

Reading about Charles II, it seems he similarly had the misfortune of reigning in times of unprecedented turmoil. So maybe this Charles III will be just what is needed in this crazy world.

Had he become King when he was younger, I think Charles would have changed his name...possibly going by King George VII. However, he's had to wait so long, he'll probably go by King Charles III.

Charles is a weak but well-meaning man, who made the terrible mistake of marrying the wrong woman. Unfortunately, that mistake will define him forever, and is probably the reason why (in his guilt) he always over-indulged his youngest son, who now seems intent on twisting the knife and keeping the wound open forever.

Charles is going to be an elderly monarch. Realistically, his active reign is unlikely to last a decade. I think he’ll get his way and reign with a fully-titles Queen Camilla though. She has sufficiently grown on the UK public, as she has adopted the never-complain-never-explain, stoic approach of The Queen. She is well-liked by the charities and the armed forces she represents.

He’ll do a fine job, aided by his age. As Alan Bennett said (paraphrasing): if you are eighty years old and still able to eat a boiled egg, the British think you are a genius.

I don't envy Prince Charles. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth will be an impossible act to follow. A sovereign who has proudly and magnificently served her country and her people for 70 years. Charles, William and George will be dull epilogues in comparison.

Why didn't he follow earlier Princes of Wales in adopting a cute pre-coronation nickname like Bertie or Davey?

[quote]Charles, William and George will be dull epilogues in comparison.

R7, don't be droll!

Or Chuckie?

For whatever his failing where Diana was concerned, he's paid for it 10 times over with Harry's antics. In a strange way, I wonder if they've made him more sympathetic to the British public. His reign is really just a transitional one to pave the way for Wills & Kate. And it is funny that he used to be considered such a kook, but most of his ideas are now considered mainstream.

R11 This is my feeling exactly. Charles III is a transitional monarch, who will reign for ~10 yrs. His purpose is to bridge the gap between old world and new, and all the sensibilities that entails. And I think history will treat him kindly.

Interesting is how Diana poo-poos Charles with the ouija boards bit, but of course we all know that she frequented psychics and astrologers just a few years later.

So Britain will only have to deal with a Boomer head of state for a brief interregnum, while in the US their sclerotic grip on power goes on and on (Biden being a partial exception).

When Charles and Camilla got married, Clarence House said in no uncertain terms Camilla would not become queen consort. They built and stepped in a trap nobody asked them to, but backtracking would give the British tabloids an excuse to release the bloodhounds.

Truth be told, Camilla is a longtime chainsmoker and longevity isn't a family trait. I think she's only got several years left, so she might as well spend a few of them as queen consort.

He has a track record of pestering Cabinet ministers and trying to promote his pet causes. This is unconstitutional. He is supposed to be impartial. If he does it when he becomes King it will cause serious trouble.

As for his acceptability, many people, especially women, still see him as the villain in the Diana saga, and do not respect him as a man. Camilla has been made over and groomed to show pony standard, with a massive PR effort to promote her, but she is still not popular. By law she is entitled to be addressed as Princess of Wales. She and Charles both know that would be a step too far for the public. They are a pair of old shagnasties.

Considering how long his parents lived, he will probably be king for 20 years.

I wonder how King Charles is going to deal with Fredo?

[quote] He has a track record of pestering Cabinet ministers and trying to promote his pet causes. This is unconstitutional.

What’s constitutional isn’t fixed in stone for all time. It evolves and it would be nice for the monarch to earn their keep by having a more active role than just cutting ribbons.

The monarch is required by convention not to express their political opinions. If they flout that Parliament has the right to remove them.

Diana's shadow was long...but now that here children are grown...No.one.cares. Seriously, it is about what her boys do. And we already know who is walking the walk, and who has retreated into a hell of his own making. My god, I just watch The Lion in Winter last weekend. It is almost perfect seeing how these heirs jostle for position. If this were the Middle Ages, guess who would be in the tower.

Charles is actually the future of the monarchy. Always has been. Altho he has yet to reign, it is no accident that a cum-bay-ya prince was born way back in 1948. He has been a big influence already, don't you think?

Charles is unpopular as is his wife. He does not have the longevity of his parents, already looking much older and in ill health than they did at that age. In no universe will Camilla be crowned Queen.

R5 There is absolutely no reason for Charles to change his name when - and by now - if, he becomes King. The other two Kings who changed their Regnal names were both named Albert - and for some reason, that name was not meant to be used as a Kingly name. The only other monarch not to use their given name was Mrs Albert - who disliked her given name of Alexandrina and chose to go by Victoria. In over a thousand years of British history - there has only been two precedents for this, and Charles is going to say - as his mother did before him - why, my own name of course.

Anyone who things these are the most tumultuous times in British monarchy history hasn’t read any history. Check out the previous King Charles II just as an example. Or Henry VIII. Not to mention Bloody Mary. Those are the most well known but pretty much every monarch up to modern times—well, there were people being killed when they reigned. Believe me, this is a walk in the park compared to most previous reigns. I listen to a podcast (no this isn’t an advertisement) called Noble Blood. You’d be shocked at how violent and chaotic times were.

Charles will have little power to make any real or lasting changes, and if he tries to influence Parliament as he has in the past, he's going to find himself the face of a campaign to get rid of the royals permanently. The man's lack of empathy is remarkable and he frequently behaves as if he doesn't believe he has any personal responsibilities, like when he ran off by himself after his father died, leaving his widowed mother and the rest of the family behind.

I don't think he'll be a terrible leader, but he'll be ineffectual and probably more than a bit irritating. He'll be lucky if he's even remembered by history, let alone remembered kindly.

I like him. I get the impression it's usually the older generations who don't, perhaps because of the Diana era. I was only a child when she died and don't really remember much of her impact, whereas I have seen Prince Charles's documentaries, heard his ecological thoughts and forward-thinking farming practices and believe him to be on the ball. Camilla seems like she'd be fun at parties, too.

I believe a few weeks after the Queen is buried, Charles will make a speech stating he intends to abdicate on Coronation Eve, to allow William and Catherine to assume the throne. In other words, he will be King for a year (it usually takes a year for Coronation to be organised) but will remain uncrowned.

I do think that following the funeral of the Queen there will be massive organised public marches to demand a referendum for abolition of the monarchy. This is almost an absolute certainty. It will happen in the year before the coronation. That way, if it succeeds, they can go quietly, without the fuss of having been crowned.

Why does anyone not from Britain care about the British monarchy? This is useless blather.

Charles isn’t yet the monarch, and isn’t bound by the same standards of impartiality as the monarch. When he becomes king, his letters to ministers will cease, because he will have a weekly audience with the Prime Minister, and will be free to ask him/her any question or express any opinion to him/her. That’s the influence he will have, but it will not be expressed in public.

As to Camilla, the first day or two of the new reign will be decisive. If the declaration of the new monarch mentions her as Queen, there may be a few protests, but given that the whole country will be in mourning for TheQueen and preparing for the biggest ceremonial occasion in nearly a century, it is likely that attention will move on fast. Ultimately, I think the biggest stumbling block Charles faces in making Camilla Queen is the view of the party in power. I think Conservatives are most likely to agree to her title so as to cause least trouble to Charles.

The UK has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Including demographically. The vast muslim, black, and mixed-race communities certainly don't want a monarchy. I think a Republic is inevitable. The media gives a distorted view that people care. Most people under 30 don't give a flying fuck for them, and in fact, are fed up with it all. There's lingering affection for the Queen, as there would be for your Gran, but after she's gone, the Windsors will be out. I'd lay ready money on it.

[quote]His purpose is to bridge the gap between old world and new, and all the sensibilities that entails.

I think that's why he's willing to be the bad guy in regards to slimming down the monarchy; I think he's going to reduce the number of HRHs, get rid of many properties once mumy dies and probably a lot of overhead so that when Kate & Will inherit the throne, they'll have a more lean organization and are not under constant criticism from the public about $$

Without the British monarchy a bunch of countries would have to reorganize their system of government to the cost of trillions of dollars. The Queen is head of state for most commonwealth countries. It would be a really big deal.

There are 16 commonwealth realms that have the Queen as head of state. Its not that easy to just become a republic.

Considering the Queen hasn’t been out of the country the last five years, I don’t think this is a big deal, r34.

If they're going to make Camilla Queen - and they are - it will be made known - quietly - prior to the death of the present Queen. Let the papers report it, let the news settle, to the degree it has to. But at this point, who cares? Diana's been dead for almost twenty-five years and it's established there was fault on both sides of that failed marriage (if not necessarily equal fault.) Charles and Camilla have been married for sixteen years. No paper is going to go whole hog on an old man, even if they did defer the announcement, which they won't since the question's already been raised or there wouldn't be so many theories about it.

I have never understood the ire on DL about the model for a head of state in another country. Every country needs someone to symbolize the nation at times of national importance. And since yours elected Donald Trump you will never, ever be in position to justly criticize another's country's approach, if you ever were.

More than half of us—both times—didn’t vote for Dump, r37. So I think that allows us an opinion or two.

As an anti-monarchist, I can't wait. Nothing will hasten the end of this ridiculous tradition more than Charles on the throne. The stories of his extravagance - somehow ignored or tolerated when he was PoW - will not be accepted at all when he's king. And it does seem his overbearing behaviour has made him a large number of enemies. Even having him as a guest is an exhausting job, with him having his flunkies call to tell the host they have to change the menu and buy the meat from his favourite farm.

I will miss Heir of Sorrows in Private Eye though. The thought of doing without Sylvie Krin's work is just...what's the word?

Off with their heads.

I think the poster who said it's a generational thing with Diana is probably correct. I'm an eldergay.

[quote]Charles is a weak but well-meaning man, who made the terrible mistake of marrying the wrong woman.

And look at the damage he caused. Had he had the guts to marry the woman he did love, he wouldn't have ruined Diana's life. Is he any different than a closeted gay marrying a woman and then deciding he needed a divorce?

To the Tower with R39!

God, he's waited long enough. Give him a go for a decade (?) or so.

King Charles III sounds kingly enough to me.

R16 the King is above the law so if he wants to pester HIS ministers, and they would be HIS ministers, under HIS government, then it’s perfectly legal.

Sorry about it, that’s what you get with a Monarchy and a basically unwritten constitution. Should have gone through those 19th Century revolutions that swept the continent, then you’d have more defined rules rather then a bunch of laws that are technically under the King since he is immune from the law.

Perfectly legal and entirely without force.

R44, listen to R45!

R41 Except Camilla didn’t want to marry him. She wanted one man and that was her first husband Andrew Parker Bowles. If that marriage had been happy - if he had cheated on Camilla less - the course of history would have been different.

If the name “Charles” was considered unlucky for a Monarch then I rather doubt that his mother would have named him as such.

R48, of course it’s not unlucky. The monarchy was restored under Charles II. Now “Richard”? I’m pretty sure that’s off the table.

I'm in a Commonwealth country - no great royalist but the political fucking around to change our system would be a nightmare if we had to become a republic. I imagine nobody in the Commonwealth wants that hassle.

What hassle? You'd replace Liz with a figurehead president who has no power, probably elected by the Parliament or some constitutional convention similar to the German model.

Because at the moment the issue of change arises, r51, there will be inevitable demands for much bigger change. There will be loud voices to move to a full presidential system (the worst type in the world) or if the system of selecting a ceremonial president isn't carefully worked out then you could end up with a system that creates tension between the parliament and the president.

Turkey was a parliamentary system with a figurehead president selected by parliament, then Erdogan as prime minister instituted a system whereby the president was elected in a popular vote, and after that turned Turkey into a presidential political system. This goes against the country's founding principles, where parliament was to be supreme, not one individual.

Thanks for Americasplaining, R51.

R13. Well, Diana was a hypocrite generally. Publicly condemning Charles’ affair with Camillla but keeping mum about her numerous affairs with married men, and courting the paparazzi, and then condemning them. The admiration for her always baffled me.

Dont care very much as it has little relevance to me. I am not particularly interested in the monarchy, and its a shit job if you ask me, if he wants it he's welcome to it.

Fuck being in the public eye 24/7, I'd abdicate and go live in a fuckin trailer park instead, fuck that noise

The guy is a bit of a twat, but I have to say that when it comes to architecture and housing design he is right on the money

Sweetheart OP possum darling, the BRF isn't about 'feelings.' It's about tradtion. Tradition isn't about feelings. Feelings are reserved for whether or not you like white or pink icing on the cupcakes for your next birthday party. The one where the cake will have a '9' on top. Now, put down the phone and do your homework. You're already well on your way to functional illiteracy.

r32 nobody cares what Muslims etc. who are squatting in the UK think. If they don't want a monarchy let them go HOME where they belong.

Hmmm…they ARE home r57. Maybe you should leave.

Y'all know that Charles is going to die before the Queen, right?

R57 Hmm, I wonder if they thought the same thing about the British imperialists back in the day.

They are there at the tolerance of their benefactors. An upset constituency could change that at any time. Their home is whatever shithole country they slithered out from.

R53 I'm British you dumb fuck

R52 Frankly you just sound like a monarchist grasping at straws. Constitutional renewal isn't a hassle, and the idea of keeping a system like the monarchy just because replacing them might cause a bit of work for politicians is idiotic.

R62 No - you would say if you were English (or Scots or Welsh) - not “British”. And if you were British you would understand that.

Who’s the dumb fuck now, you American twat?

r64 To refer to oneself as "British" is absolutely acceptable. I don't understand your ire toward r62.

Well, thread killed.

R64, There are four nations in the UK. Some people feel strongly identified with their own nation. Some feel British. Either is acceptable. Love from Scotland.

Yep, Scottish and British here too, although admittedly increasingly alienated by the British part.

Not everyone worships at the altar of Diana. While she was a sympathetic figure, I always had her pegged as a borderline.

R63 plainly knows nothing about Quebec or Alberta in Canada. Constitutional reform is like opening Pandora's box, politically. Procedurally, an amendment that affects all provinces (such as the nation's head of state) requires the approval of the national Parliament (by vote) and at least seven of the provincial governments representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population (sometimes called the 7-50 formula), again by vote.

To amend the U.S. constitution, To propose amendments, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Amending a constitution anywhere is a massive, complex and (usually) politically charged process. It's not just 'hey, everybody, wanna get rid of the Queen and make Eugene Levy the first president of Canada?'

R69, they don’t even have to do that. They’ll just ignore him. They already do.

People like R63 are one of the worst things about this board. They assert, as fact, their opinion, when even on the face of it you know a simple Google will unearth the truth and, usually, the complexity.

Is it trolling? Are they that stupid? Why would you assert something so easily disproven? Does everyone know you to be this big a dumb ass in real life? What is it like, day by day, hour by hour, to bumble through life spouting nonsense and easily identified as a moron enthused by his own idiocy?

R69 You see, the problem with all that is that Canada's opinion means fuck all. If the British - oh sorry, the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish - decide we want to get rid of the inbreds, you're just going to have to deal with it. Canada's own fault for keeping the useless fuckers in place for so long.

And I didn't say it was complex. I said it wasn't a hassle. A hassle is an annoyance, something irritating. Constitutional reform - difficult though it may be - is vitally important, and if getting rid of the monarchy forces some countries to go through a process which actually results in them reforming themselves as nations with a modern constitution. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised fools like you cower from doing something just because it's difficult.

So maybe you should do some Googling of your own as to what words actually mean.

R72, good summary. Getting rid of slavery is a good comparison. So is giving the women the right to vote. If it has to be done, it has to be done. There’s no excuse for not doing it because it’s a “hassle.”

Dear, the position of the monarchy in other parts of the Commonwealth had already been raised. That is what I was responding to. I often forget how important the remedial is when interacting with DLers like you. You see, there are clever people on the board, too.

Instead of dispensing unnecessary advice on vocabulary, spend your time strengthening your basic comprehension. You have a nice day, ideally reading slowly and using your big finger to point at each word.

[quote]No - you would say if you were English (or Scots or Welsh) - not “British”. And if you were British you would understand that

If I were what?

[quote]You see, there are clever people on the board, too

How would you know?

Bloviate all you want and try desperately to change those goalposts, it's not going to make you right. And again only one Commonwealth country gets a say.

It the “dear” “pet” troll at r74. You can be ensured of getting wacky info that is not one iota true. She’s living in her own little bubble filled with her own imagination.

But it doesn't have to be done, r73, that's the point. A constitutional monarchy is actually a very reasonable constitutional arrangement - which is why even the Commonwealth countries that still have the British monarch as head of state are not rushing to change things.

Barbados announced last year, with all the BLM stuff, that it was going to become a republic by November 2021, which is next month, but that's now been pushed back and they have set up a committee to work out how to do it.

[quote]Mottley, who has campaigned on republicanism, won a landslide victory in 2018 elections when her party won all 30 seats in the House of Assembly. Mottley believes the people of Barbados gave her a clear mandate to break with the monarchy. To do so, she’ll need a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. Since parting with the United Kingdom has historically gotten bipartisan support, she is likely to get the backing she needs.

[quote]However, if the destination is clear, the path for getting there is far less so. Mottley has opted to go forward without a public referendum and has been relatively silent on the process after the September 2020 announcement. Recently, the Nation, Barbados’s largest newspaper, questioned in an editorial the government’s handling of the reform, writing: “a referendum should not be off the table.”

The U.S. documented a large list of specific reasons why it was severing ties with the British monarch. Does Barbados have any legitimate reasons?

It will be a short reign.

R76 And since that article they've passed a bill amending the constitution of Barbados to ensure the country becomes a republic and removing references to the Queen and establishing a president to replace the governor general. And they're leaving the Commonwealth on 1 December.

R79 The will of the people not being a legitimate reason?

Public opinion on the monarchy has been relatively consistent for the past century and has remained unchanged through numerous scandals and successions, there's no reason to think it's going to change any time soon.

[quote] The will of the people not being a legitimate reason?

The people aren’t automatons acting randomly. The people of Barbados must have some actual reasons that can be listed as to why they would want a change.

R81, your link suggests that there's still quite a few things to be worked through. But, it does look as though the Bajans are doing it the right way (head of state with few political powers who will be proposed by the parliament). Let's hope that's the direction all Commonwealth countries wishing to make a similar change take.

Personally, I think it's nuts that the head of a state of a mostly black-populated island in the Caribbean has as its head of state a little old white lady all the way in London and - as a Briton - I don't have a problem with Commonwealth countries shifting to a constitutional parliamentary republic in the way Barbados has.

That, however, does not mean that the UK will abandon the monarchy. We had it for 100s of years before we ever went anywhere near Barbados. It's not going away, nor do the majority of the people in Britain want it to go away.

In all the rankings of the countries of the world - according to social indices, lack of corruption, etc. – placed at the top of these lists are Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The Netherlands can be found in a respectable place, as is Belgium, despite its demographic complexity. Even Spain, a young democracy with a recent past of dictatorship and a bloody civil war is not lagging that far behind. Among the countries in Asia (and in general), Japan leads in many indices.

Common to all these countries, as well as to the United Kingdom, is the adoption of a successful democratic government model which preservs the tradition of a royal house, but with virtually all powers taken away from, being a ceremonial institution only. The advantage of this combination, which ostensibly represents a built-in paradox, is the separation between secular nature, devoid of an inherent holiness, of the democratic idea and the mythological, romantic, divine splendor embodied in the "eternal" succession of the royal family. A king or a queen embodies in their form all the theatrical fantasies which appeal to a large portion of the public, but in these constitutional monarchies, this yearning strengthens an institution that is devoid of any real power. Facing them are politicians, who have real power, but, by definition, are devoid of glory and majesty. They are leaders for a moment, successful/ popular to a certain degree, but hardly anyone mistake them for monarchs. Unlike kings, they do not represent eternity and certainly do not embody the state.

In democratic countries where there is no monarch, there is always the danger that an elected leader will be seen as a substitute for a king. Putin in Russia, Erdoğan in Turkey, Berlusconi in Italy, Netanyahu in Israel, Trump in the US - all of them are/were leaders who seem to believe in full identification between them and their country and between their own personal interests and those of the public they are supposed to serve. They portray in their conduct Louis XIV's statement, "I am the state".

Such a glorification of an elected prime minister is not possible in a country like Great Britain. In 1945, after the Nazi threat was over, it was George VI who represented the continuity of national existence, while the national hero, the revered Prime Minister of the nation, Winston Churchill, was deposed from office in that year's election. From Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair to Teresa May - the premiership does not give the (temporary) elected official a lofty aura. This is reserved for the monarch, and because the monarch has no real power, so - too - is the pathos.

So, though, history wise, unintentionally, the kind of monarchy the UK has, is a very sophisticated and effective tool for a democratic nation to preserve and defend its own democracy. Ostensibly despite - and in fact because - of the inherent irony of it.

[quote]In democratic countries where there is no monarch, there is always the danger that an elected leader will be seen as a substitute for a king.

Why are you acting like it's a binary? Though are plenty of countries like Germany where the role of head of state is largely ceremonial and head of government elected. And at least their figurehead doesn't come with a bill for their workshy family members and help protect their pedo son.

R83 Oh, how about the monarchy representing the colonial past, or Barbadians being ruled by a non-Barbadian, or just wanting actual democracy without the threat of a governor general deciding to dismiss the government, as happened in Australia in 1975? Or how about just because, again, that's what the people want?

We don't work with the same political system as you in America - we have a proportional government, so we can't just start electing one person as a president. We would have to totally rehaul our whole electorial and governmental system. Also, unless the figurehead was indigenous, that would greatly effect Maori representation which wouldn't work either. We don't have a 'first past the post' government like USA does - it's far more complicated (and also fairer).

There are also heaps of benefits in being part of the Commonwealth. Why do you think hardly anyone leaves it and there's a queue to join? The idea of becoming a republic was floated around here and nobody wanted it.

R85 says all that but then I look at Japan with their royal family basically living under house arrest by their government and I just don’t see how a monarchy is really the key to holding back politicians. In that vein, monarchies toppled like dominos in the 19th century after hundreds of years of successful control. Spain ditched their monarch for a dictator less than 100 years ago.

What keeps things together are laws and good people that follow the law. A monarch or presidential within a parliamentary system is no safeguards against failure. Especially with the makeup of Commonwealth countries where the UK has almost no direct interests in any of the nations beyond some trade deals and maybe defense (Canada and Australia). The rest is a hands off approach which is nothing like the Scandinavian or UK model where ministers report to the monarch.

Since the interests is lost and the monarchs is gifted a if not thousands of miles away, what’s the point of letting that woman or her heirs reign over your land?

R89 they can remain in the commonwealth without a British monarch. The treaties would just need to be rewritten.

R88 then let the parliament elect the President or better yet, make it a first past the post position where all parties put up their preferred candidate. They aren’t meant to be powerful positions so it really shouldn’t matter who wins. Humans are smart, I’m sure your nation won’t collapse with one first part the post election on a ballot every couple of years.

I like Chuck and the royal family is a fun diversion. I am especially entertained by that goofy fuck stick Harry and his grasping Mrs.

[quote]better yet, make it a first past the post position where all parties put up their preferred candidate

First past the post makes nothing better.

I agree with much of what R85 says. The Japanese royal family is the product of a very different history; traditionally the whole royal court was cut off from the rest of the country. Spain, of course, re-installed their king after Franco's death, and subsequently Juan Carlos was instrumental in preventing an anti-democratic coup.

I don’t fully understand it, so I freely admit that there will be others far better qualified to discuss it than I, but one important factor in the discussions around replacing the monarchy in some Commonwealth countries is that the Crown is a signatory to some treaties with indigenous populations, and that has grown to have a great deal of cultural importance to the Canadian First Nations and the New Zealand Maori, to name just two groups.

In North America, in the years just before the American War of Independence and thereafter, fear of American encroachment into the territories which are now Canada led The British Crown to sign treaties with the tribes who occupied those lands, in order to try to facilitate Britain’s occupation of the lands. To the tribes involved, they understood the treaty as an agreement not with the settlers who they frequently came into conflict with, but with the Crown itself. When they felt the treaty was being abused, the tribes would send members to protest directly in London.

It may seem like a fine distinction, but to this day, an important part of indigenous political identity is that they were the FIRST nations, and that the settlers benefitted from their toleration. The treaties allow them not to feel like a defeated, invaded people, but as an equal partner in the fate of their lands. The direct link to the Crown is an important symbol of that historical reality.

R90, you don't know as much as you think you do but we've been down this road a thousand times so I'll just explain the broad strokes.

She reigns, but she does not rule. Constitutional monarchy separates the head of government (typically a Prime Minister) from a head of state (the Crown.) Constitutional monarchy took root in its early modern form when in 1689 the Bill of Rights affirmed parliamentary supremacy. In Canada the monarch is represented by the Governor General, who holds all the royal prerogatives embedded in the crown under the country's Constitution. The point of it is the country chose a structure and that is how it works. It is an embrace of tradition. It is a way of structuring the governance of a country. It is rooted in being an outpost of empire, yet in Canada it suits our character. We are not a loud nation. We don't shove anything down anyone's throat. Easy qualities to mock but harder not to admire. It's that simple.

R91 and R92 are so classically American. No clue what they're talking about but perfectly happy to tell you how to go about it.

Well we “told you” how to go about it because many of you are acting like idiots that can’t fathom a government without the Queen as your head of state. You want to maintain that tradition, that’s fine, but don’t act like it’s some life changing event to toss the old bitch and her family overboard in exchange for an elected head of state. That goes for any commonwealth nation.

It is extraordinarily complicated as has been explained to you fucking geniuses countless times. In Canada the Quebec situation alone makes it a powderkeg.

That you can't get, in your fulsome Yankee embrace of ignorance and arrogance to anything but your own way of doing things, is not my problem but certainly one of the burdens borne by so many of us on. I'd take any nation with that old bitch and her family over the hot fucking hopeless mess of the USA! USA! USA! Which by the looks of it, is only going to get worse. Your country is imploding and you deserve it. If weren't for the financial mess I'd laugh at your hubris. Google it.

[quote] Oh, how about the monarchy representing the colonial past, or Barbadians being ruled by a non-Barbadian, or just wanting actual democracy without the threat of a governor general deciding to dismiss the government, as happened in Australia in 1975? Or how about just because, again, that's what the people want?

What they want has already been stated. The question is still why they want it.

The only way Charles will outlive his mother is if he kills her!

R97/R99 You're trying way too hard, and all it does is exposes you. And I can't quite believe the thread has two idiots who can't accept someone who doesn't agree with them might not be American.

And once again, if a referendum on the future of the monarchy does happen in the UK, no-one is going to take a single second to think about what Canada wants. So you can keep banging on about how complicated it is. It doesn't matter. It will have absolutely no relevance in the debate.

It's endlessly amusing, though, that the best defence on the monarchy you loons can muster is 'but it'll be really difficult'. Aw, diddums.

He promotes homeopathy, which means he’s anti-science. His fascination with occultism shows that he’s quite intellectually limited. Any attempts to paint him as a forward-thinking eco-warrior are just an expensive PR.

A referendum on the monarchy isn't going to happen in the UK though, r102. Anyone who thinks the UK is planning on getting rid of the monarchy in the next century or two doesn't know what they're saying.

R104 We'll see. Charles's penchant for extravagance will bite him in the ass, there's the stuff about Andrew which will come out, and William and Kate really are only popular in opposition to Meghan and Harry - it was only a few months ago W&K were being attacked by the media for laziness. Plus, Charles plans to slim down the monarchy will make him a lot of enemies with a lot of poison to drip in ears.

R105, the monarchy has already effectively been slimmed down. Andrew is banished (and if there was much more to tell about him, the UK tabloids would spill it) and his daughters will never get near any public engagements. Their weddings were their big moment in the spotlight, and they are over.

Harry and Meghan have removed themselves. All the elderly royal cousins are increasingly invisible: the Duke of Kent has stepped back from some of his highest profile roles, the Duchess of Kent left the royal stage years ago, princess Alexandra is too elderly and I can’t remember the last time Prince and Princess Michael of Kent or The Gloucesters played a high-profile role.

The royal family is now reduced to eight, and that number will reduce still further naturally over the next decade, as The Queen, Anne, Charles, Camilla age. In fact, a bigger problem may be that the Royal Family is reduced to just William and Kate, Edward and Sophie for years until George, Charlotte and Louis are ready to take a role. Until they reach maturity, the monarchy risks appearing not just small, but pretty geriatric.

The departure of Harry and Meghan sped up many of the changes Charles was anticipating, and actually made it easier: if Harry and Meghan had stayed, he may have felt it necessary to make space for them in a reduced monarchy by reducing the roles of Anne, Edward and Sophie. Without The Harkles, there is space for Anne, Sophie and Edward until they decide to step back.

I want to be Queen of Canada! Screw you Charlie!

R105, you can keep repeating that but you will always be wrong. Try seeing it this way: the monarchy is not about personalities, it's an institution. There is almost no support in the UK for getting rid of the monarchy as an institution. Anyone who thinks it's solely about which one's more popular is a clueless, dumb fuck. It's not a TV soap opera or reality show, it's an integral element of the constitution.

Also, you're contradicting yourself: Charles has a penchant for extravagance that will bite him in the ass, Charles wants to slim down the monarchy and that will make him a lot of enemies with a lot of poison to drip in ears. Which is it? Is he extravagant or does he want to slim things down? It can't be both. Slimming down the monarchy is not necessarily about the number of individuals, it's about the associated pomp and ceremony.

R103, Charles does not promote homeopathy, he has expressed no interest in the occult and he has been talking about the need to protect and conserve the environment for decades and decades, well before it was a hip issue and at a time when it was perceived as such a far-out idea that he was ridiculed for it.

Exactly R109.

He does promote homeopathy, R109.

[quote] I can’t remember the last time Prince and Princess Michael of Kent or The Gloucesters played a high-profile role.

The Duke still soldiers on for HM The Queen, carrying out a significant number of public duties and undertakes hundreds of official engagements in the UK and overseas each year. The Duke is associated with over 150 charities and organisations. His patronages reflect his professional and personal interests, which include international humanitarian issues, heritage and the built environment and military veterans.

He doesn't promote homeopathy r111. You need to be very careful with Guardian articles on Charles, they always twist and distort and lie about things in relation to him and try to blow everything out of all proportion. He's the patron of a legal organisation in the UK which is almost 200 years old and the members of which are all fully legally registered healthcare workers. He never makes speeches about how people should have homeopathy instead of conventional medical treatment, he does nothing in particular to promote homeopathy, he supported vaccination in the UK and does not speak out against conventional medicine. Charles is also the patron of over 400 organisations, all of which do a lot of good work.

It's always obvious which posters don't live in the UK and know very little about the royal family.

[quote]of course it’s not unlucky. The monarchy was restored under Charles II. Now “Richard”? I’m pretty sure that’s off the table.

You think Richard's bad. Diana had to have it explained to her why she couldn't call her firstborn "Oliver".

Camilla will be Queen if Charles is King.

What is accurately seen as a step too far is calling her "the Princess of Wales", which was the title Diana went by and, in today's parlance, totally owned. Fortunately people will be happy to see it pass to Kate, who is married to Diana's son, is wearing the engagement ring that anoints her, and is herself an impeccable successor.

Diana, to her chagrin, never got near to being Queen. If anyone makes a fuss about Camilla getting that title, it will be people who deem her unworthy of succeeding Elizabeth, its [then] most recent holder. I'm sure there will be a lot of mourning when ER II dies, not least by people still feeling guilty for the way they treated her after Diana's death.

She doesn't succeed Elizabeth. She is a queen because she is the wife of the king. He succeeds the Queen. For Camilla, Queen is only a very fancy Mrs.

Oh really, R116? And here was I thinking Camilla was going to rule Britain!

All I meant was that Elizabeth would have been the previous holder of the same title, and you know it.

Well, I'm glad you're reacting calmly to what I know.

It was a pretty dumb comparison.

In rank and character there is no equating the Queen and Camilla.

R113 it’s not just Guardian, there are plenty other sources confirming that he does indeed promote homeopathy. And saying that it’s a legal organization is like saying that Scientology is a legally recognized religion and therefore it’s okay to support it. He may be a patron of over 400 organizations, but nobody twisted his arm to throw his support behind homeopathy.

And his brand of environmentalism is a lot closer to his son’s than he’d like you to think. He may enjoy playing Happy Eco Farm, but he’d never turn down a private jet. In fact, he’d probably ask for another one to carry his golden toilet seat.

R120, there are plenty of homeopathic remedies that help with everyday stuff. But it should never be a replacement for medicine.

R112, I’m sure Gloucester does a grand job for the monarchy, but the truth is, he goes almost entirely unnoticed, even here in the UK. He’s also 77, so would be unlikely to kick up a fuss even if Charles asked him to step back from his royal engagements.

In reality though, I expect that Charles will be happy to wait until time brings an end to the Duke’s activities. what’s clear is that the future direction has already been set: the Sussexes have exiled themselves, and the children of the Kents, the Gloucesters, the Yorks and probably the Wessexes already know that they willl play a much-reduced role under the reigns of Charles and William.

[quote]Which is it? Is he extravagant or does he want to slim things down? It can't be both.

Of course it can be both. Him wanting to reduce the number of royals has nothing to do with his own extravagances. Like the number of staff, the flunky to squeeze his toothpaste, the flunkies to help him dress, the furniture that travels with him, the spoiled petulant behaviour, etc. He's not cutting any of that. Aw, you actually thought you were making a clever point, didn't you?

It's so telling how you monarchists always try to attack anyone with a different opinion as being stupid. Just shows you really have no actual argument to make in defence of the useless fuckers, and it exposes your nervousness. You don't think personality matters - great then, you must be looking forward to Charles on the throne.

[quote]I think that's why he's willing to be the bad guy in regards to slimming down the monarchy; I think he's going to reduce the number of HRHs, get rid of many properties once mumy dies and probably a lot of overhead so that when Kate & Will inherit the throne, they'll have a more lean organization and are not under constant criticism from the public about $$

What a load of rubbish. The Panama Papers leak et al. shows us that our friendly Gran is a busy bee, stashing lots of her cash overseas, far away from the prying eyes of her subjects and servants.

R124, I'm not a monarchist, I'm an ordinary British citizen who understands the realities of this country, its needs, its history, culture and identity. Just by using the word "monarchist", as though it's some kind of specific political position that some in the country adhere to, you're demonstrating that you know fuck all about Britain.

R125 You mean overseas in the British territory of the Cayman Islands?

[quote]There are also heaps of benefits in being part of the Commonwealth. Why do you think hardly anyone leaves it and there's a queue to join? The idea of becoming a republic was floated around here and nobody wanted it.

Unless OP is Maori, I think he is missing an oh so important issue as to why Barbadians no longer want the old white people to represent them.

R126 Except I'm British. And you're not a monarchist, but you're here defending Charles and lying about Barbados to make it look like they made a mistake, and insisting a monarchy is the best form of head of state....sure.

Charles II is one of the top five British monarchs because he united the country, reestablished the monarchy, overwhelmed the religionists, showed humor (hired the man who stole the Crown Jewels as a security agent, stood up when William Penn sat in his presence because "it is the custom that only one person be seated at a time in meetings such as this" (paraphrase)) and dealt with everything from the plague to the Great Fire. He also showed tolerance towards everyone concerning the Civil War EXCEPT he went after anyone who had a hand in his father's regicide.

If he had lived and the foolish, arrogant James II hadn't reigned, having a Catholic child with his Catholic new wife and undermining the presumed ascension of Mary II, British history would have been very different. Charles II converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, showing how such a thing was to be done. No fuss and attend to your own soul without re-enkindling the fire of the Civil War.

So many people seem to conflate the Commonwealth with the Realms. The Queen is Head of State of 15 countries now (taking out Bahamas).

The Commonwealth is 54 member countries, not all of which are former British colonies.

Why certain Americans get all discombobulated about the friendship of other nations is bizarre.

[quote]You mean overseas in the British territory of the Cayman Islands?

I assume HM has some of her money plastered up the ass of her favorite oil rich horsey riding pal, the one who kidnapped his daughters and may have killed one.

The whole thing makes me sick. I thought for sure with the right PR team and enough temper tantrums Harry would be King and I'd be Queen. The English do things in a very weird way.

When did you become British, r129?

R129 if you’re going to pretend to be English (or Scottish or Welsh or from Northern Ireland, but never “British”) you need to check the vernacular before posting.

[quote] If the name “Charles” was considered unlucky for a Monarch

It wasn't. That's a fallacious supposition.

Charles II was one of the most popular of all British monarchs--he was enormously beloved by his people despite the affairs and the inability to beget a legitimate heir.

R134 Oh, when I was born I suppose. How embarrassing for you that you're resorting to this stupidity.

R135 Speaking of stupidity...

Once again, no real defence of the monarchy here, no talk of its supposed benefits. Instead it's 'that's the way it's always been, and if you don't agree you're an idiot and not British'. Grow up.

So r137, since you're so British, why don't you tell us just how many people support the idea of a republic in the UK.

R138 At what point did I say there was currently a majority for a republic? From my very first post in this thread I've said Charles taking the throne will be a huge driver towards it. No there is not currently a majority, but since 2010 popularity of the monarchy has been on a downwards slide, whilst support for a republic has climbed upwards. You think Charles is going to reverse that?

You keep trying for these gotcha moments, and you fail miserably every single time because you're just arguing against strawmen you've created rather than what I and others have actually said. And this whole 'you're not really British' thing just makes you look like a fool.

172. Fuck off, R138. Since you're American, why don't you tell us how many people in the United States support gun control. Or reproductive rights. Or Donald Trump. Pick a number, since apparently nationality puts them at your fingertips. Asshole.

Lol r140, where did you get the idea that I'm an American from?

R139, you have your view but, in my view, it's wrong. Charles won't be a driver towards a republic. As you now admit, there is no majority support for a republic and hence there is majority support for the monarchy. There is no downward slide in support for the monarchy. None of this is me talking as a royalist, these are just the facts for this country.

R141 "As you now admit" - tell me when I claimed otherwise. Come on, quote the post. You can't, can you?

And yes, there's a very pronounced decline - over 10% over the decade. And you claim to be declaring facts, ha. Again, just making yourself look foolish.

A question for the non-loons: are accusations of being a fake Brit common on threads about the royal leeches? Or unique to this one?

R143 No this seems to happen on threads when discussion about the future of the monarchy take place. The very ardent royalists can't see that just like everything else, the monarchy divides opinion.

I am in the UK, I am not a monarchist nor am I an avid republican. I think that is actually the majority position in the UK. The idea of having a hereditary head of state is bonkers but I would rather a King Charles or King William than a President Boris or President Keir. And I think while people may no longer wave their hats in the air when it comes to the royal family, the distrust of politicians is much higher than the dislike of the monarchy.

The rise in republican sentiment is mostly limited to Scotland and Wales (and even in Scotland latest polls have republicanism about 38% with support for the monarchy at 50+%). In England, popular support for the monarchy is still over 70% which is why I think it's more likely Scotland will become independent before the monarchy is ever abolished.

William and Catherine are hugely popular in the UK and another reason why I think the monarchy will out last both the Queen and Charles. If we're being honest, we have an odd relationship with the royals here. We might not like the institution and yet when they get married, or there is a jubilee or funeral, people still turn out in their tens of thousands. I think there is a huge emotional connection to the royal family that makes it harder for the republican movement to gain the ground needed to even begin a debate.

Charles gets an unnecessary bad reputation. He will never be as beloved as his mother, but I think he'll be like Edward VII who was an unpopular Prince of Wales who became a moved loved King.

There is also something cyclical about the popularity of royals. Royals tend to be popular when younger, then met with indifference or unpopularity in their middle age, and then regain popularity in their old age.

While the Queen has never been unpopular, in the 70s, 80s, & 90s she was somewhat overshadowed by Charles & Diana on the younger end and the Queen Mother on the older end. When they Queen Mum died, the Queen's popularity rose again as the matriarch of the royal family while at the same time, William and Harry took away much of Charles' spotlight. I suspect when the Queen is gone and Charles is the most senior royal, his popularity might rise somewhat.

Haha r114 I started to say "What is wrong with..." and then it came to me. Did she really need to be told that?

R143, when someone who supposedly lives in the UK claims that Charles promotes homeopathy and is anti-science and can only give an old link to an article in the Guardian, which is very anti-Charles and routinely makes baseless accusations against him, it's very obvious that they have no idea what Charles says or does. So, it's odd to claim you're from the UK when you have such an ignorance about what is actually going on in the country. Also, claims about opinion polls that were never done and saying things like "William and Kate only seem popular because they're more popular than Harry and Meghan". It's a very odd take.

R144, I'm not an ardent royalist in the slightest, I just have a huge suspicion of people who claim to be from the UK who argue that the royal family is on the way out, because that's a real misunderstanding of the situation.

You have a point about the popularity of individual royals being somewhat cyclical and I believe Charles will become more popular once he is king, but I also don't believe that he's particularly unpopular right now or that the future of the monarchy rests on their popularity as individuals. It's the institution that counts and there is extremely little desire in the UK to get rid of the monarchy as an institution.

It's perhaps the monarchy that is cyclical, although this again is nothing to do with its popularity, but right now we have a very old monarch. The Queen is nearly 100. She isn't a young monarch who goes on official state tours to other countries, dances with pop stars, glams up for galas, talks about the latest tech and is just vigorous and outgoing. Even Charles is too old for that. William and Katie are still young but they're still two levels down.

Once the Queen goes and we have Charles for a few years, William will be Prince of Wales and the heir and he and Kate and their kids will be younger and more vigorous. George and his siblings will be older but still children, so they will be entertaining. William be king in his 50s if not 40s, George will be a young first in line. The royal family as a whole will be younger and more relatable to younger people.

I’m the one who said that Charles promotes homeopathy and I’m not R143. Since 2019 is old for you and the Guardian offends your delicate sensibilities, here’s the Telegraph calling PC “a vocal supporter of homeopathy and alternative medicine” in 2021:

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

The Times: “ Scientists attack Charles for becoming Faculty of Homeopathy patron”

Here is the letter of support from Charles displayed on the School of Homeopathy website:

HRH supports the School

His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales shows his support for The School of Homeopathy. The Prince of Wales is widely known as an avid supporter of homeopathy. In 2011 the School celebrated its 30th anniversary and received a letter of support from His Royal Highness. In 2017 members The School of Homeopathy's faculty were invited to Highgrove to meet His Royal Highness.

I think one of the strengths of monarchy is continuity and (usually) freedom from partisanship. You know who's here, you know who's next, it's continuous and at worst they talk about homeopathy, not taxation or infrastructure bills. Politicians come and go. A monarchy doesn't put food on the table but life is the sum of many parts. On some level, in the country you live in, stability and dignity counts. It would be harder, I would think, to find much reassuring symbolism in a pig like Donald Trump or a temperamental diva like Emmanuel Macon or a warlock like Vladimir Putin as head of state.

I am looking forward to big ceremonies that have not been seen for a long time. Funeral of a monarch, coronation of a king, investiture of new Prince of Wales. Anointing of Queen Camilla.

R149, where in that article does Charles tell people not to have conventional medicine or conventional medical treatment? He's talking about the positive effects of yoga in that article. Are you saying Charles is a crank for recommending yoga?

The Independent article linked at r150 is drivel waffle. R151 is the usual thing of maybe one person saying something and that gets blown out of proportion. My Times subscription has ended so I can't see past the first paragraphs, but since no names of Charles's supposed scientist attackers are given in the first few paragraphs, it's highly likely that this is a story blown out of proportion.

For r152, where does Charles anywhere advocate that people should dump conventional medicine in favour of homeopathy? Do you also believe that spas, massage, yoga and meditation are also anti-science? The Telegraph was just copying a story in the Guardian, which is always a completely unreliable source for Charles.

Out of his many decades of supporting several hundred organisations, you may find a few events where he supported homeopathy, but always in combination with conventional medicine. So what? Is this really your argument for why the UK will become a republic?

There is literally nothing anywhere where Charles criticises conventional medicine and says people should abandon it in favour of homeopathy or yoga.

It does not matter on bit how you feel.

I've managed to read the Times article now. The "experts" who criticise Charles for recommending homeopathy - although they always forget to mention that he does so in combination with conventional medicine - are:

Michael Marshall of the Good Thinking Society, which is described on Wikipedia as "The Good Thinking Society is a nonprofit organisation promoting scientific scepticism". Ok...

David Robert Grimes, who is described in the Times article as "a cancer researcher", but who Wikipedia describes as "an Irish science writer with professional training in physics and cancer biology, who contributes to several media outlets on questions of science and society. He has a diverse range of research interests, and is a vocal advocate for increased public understanding of science". In other words, not a cancer researcher but a journalist.

And, Edzard Ernst, who according to Wikipedia "was Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, allegedly the world's first such academic position in complementary and alternative medicine" and "He has received training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation. He learned homeopathy, acupuncture and other modalities[10] whilst at a homeopathic hospital in Munich, when he began his medical career."

In other words, a journalist and a guy from some dodgy-sounding organisation who are using Charles to promote themselves and a third guy who is obviously a big fan of homeopathy so it's not clear what his problem is.

I think one of Charles' big problems is that he's spoken too frankly on his views over the years and the minute you start giving opinions, there will be groups of people who ardently disagree with you. That coupled with the whole Diana/Camilla thing, has soured Charles in a lot of people's minds. The Queen's instinct has always been the "less is more" approach. She never gives her opinion beyond generalities, though there have been moments in recent years (e..g Scotland referendum, environmental issues) where she has (deliberately?) allowed her position to be heard. I personally think this is the right approach. Royals are not politicians, they are unelected and should never seek to lecture or impose their views on others.

Take the H&M interview. Allegedly Charles wanted to issue a point by point rebuttal (which I kind of would've loved to see just for shits and giggles because I don't believe 90% of H&M's claims anyways), but the Queen stuck to her guns and issued a very short statement that (at least in the UK) defused the situation quickly. But I think it's going to be harder for the monarchy to remain silent on things as we move into the future, in our era of "social media justice" and "armchair experts."

I watched the queen in a documentary about her jewels a few years back and found her to be officious and cut the interviewer off regularly. Well she is the Queen. But she is not dotey old lady.

R159 Which documentary is that? The one where she is talking about the Imperial State Crown?

R147 Except I'm not the one who talked about Charles and homeopathy. I linked to proof about the opinion polls, and the same polls showed a dip in popularity for William and Kate when the press decided to attack them over their lack of work ethic, which then bounced back when the attacks on Harry and Meghan started. Go check the YouGov site, see the data for yourself over time. Funnily enough you've never been able to provide a single source to back up your own claims.

So, all your 'proof' I'm not British is stuff you've made up in your head. And it all boils down to 'you don't agree with me so you can't really be British'.

R157 You don't actually know what scientific scepticism is, do you? Again, stop trying to pretend things mean what you want them to mean, and find out what they actually are.

R144 I totally disagree that his reputation in unearned, though perhaps for many people they've come to the right conclusion but for the wrong reasons.

And again, the idea that it's either a monarchy or a president in the American sense is just wrong.

Another big issue for Chaz is going to be everyone knows he wants to be king. And one thing Brits do tend to hate is people getting what they want. Little wonder why the palace keeps reminding people about how this was all forced onto poor little Liz and stories of duty, etc.

As a republican (American politics makes that a hard thing to say), I'm rather heartened by the reaction of the monarchists in this thread. Hell, the very fact they insist they aren't monarchists, despite all the quacking, says it all. No actual defence seems possible, just attack, attack, attack in ever more shrill and hysterical ways.

R162 - I'm a monarchist or royalist or whatever the hell you want to label me. I've been so since I was in grade school and was fascinated with the British kings and queens we learned in history. Over the years, I branched out to the other European royal houses. I like the history, the tradition, the sense of continuity in a world of constant change, the colorful pomp and pageantry in a grey world of doom and gloom and the monarch's impartiality in a world of division and hate.

I don't give a shit what you think of me or the monarchy but I'm not into attacking people who have a different opinions than mine. I just really wonder why people like you are HERE on the royal threads. Do you think you're going to change our minds? Are you here just to shit disturb and disrupt? Do you want to spoil other people's pleasure in discussing a subject they like? Do you want to show people how progressive you are?

Any one of the excuses above show more about YOU than the people who post here.

r156

Is right, he's king, get over it.

[quote]I don't give a shit what you think of me or the monarchy but I'm not into attacking people who have a different opinions than mine. I just really wonder why people like you are HERE on the royal threads. Do you think you're going to change our minds? Are you here just to shit disturb and disrupt? Do you want to spoil other people's pleasure in discussing a subject they like? Do you want to show people how progressive you are?

I'm here to express my opinion, same as everyone else. The fact you seem to think someone having a different opinion from you is disruptive or spoils your pleasure says more about you than it does me. I haven't attacked people for having a different opinion to me - I've attacked people who've made strawmen up and who've attacked me by saying I can't really be British because my opinion differs from their own.

[quote]monarch's impartiality in a world of division and hate

The problem with that is that when one side are actual Nazis, impartiality isn't acceptable.

R155 You’re confusing me with someone who gives a damn whether the UK becomes a republic or not. I’m saying that Charles promotes homeopathy, which is a well-established fact. And homeopathy IS anti-science, so by supporting it, Charles shows his ignorance and a severe lack of judgement. You want his face on your money, that’s your business, just don’t try to pass him for an enlightened leader.

R165 - who are you calling Nazis? We know that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were sympathizers and Princess Michael of Kent's father but who else are you calling Nazis?

Lol r166, who's trying to pass him as an enlightened leader? I'm just saying his support for homeopathy isn't what some people (including you, it seems) are trying to claim it is because he's not advocating for it instead of conventional medicine, but alongside it. If he were advocating for homeopathy and yoga as treatments in themselves and advising people to use them and shun conventional medicine, that would be a different issue. But, he isn't, he always reiterates that these alternative therapies have to be alongside and not as a replacement for conventional medicine - and he also supports hospitals, doctors, vaccination, etc. as part of his activities.

R161, talking of support for the royals and the generations, what do your parents think of the monarchy?

Yes, I know what scientific scepticism is. My point was that these guys are cowboys who were using Prince Charles' connection to homeopathy as an opportunity to get some media coverage for themselves and their obscure organisation.

I think the documentary was The Queen at 90. The crown may have been in it but she was talking about pearls when she really pissed me off.

He looks like he is going to have a CVA any minute. It will be a short reign.

R167 My god, you can only think in terms of royals, can't you? I'm talking about the extreme right wing that's been growing over the years. That someone would think a world filled with increasing prejudice needs more impartiality is mind-blowing.

R168 Though I'm not who you've been arguing with on this, look at you now changing the goalposts. You previously said he did not promote homeopathy (R109) but now you've been proven wrong on that you're now changing that to "promote homeopathy instead of medicine".

R169 So you just described people who believe in the scientific process and the importance of empirical evidence and research as "cowboys"?

[quote]The Telegraph was just copying a story in the Guardian, which is always a completely unreliable source for Charles.

Y'know, I'm starting to wonder if your accusations of me not being British are actually projection. Because I'm trying to work out what Brit would actually think the Torygraph would just copy the Guardian in order to attack the royals.

R172, Charles doesn't promote homeopathy, although I guess it depends on what you mean by promote. He talks about it on extremely rare occasions (a handful) and only ever in conjunction with conventional medicine. He does not promote therapy as a treatment alone or as an alternative to conventional medicine. That's a perfectly respectable position to take.

[quote]Y'know, I'm starting to wonder if your accusations of me not being British are actually projection. Because I'm trying to work out what Brit would actually think the Torygraph would just copy the Guardian in order to attack the royals.

Oh, I'm very British dear, which is how I know that gossipy stories on the royals can be found in every single paper, from the left to the right. It's not as though every story printed in the Torygraph is wildly effusive about the royals and you should see what the Times says. If the Guardian has a gossipy, even slightly bitchy story about Charles then the Torygraph is happy to quote it.

But also because I'm British I thought it would be interesting to know what your parents' opinion of the royals is, partly to test the generational theory of royal popularity but also because one's parents stories about what they remember of the royals in their younger years offer a longer-term perspective. If you take a longer-term perspective, you'll know that it's really no big deal for their to be articles in the papers saying this or that about Charles. He's always been presented as a bit of a loopy hippy - he used to be ridiculed for talking to his plants until researchers found evidence that talking to plants may be beneficial for them. None of this is a patch on the articles about Charles during the Diana years, Camilla and tampongate. Charles is also not known for being a big fan of the media either.

None of this has anything to do with the popularity of the monarchy as an institution, though.

You're not wrong about Charles and homeopathy, R172. He is patron of the 'Faculty of Homeopathy' - that's about as cut and dried as it gets. The fact that he doesn't advocate for homeopathy over science-backed medicine doesn't magic away his patronage of an organization that exists to support a practice that has never been shown to have any efficacy.

That said, you are amusing me with your imperious tone (which is how I know you're not lying about being a Brit, even if the other poster is right that you some of what you've said, and how you've said it, could be argued to be American in style) as you argue for a republic. Yes, fuck all those forgettable Commonwealth countries who don't matter at all! England will do as it pleases without thought to the colonies! That's some delicious irony right there.

Here's an interesting article on how Charles had very little public sympathy at the height of the Diana years and how he has regained it. Some nobody saying "ooh, Charles, homeopathy, poo poo" is absolutely nothing compared to what Charles' image in the media has been since he was a young man and with the worst of the Diana saga. Ask your parents, they should be able to explain it to you.

[quote]As well as eternal heir, Charles has been public villain number one, so cast by Princess Diana's smart manipulation of their marriage breakdown and later, her tragic death. Only in the later stages of his life, as partner and then husband to Camilla and now as a grandfather, has he found some kind of redemption in the public mind, settling into an almost elder statesman role now, in which his occasionally snappish response to the 'bloody' press, or piece of anachronistic foolishness, is viewed as cause for indulgence rather than outrage.

[...]

[quote]But back when Diana died, aged just 36, in that Paris tunnel, for a while it looked as if Charles's reputation was damaged to the point where he might become the least popular monarch since his namesake Charles I. Luckily, time was on his side. The lengthy period as heir-in-waiting has allowed for redemption.

[quote]Gradually, his reputation was restored. Camilla, instead of being perceived as a home-wrecker - an older, more experienced woman manipulating the fragility of a new bride in a kind of creepy, Dangerous Liaisons-type set-up - became the legitimate love of Charles's life, the woman he should always have married.

I'm not the person you're arguing with, R175, but the question wasn't "will his support of homeopathy hurt his standing with the public" or "is Charles promoting homeopathy over established western medicine" - the question was does Charles support homeopathy - and it would seem he does with that patronage he took on.

It's 2021, why shouldn't he promote homeopathy!? Love is love!

[quote]My god, you can only think in terms of royals, can't you? I'm talking about the extreme right wing that's been growing over the years. That someone would think a world filled with increasing prejudice needs more impartiality is mind-blowing.

This is a bad faith comment, R172. Really, ass-showingly bad. The discussion is ABOUT royals (which you very well know), and your insinuating that anything other than republicanism is some kind of endorsement or support of the far right is disingenuous in the extreme and makes you look like a clown.

(I'm also not who you were arguing with, and not a monarchist myself - alhough you seem to have no problem at all accusing all those who disagree with you of being X when you took such offense earlier to being called something - American - that you are not)

His coronation will probably be a farce. There is very little that remains of the pageantry and tradition that would fit in with modern Britain. The coronation is a religious occasion in the Christian category. The number of non-Christians in Britain has never been greater, so they will have a louder voice to express opposition. The peerage has always been the backbone of coronations. Except for a few elected ones, there are no longer hereditary peers in the House of Lords. The remainder are life peers created solely to consolidate power by various Prime Ministers in exchange for hefty expense accounts and access to getting better deals in life.

Westminster Abbey isn't capable of holding all the hereditary and life peers for the coronation service, their presence being part of the coronation. So, who decides how many and which ones are allowed to attend? Royal families from the middle east are huge and will insist on every member being allowed to attend the event pushing out heads of state of smaller countries who don't own as much of Britain as say the Saudis and Qataris. Russian oligarchs will insist upon being part of the coronation as their right as owners of much of London.

When Elizabeth II was crowned, the UK was a very, very different place. They had just come out of a war tired and battered. At the time, there was a sense of unity among the people regardless of their color, race, religion, or social position. They had their own roles in defeating the Axis powers which brought them together on a certain level. That's gone now. There is no unity as every group and splinter group fight among themselves for their own particular interests. Charles' coronation will be used to highlight the divisions which wasn't even a consideration at the time of his mother's coronation.

And in order to make the coronation relevant, ways will have to be found to include YouTubers and other Influencers.

[quote]Yes, fuck all those forgettable Commonwealth countries who don't matter at all! England will do as it pleases without thought to the colonies! That's some delicious irony right there.

They're free to offer to host and fund the royals and continue having them as their monarchs if they wish. But given it's the UK taxpayer saddled with paying for the leeches, yeah, we get the say. It's not irony, it's just your lack of thought.

[quote]This is a bad faith comment, [R172]. Really, ass-showingly bad. The discussion is ABOUT royals (which you very well know), and your insinuating that anything other than republicanism is some kind of endorsement or support of the far right is disingenuous in the extreme and makes you look like a clown.

What utter nonsense. Just because the discussion is about royals in general doesn't mean every single thing said needs to be about them. And I never said anything like the sort of republicanism being the only way to reject the far right. That's more bullshit made up by you because you can't argue what I actually said. Which was a condemnation of R163 for their praise of impartiality in a world of division and hate.

[quote](I'm also not who you were arguing with, and not a monarchist myself - alhough you seem to have no problem at all accusing all those who disagree with you of being X when you took such offense earlier to being called something - American - that you are not)

And more made up bullshit. I very specifically criticised those who have been posting lies, not monarchists in general. For someone who claims not to be that other poster, you sure as hell love making shit up like he does.

R179, what a weird post! Youtubers? Are you drunk?

Westminster Abbey seated 8200 people for The Queen’s coronation, which is more than enough to accommodate the invitees.

The Coronation will be a largely Christian ceremony, which is fitting since the 2011 census indicated that the UK was 60% Christian, 25 atheist, 8% Muslim/Hindu/Jew.

Like every other coronation, it will be modernised a little to take account of modern times, but be kept archaic enough to retain some mystery. The Royals have some experience of this sort of thing, and every major royal event still seems to turn out the crowds and draw in the viewers. There is absolutely no sign that Charles’ coronation will be an exception.

R179 it's an open secret that Charles' coronation is going to be very different from the Queen's. It's been known since about the early 00s, that he wants a multi-faith, multi-cultural ceremony that is less grand and scaled down to reflect the reality that the UK is no longer an imperial power. There is even questions over whether Charles will even be physically crowned or if the ceremony will be more like the ones in Scandinavia, where there is a blessing but the monarch is not actually crowned.

[quote] he wants a multi-faith, multi-cultural ceremony

As the Defender of the Faith? Maybe he is hellbent on destroying the monarchy. William needs to do an intervention.

How about defender of all faiths, r183?

R184 Actually Charles has branded the idea of wanting to be called "Defender of Faith" rather than of "THE" faith. But it won't happen.

r184, no, he’ll be the supposed defender of and head of the Church of England.

These days couldn't they just cover it off with a brief 'oh, and Jesus'?

Indeed, r183 and r184, that's another thing that Charles said a long, long time ago, before multiculturalism and Meghan, that he wants to be the defender of faiths or the defender of faith. It's another instance of where he's been woke before wokeism, but he'll never get credit for it.

I guess the question that's still weighing on my mind is, does Charles promote homeopathy? This has yet to come up.

Exactly r182. When Charles talks of a slimmed-down monarchy (actually, I've never heard him talk about it, but supposedly that's what he wants) he's not so much talking about excluding his siblings and their children but about the whole pomp and ceremony that goes along with the royalty. There is no way he could have a coronation like the Queen's, which was all about projecting imperial power over an empire that encompassed half the globe.

Eugenie and Beatrice, Zara, Edward, Sophie and no doubt Lady Louise one day can all still pursue their charitable interests, that's not where the problem lies. They may even participate in particular events as representatives of King Charles. The Queen's cousins do not receive public funds although they have their own patronages and on occasions have represented the Queen. The Queen's niece and nephew, Margaret's children, lead very private lives, although Lady Chatto is vice-president of the Royal Ballet, as her mother once was. Zara is not a "working royal" but she is active in plenty of charities, no doubt because she is a member of the royal family.

The patronages and the charities are the least of the thing, it's the pomp and ceremony that's the issue.

R189, the best thing you can do in order to answer that question is look to Charles' own comments on the matter.

R176, the question "does Charles support homeopathy?" was never posed. There was a statement: "Charles supports homeopathy and is therefore anti-science". Moreover, the statement "Charles supports homeopathy" was framed in such a way as to make it appear that Charles was a rabid supporter of homeopathy to the detriment of people getting proper treatment. The real question then is: "is Charles anti-science because he supports homeopathy and to what extent does he support homeopathy"?

Charles only very occasionally makes statements about or indicates his support for alternative treatments, which include yoga as well as homeopathy. On every occasion, however, he always underlines the need for people to receive conventional medical treatment and makes it clear that he sees homeopathy or yoga as a complementary treatment, in addition to conventional medical treatment and not as a replacement for it. Charles also supports NHS hospitals, medical staff and doctors.

It is therefore incorrect to say that Charles is anti-science or to imply that he's a rabid follower of homeopathy. He simply believes, as do many, many people and it is a perfectly fine and legitimate position, that alternative treatments such as homeopathy and yoga can help alongside conventional medical treatment.

I believe that there was conflict between Prince Philip and the Queen Mother as to the Coronation Ceremony. She fought to have her daughter's Coronation as a copy of the ceremony for her husband, the previous sovereign.

It was Philip who fought for a more modern approach and won the battle to televise the event. The concerns from the other camp that the Coronation was a religious ceremony and that it would be disrespectful to televise it, were overcome when the decision was made to use a canopy to hold above the Queen and the participants during the anointing part of the ceremony, thus preventing that portion of the event from being televised. Rules were also in place that the television cameras in the Abbey were forbidden from doing closeups of the Queen.

Was it Charles who sad women should give birth squatting in a open field to the accompaniment of drums? I mean, I’m not against it.

R190 I would argue that actually the pomp is one of the few things that keeps the monarchy going, we love the theatre of it here in the UK, but I agree that after the Queen it likely needs to be toned down to a degree. One of the reasons Charles wants to slim down the monarchy is not just due to costs but also because allegedly he feels that minor royals (like his brother or even some of his cousins) end up turning into embarrassing "hangers on." But I don't think he's going to be able to slim down as much as he wanted to now that Harry is out of the picture. William and Kate's children are still about 20 years away from taking on royal duties so it's likely that Anne, Edward and Sophie are going to have to be included as working royals for some time yet. The working monarchy can't just be Charles, Camilla, William and Catherine.

I forget where I read it - one of the credible newspapers - but William is apparently really fussed on the idea that members of the royal family cannot appear to take their good fortune for granted. And in terms of practical life pressures - like housing and food, they have none. According to the report I read, he feels this deeply (that I would bet is his mother's influence... she wasn't all nuts.) That is why he's so supportive of less is more and only wants the hard workers around.

On the other hand, R195 is right - you can't have just four members of the royal family at full time royal work, which seems to be the dilemma within the senior royals at present. Camilla Tominey does a podcast on this today on the Telegraph... it doesn't break any new news and is rather boring but she says her understanding is they are grappling with the idea of slimmed down vs. who's on hand to do work. Prince William is also a big advocate for themed focus: mental health, the environment, Kate with young children, etc. But that limits by approach the ability to get out and mix widely, which is a strength of the monarchy. The Cambridges apparently want their children to have as normal a life as possible for as long as possible (granted, rich people's normal.) So the notion of them taking on royal duties terribly early in young adulthood seems limited. I think it means they'll work Anne and the Wessexes as long as they're willing.

The runaways kind blew it. There was a place for them, probably a prominent one given the dwindling numbers, which ought to have soothed egos if service actually mattered more than celebrity or riches. I'd kill to have to struggle on financially as they would have if they'd stay. Nothing worse than one or two houses and a steady allowance to cover expenses. They let down the monarchy too.

I actually disagree with the earlier comment which said that the pomp and ceremony was the focus of the scaling-down which Charles wanted to be carried out. Te ritual has always evolved, for as long as the monarchy has existed, but there is very little outcry in the UK over the cost Big Royal ceremonies such as the weddings, funerals and the State opening of Parliament. On the contrary, these are the events which make the monarchy seem like a big part of national life, which bring the nation to the streets and in front of the TV. Any changes to these need to be carefully considered.

I think Charles recognises that the main focus for criticising the monarchy has been the perception, rightly or wrongly, that there are dozens of people on the royal periphery who enjoy royal privileges. A decade or two ago, it was not unusual to see the balcony of Buckingham Palace crowded with Kents and Gloucesters who were really a hangover from a previous generation of monarchy, being the nephews and nieces of George VI. The fact that many lived in grace-and-favour accommodation and received payment from the Civil List made the monarchy seem profligate.

Some of these people did good work with a huge number of charities, but their profile was so low that they were invisible. In the future, both Charles and William seem determined that the working members of the Royal Family will work with fewer organisations, but will be SEEN to be devoting their time to them.

The focus of Prince Charles’ agenda has been to ensure that younger generations of the family know that they will be expected to vacate the royal stage, so that William and Kate are not faced with complaints about why the taxpayer is subsidising another generation of royal cousins. The children of Anne, Andrew and Edward are being given plenty of notice that after the Queen dies, their roles in public life will fade away too.

As has been said though, the departure of Harry and Meghan leaves a bit of a gap now, and the royal family risks looking a little geriatric, with a core made up of over-sixties (with the exception of William and Kate). That may leave a little room for the others, but only until William’s kids are older.

I wonder if the pattern will be that you'll have a sovereign, spouse, her or his children, and his heir's children.

So when William becomes king, the working royals will comprise himself and his wife, George, Charlotte and Louis. But Charlotte and Louis' children will be private citizens, probably but not necessarily with titles (dukedoms, earldoms) and no HRH. They will still have the "size" problem but it's leaner and cleaner. Had the runaways stayed, they would have been working members of the family as Anne and Edward are now, but Archie and Anklebracelet or whatever her name is would have been private citizens.

Yes, people do love the pomp and ceremony. On the other hand, it does have to be modernised. The Archbishop of Westminster anointing Charles with holy oil at his coronation - as happened at his mother's coronation - would be considered extremely bizarre today.

It would be bizarre not to anoint him. It’s the most important part.

R199, the anointing is something everyone will expect. Omitting that would be like leaving out the part where they put the crown on his head.

R199, it’s a coronation. A jewel-encrusted metal hat will be placed on his head as he sits in a 900 year-old chair which will have the Stone of Destiny in its base. It’s a bizarre thing. The ceremony is not meant to seem normal.

Charles will be anointed. His family will kneel before him and kiss his hand. And it will seem fittingly strange, because it’s something very few of us will have seen in our lifetimes.

Speak for yourself, r202!

I'll do more than kiss his hand. I'd land this job on looks.

didn't... sorry, had something stuck in my teeth...one finger typing.

[quote][quote]end up turning into embarrassing "hangers on."

Like Michael Fawcett?

R202, isn't the moment of the actual anointment meant to be hidden?

Yes, the anointment is hidden and was not filmed or photographed at The Queen’s coronation.

However, even this hidden sacred part of the ceremony is part of a performance: a nice inconspicuous gold canopy is brought over the monarch’s head by Knights of the Garter, while he/she is anointed using holy oil poured into a spoon dating back to the 12th century. In this way, even the concealed, “sacred” part of the ceremony is all about performance, prestige and display.

The Queen should really consider a regency after the jubilee. Even though her mother lived to be 101, could she really have opened parliament, received foreign heads of state, and so forth? One of the biggest challenges to the institution is the concern over such a popular monarch being followed by a monarch of much more questionable popularity. A regency of five or six years would allow people to become accustomed to Charles while the Queen’s continued presence secures the institution.

Monarchy, at least the British Monarchy, is about theatre. The pomp and ceremony are what people in the UK and around the world want to see. Even though I wouldn't call myself a monarchist by any stretch,but I got up in the wee hours (I'm in the states) to watch Kate and Williams wedding, just as my own parents had gotten up early to watch Charles and Diana's and how my grandparents listened to the Queen and Prince Philip's wedding on the radio. Diana's funeral is one of my earliest memories, I remember the Queen Mother's funeral too. IMO, the ceremony of the British Monarchy is pretty much the major reason the last 150 years (the period when most European monarchies were abolished).

R196 If that's true about William's idea of limiting the scope of the monarchy's charitable roles, it's a bad idea. One of the huge successes of the House of Windsor (which started under George V and Queen Mary) was it's wide range of charitable causes meant that the monarchy was seen in virtually every facet of the country's life. Also, what about the royals commonwealth role? Perhaps they are anticipating that after the Queen dies, Canada, Australia and NZ will dump the British monarch as head of state.

Despite all this, the real threat to the monarchy is this the growing racial and political divides. The far right in the UK are increasingly see the monarchy as too liberal while the left sees it as racist and colonial.

Actually I think the RF has been pretty effective at building relationships with the ethnic communities in the UK. There have been visits to mosques etc. for years. The Prince's Trust has been active in creating opportunity for marginalized communities. The Duke of Edinburgh program is probably into it too. They saw the changing face of the country probably sooner than a lot of people and adapted, but it would be easy for them given the diversity of the Commonwealth. It's always a cheap shot they don't get it but they probably adapted more intuitively and naturally than most institutions.

R202. Could they just have a private coronation in their garden with only Archbishop and Camilla? Has anyone thought of that?

If Charles really wants to make a statement he should do his coronation @ Glastonbury or some other ruin, as he did with his investiture. I think that would be fantastique!! Camilla can sit on the High Priestess menstrual stone - if Charles doesn't want it himself!

At the request of the British government, Charles and Camilla will be visiting Jordan and Egypt in November.