King Charles III

He can be a little precious but I warm to him as he is described as hard working, intelligent and charming. His more sensitive qualities do shine through during speeches although his facial expressions during the pen incident were a little peevish. He also has a good sense of humour, so very important. I think he genuinely has time for people and will be a great king.

volver

^I also assume that those who would like to see the monarchy abolished are big enough not to deride green energy just because the King uses it!^

What? Is that what you think of republicans? Small minded individuals who will cut off their noses despite their faces? What a country... ??‍♀️

I think you have summed it up for me Volver.

Before the Queen died and we had these threads I was not too concerned one way of the other. I just wanted someone to suggest something better - although not of a puritan nature - and then I could look at it. No one has.

Now, having thought about the rather personal nature of many of the criticisms - which would no doubt be the same and coming from the same people if we "elected" someone - I think what we have works and aids our democracy, so I am even more happy to have a Royal Head of State.

I cannot guess what your problem is with that.

I explained what my problem is quite a way back. Try living through their sort of behaviour and then dealing with the psychological damage it causes.

Have you discussed it with your Vicar or others in authority in your church?

I don't need to discuss it with my vicar as I learned the 10 Commandments as a child. I am sure one of those covers it.

If he has no power, what is the point of him?
This!

A Titular role still needs to have someone in it worthy of the role and IMO, he isn't it no matter how nice he appears to be today.

Volver
‘For anybody who wants to defend a monarchy in the face of an elected Head of State, can you please make sure you know what you are talking about before spouting nonsense?’

It sounds as though you’re the one to explain it to us mere fools…
If it bothers you so much, there are plenty of republics which would no doubt welcome you. As long as you don’t express your opinions or else you might disappear…

The Queen could have chosen to abdicate if the job became too much in old age, but she chose not to.

Because she made a solemn promise which she kept faithfully to the end.

Abdicate
Perhaps we shouldn't think of abdicate and abdication as such suspect words in this country, akin to dereliction of duty.

King Charles and his wife have taken on an enormous burden of duty in their 70s at a time of life when most people are not just looking forward to retirement, but are well into retirement, relaxing and hopefully enjoying their lives.

I'm not saying now, this instant and I'm sure King Charles wants to put his mark on the Monarchy and do his best, but I do think the stigma attached to the word in this country could be re-considered after all this time.

TiggyW

Volver
‘For anybody who wants to defend a monarchy in the face of an elected Head of State, can you please make sure you know what you are talking about before spouting nonsense?’

It sounds as though you’re the one to explain it to us mere fools…
If it bothers you so much, there are plenty of republics which would no doubt welcome you. As long as you don’t express your opinions or else you might disappear…

Oh dear god....

The King is going to have to distance himself from his political leanings. The Monarch should be apolitical. HM the Queen stayed well away. I'm sure she could tell Boris her thoughts but didn't expect him to go her way. Both the King and William have been heavily involved with the WEF and, hopefully, will now look on from the outside. Or at least the King will. He could still influence via the P.o.W. If you're not aware of their allegiance to the WEF, have a look at some of the Davos YT's from a few years ago.

Well you can get arrested here for expressing an opinion, not just all those oppressive republics like Ireland, France, USA etc etc

vegansrock

Well you can get arrested here for expressing an opinion, not just all those oppressive republics like Ireland, France, USA etc etc

And Iceland vegansrock. A republic renowned for its oppressive regime.

The King is going to have to distance himself from his political leanings

He's aware of that.
He's already said.
Personally, I don't think he's daft and probably knows what his new role entails.

Time for a republic! People are relying on food banks and unable to pay to heat their homes while the Duchy of Cornwall alone is worth a billion pounds!

I’m watching the service from St Giles Cathedral.

It’s lovely.

effalump

The King is going to have to distance himself from his political leanings. The Monarch should be apolitical. HM the Queen stayed well away. I'm sure she could tell Boris her thoughts but didn't expect him to go her way. Both the King and William have been heavily involved with the WEF and, hopefully, will now look on from the outside. Or at least the King will. He could still influence via the P.o.W. If you're not aware of their allegiance to the WEF, have a look at some of the Davos YT's from a few years ago.

Warning. Warning. Conspiracy theory advocate.

vegansrock

Well you can get arrested here for expressing an opinion, not just all those oppressive republics like Ireland, France, USA etc etc

No, you can't vegansrock. You can get arrested for expressing an opinion in an illegal manner. Just as you can be deleted from GN for expressing your view in a way which breaks the rules and, I would guess, from most organisations.

The rf might be apolitical but it hasn’t stopped them getting laws changed to suit themselves. Why should they, as employers, be except from equality laws? Just one example.

Fae1

Time for a republic! People are relying on food banks and unable to pay to heat their homes while the Duchy of Cornwall alone is worth a billion pounds!

I've a feeling you are in a very, very small majority. It seems bigger because it contains very obstreperous followers. I, for one, will fight to retain our democracy.

Of course, people should not have to rely on food banks, etc., but you do not need to go from the reasonably sublime to the complete ridiculous to do it.

Our democracy should be able to produce a new government and a new voting system. We really don't need to get to the cutting off of heads point.

? very, very small majority

Not such a very, very small minority as you might hope...

Daisyanne
If you are such a defender of democracy, why on earth would you not support an elected H of S ?

Fae1

Time for a republic! People are relying on food banks and unable to pay to heat their homes while the Duchy of Cornwall alone is worth a billion pounds!

A republic won't make a h'apporth of difference to that. And there would still be billionaires around. Just less high profile ones'

The situation we're in now is a result of political choices. Political choices made by voters. We'd be in just the same state if we had a president.

Fae1

Time for a republic! People are relying on food banks and unable to pay to heat their homes while the Duchy of Cornwall alone is worth a billion pounds!

Please tell us, in what way do you think that our being a Republic would change the situation you describe?

A half-decent government could address those issues that you mention, without any need whatsoever for a Republic.
Unfortunately, we haven't had one of those for quite some time now, but I don't think that there is any correlation whatsoever between that and our country still having a monarchy.

I say that as someone who errs on the side of indifference towards our monarchy. I am not a royalist, but don't kid myself for one moment that removing them would improve the life of even a single one of us in any way whatsoever.

Sorry, Maizie - I took a long time typing, so you beat me to it by quite a margin

Not so sure about that MaizieD
A republic would require a written constitution, abolishing the unelected House of Lords and a parliament that was answerable to the elected H of S. Unlike our present system of a H of S who cannot be seen to " get involved" much to the frustration of many people.

volver

DaisyAnne

icanhandthemback

Pantglas2, of course he didn't 'steal' a pen. It was a lighthearted comment and I am not a royalty hater. Charles did what many people do when they borrow a pen, they inadvertently forget to hand it back. I don't dislike Charles per se, I dislike what he put his children through. He has many good qualities I am sure and if he was just an ordinary CEO, I'd have no problem with him at all. My problem is that he is head of the Church. No more, no less.

This carries the same misconception as the King having any power because he is Head of State. He is the titular head of the Church of England. A titular head possesses few, if any, actual powers. This is the case with the King and the Church of England. I cannot guess what your problem is with that. Have you discussed it with your Vicar or others in authority in your church?

In most parliamentary democracies today, the head of state has either evolved into, or was created as, a position of titular leadership. Again, I cannot see any reasoned argument that makes our, very historical but also democratic arrangement, wrong.

Wrong on so many counts.

If he has no power, what is the point of him?

Somebody to wave at?

The above post says nothing; it's just a little rant.

You are happy to tell me I am "wrong on so many counts" but not what those "counts" are.

You also criticise the idea that a head of state has no power. They do not govern, nor do they change laws. What power do you think they have?

MaizieD

Fae1

Time for a republic! People are relying on food banks and unable to pay to heat their homes while the Duchy of Cornwall alone is worth a billion pounds!

A republic won't make a h'apporth of difference to that. And there would still be billionaires around. Just less high profile ones'

The situation we're in now is a result of political choices. Political choices made by voters. We'd be in just the same state if we had a president.

Well said.

As the Republic of Ireland is always being held up as a shining example of a country with an elected President, why do they have food banks there?

Michael Higgins is 80, btw.

The problem with being a republican is that no argument pro monarchy will ever be good enough will it?

And how absolutely enraging for them that even the most ambivalent about monarchies, whether they be our own long standing one or, as in Spain, a more recently reinstated one (by Franco, no less) would vote to keep them!