Will the UK accept King Charles III

Wea reply to: Oldcarpy2 yes love you too O C, orb motherships over Kiev x X X X love you x

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Thought so.

I miss UFO stuff on here.

Since the lunatics took over this asylum.

Love you too.

Always have.

Xxx

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Annee

My question is: Can he find the delicate balance without too much upheaval?

From what i'm seeing not really.
Also because he was raised since birth for the job, maybe that makes him the worst. He won't have fresh ideas, or be in touch with what the people really need. I think the Queen was good at being what people needed at the time they needed. Can't say if it was geniune or not, but she was able to do it. He doesn't seem to have that "showmanship" empathy, or whatever you want to call it.

I agree.

I liked Elizabeth because she did take her position seriously. But she is from a different era.

Charles has never been likable -- as far as I can tell.

But they don't really have that much legislative power anymore -- do they?

It's more of a ceremonial role these days but still fulfills vital parts of the constitution and democracy such as non-political head of state/diplomatic/ambassadorial role, opennning/closing parliament, signing off documents, weekly meetings with the PM etc...

The Queen did an incredible job - I'm not a monarchist myself but truly dedicated herself to the country and showed far more backbone, class and public service than any of the PMs or oppositions during her reign and was a leading example of how constitutional monarchy/the UK and commonwealth can be run properly.

Completely agree Charles isn't very likable; I'd be suprised if the Royals last the next decade or so- I think most people are either against or ambvilant about having a monarchy but loved the Queen due to her dedication and dignity. Future Royals wont be able to match this so will be increasing calls to get rid.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Weeellllll, if your into David Ikes claims you can have both haha.

a reply to: crayzeed

playing here (ass we all can get it wrong) but...

The government at the time forcing Edward IIto abdicate because they did not like him marrying a divorcee.

Edward2 abdicated in 1327 and become Edward of Caernarvon, I think you mean Edward 8 who also abdicated..

though Henry2 did marry a divorcee.. Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152.

a reply to: JAGStorm
I would say so, he has the temperament of a fine king. I believe the Royal family is quite secure with the next in lines. The only spanner in the works could be Camilla hopefully shes decided to let go of any past ambitions and rise to a new challenge helping to lead Britains royal family into the future.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Charles has spent decades writing meddling letters to various Government Ministers, who replied with polite versions of 'go away and stop bothering us'. He sent more anyway, because he's a meddling twit.
I am expecting some sort of behind-the-scenes kerfuffle at some point, where he is told by the PM that he has influence but no power and that he needs to sit down, shut up and try to follow his mother's example.
You tell a lot by his choice of regnal name. Those called Charles have had a very mixed record. One was an imbecile and the other was one of the smartest of the Stuarts. I have little confidence that Charles will leave a legacy that will make anyone call themselves Charles IV.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg
You must understand Charles is a Claus Schwab man. He holds the same views, there is not a cat in hells chance that he'll keep his mouth shut. The reason being is that in Claus Schwab's world Charles would have ultimate power again and he really, really wants that.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
You must understand Charles is a Claus Schwab man. He holds the same views, there is not a cat in hells chance that he'll keep his mouth shut. The reason being is that in Claus Schwab's world Charles would have ultimate power again and he really, really wants that.

Well, he can't have it. Parliament has power and the purse strings. We've been a constitutional monarchy for hundreds of years and that's not changing. If he speaks up he'll be told to shut the hell up. Politely of course - he'll be told to follow the example set by his mother.

a reply to: crayzeed

he'll be who he is.. our issue if we take Johnson as a henry8 type figure someone else is left to play charlie1 as we follow the cycle from the age of unreason to the age of reason though it seems at a much faster pace.. the secondary issue for us right now is, is Liz Truss an edward6 or bloody Mary.. as in terms of new Christendom you can only be a saint or a heretic.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

in the age of feeling and activists he's the ultimate minority of one... though why he kept the unlucky name will be an interesting tale.. especially with the Jacobite charlie3 unless that is the hand they've opted to play??? risky given the last time they played the king Arthur hand with henry8's older bro.. henry 8 was the spare.

a reply to: crayzeed

Parliament has ultimate power, not the Monarch.

originally posted by: VierEyes
I think he's already been accepted. The Brits recognize which side their bread is buttered on. They have a massive tourist industry.

People here are not concerned with tourist industry, sentiment for the Royal family runs deep and is personal. The Queen was loved, and she was the one above all others who had integrity and didn't screw up, that counts. I'm not a life long royalist by any means but I can tell you that practically the whole country is feeling very sad.

It doesn't matter what any of the rest of them do now, they will never replace the Queen. She was a big part of what made this country what it was.

originally posted by: Paulzx

originally posted by: VierEyes
I think he's already been accepted. The Brits recognize which side their bread is buttered on. They have a massive tourist industry.

People here are not concerned with tourist industry, sentiment for the Royal family runs deep and is personal. The Queen was loved, and she was the one above all others who had integrity and didn't screw up, that counts. I'm not a life long royalist by any means but I can tell you that practically the whole country is feeling very sad.

It doesn't matter what any of the rest of them do now, they will never replace the Queen. She was a big part of what made this country what it was.

Agreed. She was reassuring and trusted to do the right thing. Duty was at the core of her career as Queen. When I heard that she had died a horrible hollow feeling came over me, as I have little confidence in Charles.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If he speaks up he'll be told to shut the hell up.

He either shuts up or he will be shut up, one way or another.

Personally I doubt he'll be able to help himself and will feel compelled to interfere, but give the guy a chance.

Meanwhile lets see his mother off with all the dignity and respect she deserves.

I give king Charles lll about 15 years before he dies from old age. Then we will have to go through this all over again.

a reply to: ANNED

Our Queen was the longest serving Monarch in our history.

I doubt if we will see the like of this again.

Certainly not in my lifetime.