So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

I've always had the sense that Charles might be a little bit on the spectrum. He seems to get really into specific not-mainstream thing, and sometimes have difficulty with some basic human interaction things and some frustration tolerance.

(As an aside, if Diana were posting on the DCUM relationship forum, people would definitely tell her that her DH was on the spectrum.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always had the sense that Charles might be a little bit on the spectrum. He seems to get really into specific not-mainstream thing, and sometimes have difficulty with some basic human interaction things and some frustration tolerance.

(As an aside, if Diana were posting on the DCUM relationship forum, people would definitely tell her that her DH was on the spectrum.)

But they say that to everyone posting on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/14/redundancies-king-charles-staff-clarence-house-mourning-period-heartless-union

Looks like he’s firing 100 staffers now that he’s been promoted

He's straight up and idiot.

The British voters who have a legitimate opinion on this -- unlike some former colonial -- have been urging the Queen to reduce staff for decades. She has been quietly doing this as technology has taken over. If you saw the coach load of Prince Philip's staffers arrive for his memorial, you would see that most were quite old. A lot of the loyal staffers to Prince Philip and the Queen were hanging on until they died. Many people were be retired while many more will be made redundant. That is what the British people want. Everyone has been urging Charles to cut back on the royals, and he is doing it. The British are also in a serious economic time as winter approaches and heating bills will rise because of the war in the Ukraine. On this board, people have been calling for Charles to cut back and now that the does, you call him an idiot. He's is not the idiot.

Trimming staff is fine, but the timing is not great. It's especially awkward that people are trying to excuse any of CIIIPO's behavior by saying he's grieving while also saying, "Look, he's got to fire people right now! Don't be sentimental!"

It's certainly better than Elizabeth cutting staff pay because times were hard during the peak COVID times.

Also the snide remark that “former Colonials” have no legitimate opinion is not just snobby by ignorant. The head of the British monarchy is technically head of state for many former colonies who are part of the Commonwealth. This raises constitutional issues when powers intended to be symbolic for the British monarchy are taken literally (such as in Australia in 1975 when the Queen’s appointed Governor General sacked the democratically elected prime minister.

Aside from that non trivial fact, many former colonial citizens would prefer a clean cut from the monarchy. Many were biding their time in respect to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is not that their opinions are not legitimate, but many Commonwealth citizens simply have no opinion on whether royal staff should be reduced per se. They are not thinking about how best to rearrange royal furniture according to modern minimalism but how to do their own home renovations.

[Anonymous]

Aren’t all the Commonwealth nations planning on leaving? I can’t think of one that has said in the last year that they wanted to stay.

Scotland and Northern Ireland have bigger issues with the British government and less about the monarchy. Wales seems to have an issue with the monarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think some of you are actually trying not to understand, but here goes one more time.

All the senior royal men (Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, and Harry) were at one time active duty military. They served in varying branches and for varying amounts of time, but none served a full military career all the way until full retirement. All left volunarily at some point. Therefore, NONE OF THEM are entitled to wear military dress uniform based up on their prior service under the UK rules.

However, all senior royal men hold HONORARY military titles as a matter of tradition. This also now has expanded to include Anne. With honorary military titles, you are entitled to wear military dress uniform. Neither Andrew nor Harry are senior working royals any longer - Harry by choice, Andrew not by choice. Regardless, because neither are senior working royals, neither are entitled to wear military dress.

When Harry wore it in March 2020, he had announced his departure, but had not actually departed yet and was still techinically a senior working royal at that moment.

Thank you -- let's hope they grasp this very clear explanation.

I more or less most of that. Yes neither Harry nor Andrew are working senior royals. The optics are not good to let his brother accused of sexually assaulting a teenager provided by his friends who were both charged with teen sex trafficking to wear the uniform - but not Harry. Harry’s statement is seeking to stay above the fray, and to keep attention focussed on respecting the memory management of his beloved grandmother. Good for him.

But it makes me Question Charles’ judgment and common sense, which his mother had in spades. She very sensibly had everyone wear suits at her husbands funeral. I think that would have been wiser in this case as well.

There were headlines claiming that Harry had released a "furious" statement boasting of his military career... the way the media spins things about him is seriously sickening

Harry understands full well why he is not allowed military dress. Just like he understands why Archie was not entitled to Prince/HRH status at birth. Again, its not clear if he just didn't explain it all to Meghan, or he did explain and she just didn't care and ran with it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think some of you are actually trying not to understand, but here goes one more time.

All the senior royal men (Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, and Harry) were at one time active duty military. They served in varying branches and for varying amounts of time, but none served a full military career all the way until full retirement. All left volunarily at some point. Therefore, NONE OF THEM are entitled to wear military dress uniform based up on their prior service under the UK rules.

However, all senior royal men hold HONORARY military titles as a matter of tradition. This also now has expanded to include Anne. With honorary military titles, you are entitled to wear military dress uniform. Neither Andrew nor Harry are senior working royals any longer - Harry by choice, Andrew not by choice. Regardless, because neither are senior working royals, neither are entitled to wear military dress.

When Harry wore it in March 2020, he had announced his departure, but had not actually departed yet and was still techinically a senior working royal at that moment.

Thank you -- let's hope they grasp this very clear explanation.

I more or less most of that. Yes neither Harry nor Andrew are working senior royals. The optics are not good to let his brother accused of sexually assaulting a teenager provided by his friends who were both charged with teen sex trafficking to wear the uniform - but not Harry. Harry’s statement is seeking to stay above the fray, and to keep attention focussed on respecting the memory management of his beloved grandmother. Good for him.

But it makes me Question Charles’ judgment and common sense, which his mother had in spades. She very sensibly had everyone wear suits at her husbands funeral. I think that would have been wiser in this case as well.

There were headlines claiming that Harry had released a "furious" statement boasting of his military career... the way the media spins things about him is seriously sickening

Harry understands full well why he is not allowed military dress. Just like he understands why Archie was not entitled to Prince/HRH status at birth. Again, its not clear if he just didn't explain it all to Meghan, or he did explain and she just didn't care and ran with it anyway.

DP. Way to miss the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/14/redundancies-king-charles-staff-clarence-house-mourning-period-heartless-union

Looks like he’s firing 100 staffers now that he’s been promoted

He's straight up and idiot.

The British voters who have a legitimate opinion on this -- unlike some former colonial -- have been urging the Queen to reduce staff for decades. She has been quietly doing this as technology has taken over. If you saw the coach load of Prince Philip's staffers arrive for his memorial, you would see that most were quite old. A lot of the loyal staffers to Prince Philip and the Queen were hanging on until they died. Many people were be retired while many more will be made redundant. That is what the British people want. Everyone has been urging Charles to cut back on the royals, and he is doing it. The British are also in a serious economic time as winter approaches and heating bills will rise because of the war in the Ukraine. On this board, people have been calling for Charles to cut back and now that the does, you call him an idiot. He's is not the idiot.

Trimming staff is fine, but the timing is not great. It's especially awkward that people are trying to excuse any of CIIIPO's behavior by saying he's grieving while also saying, "Look, he's got to fire people right now! Don't be sentimental!"

It's certainly better than Elizabeth cutting staff pay because times were hard during the peak COVID times.

Also the snide remark that “former Colonials” have no legitimate opinion is not just snobby by ignorant. The head of the British monarchy is technically head of state for many former colonies who are part of the Commonwealth. This raises constitutional issues when powers intended to be symbolic for the British monarchy are taken literally (such as in Australia in 1975 when the Queen’s appointed Governor General sacked the democratically elected prime minister.

Aside from that non trivial fact, many former colonial citizens would prefer a clean cut from the monarchy. Many were biding their time in respect to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is not that their opinions are not legitimate, but many Commonwealth citizens simply have no opinion on whether royal staff should be reduced per se. They are not thinking about how best to rearrange royal furniture according to modern minimalism but how to do their own home renovations.

The "former colonial" to whom I was referring was posting on a United States message board and highly likely to be a resident of the United States, a former British colony which cut ties with England in 1776. There was even a musical written about it, if you don't know the history. But do prattle on about what current colonial citizens want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think some of you are actually trying not to understand, but here goes one more time.

All the senior royal men (Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, and Harry) were at one time active duty military. They served in varying branches and for varying amounts of time, but none served a full military career all the way until full retirement. All left volunarily at some point. Therefore, NONE OF THEM are entitled to wear military dress uniform based up on their prior service under the UK rules.

However, all senior royal men hold HONORARY military titles as a matter of tradition. This also now has expanded to include Anne. With honorary military titles, you are entitled to wear military dress uniform. Neither Andrew nor Harry are senior working royals any longer - Harry by choice, Andrew not by choice. Regardless, because neither are senior working royals, neither are entitled to wear military dress.

When Harry wore it in March 2020, he had announced his departure, but had not actually departed yet and was still techinically a senior working royal at that moment.

Thank you -- let's hope they grasp this very clear explanation.

I more or less most of that. Yes neither Harry nor Andrew are working senior royals. The optics are not good to let his brother accused of sexually assaulting a teenager provided by his friends who were both charged with teen sex trafficking to wear the uniform - but not Harry. Harry’s statement is seeking to stay above the fray, and to keep attention focussed on respecting the memory management of his beloved grandmother. Good for him.

But it makes me Question Charles’ judgment and common sense, which his mother had in spades. She very sensibly had everyone wear suits at her husbands funeral. I think that would have been wiser in this case as well.

There were headlines claiming that Harry had released a "furious" statement boasting of his military career... the way the media spins things about him is seriously sickening

Harry understands full well why he is not allowed military dress. Just like he understands why Archie was not entitled to Prince/HRH status at birth. Again, its not clear if he just didn't explain it all to Meghan, or he did explain and she just didn't care and ran with it anyway.

Harry's tutors at Eton noted that he seemed to have difficulty understanding simple concepts. He may not have understood these matters as well as one would believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think some of you are actually trying not to understand, but here goes one more time.

All the senior royal men (Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, and Harry) were at one time active duty military. They served in varying branches and for varying amounts of time, but none served a full military career all the way until full retirement. All left volunarily at some point. Therefore, NONE OF THEM are entitled to wear military dress uniform based up on their prior service under the UK rules.

However, all senior royal men hold HONORARY military titles as a matter of tradition. This also now has expanded to include Anne. With honorary military titles, you are entitled to wear military dress uniform. Neither Andrew nor Harry are senior working royals any longer - Harry by choice, Andrew not by choice. Regardless, because neither are senior working royals, neither are entitled to wear military dress.

When Harry wore it in March 2020, he had announced his departure, but had not actually departed yet and was still techinically a senior working royal at that moment.

Thank you -- let's hope they grasp this very clear explanation.

I more or less most of that. Yes neither Harry nor Andrew are working senior royals. The optics are not good to let his brother accused of sexually assaulting a teenager provided by his friends who were both charged with teen sex trafficking to wear the uniform - but not Harry. Harry’s statement is seeking to stay above the fray, and to keep attention focussed on respecting the memory management of his beloved grandmother. Good for him.

But it makes me Question Charles’ judgment and common sense, which his mother had in spades. She very sensibly had everyone wear suits at her husbands funeral. I think that would have been wiser in this case as well.

There were headlines claiming that Harry had released a "furious" statement boasting of his military career... the way the media spins things about him is seriously sickening

Harry understands full well why he is not allowed military dress. Just like he understands why Archie was not entitled to Prince/HRH status at birth. Again, its not clear if he just didn't explain it all to Meghan, or he did explain and she just didn't care and ran with it anyway.

DP. Way to miss the point.

DCUM is talking about a monarchy. The whole thing is pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/14/redundancies-king-charles-staff-clarence-house-mourning-period-heartless-union

Looks like he’s firing 100 staffers now that he’s been promoted

He's straight up and idiot.

The British voters who have a legitimate opinion on this -- unlike some former colonial -- have been urging the Queen to reduce staff for decades. She has been quietly doing this as technology has taken over. If you saw the coach load of Prince Philip's staffers arrive for his memorial, you would see that most were quite old. A lot of the loyal staffers to Prince Philip and the Queen were hanging on until they died. Many people were be retired while many more will be made redundant. That is what the British people want. Everyone has been urging Charles to cut back on the royals, and he is doing it. The British are also in a serious economic time as winter approaches and heating bills will rise because of the war in the Ukraine. On this board, people have been calling for Charles to cut back and now that the does, you call him an idiot. He's is not the idiot.

Trimming staff is fine, but the timing is not great. It's especially awkward that people are trying to excuse any of CIIIPO's behavior by saying he's grieving while also saying, "Look, he's got to fire people right now! Don't be sentimental!"

It's certainly better than Elizabeth cutting staff pay because times were hard during the peak COVID times.

Also the snide remark that “former Colonials” have no legitimate opinion is not just snobby by ignorant. The head of the British monarchy is technically head of state for many former colonies who are part of the Commonwealth. This raises constitutional issues when powers intended to be symbolic for the British monarchy are taken literally (such as in Australia in 1975 when the Queen’s appointed Governor General sacked the democratically elected prime minister.

Aside from that non trivial fact, many former colonial citizens would prefer a clean cut from the monarchy. Many were biding their time in respect to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is not that their opinions are not legitimate, but many Commonwealth citizens simply have no opinion on whether royal staff should be reduced per se. They are not thinking about how best to rearrange royal furniture according to modern minimalism but how to do their own home renovations.

The "former colonial" to whom I was referring was posting on a United States message board and highly likely to be a resident of the United States, a former British colony which cut ties with England in 1776. There was even a musical written about it, if you don't know the history. But do prattle on about what current colonial citizens want.

Current colonial citizens want nothing to do with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/14/redundancies-king-charles-staff-clarence-house-mourning-period-heartless-union

Looks like he’s firing 100 staffers now that he’s been promoted

He's straight up and idiot.

The British voters who have a legitimate opinion on this -- unlike some former colonial -- have been urging the Queen to reduce staff for decades. She has been quietly doing this as technology has taken over. If you saw the coach load of Prince Philip's staffers arrive for his memorial, you would see that most were quite old. A lot of the loyal staffers to Prince Philip and the Queen were hanging on until they died. Many people were be retired while many more will be made redundant. That is what the British people want. Everyone has been urging Charles to cut back on the royals, and he is doing it. The British are also in a serious economic time as winter approaches and heating bills will rise because of the war in the Ukraine. On this board, people have been calling for Charles to cut back and now that the does, you call him an idiot. He's is not the idiot.

Trimming staff is fine, but the timing is not great. It's especially awkward that people are trying to excuse any of CIIIPO's behavior by saying he's grieving while also saying, "Look, he's got to fire people right now! Don't be sentimental!"

It's certainly better than Elizabeth cutting staff pay because times were hard during the peak COVID times.

Also the snide remark that “former Colonials” have no legitimate opinion is not just snobby by ignorant. The head of the British monarchy is technically head of state for many former colonies who are part of the Commonwealth. This raises constitutional issues when powers intended to be symbolic for the British monarchy are taken literally (such as in Australia in 1975 when the Queen’s appointed Governor General sacked the democratically elected prime minister.

Aside from that non trivial fact, many former colonial citizens would prefer a clean cut from the monarchy. Many were biding their time in respect to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is not that their opinions are not legitimate, but many Commonwealth citizens simply have no opinion on whether royal staff should be reduced per se. They are not thinking about how best to rearrange royal furniture according to modern minimalism but how to do their own home renovations.

The "former colonial" to whom I was referring was posting on a United States message board and highly likely to be a resident of the United States, a former British colony which cut ties with England in 1776. There was even a musical written about it, if you don't know the history. But do prattle on about what current colonial citizens want.

Current colonial citizens want nothing to do with them.

That is correct for some but not for all. Sweeping generalizations do not bolster your arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/14/redundancies-king-charles-staff-clarence-house-mourning-period-heartless-union

Looks like he’s firing 100 staffers now that he’s been promoted

He's straight up and idiot.

The British voters who have a legitimate opinion on this -- unlike some former colonial -- have been urging the Queen to reduce staff for decades. She has been quietly doing this as technology has taken over. If you saw the coach load of Prince Philip's staffers arrive for his memorial, you would see that most were quite old. A lot of the loyal staffers to Prince Philip and the Queen were hanging on until they died. Many people were be retired while many more will be made redundant. That is what the British people want. Everyone has been urging Charles to cut back on the royals, and he is doing it. The British are also in a serious economic time as winter approaches and heating bills will rise because of the war in the Ukraine. On this board, people have been calling for Charles to cut back and now that the does, you call him an idiot. He's is not the idiot.

Trimming staff is fine, but the timing is not great. It's especially awkward that people are trying to excuse any of CIIIPO's behavior by saying he's grieving while also saying, "Look, he's got to fire people right now! Don't be sentimental!"

It's certainly better than Elizabeth cutting staff pay because times were hard during the peak COVID times.

Also the snide remark that “former Colonials” have no legitimate opinion is not just snobby by ignorant. The head of the British monarchy is technically head of state for many former colonies who are part of the Commonwealth. This raises constitutional issues when powers intended to be symbolic for the British monarchy are taken literally (such as in Australia in 1975 when the Queen’s appointed Governor General sacked the democratically elected prime minister.

Aside from that non trivial fact, many former colonial citizens would prefer a clean cut from the monarchy. Many were biding their time in respect to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is not that their opinions are not legitimate, but many Commonwealth citizens simply have no opinion on whether royal staff should be reduced per se. They are not thinking about how best to rearrange royal furniture according to modern minimalism but how to do their own home renovations.

The "former colonial" to whom I was referring was posting on a United States message board and highly likely to be a resident of the United States, a former British colony which cut ties with England in 1776. There was even a musical written about it, if you don't know the history. But do prattle on about what current colonial citizens want.

Current colonial citizens want nothing to do with them.

Which one has expressed any interest in staying?
That is correct for some but not for all. Sweeping generalizations do not bolster your arguments.

[Anonymous]

I can’t think of ne Commonwealth nation that plans to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/14/redundancies-king-charles-staff-clarence-house-mourning-period-heartless-union

Looks like he’s firing 100 staffers now that he’s been promoted

He's straight up and idiot.

The British voters who have a legitimate opinion on this -- unlike some former colonial -- have been urging the Queen to reduce staff for decades. She has been quietly doing this as technology has taken over. If you saw the coach load of Prince Philip's staffers arrive for his memorial, you would see that most were quite old. A lot of the loyal staffers to Prince Philip and the Queen were hanging on until they died. Many people were be retired while many more will be made redundant. That is what the British people want. Everyone has been urging Charles to cut back on the royals, and he is doing it. The British are also in a serious economic time as winter approaches and heating bills will rise because of the war in the Ukraine. On this board, people have been calling for Charles to cut back and now that the does, you call him an idiot. He's is not the idiot.

And Clarence House will literally be sitting empty when Charles and Camilla move to Buckingham Palace. Of course it doesn't need staff! I'm sure they will take a few with them, but many will not be needed at the palace which is of course already fully staffed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to think some of you are actually trying not to understand, but here goes one more time.

All the senior royal men (Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, and Harry) were at one time active duty military. They served in varying branches and for varying amounts of time, but none served a full military career all the way until full retirement. All left volunarily at some point. Therefore, NONE OF THEM are entitled to wear military dress uniform based up on their prior service under the UK rules.

However, all senior royal men hold HONORARY military titles as a matter of tradition. This also now has expanded to include Anne. With honorary military titles, you are entitled to wear military dress uniform. Neither Andrew nor Harry are senior working royals any longer - Harry by choice, Andrew not by choice. Regardless, because neither are senior working royals, neither are entitled to wear military dress.

When Harry wore it in March 2020, he had announced his departure, but had not actually departed yet and was still techinically a senior working royal at that moment.

Thank you -- let's hope they grasp this very clear explanation.

I more or less most of that. Yes neither Harry nor Andrew are working senior royals. The optics are not good to let his brother accused of sexually assaulting a teenager provided by his friends who were both charged with teen sex trafficking to wear the uniform - but not Harry. Harry’s statement is seeking to stay above the fray, and to keep attention focussed on respecting the memory management of his beloved grandmother. Good for him.

But it makes me Question Charles’ judgment and common sense, which his mother had in spades. She very sensibly had everyone wear suits at her husbands funeral. I think that would have been wiser in this case as well.

There were headlines claiming that Harry had released a "furious" statement boasting of his military career... the way the media spins things about him is seriously sickening

Look, everyone can read between the lines. There was no earthly reason for him to release that statement other than to have the last word in the conversation of why he isn't allowed to wear a uniform. It was especially weird how the statement said let's keep our focus on the funeral - ok then, why did you have to say anything at all? no one was talking about you until your stupid statement? It's the petulance and the stomping of the feet.