The new reign of King Charles III has begun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s give Charles a chance. He just might surprise us.

Re: the monarchy - That’s up to the Brits. It’s their history/tradition. It’s also a big driver of their economy in terms of tourism. I’m sure that plays into the equation.

Have you read any of the many, many, many weird letters he has written to newspapers etc. He comes off as if he is somewhat reasonable lately but have no doubt that's a facade. He is going to become a petty tyrant within a week.

Disagree.

I suspect he is well aware that his mother was beloved…and that he is not.

The world sided with his crazy ex Diana and essentially wanted to crucify him.

He’s worked hard to seem more likable. Pictures and videos of him as the doting grandfather have helped a bit.

I bet he will try very hard to garner sympathy and support over the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Queen Camilla - Diana must be rolling in her grave.

With which of her lovers will Diana be rolling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Camilla - Diana must be rolling in her grave.

She's been dead for decades. Let it go. Diana was never going to be Queen but her son will be King.

Would be interesting to do a survey in England now and in five years who their favorite royal is/was/are?

Here is my top 3:

1) Diana
2) Kate
3) Elizabeth II

1) Queen Elizabeth II
2) Queen Mother
3) Prince Philip

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:King Charles just had his first address. I thought it was quite good and he even mentioned his well-wishes for Harry and Meghan so there can’t be any headlines about a snub there.

I just saw it and think it was great. It was warm and heartfelt, which was unexpected. And I noted that he referred to his family by first names (eg, William, Catherine, Harry, Megan) instead of their royal titles. The speech writers really focused on the human, family elements here. And he teared up at the end talking about his mother and father at the end.

Charles wrote the speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good speech by Chuck. Though, I think this job will kill him within a decade. He’s not accustomed to the pace and seriousness of the demands.

Umm.. you're joking, right? Charles has been working more than the Queen for years and years and years. 335 to her 118 engagements last year.

There are about 200 working days a year.

So it a big deal he has 1-2 “engagements“/ working day?

Considering one engagement -- like working with the Prince's Trust -- may take 8 to 10 hours a day -- he does plenty. He is also traveling to engagements which take times. It isn't like he pops down to Sainsbury and tastes the latest biscuit and then pops back to Poundsbury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William and Kate just made Prince and Princess of Wales

Well that didn't take long
https://www.instagram.com/princeandprincessofwales/

Did you catch that they changed their handle to D of D of Cornwall and Cambridge when the Queen was still dead in her bed? The thirst is real.

Charles was also declared monarch before the Queen was even cold. I guess his thirst was even more real.

Do you think Lyndon Johnson's "thirst was even more real" when he was sworn into the office of the Presidency as John Kennedy was less than an hour dead and splayed out on an emergency room table at Parkland?

That's what our constitution called for; that's what the British constitution calls for.

One should make up rules to suit their limited knowledge, but as legal requirements dictate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good speech by Chuck. Though, I think this job will kill him within a decade. He’s not accustomed to the pace and seriousness of the demands.

Umm.. you're joking, right? Charles has been working more than the Queen for years and years and years. 335 to her 118 engagements last year.

There are about 200 working days a year.

So it a big deal he has 1-2 “engagements“/ working day?

Considering one engagement -- like working with the Prince's Trust -- may take 8 to 10 hours a day -- he does plenty. He is also traveling to engagements which take times. It isn't like he pops down to Sainsbury and tastes the latest biscuit and then pops back to Poundsbury.

Both William and Harry have said multiple times that Charles is one of the hardest working people they know. He definitely leans liberal and wants to slim down the monarchy, not only cutting some of the "royals" but also getting rid of some of the superfluous castles like Balmoral. I like him and most Brits do too. Diana was pretty and charismatic but Charles played the long game and its paid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William and Kate just made Prince and Princess of Wales

Well that didn't take long
https://www.instagram.com/princeandprincessofwales/

Did you catch that they changed their handle to D of D of Cornwall and Cambridge when the Queen was still dead in her bed? The thirst is real.

Seriously. Incredibly crass. Just yesterday they had immediately changed their title and handle to Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge. It's despicable, really.

You should contact your Member of Parliament and tell them to work on changing the British constitution to reflect your victimhood over the perceived crassness of the Prince and Princess of Wales. Do publish the MP's response on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Getting a kick about the two previous Kings named Charles. I knew a little English history but was unaware of all the beheadings, enemies being drawn & quartered (ouch!), judges given death sentences, digging up Cromwell's body & decapitating it, etc. Better not mess with Charles III! This could be more entertaining than reruns of the Sopranos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William and Kate just made Prince and Princess of Wales

Well that didn't take long
https://www.instagram.com/princeandprincessofwales/

Did you catch that they changed their handle to D of D of Cornwall and Cambridge when the Queen was still dead in her bed? The thirst is real.

Charles was also declared monarch before the Queen was even cold. I guess his thirst was even more real.

Do you think Lyndon Johnson's "thirst was even more real" when he was sworn into the office of the Presidency as John Kennedy was less than an hour dead and splayed out on an emergency room table at Parkland?

That's what our constitution called for; that's what the British constitution calls for.

One should make up rules to suit their limited knowledge, but as legal requirements dictate.

Upon the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth today at age 96, Charles immediately ascended to the throne, per the British line of succession. There is no time with a king or queen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William and Kate just made Prince and Princess of Wales

Well that didn't take long
https://www.instagram.com/princeandprincessofwales/

Did you catch that they changed their handle to D of D of Cornwall and Cambridge when the Queen was still dead in her bed? The thirst is real.

Seriously. Incredibly crass. Just yesterday they had immediately changed their title and handle to Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge. It's despicable, really.

Not as despicable as your lack of basic knowledge. If you know nothing about how any of this works, why are you so interested in it?

No one is talking about them acknowledging the titles with decorum. We’re talking about changing their social media handles twice in 24 hours.

That is part of the decorum. Again, get off social media and read anything that might make your brain expand just a tiny bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Harry and Megan? I have not been huge fans but it seems they are really getting iced out. There should be a formal announcement that there kids are a Prince/Princess. Charles should also find a way to allow them to be back in the family. Diana would be so sad to see all that has happened.

Plus one

Charles III’s lane reference to joint they build a happy life together abroad missed an a opportunity to signal the value of their multiracial family to the monarchy .., even the relative royal rockstars William and Kate faltered on their last tour of commonwealth Caribbean countries as they sounded out of touch with modern realities …

Diana could have seen all of this happen if she had been at home with her sons rather than yacht hopping around the Mediterranean with any swarthy man who winked at her twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s give Charles a chance. He just might surprise us.

Re: the monarchy - That’s up to the Brits. It’s their history/tradition. It’s also a big driver of their economy in terms of tourism. I’m sure that plays into the equation.

The monarchy isn’t. The buildings are. And before you ask - places like Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle are heavily outranked in terms of tourism popularity and dollars by unoccupied buildings like Hampton Court Palace and the Tower of London.

Kind of like how Versailles is the number one tourist attraction in France and hasn’t seen a King in 500 years.

37 Yeoman Warders live at the Tower, in private apartments. They are all military veterans.

Hampton Court is a Royal Trust property and can be rented. Friends of ours rented it at Christmas and it is the only time of the year when the massive kitchen is used. They said it was a fantastic experience and we may join them when Covid is finally over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it would be fun to have a King or Queen here in the US. I would volunteer!

We had the Kennedy’s.

PP here- but in seriousness would point out that we fought a war of independence to be free of the monarchy…

Maybe it's time to bring it back! We could all use some entertainment and it's not like they actually have substantial power. There could be a royal ball and at the end of the night someone could be coronated as the King or Queen.

Oh, sweetie, that's why there are proms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, Harrys children are not prince/princess, but Andrews are.
Technically they are entitled to that. I think the RF should not have excluded them.
Charles was wrong to say in his speech that they shall continue to live abroard. On the surface his speech sounded heartfelt, but the English speak between the lines.

The media hate against Meghan continues. Daily Mail says the crowd had stony faces when she met the crowds. But one commentator who was there said that was not so. I doubt that the rift between W & H is as bad as the press is making it out to be

As a child of immigrants, I always say never say never. They might just go live in England one day

The English are weird

From which country did your parents immigrate?