So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

Charles is an old man 73. I really doubt he is grieving. It is a lot different when your parents die when you are older vs younger.

They knew her health was declining. She was lucky she could still walk, had her kind, and went quickly.

Are you really saying he shouldn't be sad because she was old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

Charles is an old man 73. I really doubt he is grieving. It is a lot different when your parents die when you are older vs younger.

They knew her health was declining. She was lucky she could still walk, had her kind, and went quickly.

Are you really saying he shouldn't be sad because she was old?

She does not understand that grief is not rational, it’s an irrational emotional process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

Charles is an old man 73. I really doubt he is grieving. It is a lot different when your parents die when you are older vs younger.

They knew her health was declining. She was lucky she could still walk, had her kind, and went quickly.

So they should not be sad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

Charles is an old man 73. I really doubt he is grieving. It is a lot different when your parents die when you are older vs younger.

When my parent died, it didn't leave me the constitutional monarch of a major country nor push me in front of the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

Maybe it’s also a lesson to not go out and publicly trash your family and then expect that everything will remain peachy.

Maybe they should have treated his wife better.

Maybe she could have taken 5 minutes to figure out what she was getting herself into ahead of time. She could have spared everyone all the pain by storming off before her fairytale wedding. But we all know why that didn’t happen. If she wants the features of royal life, she has to live there and participate.

No one would want to marry Harry under the circumstances you are describing. Which is probably why he was so old when he did get married.

Harry would be utterly bored with a woman like Kate.
She was everything he wanted her to be, someone with her own mind, who has made her own success
Independent grown woman

Get them young, treat them rough is not for him

I love how you think you know Harry or Kate but, no one does really. Let's put it this way Harry enjoyed Kate and William's company until he got married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

Andrew wanted the titles, just like he wanted a massive wedding for Eugenie with TV coverage. He started off as the spare and has gone down in the queue for the throne. When he got married he was in the press a lot with a huge wedding, lots of press coverage and so on. I think he struggled with his declining role.

Anne wanted to give her kids freedom from titles. Edward took a middle road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

Maybe it’s also a lesson to not go out and publicly trash your family and then expect that everything will remain peachy.

Maybe they should have treated his wife better.

Maybe she could have taken 5 minutes to figure out what she was getting herself into ahead of time. She could have spared everyone all the pain by storming off before her fairytale wedding. But we all know why that didn’t happen. If she wants the features of royal life, she has to live there and participate.

No one would want to marry Harry under the circumstances you are describing. Which is probably why he was so old when he did get married.

Harry would be utterly bored with a woman like Kate.
She was everything he wanted her to be, someone with her own mind, who has made her own success
Independent grown woman

Get them young, treat them rough is not for him

I love how you think you know Harry or Kate but, no one does really. Let's put it this way Harry enjoyed Kate and William's company until he got married.

So?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

Charles is an old man 73. I really doubt he is grieving. It is a lot different when your parents die when you are older vs younger.

If you really love your parents, you're never too old to grieve, even when they've had a full life and/or are suffering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

Oh my word! For her to request that at this time is incredibly self-absorbed and beyond rude.

Like he nedds another thing on his plate right now or to add an additional chapter to their book.

If she really was concerned about clearing the air, they would give him time to rest a grieve first.

What bull. It's not beyond rude, it's the perfect time for them to at least spend some time togethers. Also who is saying this was all on her?

So much misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

Oh my word! For her to request that at this time is incredibly self-absorbed and beyond rude.

Like he nedds another thing on his plate right now or to add an additional chapter to their book.

If she really was concerned about clearing the air, they would give him time to rest a grieve first.

What bull. It's not beyond rude, it's the perfect time for them to at least spend some time togethers. Also who is saying this was all on her?

So much misogyny.

You're insane. "Hey Chuck, now that it's all done and dusted, can we talk about ME?"

The perfect time, if you're a narcissist, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

Charles is an old man 73. I really doubt he is grieving. It is a lot different when your parents die when you are older vs younger.

I think losing a parent is hard no matter your age. My 70something aunts and dad had a rough time when their mom died at 95.

+1000 It doesn’t matter how old they are. It is still a shock and a huge loss when they pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

To be fair, the King literally buried his mother last night and has spent the last 12 days in public and unable to mourn in private. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone and grieve?

While I agree with your point, she was not (and will not be) "literally buried." Her coffin will be placed in the George IV Memorial Chapel in St. George's at Windsor with her parents, sister and husband, none of whom were or will be buried.

Charles is an old man 73. I really doubt he is grieving. It is a lot different when your parents die when you are older vs younger.

When my parent died, it didn't leave me the constitutional monarch of a major country nor push me in front of the media.

+1. A very difficult time made much more so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

Oh my word! For her to request that at this time is incredibly self-absorbed and beyond rude.

Like he nedds another thing on his plate right now or to add an additional chapter to their book.

If she really was concerned about clearing the air, they would give him time to rest a grieve first.

What bull. It's not beyond rude, it's the perfect time for them to at least spend some time togethers. Also who is saying this was all on her?

So much misogyny.

Perfect time? They weren’t even planning on seeing any of the family on this trip until the Queen died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A petty king apparently. His overseas daughter in law has requested a private audience to clear the air and he has hightailed it to Balmoral.

Oh my word! For her to request that at this time is incredibly self-absorbed and beyond rude.

Like he nedds another thing on his plate right now or to add an additional chapter to their book.

If she really was concerned about clearing the air, they would give him time to rest a grieve first.

What bull. It's not beyond rude, it's the perfect time for them to at least spend some time togethers. Also who is saying this was all on her?

So much misogyny.

Perfect time? They weren’t even planning on seeing any of the family on this trip until the Queen died.

Public invite to Balmoral days before Queen passed away; public decline by the overseas relatives.