So what kind of King will Charles be?

[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.

The timing is wrong for any conversation with Charles other than "sorry for your loss," which she probably had an opportunity to say.

[Anonymous]

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.

Again, source?

[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.

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.

Indeed. My mother lost her mother at age 75 and she certainly grieved. Her mother had died. It's a loss no matter what age it happens.

[Anonymous]

I’d really doubt she requested a private audience.

My guess is that Charles was considering bringing them back as part time royals. They would get the part time royal thing they wanted, full titles, security and money. Charles would get to slim down the monarchy. Kick Beatrice ff the council and avoid giving Edward and Sophie more. Charles only likes Anne and doesn’t seem to like Edward and Sophie. He hates Andrew and doesn’t want his daughters involved in anything. He could shut down Harry’s book and subsequent interviews. It makes sense for Charles.

I’m sure that Edward and Sophie, Will and Kate and all the snippy palace staff are fighting hard against this hence all the leaks trying to make them look bad.

[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.

You: you don’t know them

Also you: here’s what they liked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d really doubt she requested a private audience.

My guess is that Charles was considering bringing them back as part time royals. They would get the part time royal thing they wanted, full titles, security and money. Charles would get to slim down the monarchy. Kick Beatrice ff the council and avoid giving Edward and Sophie more. Charles only likes Anne and doesn’t seem to like Edward and Sophie. He hates Andrew and doesn’t want his daughters involved in anything. He could shut down Harry’s book and subsequent interviews. It makes sense for Charles.

I’m sure that Edward and Sophie, Will and Kate and all the snippy palace staff are fighting hard against this hence all the leaks trying to make them look bad.

+100

This would be my guess as well. I think Charles was originally more open to the PT thing that the Queen. And what he cares about the most is Harry not destroying all of the good press he’s meticulously curated for Camilla with his book. But he clearly is trying to push Edward and Andrew and their families out. First by declining to give Edward the Duke of Edinburgh title and Andrew…that situation speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d really doubt she requested a private audience.

My guess is that Charles was considering bringing them back as part time royals. They would get the part time royal thing they wanted, full titles, security and money. Charles would get to slim down the monarchy. Kick Beatrice ff the council and avoid giving Edward and Sophie more. Charles only likes Anne and doesn’t seem to like Edward and Sophie. He hates Andrew and doesn’t want his daughters involved in anything. He could shut down Harry’s book and subsequent interviews. It makes sense for Charles.

I’m sure that Edward and Sophie, Will and Kate and all the snippy palace staff are fighting hard against this hence all the leaks trying to make them look bad.

You're sure about that? I thought they wanted no part of this sinking ship full of racist colonizers. Which is it? Do they want in or out? Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes.

[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:

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.

You: you don’t know them

Also you: here’s what they liked!

Of course, we are all guessing but my information is from what we have all read not totally made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d really doubt she requested a private audience.

My guess is that Charles was considering bringing them back as part time royals. They would get the part time royal thing they wanted, full titles, security and money. Charles would get to slim down the monarchy. Kick Beatrice ff the council and avoid giving Edward and Sophie more. Charles only likes Anne and doesn’t seem to like Edward and Sophie. He hates Andrew and doesn’t want his daughters involved in anything. He could shut down Harry’s book and subsequent interviews. It makes sense for Charles.

I’m sure that Edward and Sophie, Will and Kate and all the snippy palace staff are fighting hard against this hence all the leaks trying to make them look bad.

+100

This would be my guess as well. I think Charles was originally more open to the PT thing that the Queen. And what he cares about the most is Harry not destroying all of the good press he’s meticulously curated for Camilla with his book. But he clearly is trying to push Edward and Andrew and their families out. First by declining to give Edward the Duke of Edinburgh title and Andrew…that situation speaks for itself.

What makes you think the couple wants to take on any of the stultifying duties carried out by the royals?

[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:

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.

You: you don’t know them

Also you: here’s what they liked!

Of course, we are all guessing but my information is from what we have all read not totally made up.

I'm neutral on the whole issue, but there are lots of pictures and video footage of the Harry, William, and Kate at events together and looking pretty happy. I find it unfortunate and sad that there's a rift no matter what happened.

[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?

No, you are sad, but it’s not a complete shock. When someone is young and unexpectedly dies, like Diana, it’s grief, shock, anger, etc.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I said I understand it exists. I don't think it really matters to anyone except the bean counters in the palace adding up their chits of who did or said what or wore the wrong thing. I would place much more importance on not further estranging my second son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, you are sad, but it’s not a complete shock. When someone is young and unexpectedly dies, like Diana, it’s grief, shock, anger, etc.

You can still grieve. You, or someone, doubted Charles was grieving. You have no idea.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I said I understand it exists. I don't think it really matters to anyone except the bean counters in the palace adding up their chits of who did or said what or wore the wrong thing. I would place much more importance on not further estranging my second son.

His second son is an unreliable loose cannon. He's a liability at this point and Charles is right to keep him at arm's length so he doesn't further undermine the monarchy.