So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of hypocrites here. Monarchy is awful, antiquated institution, most of you say, but how dare Harry and Meg not put up with it and enforce it and work for it, and just shut up, they just need to shut up and be representatives of the colonizers in 2022.

I’m not a big harry and Megan follower but I was impressed when they said they were leaving to strike out on their own. But then it doesn’t seem like they are actually doing that. Is she going on casting calls? Is he going back to school to get an education in something useful? Or maybe he could be a personal trainer? I don’t know what he’s qualified to do. She should get an acting gig and he could be a SAHD. And they should just never mention the BRF in public again.

Lol, they would never lower themselves to WORK. Not when they can sell out their family for $$$$.

I assume you are also willing to criticize Mike Tindall, who just signed on for Im a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here? A little tackier than a podcast about sexism IMO.

Sounds like that’s an entertainment job for a retired rugby player. The others produced and starred in: I’m a Royal, get me out of here. See the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bunch of hypocrites here. Monarchy is awful, antiquated institution, most of you say, but how dare Harry and Meg not put up with it and enforce it and work for it, and just shut up, they just need to shut up and be representatives of the colonizers in 2022.

Yeah and be Prince and Princess in a former colony!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

The Queen was in charge during most of those decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

The Queen was in charge during most of those decisions.

No. She's been dead 6 months and the new boss in town has had every chance to NOT send invitations to these two grifters. He knew enough to evict them from Frogmore after "Spare" came out, but still doesn't have the balls to rescind their titles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

The Queen was in charge during most of those decisions.

No. She's been dead 6 months and the new boss in town has had every chance to NOT send invitations to these two grifters. He knew enough to evict them from Frogmore after "Spare" came out, but still doesn't have the balls to rescind their titles.

Only Parliament can rescind royal titles.

[Anonymous]

The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

The Queen was in charge during most of those decisions.

No. She's been dead 6 months and the new boss in town has had every chance to NOT send invitations to these two grifters. He knew enough to evict them from Frogmore after "Spare" came out, but still doesn't have the balls to rescind their titles.

Only Parliament can rescind royal titles.

Several MPs want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles finally makes his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh on Edward’s 59th birthday.

The Queen still retained the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh title after Philip's death. It would have been unseemly to so quickly bestow the DoE title on Edward so quickly after her death.

I think Charles has played this one well.

No she did not. Look it up. After Philipp died it went to Charles so Camilla was technically the Duchess of Edinburgh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchess_of_Edinburgh

Did you miss the word Dowager? DoE reverted to Charles as a matter of course, so that was fine. It was a matter of respect not to hand it to Edward while the late DoE's wife and the ruling monarch was still alive and grieving. As it should have been. Edward could wait, and he did.

You hear the word Dowager on the BBC and insist on using it everywhere? When she became Queen she essentially lost the title. So no she isn’t the dowager (and a dowager does not apply to every type of title)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1249822/queen-elizabeth-ii-titles-duchess-prince-philip-duke-of-edinburgh

You are missing the nuance here. Her husband DoE had just died. She is the wife of the late DoE. They wanted to wait before shuffling Edward into the position out of respect.

We're done here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

Doubtful he will retire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

I think you are reading this wrong.

It was up to the them to claim those titles for their kids once the queen died and they were the grandkids of the monarch. It seems they chose to do so at this time for some reason for which we can only speculate. The Palace didn't announce it or make a big deal about it at all the just changed it on the website as requested by the parents. They had to go to People Mag to put the news out, which is a bit sad. I am thinking it has to do with the coronation maneuverings and Frogmore eviction.

Not to mention the timing with Edward's title of Duke. Were they trying to preempt that or were they out of the loop? Very odd.

I think Charles is handling them just fine. No need to give them more fodder for their victimhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a British person, I am pretty disgusted with how Charles has handled his 2nd son's entitled grabby hands and that actress wife of his. Cheapening our monarchy by letting them and their kids have titles, can't stand up to them, and he's even allowing them to attend the coronation. That's our country's event, not just Charles' family picnic. Sad that we have a weak king.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

He’ll be the last king. William isn’t that popular, Kate is but she’s just a princess. If William’s tour of the Caribbean hadn’t been such an unprecedented disaster then there would be hope that he could save the monarchy and pressure on Charles to truncate his reign. William is stupid and lazy though so it will limp along with the Charles and Camilla parade of having eggs or tomatoes thrown at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best thing Charles will do as king is have a short reign. That is what would be best for the monarchy as an institution. I think knowing the Charles was not very popular is the reason why the Queen never retired like elderly monarchs have been doing in the test of Europe.

Charles is 74. The former King of Spain retired at 76 and passed on the throne to his son. Queen Beatrix of Netherlands retired at 75 and passed on the crown. William is much more popular than his father and in his prime at age 40. Hopefully Charles has the sense to retire by age 80. That would make William 46.

He’ll be the last king. William isn’t that popular, Kate is but she’s just a princess. If William’s tour of the Caribbean hadn’t been such an unprecedented disaster then there would be hope that he could save the monarchy and pressure on Charles to truncate his reign. William is stupid and lazy though so it will limp along with the Charles and Camilla parade of having eggs or tomatoes thrown at them.

Sure, we believe you. Lol