So what kind of King will Charles be?

[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.

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.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

These people have yet to be correct on any of their predictions. I'm sure they thought Charles would never be king too.

[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.

If Camilla is still alive, she probably won’t let him 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.

Another UK person here. What bothers me the most out of this is that Charles has shown, by example, that you can slander the BRF and the UK and even our armed forces, and then get away with it. You can betray secrets, including secrets and details that have implications for national security, and get away with it. We’ll even invite you to the country you hate for the coronation of a monarch you don’t believe in! It’s disgraceful.

[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.

Another UK person here. What bothers me the most out of this is that Charles has shown, by example, that you can slander the BRF and the UK and even our armed forces, and then get away with it. You can betray secrets, including secrets and details that have implications for national security, and get away with it. We’ll even invite you to the country you hate for the coronation of a monarch you don’t believe in! It’s disgraceful.

+ 1000

[Anonymous]

Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Pretty sure we all want to 'leave him be' but he won't let us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

Hear hear! Well said indeed.

[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.

So, do you pay taxes in the UK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Camilla is still disliked. Charles is at best seen as an odd duck and at worst as a petty and weak. William is perceived as being angry and less than competent. This isn’t going to last long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

Lovely. Your best response to that is to tell me what I'm allowed to expect, or what standards I should hold, in demanding service from working royals. Just wow. Do you pay taxes in the UK? Explain, in DETAIL, how Harry served me when he was getting Ds at Eton and mocking disabled matrons. Explain exactly how my financial investment in his top-tier education paid off for me and my kids. Go on, I'd love to hear your narcissistic hot take. (Actually, don't. If I want to burden myself with a narc's ideas of what my tax money is worth, I'll listen to a politician.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Camilla is still disliked. Charles is at best seen as an odd duck and at worst as a petty and weak. William is perceived as being angry and less than competent. This isn’t going to last long.

How long will it last? You seem confident, so go and put an end date on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prince Edward once left royal duties to produce shows. Prince Phillip applauded the move. Edward couldn’t make it and came back.

Harry has mad it clear for a long time he wanted out. He’s making it on his own. Leave him be. Let Charles still have his son.

Oh stop with the gaslighting. He's not making it on his own, he's trading borderline classified information - information that leaks the inner layouts of royal palaces and military service details that could blowback on his family and country - for millions of dollars. "Leave him be"? He won't leave Britain be. He has no way to support his greedy lifestyle, or please his wife, unless it involves dragging Britain's name on the world stage. That includes, but is not limited to, the BRF. His and his wife's latest stunt, procuring titles for their kids, shows that they have no intention of stopping. We'll "leave him be" when he stops using our monarchy, our military and our country for his self-aggrandizement.

I don't think you get the picture at all, despite America's history of fighting a revolutionary war to avoid taxation without representation. As someone who pays taxes in the UK, I own a stake in that Firm called the British Royal Family. My taxes paid for that Greedy Markle's £32million, and she never did a damn thing for my country. I helped pay for their security, including the bodyguards she wails about.

I helped pay for Harry Mountbatten-Windsor to attend Eton and Sandhurst, while my own DC went to a state school. I helped pay for Harry's salary when he went to Afghanistan to play video games and then get a chance to shoot Afghan peasants from a helicopter, with security all around him. Where do you think Harry got the money to pay for Frogmore's upgrades? That too came indirectly from my pocket.

You want to be my Prince, you will bloody well serve me. You want to attend the coronation of my King, you'll bloody well serve me. You want ANYTHING from me, you'll bloody well give back in return. And then, and only then, will I "leave you be".

But you’re ok paying for the rest of them? Why? Because they “serve” you by waving and smiling and ribbon cutting? And by your own account, you’re willing to pay as long as the royals are “serving” you—which Harry was doing when he attended school and was in the military but now you take issue with it in retrospect because he’s no longer “serving” you?

We Americans don’t understand why anyone in the UK continues to pay taxes to support a family who believes they were ordained by God to be royalty. But they have somehow convinced all of you that they are “working” for you and thus deserve your hard-earned money.

Lovely. Your best response to that is to tell me what I'm allowed to expect, or what standards I should hold, in demanding service from working royals. Just wow. Do you pay taxes in the UK? Explain, in DETAIL, how Harry served me when he was getting Ds at Eton and mocking disabled matrons. Explain exactly how my financial investment in his top-tier education paid off for me and my kids. Go on, I'd love to hear your narcissistic hot take. (Actually, don't. If I want to burden myself with a narc's ideas of what my tax money is worth, I'll listen to a politician.)

You may want to reread the post and look up the definition of a narcissist.