So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look in the mirror, dear.

[Anonymous]

I suspect that he will do well. In any case. He's king until he dies. I wish him well.

[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".

All. Of. This.

[Anonymous]

The real flap about to happen is Camilla dropping the consort from her title and going by Queen Camilla instead of Queen Consort Camilla. The Queen did not want this happen despite Charles hounding her for years. She specifically compromised to do Queen Consort and now he’s going to throw that aside.

It’s been well documented that he didn’t want to give Edward the DOE title. He probably gave it grudgingly so Edward and Sophie would be supportive when he pulls the consort out f Camilla’s title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real flap about to happen is Camilla dropping the consort from her title and going by Queen Camilla instead of Queen Consort Camilla. The Queen did not want this happen despite Charles hounding her for years. She specifically compromised to do Queen Consort and now he’s going to throw that aside.

It’s been well documented that he didn’t want to give Edward the DOE title. He probably gave it grudgingly so Edward and Sophie would be supportive when he pulls the consort out f Camilla’s title.

Yes I was surprised when Edward got the dukedom...Charles was envious of him for years and wanted to the dukedom of Edinburgh to one of his grandkids instead. (I'm glad Edward got it though - its what the late Queen wanted for him, and he comes off as far less arrogant than Charles).

Makes sense if Charles only did this to secure familial support for Camilla. Good insight.

Very sad for Princess Diana and the Queen. They've been replaced by a very inferior woman.

[Anonymous]

I can imagine Princess Diana and the Queen looking down on the coronation of Camilla in disgust, sharing a ghostly drink and finally agreeing that Charles does suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real flap about to happen is Camilla dropping the consort from her title and going by Queen Camilla instead of Queen Consort Camilla. The Queen did not want this happen despite Charles hounding her for years. She specifically compromised to do Queen Consort and now he’s going to throw that aside.

It’s been well documented that he didn’t want to give Edward the DOE title. He probably gave it grudgingly so Edward and Sophie would be supportive when he pulls the consort out f Camilla’s title.

We all know she is not Queen Regent. Much ado about nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can imagine Princess Diana and the Queen looking down on the coronation of Camilla in disgust, sharing a ghostly drink and finally agreeing that Charles does suck.

Doubt they are wasting their time with earthly matters in heaven but enjoy your fantasies.

[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.

+1

There's a reason why the Queen's reign was popular and it's partly because the Queen conducted herself very well and was neither weak nor self-indulgent. (Although I wouldn't have blamed her if she had divorced Philip - he was cheating on her and he was jealous of her position, and she put up with it in part because she didn't want the scandal of divorce.)

It's hard to understand how to maintain a monarchy these days. It's always been kind of toxic, and they'll always have a weird relationship with the Press, and they have lost clout steadily since WWII. Charles being kind of weak and annoying doesn't help. Being married to his mistress doesn't help either. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can imagine Princess Diana and the Queen looking down on the coronation of Camilla in disgust, sharing a ghostly drink and finally agreeing that Charles does suck.

Doubt they are wasting their time with earthly matters in heaven but enjoy your fantasies.

Sharing a drink?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can imagine Princess Diana and the Queen looking down on the coronation of Camilla in disgust, sharing a ghostly drink and finally agreeing that Charles does suck.

Doubt they are wasting their time with earthly matters in heaven but enjoy your fantasies.

Yes, let's hear it for DCUM's psychic on what dead royals can or can't do.

[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 know they really don't care, right?

[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.

Same, bro.

[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.

Same, bro.

“Weak” king vs.? There’s no power required.

[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.

If we go by UK polls, which is what matters, Princess Anne is winning: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11631215/Princess-Anne-popular-member-Royal-Family-new-poll-finds.html