2Kviews
Hey Pandas, How Do You Feel About Prince Charles, Now Becoming King Charles? (Closed)
Prince Charles is officially King of England, with Camilla as Queen consort, due to the unfortunate passing of Queen Elizabeth II, may she rest in peace. How do you feel about Charles becoming the next monarch?
This post may include affiliate links.
I am still not convinced a man can do the job of Queen.
Truth? I think he and his wife are horrible, out-of-touch-with-reality AHs & an embarrasment.
Yup. He will never have what his mother had- grace and dignity. Knowing all the shenanigans he did in his younger years and the way he treated his ex- wife….
I understand that rules are very important to them and he has been waiting for this for decades, but still believe it would have been wiser to give it to William, for a longer reign.
Problem is, the rule of succession doesn't work that way. He can't just "give" it to William. He'd have to take the throne, and then abdicate the throne, and then it would go to the next person in line of succession.
I was in the pub when the King gave his speech, a mixed crowd of folk, all silent and listening, at the end he got a round of applause and a cheer. He will be fine in the role, he will do it differently, it's his moment he's been in waiting for 50 years. Just looking at the packed sombre respectful scenes in Edinburgh today, it looks like Scotland has come out in force to pay respect en masse for the Queen and the new King.
Funniest and truest meme I have seen said something to the effect of "they are letting a man be queen?!?" And that sums it up well for me - I've always admired the Queen, and since she has been the Queen my whole life I simply can't get my head around a King. Especially given how much I admired Diana. I feel like it would have been an easier transition to accept William as King, and allows Charles to continue to pursue his passions as he has very affectively been doing.
I wish the king and his subjects the best, but am glad not to be one of those subjects.
I'm from the US, so from a historical point of view, I just find it all fascinating. There are several surviving Monarchies around the world, but very few of them really have power anymore. It's all since been turned over to the government/people. It's actually hard to find any coverage of the others, unless the House of Saud does something, because the UK always takes the spotlight, aka the "British Empire". I agree in wishing everyone the best,
I know that I shouldn't judge his capability of being king based off of this, but I still have a grudge against him for divorcing Princess Diana.
In some ways, if the monarch wasn't a totally powerless symbolic thing, it would have been good for this country to have someone committed to environmental / green issues, but sadly by the look of it, his ascension to the throne coincides with us being lumped with one of the most environmentally unfriendly governments in UK history. Now, if Charlie could lop Rees-Mogg's head off, we might get somewhere!
Totally agree with this comment. Charles did say some time ago he wouldn't rock the boat once he became king, which is a shame. After covid lockdown ended we were promised a green recovery but instead we are taking massive steps backwards, with talk of reopening coal mines, fracking and importing gas from Australia!
i have mixed feelings regarding charles taking the throne. some of them, i realize, are based in tradition which is even kind of crazy for me because i do realize that the monarchy needs to progress along with society. that being said, here we go:
again, based in tradition, there was a time when a divorced person was not received at court. it was one of the reasons that edward abdicated the throne. charles is divorced as is camilla. also, their long relationship has been known about before, during and after the divorces. in light of this protocol it does not sit comfortably with me. but, that is only on a traditional basis.
the more pragmatic reason i feel that charles should not sit on the throne is the fact that he is about 73 yrs of age. even with the longevity of his gene pool it seems that he will reign no more than 15+ years. every time the monarchy changes there is a large financial cost due to the pomp and ceremony associated with it, along with changes in the currency, flags, etc. it would be better if prior to the coronation charles would abdicate for his son, william, who would be able to have a long reign, barring illness/accident. it would allow for a continuity for the people as well. it would also be a signal to the people by charles that he is concerned for the people of the nation rather than just having the ability to say he was king.
finally, and i realize this has little to no bearing on the question, i find it difficult to acknowledge camilla as queen consort. i find her to be a vapid individual who is self centered and is ill prepared to take on the duties and responsibilities of the position with integrity.
Why was the husband of the Queen not a consort King as is Camilla now a consort Queen ?
Charles The First was beheaded by his own people. Charles The Second ruled during plague and the Great Fire of London. Hopefully Charles The Third will break the tradition.
I think the only reason to keep the monarchy around was to keep the Queen's streak going. Now that she's out of the picture, it's time to stop.
I used to be staunchly anti-royalist, (Check out Bob Vylan) but what would abolishing the royal family actually achieve? They are diplomats first and foremost, and still bring a lot of income into the UK. I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them, but I accept their importance.
I feel that King Charles will bring a breath of fresh air to the modern monarchy.
Charles is always being lambasted for having opinions on the environment (proven to be the truth) and architecture (modern buildings are often ugly concrete things). The good work he has done with the Prince's Trust which has helped so many young people (including, I believe Idris Elba, the actor) has been deliberately swept under the carpet by the media because the more scandal they can dig up, the more papers they can sell.
Considering the cost of maintaining this antiquated dysfunctional family, people should be throwing stones instead of flowers. Let this be the end of the line. Rest in peace.
It's really not going to make any real difference to my life. One thing I will say is that we should have a rule that a monarch should rule for a limited amount of time. I think the way we do it presently means that our monarch is always really old and any new coronation of a king or queen is always marred by the previous ones death. The queen should have abdicate in the 90's and I think our new king should be making way for William now. That's just my opinion.
Is Charles a real person or a store mannequin?
I don't like Charles. the Throne should have went to William
I agree. I am interested to see how Charles will act now he is King. He is a nature lover and artist. I don't think he will be a good leader, but it will be interesting to see what he does.
When EIIR became Queen, the center of the world was the North Atlantic. Now it's shifted to the Pacific, and the UK is more isolated than it's been in decades. I think Charles will have a hard time keeping the Commonwealth together.
Saw a documentary recently, that noted parliamentary democracies tended to have greater variety of representation, and "better government" that republics. Most PD's have multiple parties instead of two, and there is less "entrenched power blocks". They couldn't really explain the reasons, but I live in a PD and next door to a republic whose politics absolutely CANNOT be ignored, I would suggest that having a person whose sole real authority is the ability to basically fire the government and force an election keeps the shitheads in line. Since they cannot be sold to the highest bidder, they act as an honest check on the senior officials.
In a republic, such as our southerly neighbour, there is no one to roll up the newspaper and smack them on the snout yelling "bag doggies!"
I never thought he would ever be king. I thought it would have been King William.
Never been a royalist to be honest. There are pros and cons to having a monarchy but one pro must be that at least there is someone the Prime Minister has to answer to. God help us if our only head of state was a president.
The Queen was a product of her time, unaccessible to most and uncontroversial. That's not to say the public didn't love her of course, anyone can see the effect she had on the nation. But now is a different time and so a new style of monarchy is needed. William would have been perfect but I think Charles could be ok.
Really enjoyed the queen in all of her movies and TV shows. Not sure will watch the spinoffs with Charles.
As a thirty-something-year-old American, Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II being the only British monarch whose reign I have witnessed so far was and remains remarkable! She reminds me very much of my late maternal grandmother, as they were born a year apart and had very similar beliefs and personalities:
-both loved God and their families dearly, which anyone who knew them even casually or observed them even once, publicly or privately, could see clearly.
-both held their beliefs close to their hearts
-both lived through the Great Depression and World War II, etc., surviving on hard work and determination to do what they knew they had to do to live as selflessly and reasonably as possible.
-both knew deep love and deep loss, both ready to commend those departed and here alike to God and trust Him with their relationships with those they loved altogether!
-Both had a deep love for nature and reverence for God's handiwork in that respect. HRH Queen Elizabeth, I see, loved Corgis and Dorgis as my grandmother loved cardinals: they were evidence of God's goodness and a pleasure to have in one's surroundings!
-Both led their families by example with the invaluable support and co-leadership of their respective husbands, always ready to respect his leadership. Both handled widowhood with remarkable grace also.
-Both died peacefully, prepared to see the Lord whenever He was ready to bring them Home to Him, by all accounts.
I pray His Majesty King Charles III will lead his family and nation in much the same way his mother and my grandmother led their loved ones. May God be with all who grieve Her Royal Highness' passing and take comfort in knowing she is with God and all who went Home before her, just as my family did when my grandmother passed almost four years ago.
Charles is not 'King of England'. He is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and about 14 other realms. Not one of his titles is 'King of England'.
I found this: Charles III has now ascended as king of England, but his constitutional rule extends far beyond the small, historic island. King Charles is now also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries -- the majority of which are former colonies of the British Empire.
Load More Replies...
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠋⠉⠉⠉⠉⠙⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡶⠞⠛⠉⠉⠉⠙⠳⣦⡀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⡧⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠹⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⢛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠷⠾⢶⡄⠀⠀⠈⢷⡹⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣁⣀⣤⠞⠁⢀⣴⠞⠉⢿⣜⣀⣀⣤⡴⠾⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⢀⣴⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠿⠿⠛⠋⠛⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣷⣄⣠⣤⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣴⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠟⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⡾⢛⣿⣉⣁⣀⣠⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⠿⠿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠉⠉⠻⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⣴⣶⣿⣯⣵⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠟⠛⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣷⣶⢶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠋⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣴⣶ ⣠⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠋⠉⣀⣀⣤⣬⣿⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣾⣿⣿⠿⠿⠟⠛⠋⠉
Charles is not 'King of England'. He is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and about 14 other realms. Not one of his titles is 'King of England'.
I found this: Charles III has now ascended as king of England, but his constitutional rule extends far beyond the small, historic island. King Charles is now also the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries -- the majority of which are former colonies of the British Empire.
Load More Replies... ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠋⠉⠉⠉⠉⠙⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡶⠞⠛⠉⠉⠉⠙⠳⣦⡀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⡧⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠹⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⢛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠷⠾⢶⡄⠀⠀⠈⢷⡹⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⠟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣁⣀⣤⠞⠁⢀⣴⠞⠉⢿⣜⣀⣀⣤⡴⠾⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⢀⣴⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⠿⠿⠛⠋⠛⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣷⣄⣠⣤⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣴⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠟⠛⠋⠉⠉⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⡾⢛⣿⣉⣁⣀⣠⣠⣤⣴⣶⣶⠿⠿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠉⠉⠻⣦⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⣴⣶⣿⣯⣵⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠟⠛⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣷⣶⢶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠋⠀⠀⣀⣀⣤⣤⣴⣶ ⣠⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠋⠉⣀⣀⣤⣬⣿⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣾⣿⣿⠿⠿⠟⠛⠋⠉
