I object to hereditary morarchy on grounds of equality of opportunity. Here is a public job which there can be no equality of opportunity to occupy. But I have two more specific points.
Charles breaks from the tradition of dull and nondescript monarchy which has been the benign and inoffensive pattern since George V. I can imagine George VI, the late Queen Mother, the Princess Royal or the Queen queuing in Tesco before racing back to the Palace to use their Tupperware. They would hardly stand out among the hordes of ageing middle-class shoppers. But Charles with his perfectly tailored suits and 50-years out of date accent is a social anachronism.
The other point is that he uses his position to express and promote idiosyncratic views on architecture and the environment (among other things) which would never make the local rag without the royal imprimatur.
He's a slightly able, well-meanng sort. I couldn't possibly dislike him. But I don't want Charles III R on my coins.
2007-06-20 09:40:08 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
While I can understand the Republican cause for abolishing the monarchy, I feel that since it is a relatively powerless position, we benefit as a state from missing out on yet another round of pointless mud slinging to elect a Head of State who would expect a certain amount of power such as in the US or the European States.
And as for the cost. A President - or whatever the new head of state would be called - would cost a whole heap of cash and then there's the cost of the election at periodic intervals. The cost of the Civil List is dropping every year while the cost of politicians incomes and the cost of elections are rising every year.
Although Charles is a bit of a throwback to an earlier age, his sons are more modern and I am sure that the legacy of Diana will be a change of attitude in the House Of Windsor regarding its role in society. Already her sons are speaking of humanitarian work and helping under-privileged people in this country and around the world. In their position they will bring attention to many causes and improve attitudes towards this former colonial power.
2007-06-20 10:45:01 · answer #1 · answered by andegar 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If he keeps his present day first call, he would be customary as Charles III. in spite of the undeniable fact that, that is been stated that Charles has stated he might decide for to reign as George VII in honour of his maternal grandfather, and to dodge association with the Stuart kings Charles I (who advance into beheaded) and Charles II (who had lived in exile), even with the reality that he has denied this publicly
2016-10-08 21:52:28 · answer #2 · answered by krepps 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like him and I think that he'll make a good king, providing that he doesn't have his opinions suppressed once he ascends the throne. I like the way that he sticks up for what he believes in. I don't agree with the monarchy either, but if we have to have them then I'd rather have Charles than that insipid sloane, William.
2007-06-20 09:49:10 · answer #3 · answered by sallybowles 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
That's Ok then, you won't have Charles III on 'your' coins, you'll have George VII because Charles is considered an unlucky title so he shall assume George. We won't have him for long, at the rate his mother is going he'll be rather old when he's coronated and it won't be long until William. We must be British and grin and bear it.
2007-06-20 10:14:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he is a little eccentric but harmless enough.On the whole I don't think any damage will be done to our country when he becomes King because after all the reigning monarch is only a figurehead.All the decisions are made by parliament.
2007-06-20 11:07:41 · answer #5 · answered by chezliz 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You can object all you like, Charles is still the heir to the throne. And he may decide to be George VII, in memory of his grandfather.
2007-06-20 10:03:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe he wishes to be known as King George for some reason.
2007-06-20 19:17:55 · answer #7 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't want him on my bin liner never mind my coins. He is a lying cheating adulterer and if he had any decency he would have slipped away quietly after his sordid affair like his uncle did before him. But no he was too keen on keeping the money and turning the crown into a mockery. Can you just see Camilla the rottweiller as queen - don't think so.
2007-06-20 09:46:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Some of us have bigger things to worry about mate.
Sheesh......
2007-06-20 09:47:42 · answer #9 · answered by CMH 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Is there a question in there?
2007-06-20 11:13:27 · answer #10 · answered by JerH1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋