u can't b serious, Charles would make a good king of england.?

Answer 1

I apologize for the ignorant liberals in America who decided to use this question to bash our president when it has nothing to do with our President, it has everything to do with Charles and whether he would be a good King.

I would like you to know not everyone in America is as ignorant as these liberals who are basically ruining our country with their extremist ideas.

I also apologize for posting this as it also has nothing to do with Prince Charles becoming the King.

Answer 2

Charles is vilified because he is an eccentric. However, though he has his faults he is basically a kind man and cares deeply for this country. Look at the good the Prince's Trust has done. Don't believe everything that you read in the Republican Murdoch Press or the ridiculous stories about him which were generated by the sainted Princess Diana. Perhaps many of you are too young to remember that he was popular before he married Diana.

Please try and be fair. There are always two sides to every argument.

Answer 3

Charles has been training for the job for 60 years. As his mother could last another twenty years if she follows her mother, it is unlikely that Charles's rule will be for very long. Even so, if he is still alive when the Queen dies, he deserves his time as King. He will make an excellent king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and various other countries that retain the monarchy.

If we have to have a King (I would rather Australia was a republic), I have no problem with Charles and his Queen, Camilla.

Answer 4

"Good" is fairly subjective.
Personally, I think he would make an "interesting" monarch since he has made it clear on a number of occasions that he would like to be more involved in issues that help the average Briton in parliament.
Needless to say this has brought the main political parties out in a cold sweat.

As others have pointed out, he did far more charitable work than Diana ever did, but he only got grief for it.
Camilla would not be queen, as she herself has said, but would be the consort as Prince Philip is to the Queen.

I think "King Charles" (or George VII as he will probably take as his name, in tribute to his grandfather) will be a progressive monarch and be a good lead into his son, William, probably a more popular choice,sadly.

Answer 5

Wether he would make a good King or not is irrelevant. The fact is unless other events take place he will be the future King. One thing is for certain I don't think you will ever rise to that title, nor will most people in this country.

Answer 6

the monarchy as figureheads and Charles as I'm a bit bias because my mother was born same day and married a Spenser so.
but hes human he done more for charity than Di and allot of other rich and famous yet only gets grief.
they do have a privileged life but that comes at a price what privacy do they actually have with guards courtiers secretaries and other staff always around.
good king or not id still sooner my life from his full of ceremony

Answer 7

Sorry to be pedantic. He wouldn't be King of England. Wales, Ireland, Scotland and myriad other places would have to tolerate his eccentricities too. I agree the the monarch does not seem to do much but since we are currently subject (sic) to a monarchy then Queen Elizabeth II has always been dignified and not an individual the country should be ashamed of. Charlie? Waste of space, like his daddy.

Answer 8

Charitable works, cares about the ecology, proper training - certainly more than W can say. He'd be a better king - even if the title were not titular - than most of the presidents elected into office.

Answer 9

And what in the world would he accomplish while the king of england? He hasn't made a name for himself so far. Come on, now.

Answer 10

I've never said any such ridiculous thing - Charlie Chumpface wouldn't even make a good king in a pack of playing cards!