UKH

I hope he does well but it will a tough act to follow.  I thought his speech just now was good - he is perhaps a better communicator than Queen was.

I was surprised to see him shaking hands outside the Buckingham Palace so perhaps we’re about to see a new style of monarch. His speech was very different to what we’ve been used to and perhaps has learned much from his son. 

Trouble is, I can't hear him called King Charles without my mind automatically adding the word 'spaniel'.

My mental processes have no sense of decorum.

T.

Yes, I can't detach the spaniel from the name.

Least he’s not a nonce. 

Do you have a cavalier attitude then?

I never made this connection.

I was happy.

Now I can't un-hear it.

Curse you!!!!!

I've always liked Charles; never been quite sure what a lot of people have against him. I think he'll be a good king though he does have a desperately hard act to follow. He'll never win over the haters but I wish him well.

I think the choice of "Charles" is a reconciliation thing as the last Charles was a Stuart. Also it's an inclusive thing with regard to Scotland. 

It's a History thing.

Maybe.

However it remains that whether Charles is a good King or not will likely be a bone of contention.

Don't comment in the pub...

I caught the bit where he talks of his love for Harry and Meghan. That's a pretty clear message, and I do wonder if the right wing press who profess to support the monarchy will respect his wishes and drop their vendetta? Or maybe the Tory party could call off their attack dogs.... if they do have any control over them?

It's also his name!

The utterly shameless corruption is a bit of an issue for me, even though I probably agree with him on a few big issues. Plus the whole divine right bollocks.

I recall that Edward VII was disliked as Prince but stepped up when he became King not unlike Henry V

I think that issue was dealt with at the end of the reign of the first Charles. 

Checks notes. Mother dies, made King. I know it’s not quite the divine right of Kings as interpreted up to the interregnum, but it’s close enough.

Nothing like divine right. Just our constitution.

Note for agenda:

Written non-monarchistic constitution.

That would sort many problems as far as I'm concerned.

Would it, though? 

A glance across the Atlantic to some former subjects who took that approach suggests it wouldn’t necessarily be a panacea 

Listen to the proclamations.

On what criteria would we judge "good king" or "bad king" in this day and age?

They're not supposed to have a role in running the country any more, so the only thing I can think of is the example they set?

He's an advocate for doing something about the climate - but I assume will continue to live in multiple castles and fly around by private jet.

He's got a paedo in the family who hasn't been shunned, and he married a virgin to breed with for appearance sake whilst in a stable (but clandestine) long term relationship with someone else. 

He's happy to accept charitable donations from influential people in states with poor human rights records - transferred in cash by the suitcase - and he lobbied Tony Blair to scrap the ban on chasing animals around the countryside, then watching them ripped to pieces by dogs for "sport".

Certainly doesn't come across as someone I would encourage my young nieces and nephews to look up to.

If he does the figurehead role half as well as his mother then I think he will be a good king.

Andrew may be many things but there has never been any suggestion that he is a paedophile.

And he has been shunned in many ways.

If he does the figurehead role half as well as his mother then I think he will be a good king.

Andrew may be many things bit there has never been any suggestion that he is a paedophile.

And he has been shunned in many ways.

Eh? He was good friends with a convicted paedophile sex trafficker, was accused of statutory rape of a minor introduced to him by said convicted paedophile sex trafficker, paid millions to settle the case... But there's no suggestion he's a paedophile rapist?

Only when it became absolutely overwhelming what a mess he had created and mostly due to outside pressure eg the regiments feeding back they really wanted someone else as their honorary colonel.

The slowness of action made Johnson look quick and keen to crack down on poor behaviour.

Paedeophilia is kids of less than 12 or so years (too lazy to look up the exact legal definition). Whereas Virginia Giuffre was 17.

Im hoping he's going to be a decent king. He was certainly ahead of his time where the environment was concerned,  when everyone at the time was calling him nutty.

I was watching a bbc documentary earlier. Great fact: Charles was the first Royal to be educated - did I understand that correctly? 

The stories say she was 17 (and he was 40), which means however troubling and unsavory the encounter was and the shadow that casts on his character, he is not a paedophile.

He was the first to go to actual school. Queen Elizabeth II was certainly educated, but that was done by the royal equivalent of 'home schooling.'

I think you need to look up the definition of a paedophile.

Paedpohilia is being sexually attracted to prepubescent children. 

Imagine having your mum die and the having to have to go through all this! No thank you 

He gained respect (IMO) when he came out with that "monstrous carbuncle" comment about the proposed extension to the National Gallery many years ago - he was right.

He doesn't get everything right but I think his heart's in the right place.

From what I recall, Virginia G, was hardly a rape victim, and some third parties commented that she was encouraging other teenage girls to join in the entourage. Remember that if the alleged event had happened in the UK, Virginia G would have not been able to bring any case, as she was above the age of 16 years of age.

At the time possibly, the law is different now.

Aside from hearing King Charles Spaniel, has anyone noticed that when people say “King Charles” it sounds like they are saying “f@cking Charles” ?

Right, understood.

Short comedy sketch that kind of related  youtube.com/watch?v=jcXK-sPqsL0& 

Well see my thread elsewhere concerning my machinations of corruption of the name Charles III.

I know that people are being nauseous about him already. I could imagine Charles himself cringing if he heard one woman yesterday who said (I paraphrase somewhat); "I quite like Charlie, he seems to be a good chap, that Charlie"; which I take is a little presumptuous (?).

Oh yes! Ha ha ha

He's too bloody old. Why are we having a new monarch in their mid 70s? All this faff, changing faces on stamps and money, yadda yadda yadda, and he'll probably be dead inside a decade and we get to do it all again.

There is an assumed apostrophe: King Charles becoming 'king Charles.  Unfortunate, but there you go.  I doubt he cares, he's the 'king King.

T.

Old he may be, but his mum has just died at 96 and his dad was almost 100 when he died. Charles will probably be around for a while yet. A good deal longer than most medieval monarchs.

I don't mind as long as we can have a new national anthem, PLEASE!!!

But not Billy Connelly's suggestion, PLEASE!!

youtube.com/watch?v=i9nnnM-__JQ&

Brilliant! Definitely this is the winner! 😀

I like God Save the King. What's wrong with it? Seems suitably dignified to me.

It's a frightful dirge. I like the Italian one best.

It's a frightful dirge. I like Billy Connolly's suggestion.

Well it's slow (best, like all the most moving national anthems when played particularly slowly). You say dirge, I say dignified. It's not the best national anthem (Wales, Russia, Germany, US and Scotland with Flower of Scotland (when done slowly) certainly beat it, but there are so many awful lightweight jolly ditties which it beats hands down.

I'm with you on jolly ditties, the Archers tune being one.

It's not just that our current national anthem is a very dull tune, it is that it puts God front and centre. God is mentioned 3 times in 8 lines of the first verse alone. I can go weeks without doing so.

There is no God. Can't we find a rallying cry that is stirring without being, at its base, false.

The current one is new... 🙄

But the current anthem does have one advantage - it already has a verse available in case Scotland goes independent.

It’s bloody awful. 

Just seen and heard it played and sung in Westminster Hall after the King's address to parliament. Powerful and moving. 

For pageantry occasions having a direct connection to royalty then it's ideal.
For other occasions such as sporting events then it does come across as bit of a dirge and with the words being a bit divisive. 

I disagree with the dirge bit. Anyway, if people really don't like it at sporting events and so on, maybe a good compromise would be to have an alternative for less directly royal and constituional functions. Flower of Scotland works really well in Scotland since it was introduced. Maybe Jerusalem in England?

I think it's hard to sing well and so often becomes a dirge. I see Boris somehow managed to make the Westminster Hall clip centre on him.

Anything can be done badly!

The Irish lady reading the news this weekend called him "king Charles the turd"

I thought that was a bit strong

There's a lot of confusion about what the monarch's role actually is. That needs to be properly defined before attributing good or bad to the performance of it.

My first issue is that the monarchy is allegedly a constitutional monarchy with the monarch being a check on the executive, given that this check was last exercised by Queen Anne I'm not entirely convinced it still actually exists. It is however a convenient fiction for the executive (ie the PM) to exercise absolute power until his party rebels against him or her. It is high time we actually had a constitutional system that embraced a functional democracy with proper checks and balances. 

My second issue is that the monarchy is the bedrock on which the class system is perpetuated in England in particular (not so much Scotland). This is the cancer that is wrecking the modernisation of the UK socially, politically and commercially. 

I thought our late Queen played the hand she was dealt well and respected her. With the exception of HRH Anne I reckon the rest of the family are a bunch of misfits with many less than endearing qualities. 

As a national anthem, it's not great for people like me, who love their homeland but not their monarch. Secondly, the birthplace of Shakespeare and Milton deserves far more inspirational rhetoric. Finally, I'd prefer an anthem that included the name of the nation in the verse that actually gets sung.

Offensive to atheist republicans perhaps? 

But apparently they aren’t allowed to express their views.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/12/anti-monarchy-protester-cha...

I wouldn’t condone anyone expressing such views amongst people mourning for the Queen though.

Quiet protest now allowed.

https://mobile.twitter.com/theipaper/status/1569993033579372545

All fair points, but I suppose the words simply reflect the system.

Anyway, when defending the anthem I was thinking entirely of the tune.

then there is the inability to squeeze his own toothpaste, having someone iron his shoelaces, hold his pisspot when giving a urine sample and I think he was disgruntled that he was supposed to be the only Prince of Wales without a mistress, the wife of a brother officer.

But at least there are now positions available for all those jobs.

As for why he is King, it is because people believe that there is a supernatural being who interferes in the affairs of men and anointed him king on the death of his mother. 

What I have find unreal is still the constitutional connections with Canada ( in particular), Aus and NZ. Hardly backward and socially repressive countries. I expect that will change dramatically over the next couple of years, and about time to.Never understood why that had not changed before now. probably got other priorities though.

A fair summation of Anne and the other Royals . I do laugh at her character in the comedy, the Windsors.