Mizmo
Well-known Member
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
Abolish The British Monarchy?
- Thread starter Chet
- Start date
fuzzybuddy
SF VIP
- Location
- The Sticks, Northeast PA.
The British monarchy isn't a necessity to the governing of the UK. It could exist without the monarchy. So, there is always a threat of removing the monarchy. In the era of QE II, there's little incentive to get rid of the monarchy. But since she led such a long life, that will set up a succession of old men to the throne. The next three Kings are already born. Whether that has any effect on keeping the monarchy, I don't know, and I won't be here to find out.
Jules
SF VIP
King Charles is having a few rough moments.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11206531/King-Charles-III-awkward-moment-pen.html
He probably needs a good sleep. Not an easy job being in the spotlight and mourning the loss of his mother at the same time. Camila is very calm and polished.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11206531/King-Charles-III-awkward-moment-pen.html
He probably needs a good sleep. Not an easy job being in the spotlight and mourning the loss of his mother at the same time. Camila is very calm and polished.
horseless carriage
Well-known Member
On September 8 2022, King Charles III ascended to the throne. King Charles III could have chosen one of his other names: Philip, Arthur or George but has decided to remain Charles. Some have lauded this decision for keeping it simple, although given the history of the two previous King Charles', one might have forgiven him if he had decided to sidestep it.
Charles I, born in 1600, was the second son of King James VI. He became heir after the death of his older brother, Henry. He ascended to the throne in 1625. Charles I’s policies were frequently unpopular with both his subjects and the parliament. His religious policies were considered too sympathetic to Roman Catholicism, and he levied taxes without parliamentary consent. Tensions between his supporters, known as Cavaliers, and parliamentary supporters, known as Roundheads, led to the English Civil War. He was defeated in 1645, imprisoned, convicted of high treason, and executed by beheading in 1649. The country became a republic, and the monarchy was abolished, albeit only for just 11 years.
Although initially proclaimed as king by the Scottish parliament after his father’s execution, Charles II (born in 1630) did not reign until 1660. He lived in exile in Europe until the monarchy was restored and he was invited to return to England. Relations between the new monarch and the parliament were not smooth. Charles II dissolved parliament, ruling without it for the final four years of his reign before his death in 1685. Political tensions notwithstanding, Charles II was a more popular king than his father. He was known as the “merry monarch” and presided over a lively and hedonistic court. He had at least 12 illegitimate children by mistresses, but left no legitimate heir. He was succeeded by his brother, James II of England. (James VII of Scotland.)
King Charles III starts his reign less popular than both his predecessor and his heir, Prince William. Affection for Queen Elizabeth II is not the sole reason republican debates have faltered in the past, but an unpopular monarch could be leveraged to raise questions about the institution as a whole. In a political and economic climate where the meaning and expense of the monarchy is subject to debate, taking on a regnal name with a legacy of abolished (and restored) monarchy might be tempting fate.
Charles I, born in 1600, was the second son of King James VI. He became heir after the death of his older brother, Henry. He ascended to the throne in 1625. Charles I’s policies were frequently unpopular with both his subjects and the parliament. His religious policies were considered too sympathetic to Roman Catholicism, and he levied taxes without parliamentary consent. Tensions between his supporters, known as Cavaliers, and parliamentary supporters, known as Roundheads, led to the English Civil War. He was defeated in 1645, imprisoned, convicted of high treason, and executed by beheading in 1649. The country became a republic, and the monarchy was abolished, albeit only for just 11 years.
Although initially proclaimed as king by the Scottish parliament after his father’s execution, Charles II (born in 1630) did not reign until 1660. He lived in exile in Europe until the monarchy was restored and he was invited to return to England. Relations between the new monarch and the parliament were not smooth. Charles II dissolved parliament, ruling without it for the final four years of his reign before his death in 1685. Political tensions notwithstanding, Charles II was a more popular king than his father. He was known as the “merry monarch” and presided over a lively and hedonistic court. He had at least 12 illegitimate children by mistresses, but left no legitimate heir. He was succeeded by his brother, James II of England. (James VII of Scotland.)
King Charles III starts his reign less popular than both his predecessor and his heir, Prince William. Affection for Queen Elizabeth II is not the sole reason republican debates have faltered in the past, but an unpopular monarch could be leveraged to raise questions about the institution as a whole. In a political and economic climate where the meaning and expense of the monarchy is subject to debate, taking on a regnal name with a legacy of abolished (and restored) monarchy might be tempting fate.
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
Sorry HC, I don't agree that Charles is unpopular.. I believe he's been roundly welcomed by the populace.. into the role right from Day one... more surprisingly, his Queen Consort too..
horseless carriage
Well-known Member
Whilst I don't hide my preference for a republic, I certainly know that my views are a minority, it is what it is. Before posting about Charles' popularity I did a bit of research and found that Charles is most popular with Baby Boomers (53% like him), he lags behind among Millennials (43%) and those in Generation X (47%). A crumb of comfort for the king is that he does rate above all of his siblings.
You can see from You Gov where I found out about the figures. Sorry if my post rubbed you up the wrong way, I like to think that I can support a republican view without going in for the immature monarchy bashing.
Packerjohn
Packerjohn
- Location
- Canada
Exactly, the queen is barely cold and not yet in the ground and the stupid media is giving us all this crap about what Charles will do and what changes he will make. Then the crazy stories about getting rid of the Commonwealth and how evil the empire was. Give it a rest. I really hate it when the media is giving us news that has not yet happened.
As a true Canuck, born, raised, educated and lived all my life in this country, I hope we continue with the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think it is pretty good. Get rid of it and what will we have? A bunch of people standing around starring at their smartphones with no history, no culture and perhaps just downloading game apps? Our history may not be perfect but it is our history and I am proud of it: Samuel de Champlain, the Order of Good Cheer, Simon Fraser, Alexander McKennzie, General Wolfe, General Montcalm, John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfred Laurier, Louis Riel, World War I, World War II, Lester Pearson and yes, even Pierre Trudeau with that red flower on his lapel. Some of these people were not perfect but they lived and they existed; right or wrong. Pouring red paint over their statues shows that you lack education and you lack understanding what history means.
Last edited:
Laurie
Senior Member
- Location
- Kingdom of Fife
Mind your own damn business!
Been There
Well-known Member
- Location
- Florida
Talk about pouring red pant over statues, as you may have witnessed during the U.S. riots of 2020, many of our younger generation went one better. They tore the statues down, or somehow degraded them. They continue to detest our country's history. But, I understand. Most of them do as they are taught. Our colleges, which many have gone woke, continue to encourage such behavior. With the media and the current political administration on their side, they act without impunity. They have no fear of consequences. Once we remove our history, we have no country. The youngsters just coming up will wonder who these people were, but maybe that won't be a problem because maybe our history may also no longer be taught in the classroom. There is not enough time to teach about history. The teachers need that time to teach about diversity, gender ID and things that we never dreamed would be taught during our time. Things that are not what schools were designed to teach.
I think about the hundreds of thousands of men and women that fought in wars for our freedoms. All of a sudden, none of that seems to matter anymore. Had it not been for those brave men and women that fought in our wars, these numbskulls wouldn't even have the freedom to do the things that they have done. Maybe they should try doing that in Red Square.
Paladin1950
Still love 50's & 60's music!
- Location
- Mohawk Valley, NY
During my 3 visits to London in the 80's, I was quite shocked at the number of British citizens that I met that didn't care about the Royal Family or what they were up to.
There was one of those "person on the street" interviews with British citizens, after Charles became king. One lady gave Charles what is referred to as a backhanded compliment, She said something along the lines of, "I wish Charles all the best with his very first job at age 73!"
There was one of those "person on the street" interviews with British citizens, after Charles became king. One lady gave Charles what is referred to as a backhanded compliment, She said something along the lines of, "I wish Charles all the best with his very first job at age 73!"