Popular belief is pretty important when you're a figurehead. I don't think Charles is an idiot by any means, but he never came across as someone who could relate to his subjects. William seems like a pretty intelligent, stand up guy, plus he's someone people can at least remotely relate to.
I don't particularly care either way as I'm not a big Royal guy, but optics are important for a family that is basically only there for show.
I'm not going to swear by its historical accuracy, but The Crown makes a good case for the royals to follow established procedure and rules, even (and especially) in the face of popular support. If the precedent is set that popularity should be a factor in succession, that probably undermines the monarchy more over the long-term than a decade or two with a capable but not beloved monarch. The show also made the case that being thrown into the monarchy is pretty hard on a young family (although the realities of world travel in the mid-century were a factor there and there's likely lots of dramatic license in making it seem rough).
The Following User Says Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
__________________
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Reggie Dunlop For This Useful Post:
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Charles, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
As I understand it, Charles can take any of his given names as his regnal name. So, he can either be Charles III, Philip I/II, Arthur I, or George VII (I don't know if he'd be Philip I or II because the original King Philip was actually Philip II of Spain who took the title of King of England when he married Queen Mary but his claim died with her, and they had no children).
Honestly, if you had the option of becoming King Arthur, would you not take it? I know I would.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!
I mean, if I went around saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Last edited by #22; 01-05-2017 at 05:54 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to #22 For This Useful Post:
And their ancestors murdered their way to power. I don't care if William is nice and George is a cute baby. It's time to do away with this vestige of imperialism and genocide.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
contrary to popular belief, Prince Charles is extremely smart and intelligent. High IQ. Does a lot of charity work and runs the Royals 'businesses'. He is like the CEO. Also big climate change guy.
Other than his personal life, he's would be a qualified king.
Chuck is an advocate for alternative health nonsense.
The thing about the monarchy is it doesn't matter enough to get rid of it. In the UK it brings in a fair amount of tourism revenue and a sense of continuity in the head of state. It costs Canada nothing really. So what's the argument for going through a national debate and making changes to the constitution? What's the upside?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I have to ask the question, because it's really been on my mind since I was born, but what the **** do we revere these people and what do they really do for humanities benefits overall? With the millions in riches they have, you'd think they'd benefit humanity in some way given they're simply figureheads, but I really see them as useless ####s. I don't get this allure of adoring anyone who is famous just because of their bloodlines.
Because the royal family actually makes the UK money. Explanation in this video:
