King Charles III

[Beebo Brink]

He's off to a good start.

 

[Stora]

from a reply on Reddit so take it as you will

Unfortunately he doesn’t have a choice it’s a law of the country that the next 4 in line to the throne over the age of 18 are counsellors of state. Harry can’t be one as he doesn’t live in the UK

It would require Parliament to change the law and parliament isn’t sitting at the moment.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

from a reply on Reddit so take it as you will

What about Willilam?

 

[Casey Pelous]

from a reply on Reddit so take it as you will

I distinctly recall that it was impossible that Prince Charles could become King because the SCANDAL of CAMILLA and HARRUMPH, EGAD, THE RULES!

Yet, here we are. So, it seems these things are, perhaps, a bit more flexible than one might think.

Besides, it isn't like the Queen passing away was unexpected -- this could have been handled by Parliament when Andrew got stripped of ...erm ... whatever he got stripped of. (Okay, I don't really keep up on The Royals. To be honest, I still can't keep straight which ones moved to America in a huff.)

 

[Lexxi]

I'm obviously missing something (as normal, I suppose), but why would the 8th person in line be ahead of the second person in line? Yeah, sure, the kids can't be, and Harry is living outside the country, but is the Prince of Wales, William, currently living outside the country?

This is like Biden saying "yo, when I'm unconcious on an operating table? Nancy is up first", skipping right over the VP (2nd in line) to get to the Speaker of the house (3rd in line; or, if you wanted to jump down to 8th in line, it'd be Deb Haaland).

 

[detrius]

I distinctly recall that it was impossible that Prince Charles could become King because the SCANDAL of CAMILLA and HARRUMPH, EGAD, THE RULES!

Yet, here we are. So, it seems these things are, perhaps, a bit more flexible than one might think.

Besides, it isn't like the Queen passing away was unexpected -- this could have been handled by Parliament when Andrew got stripped of ...erm ... whatever he got stripped of. (Okay, I don't really keep up on The Royals. To be honest, I still can't keep straight which ones moved to America in a huff.)

You mean the parliament under Boris Johnson's leadership?

What forced him out of office again? I think there was some sort of scandal that he didn't handle properly.

 

[Sid]

He's off to a good start.

Is there a more established news source for that?

Added: Never mind, I found it myself.

Prince Andrew joins Queen procession amid concern over stand-in role

Position as counsellor of state under scrutiny as fresh reports about Jeffrey Epstein scandal emerge

www.theguardian.com

It seems that Lowkey, whomever that me be, is exaggerating.

King Charles does not appoint his counsellors of state, rather by law they must include the sovereign’s spouse and the next four people in the line of succession who are over the age of 21.

This means Princess Beatrice, the Duke of York’s daughter, is now a counsellor of state.

“Prince Andrew has no future as a senior working royal, although reports indicate he is not reconciled to this. However, a funeral obviously involves those who have the right to grieve as a family and because of this I think this aspect of it has been appropriately handled.”

 

[Beebo Brink]

Unfortunately he doesn’t have a choice it’s a law of the country that the next 4 in line to the throne over the age of 18 are counsellors of state.

It's not the legality of the appointment that caught my eye, so much as the optics of the situation. That Andrew is still so prominent and powerful, despite being a disgrace (and just generally not that bright or capable) brings into stark relief the questionable aspects of the monarchy. The line of succession is completely divorced from the actual appropriateness of the person filling that role. It's just mind-boggling.

 

[Sid]

It doesn't take an Andrew to make monarchies questionable, the mere fact that one becomes head of state by birthright is more than sufficient.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Trevor Noah takes no prisoners.

 

[Beebo Brink]

From a few years back:

Where Prince Charles Went Wrong

The Prince of Wales makes himself most unpopular when he tries hardest to be a worthy heir to the throne.

www.newyorker.com

His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, K.G., K.T., G.C.B., O.M., A.K., Q.S.O., P.C., A.D.C., Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, is a deeply unpopular man. Writers in both the conservative and the liberal press regularly refer to him as “a prat,” “a twit,” and “an idiot,” with no apparent fear of giving offense to their readership. In a 2016 poll, only a quarter of respondents said that they would like Charles to succeed the Queen, while more than half said they would prefer to see his son Prince William crowned instead.

How this enthusiastic and diligent person, who has frequently stated his desire to be a good, responsible monarch, managed to incur such opprobrium is the central question that the American writer Sally Bedell Smith sets out to answer in a new biography, “Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life” (Random House).... For anyone invested in the survival of the royals, Prince Charles presents a challenge, and Smith’s stance is very close to what one imagines a senior palace aide’s might be: Charles is far from ideal, but he is what we’ve got, and there can be no talk of mucking about with the law of succession and replacing him with his son. Once you start allowing the popular will to determine who wears the crown, people are liable to wonder why anyone is wearing a crown in the first place.

 

[Beebo Brink]

The burns just keep coming.

 

[Soen Eber]

Am I the only one who keeps forgetting his name?

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

I haven't quite forgotten that Charles was dead set against changing the law so that the oldest child of the monarch or heir goes ahead of all male siblings - even though, in British history, the women have generally done a better job, even when they still had rel power.

 

[Lexxi]

I haven't quite forgotten that Charles was dead set against changing the law so that the oldest child of the monarch or heir goes ahead of all male siblings - even though, in British history, the women have generally done a better job, even when they still had rel power.

That made me search to see if he had an older sister (I only know slightly more than the bare minimum (maybe 10% more than bare minimum) about the Royal Family). He doesn't. But it did allow to spot something I do not particularly care about one way or another but something I hadn't noticed before: all but one of Elizabeth II's 4 children has had a divorce (maybe less than the bare minimum if knowing Elizabeth II had had 4 kids is bare minimum).

 

[Sid]

all but one of Elizabeth II's 4 children has had a divorce (maybe less than the bare minimum if knowing Elizabeth II had had 4 kids is bare minimum).

The whole Church of England with the King/Queen as head of it instead of the pope started because a former king, Henry VIII (who else), could not get a divorce under the catholic church rules from Catherine of Aragon in 1534.
So divorces are not particularly new for the British royals.

 

[Lexxi]

The whole Church of England with the King/Queen as head of it instead of the pope started because a former king, Henry VIII (who else), could not get a divorce under the catholic church rules from Catherine of Aragon in 1534.
So divorces are not particularly new for the British royals.

Eh, he'd married his brother's wife. He was weird. He was also called, I forget exact title now, but something like Defender of the (Roman Catholic) Faith or something like that in 1521 before he became the head of his own church.
(when I said I knew the bare minimum (possibly more possibly less) I did not mean to imply that I didn't know about anything).

 

[Sid]

I was just giving some background information for readers here who know very little about European History. I for instance do not know very much about the American history before 1492. Columbus is most of the time the starting point in our schoolbooks about Northern America.

My post was totally not with the intention to even remotely insinuate that you know nothing, why should I?

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I was just giving some background information for readers here who know very little about European History. I for instance do not know very much about the American history before 1492. Columbus is most of the time the starting point in our schoolbooks about Northern America. The life of Henry VII has also been spun in movies, song and television, quite often, as well.

My post was totally not with the intention to even remotely insinuate that you know nothing, why should I?

We do tend to know about Henry VIII, what with all of the beheadings, because he blamed the women for not being able to bear him a son, or out of pure malice to ditch one for the other, the separation from the Catholic church and creation of the Church of England, with himself as its head, of course. The story of Henry VIII has, of course, also been spun many times in movies, song and even television series.

Our education tends to be on the Eurocentric side at the high school level, particularly as it relates to the two world wars. In college, we are free to pursue a deeper level of knowledge. I took medieval history, which of course was quite Eurocentric, but it was so long ago that I doubt I could recite half of what I learned. At a certain point, it was a bit like the stories in the bible of so and so begat bla bla, in terms of lines of succession.

While learning rudimentary information about Europe we tend to be taught very little about the rest of the world, of places such as Africa (other than relates to slavery), Australia, China, Japan, etc... though we learn some basics as it relates to either communism or once, again it relates to the world wars.



ETA: I have also been to the Tower of London, location of Anne Boleyn imprisonment and beheading.

 

[Soen Eber]

That is why we have podcasts. Hit the right ones [list coming soon, once I've grabbed my tablet and found time for it] and you'll get sucked into all the decent history podcasts because the casters keep cross-promoting each other.