Charles the Third, by the Grace of God, Defender of the Faith
November 20, 2014 12:28 PM   Subscribe

 
I wish I could become king and do nothing all evening but write people letters.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:34 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


the National Hedgelaying Championships

*opens word processor, begins furiously typing Midsomer Murders script*
posted by selfnoise at 12:35 PM on November 20, 2014 [42 favorites]


Long live the Republic!
posted by lesbiassparrow at 12:40 PM on November 20, 2014


It means that every remaining member of the commonwealth that has a the crown as the head of state will become a republic in short order.
posted by Talez at 12:45 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


Nobody should be compelled to give a shit. Ever.
posted by Artw at 12:47 PM on November 20, 2014 [7 favorites]


I don't like thinking about the coming reign of King Charles because it also means contemplating a world without Elizabeth II. She should live forever and also come be my grandmother (I'll take care of the dogs).
posted by sparklemotion at 12:49 PM on November 20, 2014 [15 favorites]


I don't believe anyone is compelling you to give a shit. No one will come into your home and force you to read the monarch's position papers.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:49 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


I think the UK already has a pretty effective system in place for curbing abuses of royal authority by kings named Charles.


Purely as an aside- should there be an opening for Lord Protector, I look good in a gorget and lace collar, am willing to relocate, and would be utterly implacable in my persecution of Christmas.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:49 PM on November 20, 2014 [49 favorites]


That was a lot meatier than I was expecting when I came by to drop some Fiddling Defensor punnage!

I actually think the relatively more interventionist monarchy might (just) have worked if this was thirty years ago, but as described it's an invitation to the unwritten constitutional remedy, i.e. a Republic with an impotent Wayne Rooney as Head Of State.
posted by comealongpole at 12:51 PM on November 20, 2014


It means that every remaining member of the commonwealth that has a the crown as the head of state will become a republic in short order.

I don't know. From the article:

"(In polls over the past decade, support for Britain becoming a republic has remained at only 10 to 20%.)"

I suspect that, given the groundswell of rightwing politics of late, there's a lot more support for stronger monarchs in the world than the MeFite crowd would like to believe.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:51 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


Charles' interventionist tendencies are a real problem since it's contrary to the unwritten convention of our (Commonwealth) parliamentary democracy.
posted by Nevin at 12:54 PM on November 20, 2014


TheWhiteSkull: "I think the UK already has a pretty effective system in place for curbing abuses of royal authority by kings named Charles."

True. Of course, it is possible he won't be Charles III - the monarch selects their regnal name, which is not necessarily the same as their personal name. George VI's real first name was Albert, for example.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:56 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


"(In polls over the past decade, support for Britain becoming a republic has remained at only 10 to 20%.)"

I think the focus of the comment was on non-UK commonwealth countries: Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. And, yes, I think if Charles really started to feel his oats and try and get on with some serious Kinging, republican sentiment could very quickly bubble up in those countries. On the other hand, I suspect that Queen Elizabeth has kept him away from the throne sufficiently long now that the real risk has passed. He'll no doubt piss people off with some of his hobbyhorses, but I don't think he'll provoke any constitutional crises.
posted by yoink at 12:57 PM on November 20, 2014


Peter Hain, the former cabinet minister who lobbied with Charles for NHS trials of complementary medicine, summed up his influence in this way: “He could get a hearing where all the noble, diligent lobbying of the various different associations in the complementary medicine field found it hard.”

Well, this is what scares me most. That he'll use his influence to push ridiculous things like complementary medicine. Peter Hain is extraordinarily stupid to think that Charles's backing for woo makes the prospect more palatable.
posted by Thing at 12:59 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


That he'll use his influence to push ridiculous things like complementary medicine.

The good thing about trials of complementary medicine is that it takes them from the field of woo to the field of evidence-based medicine. If you run a trial of a complementary medicine technique and you find that it doesn't work, then you have a nice, solid reason not to provide state funding for it.
posted by yoink at 1:02 PM on November 20, 2014 [19 favorites]


True. Of course, it is possible he won't be Charles III - the monarch selects their regnal name, which is not necessarily the same as their personal name. George VI's real first name was Albert, for example.

Charles has already indicated he'd probably pick a different name as king; George VI I probably, in tribute to his grandfather.
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:02 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


Could Elizabeth resign in favor of William, skipping Chuckles altogether? I don't think I have a grudge against the man, but for some reason this idea fills me with glee.
posted by orrnyereg at 1:02 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


The future of mutton hangs in the balance!
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 1:02 PM on November 20, 2014


Could Elizabeth resign in favor of William, skipping Chuckles altogether?

No. Charles could abdicated in favor of William, but at a certain point you raise the "why bother with this whole line of succession thing anyway" question if you start trying to pick the monarch you think will be most popular. If your goal is to preserve the institution of the monarchy (and one presumes that goal is shared by both Elizabeth and Charles) I think you'd want to think long and hard before playing that kind of game.
posted by yoink at 1:04 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


I agree with most of what Charles says, and I'm glad he uses the opportunities he has to try to improve the world.
posted by No Robots at 1:08 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


I dunno. I find myself becoming more of a small-r republican as I get older. Maybe if the Windsors didn't take themselves so seriously. Why can't they be more like the Scandinavian royals? They seem to be in on the joke at least.
posted by orrnyereg at 1:08 PM on November 20, 2014


I think my regal name would be "King Henry VIII II" (Pronounced :King Henry The Eighth The Second)
posted by symbioid at 1:10 PM on November 20, 2014 [15 favorites]


We've had utterly mad and/or senile kings before now so I think the institution could cope with Charles (probably be another George when king)

And of course if monarchy falls well then people might start eventually thinking actual ability should determine who succeeds and eventually runs the country rather than inherited wealth, power and influence... and we can't have that, oh no.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:13 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


I agree with most of what Charles says, and I'm glad he uses the opportunities he has to try to improve the world.

I believe opportunities should be based on merit. Charles believes--implicitly at least--that opportunity is based on mummy. Any influence given, taken, or respected, based on birth makes the world a worse place. As soon as you believe that a person should be listened to based on whose vagina they emerged from, then you've thrown away all possibility of progress.
posted by Thing at 1:14 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


This whole King "Charles" thing... The man's name is Charles Philip Arthur George. He could pick any one of those to reign with just like George VI did, whose name was Albert Frederick Arthur George.
posted by jsavimbi at 1:15 PM on November 20, 2014


Dominic Grieve, then attorney general, again vetoed release of the letters, arguing that the public might conclude Charles had been “disagreeing with government policy”, which “would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king”.
I've seen this claim a few times before (in the guardian and in private eye), but it's still one if those things that I have to reread a couple of times because I can't believe that it actually says that. People are saying "we should be able to check these letters, just in case he's improperly influencing policy", and the official response is effectively "well we can't show you them, because you'll conclude that he is". Which just... words fail me. Either what he's doing is OK, in which case they should publish the letters, or it's not OK, in which case they should publish the damn letters.

On republicanism, when it comes up I'm always surprised by how many of my friends and family are indifferent at best to the royals but nevertheless don't want to get rid of them. The most common argument I've encountered runs roughly: *grim stare* President. Thatcher. (or Blair, if they're right wing). It's a weird argument, as AFAIK there's no evidence that the queen intervened with either of them, but the resistance to having any politician as the actual or symbolic head of state seems to give people the screaming heebie-jeebies.
posted by metaBugs at 1:16 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


I think my regal name would be "King Henry VIII II" (Pronounced :King Henry The Eighth The Second)

Wouldn't that just be Henry XVI?

He should really have some fun with it. "King Starwalker!" "King Lemonjello!" "King Kong!"

then people might start eventually thinking actual ability should determine who succeeds and eventually runs the country


It's been a pretty long time since the English monarch had any role in "running the country."
posted by yoink at 1:16 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Well, that's also the position espoused by the plutocrats of our current system. Funny how a meritocracy can be slanted. At least in a monarchy there's not even the facade of equality to fool you.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:17 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


To paraphrase: Born in-goal area, thinks he scored a try.
posted by cmfletcher at 1:18 PM on November 20, 2014 [7 favorites]


While I did specify the name "Charles" in my earlier comment, the headsman's sword cuts a George or an Arthur just as easily.



Once again- Lord Protector, willing to relocate, strong opinions on Arminianism, already own a sash.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:21 PM on November 20, 2014 [12 favorites]


The most common argument I've encountered runs roughly: *grim stare* President. Thatcher. (or Blair, if they're right wing). It's a weird argument, as AFAIK there's no evidence that the queen intervened with either of them, but the resistance to having any politician as the actual or symbolic head of state seems to give people the screaming heebie-jeebies.

Well, it's a genuinely distorting aspect of the US system, for example. It really is a sweet deal to have a head of state who is outside of the political arena. The fact that the US President is the symbol of the nation and a party politician really is a problem. It leads to all kinds of weird rhetorical displacement that, I think, makes it harder to engage with genuine political issues. That's one reason, I think, Americans are nearly always somewhat flabbergasted and also impressed when they get to see the UK Prime Minister facing the house during Question Time.

Of course, the uncomplicated beneficiaries of this deal, in my view, are the non-UK commonwealth countries. They get a head of state who really is out of the picture most of the time and who they never really have to think about unless for purposes of gossip or the fun occasional pageantry of a Royal visit. It's more complicated for the UK where the royal family also stands as a symbol for a whole history of class prejudice and inequality. So the mere existence of the royal family as revered symbols there is easily motivated as part of a regressive political rhetoric. Still, taking it all in all if I were a Brit I'd prefer to have Queen Elizabeth than have President Whomever.
posted by yoink at 1:25 PM on November 20, 2014 [12 favorites]


The most common argument I've encountered runs roughly: *grim stare* President. Thatcher. (or Blair, if they're right wing).

Oh, you don't have to be right wing to not want that. He'd be all over it if it existed as an office too, the lying egomaniac war criminal fuck that he is.
posted by Artw at 1:27 PM on November 20, 2014 [10 favorites]


Charles has already indicated he'd probably pick a different name as king

Can he pick anything? Is he limited only by the boundaries of good taste?

i mean why not go for GOD EMPEROR ZEUS I if you can get away with it
posted by poffin boffin at 1:31 PM on November 20, 2014 [5 favorites]


Mark my words King Charles III will be a joke and a total gobshite and will make republicans out of all of us.

He sticks his beak into anything to do with architecture, yet what happens when you let him design a building? Check out this fire station...
posted by Monkeymoo at 1:32 PM on November 20, 2014


A lifelong war on modern architecture? Hard to imagine what a royal finds wrong with with a style based on getting rid of antiquated frivolities.
posted by ckape at 1:33 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


It wouldn't be the sixteenth; if it was the one after the IX, it would technically be the X, but it would be VIII II - which, I guess, really, would be more akin to a Final Fantasy Naming Scheme of Kings.
posted by symbioid at 1:34 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


I don't believe anyone is compelling you to give a shit. No one will come into your home and force you to read the monarch's position papers.

You don't know me!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:37 PM on November 20, 2014 [6 favorites]


He has a village built in his own approved style. It's exactly as fuck awful and bland as you would imagine.
posted by Artw at 1:37 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


No one will come into your home and force you to read the monarch's position papers.

Stupid fucking news media.
posted by Artw at 1:38 PM on November 20, 2014


It's not a village, it's a suburb.

But sadly, most new housing in England is so bad that fuck awful and bland is rather a positive description in comparison.
posted by Thing at 1:38 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


I don't understand, I read the wiki article and I still don't understand. It's a village for people to live in? Is it like colonial williamsburg? why are you the way you are, britain
posted by poffin boffin at 1:41 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


"which, I guess, really, would be more akin to a Final Fantasy Naming Scheme of Kings."

So he'll be either Charles III or Charles VI.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 1:42 PM on November 20, 2014 [4 favorites]


"I think the UK already has a pretty effective system in place for curbing abuses of royal authority by kings named Charles."

Do people ever start NaNoWriMo this late in the month? I just got an idea for a near-future scenario.
posted by glhaynes at 1:44 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


A village is a small collection of dwellings Americans would probably pretend was a town or a "city".

But yes, this one is an extension of Dorchester and apparently
very badly built.
posted by Artw at 1:44 PM on November 20, 2014


I don't understand, I read the wiki article and I still don't understand. It's a village for people to live in? Is it like colonial williamsburg? why are you the way you are, britain

Think of it as a subdivision in Ye Olde Englande style. But designed by a prince. And lauded by idiots. And made to look good by Barratt's and Wimpey.
posted by Thing at 1:45 PM on November 20, 2014


what happens when you let him design a building? Check out this fire station...

Yes. Check out that fire station which happens not to be designed by Prince Charles.
Metafilter has already been over that station. I remain pretty confident in my opinion expressed in that thread that no one would ever have given much of a toss one way or another about that bland and unremarkable building had they not been (erroneously) informed it was designed by Prince Charles, whereupon it became THE WORST MONSTROSITY EVER PERPETRATED IN THE FIELD OF ARCHITECTURE!!!
posted by yoink at 1:46 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


Mark my words King Charles III will be a joke and a total gobshite and will make republicans out of all of us.

I don't doubt it. Probably the best thing that the queen has going for her is that, effectively, she has always been there: the median age in the UK is about 45 and Liz was crowned in 1953: well over half the population can't remember a time without her as queen. I'd bet that any succession, even without Charles' quirks, would be enough of a jolt and get people thinking "wait, why are we doing this?".
posted by metaBugs at 1:46 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


What's hilarious about Poundbury is that he's essentially spending decades building the kind of tone-deaf parody that China can knock out in about a week.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:47 PM on November 20, 2014 [4 favorites]


A poorly built building in ITYOL 2014? What the deuce?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:48 PM on November 20, 2014


Re Poundbury, here's a good, non-knee-jerk analysis by Witold Rybczynski. Charles has done some seriously silly things in his life, but the criticisms of Poundbury are really hate first, ask questions, well, never.
posted by yoink at 1:49 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]



Think of it as a subdivision in Ye Olde Englande style. But designed by a prince.


So presumably one day actual regular people will live there and not people who theatrically churn butter for cooing tourists, then.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:49 PM on November 20, 2014


I want him to keep his first name as his regnal name so the more colorful republicans could call him "Charles the Turd".
posted by Small Dollar at 1:50 PM on November 20, 2014


Toss them all in a well after Liz kicks it, frankly.
posted by angerbot at 1:51 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


So presumably one day actual regular people will live there

From the Witold Rybczynski piece I linked above:
Yet Poundbury is not a middle-class ghetto: more than a third of the dwellings qualify as affordable housing. The majority is social housing, owned by charitable trusts and rented to low-income tenants, but there is also shared-equity housing, which allows qualifying buyers to purchase a share in a home, even if they cannot afford a mortgage on the full market value. What is unusual in Poundbury is that the affordable housing is "pepper potted"—that is, scattered, and it is similar in appearance to its neighbors. It's hard to get a complete picture of how well this works during a brief visit, although by all accounts, there is little social mixing between the two groups.

Another innovation at Poundbury is the embrace of mixed use, which is more extensive here than in most planned communities I've visited. Not only are the ground floors of many residential and office buildings devoted to commercial uses such as shops and cafés, there are medical clinics, professional offices for lawyers and accountants, garden centers, veterinarians, travel agents, and even a funeral home. There is also light industry: a large shed-like building at the bottom of a village green is a chocolate factory; a breakfast cereal manufacturing plant stands across the street from elegant townhouses; a low brick building with arched windows was until recently occupied by an electronics factory. The key to introducing industrial buildings on residential streets, says Conibear, is to make sure that they are built before the housing; residents accept a fait accompli, but they strongly resist the introduction of nonresidential uses after the fact. In all, Poundbury currently has an impressive 136 businesses generating 1,600 jobs—nearly one per resident.
Seriously, the knee-jerk response to Poundbury is just ridiculously off-base. There's a lot about the development which is truly admirable and if it were being done by someone the Metafilter crowd were primed to like the general tenor of the commentary would be radically different.
posted by yoink at 1:54 PM on November 20, 2014 [25 favorites]


Man I hope he goes for King Voltron IV, because that would be bad-ass.
posted by Mister_A at 1:55 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yoink - nothing you are describing there is all that innovative TBH. Lots of people live above shops.
posted by Artw at 2:04 PM on November 20, 2014


The praiseworthy things that Rybczynski mentions--diverse street layout, mixed use, affordable housing--are pretty standard across England. Charles has done nothing more than recreate what England has in abundance. It simply looks good because other developers mostly don't even care to do that much.
posted by Thing at 2:05 PM on November 20, 2014


If you want the head of state to be a different person from the head of government, you can have them be elected, like in Germany or Ireland. You don't have to restrict eligibility to a handful of aristocrats directly related to the previous occupant. It's a pretty poor argument in favour of monarchy, in my opinion.
posted by rollick at 2:05 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


Eh. He's no favorite of mine, but his meddling has at least sometimes been for good causes.
posted by tavella at 2:08 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Yo stop talking smack about King Voltron IV please.
posted by Mister_A at 2:08 PM on November 20, 2014


President Thatcher

While one can't know what other constitutional reordering might occur if the monarchy were eliiminated, right now the PM is more powerful, relatively speaking, than a US-style president. It's as if Obama not only governed the Administrative branch but also held the legislative majority in the House of Representatives, and furthermore these days as if the Senate had drastically reduced powers.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:09 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


Everyone in England should get to be ruler for a day. Pick a name at random and post it to a board near the entrance with some fancy auto-generated title. They could then sit on the actual throne for 5 minutes, pet a corgi, buy a framed novelty tabloid cover picture with their face on it and make one absolutely binding law (which obviously may not include making themselves permanent ruler).
posted by Poldo at 2:12 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


I was all for Prince Charles' commercial activities until I learnt that the delightfully crazy Prince Charles cinema in London's Leicester Square was not owned by him.
posted by the cydonian at 2:13 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Their Sound of Music is fantastic.
posted by Artw at 2:14 PM on November 20, 2014


He's the 66-year-old son of a healthy 88-year-old woman whose mother lived to 101. If she lives as long as her mother, he'll be 79. That's the sort of age men may or may not reach.

There's a reasonable chance that a 40-something William will succeed Elizabeth directly without any abdication involved.
posted by rory at 2:26 PM on November 20, 2014 [10 favorites]


I hope he becomes King George, and someone writes a sitcom called "George and Camilla," based on them and in the style of "George and Mildred."
posted by marienbad at 2:26 PM on November 20, 2014


There's a reasonable chance that a 40-something William will succeed Elizabeth directly without any abdication involved.

What happened to the classical "Throw them in the Tower on suspicion of treason" answer for heirs to the throne who sent a lot of weird letters to government officials?
posted by corb at 2:29 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Yoink - nothing you are describing there is all that innovative TBH. Lots of people live above shops.
....
The praiseworthy things that Rybczynski mentions--diverse street layout, mixed use, affordable housing--are pretty standard across England. Charles has done nothing more than recreate what England has in abundance.


Yeah, somebody should have pointed this out to Witold Rybczynski, one of the world's foremost architecture theorists and critics, because he somehow overlooked these facts in his praise for Poundbury.

It simply looks good because other developers mostly don't even care to do that much.

Uh, isn't that kind of the point?

I've never been to Poundbury, but when my parents last visited me they left behind a box of the Poundbury muesli (Sobey's carries it) and damn is it good.

What it boils down to (the endless criticism of Charles, not the muesli) is lookism: the man isn't considered handsome enough to be King, to have his face on a 50p piece or a dish towel. If he looked like George Clooney, or even that Dutch king, nobody would give a toss about his activism or want the Queen to behead him and give the crown to William, or however that process would work.
posted by Flashman at 2:29 PM on November 20, 2014 [6 favorites]


...make one absolutely binding law...

Life in prison for throwing a lit cigarette butt out of a car window.
posted by rocket88 at 2:31 PM on November 20, 2014


I think a lot of what it boils down to (I mean the endless criticism of Charles, not the muesli) is lookism . . .

I don't quite agree -- he's been mean and snobbish his whole life -- but it's true that the looks don't help. He should grow one of those little pointy beards that were considered kingly a hundred years ago.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:34 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


1) he's a royal, fuck the lot of them.
2) he's an idiot, and not smart enough a one to hide it.
posted by Artw at 2:41 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


With regard to the legitimacy of kings named Charles: Hey, remember the Stuarts? Well, the Stuarts begat the Savoys of Sardinia, the Savoys begat the Austria-Estes of Modena, and the Austria-Estes begat the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria, who are currently poised to take over the actually real throne of Liechtenstein. Once that happens, it's just a matter of time before the Liechtensteiner forces march in and take Britain. The Jacobites shall rise again!
posted by Sys Rq at 2:43 PM on November 20, 2014 [12 favorites]


"defender of the faith" would be a lot cooler if each monarch had to challenge the pope to single combat.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:43 PM on November 20, 2014 [21 favorites]


I was going to be a bit mean about his academic achievements mentioned in the article, but now I'm wondering -- is Charles the first person in his family to go to university? Did the aristocracy go in for third level education before his time?
posted by rollick at 2:44 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


yoink: "Well, it's a genuinely distorting aspect of the US system, for example. It really is a sweet deal to have a head of state who is outside of the political arena. The fact that the US President is the symbol of the nation and a party politician really is a problem."

Agreed. Gene Healy had an interesting book called The Cult of the Presidency about this. Healy is too libertarian for my taste, but he has some good points about the way people have turned the President into this almost demi-god figure.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:44 PM on November 20, 2014


Mainly I see the president as a convenient excuse for political inaction elsewhere, see this recent thread , the horrible midterms, etc...
posted by Artw at 2:48 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


I'm no monarchist, but if you're going to have a King - and whether it's Charles or William we will, sorry republicans - isn't it better to have one who has spoken out on climate change and mass industrialised agriculture, who has opinions and an activist-type attitude, than one who spends all his time as a characterless sponging bore?
posted by billiebee at 2:51 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


Yeah, somebody should have pointed this out to Witold Rybczynski, one of the world's foremost architecture theorists and critics, because he somehow overlooked these facts in his praise for Poundbury.

It's only praiseworthy because standards for new developments are so low. When you compare it to what exists everywhere already, it's nothing. There are literally hundreds of small towns like Poundbury, such as, you know, Dorchester. You can hardly throw a stone in England without hitting a small, mixed use, densely developed, architecturally diverse settlement. At the time when England was suffering from the worst urban blight in northern cities, Charles gets praised for building a market town clone in the southwest?

Uh, isn't that kind of the point?

Well, it's the point why I've said elsewhere that Poundbury is better than 80% of most newbuild in England, yes. That's the limit of my praise for Poundbury: it's less shit than most.
posted by Thing at 2:52 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


is Charles the first person in his family to go to university?

There have been universities in England just about as long as there have been Kings of England, so probably not.

Actual answer: Charles was preceded at Trinity College, Cambridge by his great-great-grandfather, Edward VII, and probably a bunch more too but I can't be bothered to dig any deeper.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:58 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Thanks -- kings and queens are always my least favourite topics on quiz shows.
posted by rollick at 2:59 PM on November 20, 2014


Mister_A: "Man I hope he goes for King Voltron IV, because that would be bad-ass."

Mmm - wouldn't Alfor II be more appropriate? But Voltron IV would be pretty fucking rad, I do admit.
posted by symbioid at 2:59 PM on November 20, 2014


So, how well did Charles do at university? The UK grading system is pretty opaque to me.
posted by Chrysostom at 3:01 PM on November 20, 2014


A 2:2 is basically a C. It goes: First-class honours (1st), Second-class honours, upper division (2:1), Second-class honours, lower division (2:2), Third-class honours (3rd), Ordinary degree (pass). So he did average, basically.
posted by billiebee at 3:10 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


I think it is easy to focus on his inherited privilege and to dismiss the fact that he has lived his entire life under some pretty serious restrictions, not the least of which is, considering the longevity of the women of his family, he is nevertheless required to await a future role that might never be his at all. I think it is commendable that he has accepted these restraints and employed his privilege to do many good and forward-looking things with his life. In truth, none of them interferes in any meaningful way with the politics of his country. Concern that he will meddle as king is something of a stretch IMHO.

One of the things I admire about him is that he was able to persuade the Queen to accept Camilla and to permit them to marry. Her reluctance to accept divorce in the first place was probably influenced by the traumatic abdication of her uncle which, some believed, shortened the life of her father. I believe it was Charles who accomplished this change in the Queen's position, a truly modern reconciliation. The royal ratings have gone up all around since. I also like the fact that even though Camilla has the right to the title Princess of Wales, she elects not to use it. Decorum, respect, conciliation.

All in all, I am very glad the eldest son of the young woman who dedicated her entire life to the service of her country sixty-seven years ago did not turn out to be a selfish playboy who wasted his life, as others might have done.
posted by Anitanola at 3:11 PM on November 20, 2014 [13 favorites]


Oh, he undoubtedly runs his mouth without brain engaged in a way that other royals conspicuously don't.

Well, except Phil.
posted by Artw at 3:21 PM on November 20, 2014


Oh, and Harry, come to think off it.

Let's face it, they're all inbred and the less they say or do anything the better.
posted by Artw at 3:26 PM on November 20, 2014


The monarch's duties really should include sitting in a cage over a dunk tank at county fairs.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:28 PM on November 20, 2014 [3 favorites]


county fairs

They call them fêtes over there, because deep down every English person secretly wishes they were French.

*ducks*
posted by Sys Rq at 3:35 PM on November 20, 2014 [5 favorites]


1066 was a hell of a year.
posted by Artw at 3:45 PM on November 20, 2014 [5 favorites]


they're all inbred

The younger royals have all married "commoners" (I think) so the new generation isn't inbred.
posted by billiebee at 3:50 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


It's funny. My Dad was a kind and gentle man, and for the most part he actively distanced himself from his English heritage. He didn't know much about the politicians and current events in modern day Britain, but mention the monarchy and hoo boy, suddenly he had opinions. Very strongly held opinions about an assortment of issues, like how Princess Anne should have never competed in the Commonwealth Games, and most important of all was his belief (stated as fact) that "bastard" Prince Charles should never be king. It was a constant source of amusement for me that he seemed to care so much about who sat upon the throne of a country he claimed to have no interest in. But he never saw the irony.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:00 PM on November 20, 2014


I think you will find it is commonly understood that Harry is definitely not as 'in-bred' as the rest of the family.

No one actually thinks that for real still, do they? Apart from the fact that he looks more like the Windsors as he gets older, I would imagine a blood test at birth would have been fairly standard practice for the third in line to the throne?
posted by billiebee at 4:02 PM on November 20, 2014


The most common argument I've encountered runs roughly: *grim stare* President. Thatcher. (or Blair, if they're right wing). It's a weird argument

The weirdest thing about the argument is that it totally ignores the many republics that have separate heads of state that are elected and that hold the same notionally apolitical role as the UK royals. Strange, faraway places like almost every republic in Europe except France.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:17 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


I'm no monarchist, but if you're going to have a King - and whether it's Charles or William we will, sorry republicans - isn't it better to have one who has spoken out on climate change and mass industrialised agriculture, who has opinions and an activist-type attitude, than one who spends all his time as a characterless sponging bore?

I'm pretty sure our members of parliament won't be pleased with that. It sounds like the sort of thing they'd go to war over.
posted by dng at 4:18 PM on November 20, 2014


I would imagine a blood test at birth would have been fairly standard practice for the third in line to the throne?

Who would have the nerve to bring the subject up? And at what point? (Right now he's fourth now, and soon to be fifth.)

I think my regal name would be "King Henry VIII II" (Pronounced :King Henry The Eighth The Second)

Wouldn't that just be Henry XVI?

Or perhaps Henry LXIV?
posted by IndigoJones at 4:24 PM on November 20, 2014


Eh, the march towards republicanism in the Commonwealth is both overstated and more difficult to enact in law than most people think. In Canada, the monarchy is embedded in the Constitution--changing that (as we saw at Meech Lake & Charlottetown) is a headache of epic proportions. Australia might be able to swing it, but I can't see Canada or NZ giving much of a damn, nor anywhere else really.

No one actually thinks that for real still, do they? Apart from the fact that he looks more like the Windsors as he gets older, I would imagine a blood test at birth would have been fairly standard practice for the third in line to the throne?

I submit that there is no way in hell they haven't done such tests, and likewise there's no way in hell anyone outside the Firm and their doctors will ever see the results. I'm pretty sure William and Harry were the last royal births that had to be witnessed--no joke--by a... memory failing.. MP or member of Cabinet, can't remember which.

Count me in on the 'good to have a head of state not embroiled in the politics of the day' side of things. Once you make them elected, it gets political. YMMV. That said, Charles has shot himself in the foot for decades--I strongly suspect that after a certain point he figured if he ever sits on the throne it's not going to be long. Sucks to have to grow up knowing the only way you'll get the job you were born for is for your mother to die, though.

And all that being said, if continuation of the monarchy is something they care about (I have the feeling they do), they'll find some way for Charles to not take the throne short of abdication, so William hops in. He and Kate are young, photogenic (well, ok, Wills is getting a bit horsey--Harry takes much more after their mother), and wildly popular, all things that Charles isn't.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:32 PM on November 20, 2014


1066 was a hell of a year.

Normancore
posted by Celsius1414 at 4:48 PM on November 20, 2014 [8 favorites]


they'll find some way for Charles to not take the throne short of abdication

But there is no way apart from abdication for him not to take the throne, as far as I know.
posted by billiebee at 4:50 PM on November 20, 2014


He could convert to Catholicism.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:58 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


There was a haunting late last night,
It wasn't loud, it wasn't bright.
Just a bit of wisp--like morning dew;
T'was Gough Whitlam saying, "Boo."

posted by CincyBlues at 5:06 PM on November 20, 2014


Yeah, that's what I was thinking, Chrysostom. I can't remember the exact details around whether they've fully taken the 'married to a Catholic' thing off the books. Camilla was once a practicing Catholic, so if the law is still valid, no need for Charles to even convert--just let it be known she's still Catholic. Voila, Charles is bypassed, Wills takes the throne, monarchy lives for another 50 years.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:10 PM on November 20, 2014


Over a hundred comments and nobody's quoted the best line in the article? OK, I'll have to do it:

Finally, in the cloister, Charles was invited to hold Grace the golden eagle, a magnificent bird who, moments earlier, had evacuated her bowels explosively onto this reporter’s notebook.
posted by languagehat at 5:17 PM on November 20, 2014 [15 favorites]


they'll find some way for Charles to not take the throne short of abdication

I think they will (and should) give him a go for the brief period between his mother's death and his own, if the two should happen to shuffle off in that order, which is a pretty big if. After all, no one's been singing God Save him.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:20 PM on November 20, 2014


This article seems to me to be a part of a preemptive campaign to constrain Charles. I think the establishment hates him: they want him to be seen but not heard, just like a victorian child. The last thing they want is someone who operates outside their power structures who might be an activist, and quite possibly a populist, monarch. God knows you wouldn’t want to have a man who wants an active role in running charities, rather than just lending his name, who cares about the environment and organic farming and all that sort of crap to be able to get in the way of progress. Specially one who is old enough to be set in his ways and unlikely to be easily pushed around.

If they could trust him to foam at the mouth and meddle directly in politics they probably wouldn’t care: they could just use it as an excuse to change the law to entirely neutralize him. From their point of view the worse situation is if he stays out of politics, but is active in other ways that shame them morally.

I’m sure the establishment would love to have William instead — much more tractable and easier to suborn, at least in theory.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 5:23 PM on November 20, 2014 [8 favorites]


Camilla was once a practicing Catholic, so if the law is still valid, no need for Charles to even convert--just let it be known she's still Catholic.

That was corrected in 2013, to align with the prophesy. Charles and Camilla married in 2005. Hmm. More straightforward, or more complicated?
posted by Sys Rq at 5:46 PM on November 20, 2014


The last thing they want is someone who operates outside their power structures who might be an activist, and quite possibly a populist, monarch.

I don't think this is the concern. He's certainly free to have his ideas but he is not free to act on them as a monarch because he is both part of and not a part of the power structure, and as a result, there's potential for abuse. He's part of the structure because he's the hereditary head of state. Even if it is a figurehead position, there is no doubt there is power and influence that comes with the position. He's not a part of the structure because unlike other politicians, his position isn't accountable. He gets it just for being born in the right family. Other politicians have to answer to their constituents, but he doesn't have to answer to anyone at all. If he doesn't answer to anything, then how can we be sure that he will use his influence and power in a fair way?

By ensuring he doesn't use it to push his activism. If he wants to campaign for the environment, he can do so, but not in his capacity as the King of England because that isn't the job of the monarch. The contents of his activism are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong or if he's speaking for the people, because it's the principle that matters. What if he was a racist and he's pushing for racist policies instead? Would it change your mind about his activism and the extent of control he potentially has?
posted by cyml at 5:51 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


I am skeptical that the Guardian would be opposed to environmental initiatives.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:00 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Did I miss some announcement of the queen's imminent shuffle-off-this-mortal-coil? If not, my money is still on her outliving him. I mean, they're been writing variations on this same article since 1972, but thar she still blows.
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:09 PM on November 20, 2014


I yearn for a good old fashioned Pretender To The Throne. Oh! And a Missing Heir. And maybe an Anti-Pope or two.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:15 PM on November 20, 2014 [4 favorites]


Politicians are theoretically (though often not practically — safe seats?) accountable, the rest of the establishment, the larger part, not so much. The monarch is the nominal embodiment of the power structure but isn’t really a practical part of it. “The job of the monarch” is an ever changing thing: it’s not the same as it was a hundred years ago or two hundred; there’s no reason why it can’t keep evolving. Bully pulpits can be used for good or ill like everything else, but because a monarch might possibly hold odious opinions and at some future date possibly express them is no real reason to preemptively muzzle him. A hate spouting king could be dealt with as easily as a political meddler; one who speaks morally, expressing popular opinions, would be a much greater thorn in the side.

As for the Guardian being specifically against environmental issues of course not, but they are definitely part of the establishment and as such not necessarily averse to advancing it’s general agenda.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 6:36 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


robocop is bleeding: "I yearn for a good old fashioned Pretender To The Throne. Oh! And a Missing Heir. And maybe an Anti-Pope or two."

Franz, Duke of Bavaria is the current Jacobite pretender to the British crown. Here are some rival "popes."
posted by Chrysostom at 6:43 PM on November 20, 2014


Chaz Trey baby, yeah.
posted by clavdivs at 7:27 PM on November 20, 2014


I think the establishment hates him: they want him to be seen but not heard, just like a victorian child.


I feel that way about hereditary monarchs in general.


unless they are Emily Blunt portraying Queen Victoria, because she was simply delightful.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:33 PM on November 20, 2014


"defender of the faith" would be a lot cooler if each monarch had to challenge the pope to single combat.

The title of "Defender of the Faith" was originally given to Henry VIII by the papacy to recognize the former's writings against Martin Luther's heresy. While the papacy revoked it when Henry decided to start his own religion, the Parliament re-instated it for him in his capacity as defender of the Anglican faith.


Charles has already indicated he'd probably pick a different name as king; George VI I probably, in tribute to his grandfather.

I too have heard that he would choose George VII. The previous kings named Charles do not have the best reputation; Charles I was executed and Charles II was a notorious womanizer.
posted by dhens at 7:34 PM on November 20, 2014 [4 favorites]


That was corrected in 2013, to align with the prophesy . Charles and Camilla married in 2005. Hmm. More straightforward, or more complicated?

More straightforward, if the law were in place. It only actually mattered, legally, if the putative monarch were married to a Catholic at the time of accession. But since the law has been changed, moot point; Charles would have to convert prior to Lilibet's death.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:37 PM on November 20, 2014


I yearn for a good old fashioned Pretender To The Throne. Oh! And a Missing Heir. And maybe an Anti-Pope or two.


I've got a debauched quisling and a corrupt regent.

Full house.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:39 PM on November 20, 2014


Charles I was executed and Charles II was a notorious womanizer.

I don't think the latter matters so much as his association with the Great Fire and the Black Death. Also, there was a certain claimant who styled himself Charles III.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:47 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Also, there was a certain claimant who styled himself Charles III.

Ah yes. Also a reason where there will likely never be another James (see here and here).
posted by dhens at 7:57 PM on November 20, 2014


Also here
posted by Flashman at 8:00 PM on November 20, 2014


I yearn for a good old fashioned Pretender To The Throne. Oh! And a Missing Heir. And maybe an Anti-Pope or two.

Ooh! And a False Dmitry!
posted by orrnyereg at 9:28 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


Y'know if he's really looking for a purpose there's nothing in the British constitution that says he can't fight crime.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:00 PM on November 20, 2014 [2 favorites]


Stately Wayne Manor Buckingham palace...
posted by orrnyereg at 10:20 PM on November 20, 2014 [1 favorite]


It's not that they were inbred (although as stated above, this has been remedied in more recent years). It's that they're a bunch of (not quite as) inbred krauts. They changed their family name to the castle. The castle isn't named after them. After all, they're really the Saxe-Coburgs and Gothas, a branch of the House of Wettin. Terribly British.

Sign me up as someone in favor of an elected head of state, although I do like the idea of separating them from the head of government.
posted by Hactar at 12:21 AM on November 21, 2014


Charles Phillip Arthur George. A man with those choices who does not pick Arthur does not deserve to be king.
posted by vbfg at 1:19 AM on November 21, 2014 [2 favorites]


In the US, when the President enters the room, per convention (and social pressure) you're supposed to stand, because of he's/she's Head of State and symbolizes the Nation
In the UK, there's no convention to stand when the Prime Minister enters the room, because he's/she's not Head of State/Symbol of the Nation.

Fixed that for you Bwithh
posted by melisande at 2:07 AM on November 21, 2014


After all, they're really the Saxe-Coburgs and Gothas, a branch of the House of Wettin. Terribly British.

Charles is ninth-generation British-born via Elizabeth and Victoria. How many generations have to be born here before everyone drops this line? Should people consider my British-born children (of naturalised immigrants) to be British? How about my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren, assuming the intervening generations are?

Everyone bangs on about the royals' German lineage, but nobody objects that Charles by that logic is half-Greek.
posted by rory at 2:21 AM on November 21, 2014 [7 favorites]


He could convert to Catholicism

He could also covert to Zoroastrianism, which is only slightly less likely.

they're a bunch of...krauts

By that line of thinking, all white North Americans are "really" Europeans.
posted by billiebee at 3:41 AM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


So ... Charles is out as a king name, James is out, Richard is out thanks to #3, Arthur is probably out because it would look presumptuous ...

They're running out of king names fast. If only a few more kings screw things up enough, they're either going to have to throw up their hands and say "only queens from now on, they always worked better for us anyway", or be like, "How about Harthacnut? That's a nice name for a boy, right?"
posted by kyrademon at 5:11 AM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


Charles II was a notorious womanizer.

But he was a great patron of the arts and music! That is one of the reasons I would not want TheWhiteSkull's campaign to become the new Lord Protector to succeed - old Ollie was a total killjoy when it came to the arts.
posted by winna at 5:18 AM on November 21, 2014


billiebee: "He could also covert to Zoroastrianism, which is only slightly less likely."

We were talking about things that could remove Charles from the line of succession. The 1700 Act of Settlement explicitly excludes Catholics:
And it was thereby further enacted That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any regall Power Authority or Jurisdiction within the same
It does not mention Zoroastrians, which is why Catholicism came to mind.

The Act does goes on to say:
That whosoever shall hereafter come to the Possession of this Crown shall joyn in Communion with the Church of England as by Law established
I guess we could spin a scenario where you could inherit the throne as a non-CoE member, as long as a) you immediately became one, and b) you weren't Catholic (previously ruled out). Admittedly unlikely.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:49 AM on November 21, 2014


kyrademon: "So ... Charles is out as a king name, James is out, Richard is out thanks to #3, Arthur is probably out because it would look presumptuous ..."

Yeah, aside from the hubristic angle, Arthur as a name might be regarded unlucky - the last potential King Arthur didn't work out so well.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:52 AM on November 21, 2014


George Eddard Hermann Temujin of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha.
posted by StephenDouglasKan at 6:09 AM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]


We were talking about things that could remove Charles from the line of succession.

And I was pointing out that while technically it is true that if Charles converted to Catholicism he wouldn't be King, he is never ever going to do this. If you remove his becoming Catholic, and you remove him abdicating, then what mysterious loophole are they going to find that allows William to overtake him in the succession?
posted by billiebee at 6:23 AM on November 21, 2014


There isn't a mysterious loophole to be found, which is why we are saying those are the options.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:31 AM on November 21, 2014


Yeah, as long as you are a descendant of the Electress Sophia and not a Catholic, you are on the list. Charles could abdicate, but the crown will go to him at Elizabeth's death.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:05 AM on November 21, 2014


rory: "Everyone bangs on about the royals' German lineage, but nobody objects that Charles by that logic is half-Greek."

After H.G. Wells criticized the "alien and uninspiring court", George V responded, "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien."
posted by Chrysostom at 8:11 AM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


But he was a great patron of the arts and music! That is one of the reasons I would not want TheWhiteSkull's campaign to become the new Lord Protector to succeed - old Ollie was a total killjoy when it came to the arts.

So was the Georgian Prince Frederick (my favourite Georgian for so many reasons), who would have been King if he hadn't died young of cricket balls.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:12 AM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


is that like tennis elbow
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:16 AM on November 21, 2014 [7 favorites]


After H.G. Wells criticized the "alien and uninspiring court", George V responded, "I may be uninspiring, but I'll be damned if I'm alien."

After which he clambered into his Tripod and wandered around London, setting random passersby on fire.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:26 AM on November 21, 2014 [8 favorites]


Britain has doubted the royal heir before, in recent times, even. Edward VII spent 60 years as Prince of Wales, as a playboy and gambler and serial adulterer whose second home was upscale Paris brothels, and although the press was of course far kinder to the monarchy back then, was poorly regarded. His mother Queen Victoria reputedly had not spoken to him for years before being reconciled with him on her deathbed.

He was born Albert Edward and known as Bertie all his life, but he took the regnal name Edward. His reign was industrious and innovative and he is generally credited with redefining the monarchy for modern times; he ended up a very popular king.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:31 AM on November 21, 2014


Edward VII spent 60 years as Prince of Wales, as a playboy and gambler whose second home was upscale Paris brothels, and although the press was of course far kinder to the monarchy back then, was poorly regarded.


I happened to see his custom-built fuck chair on display at Le Petit Palais in Paris last spring. It's quite...something.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 8:42 AM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]


So ... Charles is out as a king name, James is out, Richard is out thanks to #3, Arthur is probably out because it would look presumptuous ...

They're running out of king names fast.


I say it's high time Stephen made a king comeback.
posted by JanetLand at 8:42 AM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


They might avoid a name associated with a highly destructive civil war.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:02 AM on November 21, 2014


When you compare it to what exists everywhere already, it's nothing. There are literally hundreds of small towns like Poundbury, such as, you know, Dorchester. You can hardly throw a stone in England without hitting a small, mixed use, densely developed, architecturally diverse settlement.

Um...that's the point. Charles isn't saying "we've reinvented the very concept of human habitation for the 21st century!!" His whole point is that traditional English villages and small towns have virtues which are being lost in modern developments. If you see Poundbury as looking like "hundreds of small towns" in England then you're declaring it a success.

It simply looks good because other developers mostly don't even care to do that much.

And at this point the utter unhingedness of the criticism of Charles becomes manifest. "He's doing exactly what everyone else does. It only looks good because hardly anyone else is doing it!" Seriously, if you can't see that as a complete self-contradiction you're lost to rational discussion of the issue.
posted by yoink at 9:14 AM on November 21, 2014 [6 favorites]


A former high-ranking government official, who is experienced in handling the prince’s interaction with ministers, described the risk to Charles’s kingship posed by publication as “quite large”. There are, he said, “quite a lot of letters and they say some things that are quite zany”.

GOOD. The zanier, the better.

It's worth noting that America's one and only monarch, His Majesty the Emperor Norton, was the best monarch in recorded history, precisely on account of his zaniness.

Right now Britain has a far worse problem, which is Tony Blair's appointed newcomers to the House of Lords. Their behavior makes a good case for restoring the hereditary peers, men of "no capacity whatever."
posted by ocschwar at 9:22 AM on November 21, 2014 [3 favorites]


Regarding Franz II:

The Wittelsbach dynasty were opposed to the Nazi regime in Germany, and in 1939 Franz's father Albreht took his family to Hungary. They lived in Budapest for four years before moving to their Castle at Sárvár in late 1943. In March 1944, Nazi Germany occupied Hungary, and on 6 October 1944, the entire family, including the 11-year-old Franz, were arrested. They were sent to a series of Nazi concentration camps including Oranienburg and Dachau. At the end of April 1945 they were liberated by the United States Third Army.[3]

Damn. Took a couple centuries but now there's a good case to be made for a Stuart restoration.
posted by ocschwar at 9:38 AM on November 21, 2014


There isn't a mysterious loophole to be found, which is why we are saying those are the options

So two options which he categorically won't take. Then we're agreed that there isn't a chance of them "finding a way" for William to "hop in". Anyway even if they found one I'm sure he'd be like "I don't give two fucks about how photogenic Wills and Kate are - I've waited 80 years for this damn gig. Bite me."

(God, I appear to be defending Charles' right to be King. My forebearers are spinning in their famine graves right about now. I think I need to leave this thread and go and drink some Guinness or something...)
posted by billiebee at 10:58 AM on November 21, 2014 [4 favorites]


I say it's high time Stephen made a king comeback.

Just coming!
posted by Artw at 11:36 AM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


billiebee: "So two options which he categorically won't take. "

I feel like we've been talking at cross-purposes a bit. You had originally said, "But there is no way apart from abdication for him not to take the throne, as far as I know." And I pointed out that he could become Catholic.

I don't think it's *likely* for him to convert to Catholicism; as far as I know, he's eager as all get out to be King. But if for some reason he didn't want to become King, that's his only option. This is not one of those crowns where the Parliament offers it to someone, and you can decline. There's a line of succession for qualified people, and that's it.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:54 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


> This whole King "Charles" thing... The man's name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

They could have named him John Paul George Richard.
posted by jfuller at 3:22 PM on November 21, 2014 [1 favorite]


It's worth noting that America's one and only monarch, His Majesty the Emperor Norton, was the best monarch in recorded history, precisely on account of his zaniness

I don't know, between fining people for using the word "Frisco," calling for a transbay bridge, and abolishing Congress, I think Norton made a lot of sense.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:45 AM on November 22, 2014 [1 favorite]


« Older From Wrestling Legend to Double Amputee, Kamala...   |   Ruin Porn Ruins Chernobyl Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments