Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Home Readers Comments Readers’ comments: Better silly old Charles than a president

Readers’ comments: Better silly old Charles than a president

-

In response to Michael St George: Why ditherer Charles must stand aside and let William be king,

David wrote:

Prince Charles is a silly old thing, and also a hypocrite. He is really the ultimate, champagne-liberal, a clueless do-gooder. This very woolly-minded man should have been born to a multi-millionaire and lived life as a virtue-signalling, wealthy hippie. Even his much-vaunted ‘new town’ has signally failed to accomplish its originally stated ideas, because they were never translated into practical achievable objectives, so again more woolly thinking. I watched it unfolding with professional interest from the start.

But if we support the idea of constitutional monarchy, which I do, as it is far preferable to having more politicians (President Blair anyone?), we have to grit our taxpaying teeth, and tolerate a period when our slightly barmy King Charles sits on the throne. Monarchy is about tradition and yes, genetic continuity, as it is a family. He will need strong ‘advisers’ to remind him constantly that the less he says the better. Just smile please, wave and chat away nicely to the line-up, whilst allowing your advisers to write all your speeches, Your Majesty.

therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ wrote:

I’ve suggested before that should Charles ascend the throne at any age over, say, 75, that an informal ‘Regency’ be allowed to exist, to start at, say, age 80, in which the King has a less-than-demanding schedule (maybe deliver the King’s Speech, the Christmas message and the like, a few ceremonial occasions at Buck House) but that the next Prince of Wales be the ‘day-to-day monarch’ of a sort, if you will (no pun). It can be passed off as, ‘William needs the experience of being king for when he ascends the throne, something that, alas, my late mother (God rest her soul!) never afforded me. . . ’ It may be required that the King be prevailed upon in order for this to occur, but if he really cares about his son and grandson and maintaining the monarchy as an institution (and I don’t believe he doesn’t), what else could he do in such a situation? Unlike that soap-opera-ish film of a few years ago that suggested he would be forced to abdicate, I am sure a modus vivendi could be arrived at.

No precedent exists for this, i.e. a presumably non-senile non-physically-disabled monarch retiring from full-time kingship and allowing the heir apparent ‘to get his feet wet’ that I am aware of, but then again, the reign of the current monarch has broken a lot of new ground, so why should that of the next Mountbatten-Windsor be any different in that regard?

- Advertisement -

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Sign up for The ConWom News

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.


Follow us!

Share this post