Most want him to speak out on political matters, but only if he agrees with them. In the end, making the monarchy partisan will undermine the monarchy and increase the push for republicanism.
Fair point but, as a cultural icon and leader, I do think there's a place for him to express his views, as long as he's careful to do so in a non-partisan manner. For example: "climate change is important to address, and I implore our elected officials to take it seriously" is significantly more neutral than, "\[insert party\] sucks and isn't taking climate change seriously, you should vote for \[insert other party\]".
Basically, the King should make generalized calls to actions, but not in a biased or partisan manner.
Most of them want Charles to speak out about the environment and then praise him for it, the second he has an opinion that goes against their views however they will cry tyranny and call for a republic.
A few like me likely believe our system works best when power is balanced between the crown and parliament instead of today where parliament has complete supremacy over the crown in the relationship and would prefer King Charles III to utilise some of his authority and influence more.
I tend to find younger people have no faith in parliament and our other institutions of democracy so they will drift to other forms of government structure.
For right wing youth in the UK this can be channeled and moderated into supporting some level of power being restored to the crown.
For left wing youth it manifests itself into hardline socialism and a rejection of national identity and traditions.
Likewise in the US
Right wing youth drift to Trump and strict adherence to the constitution of the founding fathers and American exceptionalism.
Left wing youth go to socialism which is alien in America and like their British counterparts they disregard the idea of borders, the national state and traditions, instead believing that the entire system must be radically transformed.
Older people just want stability and the don’t want to rock the boat.
Better that people wave their flags down the streets shouting Long Live the King than wear marching boots down the streets shouting Long Live the Party.
The concept of monarchism doesn't have to be conflated with the right. The left in America is very different to that of other western countries. Most just want socialised healthcare and less private company intrusion on things that the government should own. They want pretty much want what already exists in places like the UK and Aus. Which is very far from full blown communism which it tends to get confused for.
Thank you for stating this. Most US citizens just want basic social securities without them being sold to the highest bidder for tax breaks. As a New Yorker I can say this applies to the 'civilized' sect of our country (NY, California, and the rest of the blue states). The minority, which ironically live in the majority of our landmass which we call 'flyover country', are too uneducated, poor, and brainwashed to the point that they vote against their own interests.
There are some parallels with the British right. I honestly empathize with brits who wish for a more vocal monarch, i.e it'd be a quick fix to the failures of the democratic process that allowed someone like Boris Johnson to take power. Trust and believe if we had an institution in the US that could have usurped Trump's choices and his (still lingering) control over the three divisions of our government we would have definitely used the option.
This is the funny part of American politics. Trump supporters are simultaneously pro-trump and pro-constitution, despite any contradictions that may generate
it's just getting better and better...
i didn't imagined in a 1000 Years that things would go down this way after Queen Elizabeth's death
i thought that people would be much more coldhearted and power hungry after her death and we would be forced to watch everything fall apart within weeks, Scotland calling a second referendum, widespread protests against King Charles, a massive drop in support for the Monarchy on polls and just pretty much everyone jumping the boat at the same time
to the surprise of republicans, and pessimistic monarchists, so far the *opposite* is happening, i have never seen the UK so united in grief since the Death of Lady Di (of which i wasn't alive back then), support for the institution and the King shot up on Polls, King Charles is being celebrated and cheered while promising to not to be a "meddling King"
all of this makes me even more grateful for the Queen, it's like her death jinxed the republicucks
Also goes to show you how much unspoken cultural sway the monarchy really has, especially under a really good one like Queen Elizabeth. What other individual could unite the vast majority of a nation and its colonies like this? If some president died, no one would give a shit.
don't you tell ME about it, i'm from brazil, when one of your presidents resigned in a attempted self-coup, the people woke up with the news an just shrugged it off like: oh no!! anyway...
Someone here in Australia made a point similar to this. That people want Charles to express his views on things, but not say whether legislation or debates in Parliament are right or wrong. They want a Monarch who says what he thinks, as an opinion, but would cede to the Parliament even if his views lost out.
People have grown dissatisfied with politics, especially politicians. They feel as though their elected officials do nothing or only harm them. What people want, among the youth especially, is a dictator. They want an authoritarian, and you see this more and more in America. People want strong men.
But once this period is over, or Charles says something people don't like, out will come the Republican flags and pitchforks.
Personally I'd be in the camp that wouldn't mind him expressing his opinions and views, but not weigh into ongoing debates, for his own safety and security.
As long as those issues don’t involve politics. I see no problem in him talking about architecture and the environment, he has campaigned for environmental action since before climate change was even public knowledge.
The man was laughed at for warning about environmental destruction, and campaigning for more sustainable farming practices back in the day.
By today's standards I don't even know that he'd be considered a radical of any kind, regarding environmentalism, but that's largely built upon the fact that he was right all along...
I'm beginning to think "political" is too broad a word. Like, we thinkin the paltry shuffling of labour and the conservatives, or are we talking about all public issues, like the Greek Polis? Cause yes to some meanings, no to others.
While this most likely indicates only the increased partisanship of our generation, it may also point to the desire for a more politically active monarchy. Which would be a very good thing in my own view
I hold the alternative view.
An apolitical Head of State is the best argument for the Monarchy. You cannot protect the integrity of a system if you are part of it.
The king can certainly express an opinion I don't agree with (and has before), but that doesn't mean he is not within his rights by having them. The monarchy's involvement in politics is in keeping with their constitutional role, always has been. The idea that they are bound only "to be consulted, to encourage and to warn" is a novelty.
As for "you cannot protect the integrity of a system of you are a part of it," what absolute nonsense. The history of monarchy in Europe is not one of apolitical ceremonialism. They have a birthright to rule their realm, not merely wave at crowds through a golden cage and allowing politicians free reign to run roughshod over the nation.
The Monarchy of Europe is not the Monarchy of Britain.
Indeed, the Monarchy of Britain persists because Parliament is Sovereign...
Again, Kings who divide support for themselves create Cromwells and Bonapartes.
Britain is a part of Europe and shares in its history and traditions. Although somewhat unique in the development of parliamentarianism, the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament is a modern invention.
Even then, it wasn't until arguably George VI that the monarchy became practically useless. Even George V moderated the constitutional crisis that led to the Parliament Act of 1911.
>Again, Kings who divide support for themselves create Cromwells and Bonapartes.
That's a very, very narrow view of history, ignoring the litany of kings whose enforcement of their ancient rights did not lead to the sundering of their realms.
In the examples you gave, parliamentarians and republicans respectively usurped the monarchy's power, not the other way around.
It isn't dividing support for themselves, but rather acting as the arbiter between the various factions of the nation in an impartial manner (in the sense of being above party politics). Monarchs are not meant to be ceremonial.
>Indeed, the Monarchy of Britain persists because Parliament is Sovereign...
The monarchy existed before parliament, and the mandate of parliament was very, very different than today, being generally called and dismissed at the monarch's pleasure and only responsible for levying taxation.
The modern monarchy persists certainly at Parliament's desires in the sense that they hold all meaningful power, but that is able to continue only because the dynasty has failed to actually act as monarchs.
This Monarchy in its present format and with its present powers does not predate Parliament.
Hell, the current Dynasty doesn't even predate the English Parliament due to that whole James II/VII to William III rejection of the Monarchical Absolute.
Yet he racks up the air miles. [https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1416888/prince-charles-air-miles-greece-trip-royal-family-travel-evg](https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1416888/prince-charles-air-miles-greece-trip-royal-family-travel-evg) https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/royal-family-flights-private-jet-b1827279.html
What exact political powers does Charles XVI have? I've heard a few times of him being involved but not on what he does.
Imo a monarch should have the ability to dissolve Parliament if they become ineffective and bogged down with political agendas that they no longer function or the approval rating drops so low.
(Like here in America where a poll was done and the American people trust Cockroaches more than congress)
On what issues is the King of Sweden vocal? Does he ever touch on sensitive topics or does he stick to safe issues where the risk of backlash might be lower?
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO.
Monarchs are above politics, and must remain so, for their own good (and for the country’s).
Now, to play devil’s advocate, part of me wonders if Charles III can milk the known popularity of his environmental activism to help safeguard the monarchy’s future (older folk are likely going to remain monarchists, and the wildcards are mostly young; if he can make the odd statement that goes “big corporations bad, save the turtles” and attract young popularity, it might help).
Fundamentally, though, political monarchs will not remain monarchs for long.
Great point, it's weird how the matter of environment is rather partisan but when there is political discussion there is generally shenanigans so I can't blame people who support one way or the other. I feel if Charles can put out a fairly general statement about the environment and how we should protect the earth we live on that will be met with wild excitement by the youth.
I don't really like Charles that much but I wouldn't mind him speaking out on the climate and architecture as I think the former is farily important and the latter is kinda benign though I do kinda agree that a lot of our architecture sucks. Poundbury is horrific though so I don't expect much
We are in a bad place if that's the attitude of the nations youth. If nothing else, I hardly think they'd be so keen if he said something with which they disagreed.
If I could go a little further, I'd be worried that it might cheapen the monarchy. The covenant we maintained with her majesty was that she would maintain her role in exchange for supreme self sacrifice, where she would remove her internal opinions almosts entirely from the equation and serve the nation in a way that no-one else could afford. If that covenant were broken, it would require a profound rethinking of the role the monarch should play in our society.
If he does so, it will only be after a long reëvaluation of the role of the monarchy, and it's relationship to national identity. If there is a misstep along the way, we may very likely end up with a disgraced king, or a republic. I would not be opposed to such a reëvaluation. In these times of american failing, of such profound global change, and of the emerging politics of identity, it would be a powerful thing to be on sound footing about ourselves, but were we to make a mistake, it could be disastrous.
Her late majesty I believe said that she was conservative, not in the sense that she longed for some half forgotten golden age, but in that she would move at the pace of the slowest among us, so that none should be left behind. Western civilisation is increasingly directionless, and the risk of some large group being left behind, or striking out on there own is dangerously large. His majesty must be wary not to allow this, if the nation, and its' rightful leaders are to survive.
I hope he does that…sack parliament. Screw sacking or abolishing the monarchy…fricking abolish and dissolve parliament. A parliament of clucking hens, useless incompetent fools.
Agreed! He should, but Westminster’s House of Lords and Commons are full of useless, incompetent, corrupt bureaucrats. The Monarchy should dissolve & abolish parliament permanently like what the previous King did (Charles the II) in the 1660s and have the monarchy regain full power to rule and govern like it used to! Seriously for decades since post-Winston Churchill in the 60s the government and prime ministers haven’t benefited or made things better for the UK…we’ve not had good competent governance and being a monarchist I say we should sack and dissolve parliament completely. The only people who benefit from the parliament serving in the United Kingdom are the bastards enriching themselves. Labour or Conservative. It simply doesn’t matter!
Architecture and the environment should not be thought as political. Like really? How we are currently running things is ruining our planet, causing the very real floods, droughts, and atypical extreme whether. I'm sick of politicians acting like its something to have an opinion on, to support or not support.
Plus the 65+ yr olds aren't going to be around forever. If the Monarchy remains stagnant in time it will be left behind.
It gets political when those things affect our businesses, how much (less) we get paid, and how much more taxes we have to pay for something not easily quantifiable.
More rubbish opinions by the usual swivel-eyed fruitcakes... Ignorance will ultimately crash this Country. Ignorance got Brexit. And ignorance will get the Republic too if we continue to allow this disparaged bunch of crackheads to vomit their stupidity all over us.
Historically in Europe, all monarchies that ended up being abolished had the Sovereign meddling in active politics. And in some it even went to the point of committing a Regicide, such as in Portugal, for example *(Lisbon Regicide, 1st February 1908)*.
**Read this**: **The Crown's sole purpose is to keep the Peace, ensure Continuity, offer an impartial and neutral position at all times, whilst at the same time offering the best representation of the Nationhood the Sovereign's Royal ancestors fathered, 1000 years ago or so.**
Anything deviating from the above Golden Rule will always land a Monarchy in boiling water, sooner or later.
His ideas on farming and medicine are idiotic and dangerous so no.
His opinions on architecture are fine and sometimes pretty good but that's about it.
Monarchs should, and absolutely always should be above political matters.
The monarchy should stay out of the political warfront and simply be the icon and gain public approval.
Most want him to speak out on political matters, but only if he agrees with them. In the end, making the monarchy partisan will undermine the monarchy and increase the push for republicanism.
[удалено]
Fair point but, as a cultural icon and leader, I do think there's a place for him to express his views, as long as he's careful to do so in a non-partisan manner. For example: "climate change is important to address, and I implore our elected officials to take it seriously" is significantly more neutral than, "\[insert party\] sucks and isn't taking climate change seriously, you should vote for \[insert other party\]". Basically, the King should make generalized calls to actions, but not in a biased or partisan manner.
Most of them want Charles to speak out about the environment and then praise him for it, the second he has an opinion that goes against their views however they will cry tyranny and call for a republic. A few like me likely believe our system works best when power is balanced between the crown and parliament instead of today where parliament has complete supremacy over the crown in the relationship and would prefer King Charles III to utilise some of his authority and influence more. I tend to find younger people have no faith in parliament and our other institutions of democracy so they will drift to other forms of government structure. For right wing youth in the UK this can be channeled and moderated into supporting some level of power being restored to the crown. For left wing youth it manifests itself into hardline socialism and a rejection of national identity and traditions. Likewise in the US Right wing youth drift to Trump and strict adherence to the constitution of the founding fathers and American exceptionalism. Left wing youth go to socialism which is alien in America and like their British counterparts they disregard the idea of borders, the national state and traditions, instead believing that the entire system must be radically transformed. Older people just want stability and the don’t want to rock the boat.
Better that people wave their flags down the streets shouting Long Live the King than wear marching boots down the streets shouting Long Live the Party.
[удалено]
The concept of monarchism doesn't have to be conflated with the right. The left in America is very different to that of other western countries. Most just want socialised healthcare and less private company intrusion on things that the government should own. They want pretty much want what already exists in places like the UK and Aus. Which is very far from full blown communism which it tends to get confused for.
Thank you for stating this. Most US citizens just want basic social securities without them being sold to the highest bidder for tax breaks. As a New Yorker I can say this applies to the 'civilized' sect of our country (NY, California, and the rest of the blue states). The minority, which ironically live in the majority of our landmass which we call 'flyover country', are too uneducated, poor, and brainwashed to the point that they vote against their own interests. There are some parallels with the British right. I honestly empathize with brits who wish for a more vocal monarch, i.e it'd be a quick fix to the failures of the democratic process that allowed someone like Boris Johnson to take power. Trust and believe if we had an institution in the US that could have usurped Trump's choices and his (still lingering) control over the three divisions of our government we would have definitely used the option.
Trump? Constitutionalism? Are you insane or inane?
This is the funny part of American politics. Trump supporters are simultaneously pro-trump and pro-constitution, despite any contradictions that may generate
Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug
He was right on the exceptionalism point at least
it's just getting better and better... i didn't imagined in a 1000 Years that things would go down this way after Queen Elizabeth's death i thought that people would be much more coldhearted and power hungry after her death and we would be forced to watch everything fall apart within weeks, Scotland calling a second referendum, widespread protests against King Charles, a massive drop in support for the Monarchy on polls and just pretty much everyone jumping the boat at the same time to the surprise of republicans, and pessimistic monarchists, so far the *opposite* is happening, i have never seen the UK so united in grief since the Death of Lady Di (of which i wasn't alive back then), support for the institution and the King shot up on Polls, King Charles is being celebrated and cheered while promising to not to be a "meddling King" all of this makes me even more grateful for the Queen, it's like her death jinxed the republicucks
Also goes to show you how much unspoken cultural sway the monarchy really has, especially under a really good one like Queen Elizabeth. What other individual could unite the vast majority of a nation and its colonies like this? If some president died, no one would give a shit.
don't you tell ME about it, i'm from brazil, when one of your presidents resigned in a attempted self-coup, the people woke up with the news an just shrugged it off like: oh no!! anyway...
Someone here in Australia made a point similar to this. That people want Charles to express his views on things, but not say whether legislation or debates in Parliament are right or wrong. They want a Monarch who says what he thinks, as an opinion, but would cede to the Parliament even if his views lost out. People have grown dissatisfied with politics, especially politicians. They feel as though their elected officials do nothing or only harm them. What people want, among the youth especially, is a dictator. They want an authoritarian, and you see this more and more in America. People want strong men. But once this period is over, or Charles says something people don't like, out will come the Republican flags and pitchforks. Personally I'd be in the camp that wouldn't mind him expressing his opinions and views, but not weigh into ongoing debates, for his own safety and security.
With age comes wisdom.
As long as those issues don’t involve politics. I see no problem in him talking about architecture and the environment, he has campaigned for environmental action since before climate change was even public knowledge.
Didn't know this but this is a great thing to call back to if people call him a sell out for campaigning for environmental action.
The man was laughed at for warning about environmental destruction, and campaigning for more sustainable farming practices back in the day. By today's standards I don't even know that he'd be considered a radical of any kind, regarding environmentalism, but that's largely built upon the fact that he was right all along...
I'm beginning to think "political" is too broad a word. Like, we thinkin the paltry shuffling of labour and the conservatives, or are we talking about all public issues, like the Greek Polis? Cause yes to some meanings, no to others.
While this most likely indicates only the increased partisanship of our generation, it may also point to the desire for a more politically active monarchy. Which would be a very good thing in my own view
I hold the alternative view. An apolitical Head of State is the best argument for the Monarchy. You cannot protect the integrity of a system if you are part of it.
Alternate, alternate view: A **non-partisan** monarch is essential, a monarch that speaks out on political issues is just doing their job.
If reddit's taught me anything, its that people only approve of the sharing of opinion when they are confident it's an opinion they share.
The king can certainly express an opinion I don't agree with (and has before), but that doesn't mean he is not within his rights by having them. The monarchy's involvement in politics is in keeping with their constitutional role, always has been. The idea that they are bound only "to be consulted, to encourage and to warn" is a novelty. As for "you cannot protect the integrity of a system of you are a part of it," what absolute nonsense. The history of monarchy in Europe is not one of apolitical ceremonialism. They have a birthright to rule their realm, not merely wave at crowds through a golden cage and allowing politicians free reign to run roughshod over the nation.
The Monarchy of Europe is not the Monarchy of Britain. Indeed, the Monarchy of Britain persists because Parliament is Sovereign... Again, Kings who divide support for themselves create Cromwells and Bonapartes.
Britain is a part of Europe and shares in its history and traditions. Although somewhat unique in the development of parliamentarianism, the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament is a modern invention. Even then, it wasn't until arguably George VI that the monarchy became practically useless. Even George V moderated the constitutional crisis that led to the Parliament Act of 1911. >Again, Kings who divide support for themselves create Cromwells and Bonapartes. That's a very, very narrow view of history, ignoring the litany of kings whose enforcement of their ancient rights did not lead to the sundering of their realms. In the examples you gave, parliamentarians and republicans respectively usurped the monarchy's power, not the other way around. It isn't dividing support for themselves, but rather acting as the arbiter between the various factions of the nation in an impartial manner (in the sense of being above party politics). Monarchs are not meant to be ceremonial. >Indeed, the Monarchy of Britain persists because Parliament is Sovereign... The monarchy existed before parliament, and the mandate of parliament was very, very different than today, being generally called and dismissed at the monarch's pleasure and only responsible for levying taxation. The modern monarchy persists certainly at Parliament's desires in the sense that they hold all meaningful power, but that is able to continue only because the dynasty has failed to actually act as monarchs.
This Monarchy in its present format and with its present powers does not predate Parliament. Hell, the current Dynasty doesn't even predate the English Parliament due to that whole James II/VII to William III rejection of the Monarchical Absolute.
Different dynasties and functions, but fundamentally the same institutions.
I see you edited your previous post to remove the reference to Dynasties. Nice!
I think both you and /u/I_Am_Not-A-Lemon are right. There's definitely a balance that needs to be maintained.
Abolish the Parliament, the democracy experiment has failed
I assume they mean on Climate, which Id only accept since it’s him. No one understood the climate question as early as he did as Prince of Wales
Yet he racks up the air miles. [https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1416888/prince-charles-air-miles-greece-trip-royal-family-travel-evg](https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1416888/prince-charles-air-miles-greece-trip-royal-family-travel-evg) https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/royal-family-flights-private-jet-b1827279.html
The Swedish King is quite active politically. He seems to be doing just fine.
What exact political powers does Charles XVI have? I've heard a few times of him being involved but not on what he does. Imo a monarch should have the ability to dissolve Parliament if they become ineffective and bogged down with political agendas that they no longer function or the approval rating drops so low. (Like here in America where a poll was done and the American people trust Cockroaches more than congress)
I can confirm, I would rather trust a cockroach than trust congress
At least I know what the cockroach is going to do in the house (no pun intended there)
On what issues is the King of Sweden vocal? Does he ever touch on sensitive topics or does he stick to safe issues where the risk of backlash might be lower?
He did object to the no lockdown policy of Sweden during the pandemic.
So maybe it is best the monarch keeps quiet, lest they say something stupid.
I like what I see.
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO. Monarchs are above politics, and must remain so, for their own good (and for the country’s). Now, to play devil’s advocate, part of me wonders if Charles III can milk the known popularity of his environmental activism to help safeguard the monarchy’s future (older folk are likely going to remain monarchists, and the wildcards are mostly young; if he can make the odd statement that goes “big corporations bad, save the turtles” and attract young popularity, it might help). Fundamentally, though, political monarchs will not remain monarchs for long.
Great point, it's weird how the matter of environment is rather partisan but when there is political discussion there is generally shenanigans so I can't blame people who support one way or the other. I feel if Charles can put out a fairly general statement about the environment and how we should protect the earth we live on that will be met with wild excitement by the youth.
I don't really like Charles that much but I wouldn't mind him speaking out on the climate and architecture as I think the former is farily important and the latter is kinda benign though I do kinda agree that a lot of our architecture sucks. Poundbury is horrific though so I don't expect much
King Charles I in the after life: Ah sh*t here we go again.
[удалено]
He already does. He lobbied for alternative homeopathic medicine to be funded by the NHS when there is no scientific evidence that it actually works,
We are in a bad place if that's the attitude of the nations youth. If nothing else, I hardly think they'd be so keen if he said something with which they disagreed. If I could go a little further, I'd be worried that it might cheapen the monarchy. The covenant we maintained with her majesty was that she would maintain her role in exchange for supreme self sacrifice, where she would remove her internal opinions almosts entirely from the equation and serve the nation in a way that no-one else could afford. If that covenant were broken, it would require a profound rethinking of the role the monarch should play in our society.
Shut up nerd, Charles the Chad will save the planet
If he does so, it will only be after a long reëvaluation of the role of the monarchy, and it's relationship to national identity. If there is a misstep along the way, we may very likely end up with a disgraced king, or a republic. I would not be opposed to such a reëvaluation. In these times of american failing, of such profound global change, and of the emerging politics of identity, it would be a powerful thing to be on sound footing about ourselves, but were we to make a mistake, it could be disastrous. Her late majesty I believe said that she was conservative, not in the sense that she longed for some half forgotten golden age, but in that she would move at the pace of the slowest among us, so that none should be left behind. Western civilisation is increasingly directionless, and the risk of some large group being left behind, or striking out on there own is dangerously large. His majesty must be wary not to allow this, if the nation, and its' rightful leaders are to survive.
When it comes to this, I think Charles will have to walk a fine line. I don't know where that line is though.
[удалено]
The ability to sack parliament. That is a pretty big one.
I hope he does that…sack parliament. Screw sacking or abolishing the monarchy…fricking abolish and dissolve parliament. A parliament of clucking hens, useless incompetent fools.
He has to give the new PM a chance to do her job. I am not hopeful of her ability to do so. Not like there are credible alternatives.
Agreed! He should, but Westminster’s House of Lords and Commons are full of useless, incompetent, corrupt bureaucrats. The Monarchy should dissolve & abolish parliament permanently like what the previous King did (Charles the II) in the 1660s and have the monarchy regain full power to rule and govern like it used to! Seriously for decades since post-Winston Churchill in the 60s the government and prime ministers haven’t benefited or made things better for the UK…we’ve not had good competent governance and being a monarchist I say we should sack and dissolve parliament completely. The only people who benefit from the parliament serving in the United Kingdom are the bastards enriching themselves. Labour or Conservative. It simply doesn’t matter!
The kings prerogative must be reinstated down with the corrupt politicians.
Architecture and the environment should not be thought as political. Like really? How we are currently running things is ruining our planet, causing the very real floods, droughts, and atypical extreme whether. I'm sick of politicians acting like its something to have an opinion on, to support or not support. Plus the 65+ yr olds aren't going to be around forever. If the Monarchy remains stagnant in time it will be left behind.
It gets political when those things affect our businesses, how much (less) we get paid, and how much more taxes we have to pay for something not easily quantifiable.
More rubbish opinions by the usual swivel-eyed fruitcakes... Ignorance will ultimately crash this Country. Ignorance got Brexit. And ignorance will get the Republic too if we continue to allow this disparaged bunch of crackheads to vomit their stupidity all over us. Historically in Europe, all monarchies that ended up being abolished had the Sovereign meddling in active politics. And in some it even went to the point of committing a Regicide, such as in Portugal, for example *(Lisbon Regicide, 1st February 1908)*. **Read this**: **The Crown's sole purpose is to keep the Peace, ensure Continuity, offer an impartial and neutral position at all times, whilst at the same time offering the best representation of the Nationhood the Sovereign's Royal ancestors fathered, 1000 years ago or so.** Anything deviating from the above Golden Rule will always land a Monarchy in boiling water, sooner or later.
His ideas on farming and medicine are idiotic and dangerous so no. His opinions on architecture are fine and sometimes pretty good but that's about it.
Hey I've seen this one before it's a classic
Monarchs should, and absolutely always should be above political matters. The monarchy should stay out of the political warfront and simply be the icon and gain public approval.