You’re not British so probably don’t understand…we actually like the system of Constitutional Monarchy & Parliamentary Democracy we have in the U.K…and find it preferable to a having a President. We tried having a Republic when we had the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell, but we reverted to the reformed monarchy under Charles II by consent of the people, but with Parliament holding the ultimate power.

You’re not British ..I thought this group was for U.K. Members. He’s not your king so who cares what you think…

@Marionville I reside in the UK and am British and do not give a hoot what you think .I despise royalty .

@becketb….and that is your prerogative of course. I however, prefer to reserve my deepest revulsion for the real enemies of the British people ….the Tories. I’m not a particular royalist or a lover of the royal family,, but as they wield no real power over my life I aim my venom where it’s most deserved…at the current unelected PM and her cabinet of cretinous cronies, because they are rewarding the richest corporations while the rest of us can’t pay our bills. Charles is merely a figurehead, Truss & Co can, and will, do us real harm.

Nobody worships them…what a strange idea! Charles is just a man who has become King through accident of birth. We got rid of the Monarchy almost 4 decades ago when we chopped the first King Charles’s head off…but after a dalliance with a Republic under Oliver Cromwell for a short few years the monarchy was reinstated by public preference. Maybe we’ll get rid of it again in the future…but I don’t think any alternative system would be an improvement on the system of government we have with the monarch as Head Of State and apolitical. He makes no real decisions they’re made by the politicians…and they’re making a rat’s arse of it at present!

I’m not forgetting anything…I expect her to be a total nightmare. My expectations are that Charles will be considerably better at being monarch than dizzy Lizzy will be at being PM…

It was probably very difficult.

Yes…I’ve come round to him, and I think she really is very good for him. They should’ve allowed him to marry her in the first place.

@Marionville Exactly what I said at the time. I liked Diana, but seemed totally wrong for him from day one.

@Lilac-JadeCanada Yes…a total mismatch in every way, But the important thing was she was still a virgin ….a rarity generally amongst the British 80s population and almost non existent in the upper echelons of society.

@Marionville Yes, I'm sure that was the whole reason, & he does have his sons, but still......all wrong.

@Lilac-JadeCanada yes…very sad really.

@Marionville It was.

@Lilac-JadeCanada The marriage to Dianna was was a breeding stock match initiated by the Queen mother.
The Queen mother Elizabeth Bowes Lion was a direct descendent of the house of Stuart, as are Earl Spencer's family (the previous Earl spencer was a cousin of the queen mother) including the late Diana who was rolled out to marry Charles after her older sister declared she would slit her own wrist before marrying him.
This means that when he accedes to the throne William will have more Stuart blood than Gotha Sax-Coburg (the real name of the Windsor dynasty, they changed it during World War One to not appear German).
Since his mother (full Stuart) , his grandmother (one half Stuart) and his great Grandmother (full Stuart) and both his grandfathers (Philip one Quarter Stuart and cousin to both his wife and his mother in law and Earl Spencer whole Stuart) contribute Stuart DNA to William.
William therefore by right of ancestry can change the name of the Royal family back to Stuart and reinstate the line, something the house of Stuart has been trying to engineer since 1714 when Queen Anne died childless, and the government declared the line at and end (it was not) and instead invited in the house of Hannover to take over, an off shot of which was the house of Gotha Sax-Coburg.
Even if Edward the VIII had not abdicated this would have worked as he died childless and Wallace Simpson was barren.
Catherine Middleton's family are descended from both the house of York (Edward iii) and the house of Lancaster( Edward iv), blood from both lines also ran in the house of Stuart, meaning when George becomes King the House of Stuart will be as pure as it has ever been since the 18th century.
(the only other dubious claimant being Franz, Duke of Bavaria)

It means sod all to ordinary people but is of vital import to these horsey snobs.

@LenHazell53 Yes, I'd heard most of that, so I got the reasoning, even if a disastrous match.

@LenHazell53 There is another prentender to the throne with Scottish blood like the late qeen.

@Moravian Yes, & that ''thing'' is one of the most disgusting, revolting pieces of scum on the planet......which is why I call him scump.