Queen Elizabeth II was a thoroughly admirable woman who conducted herself throughout her life with unfailing dignity and integrity.
The same cannot be said for all her family. It was a marvel that the Queen endured with such grace and stoicism the serial humiliations inflicted on her by Charles, Andrew and her grandson Harry. She deserved better.
Charles revealed his true character with his sham marriage to Lady Diana Spencer and has never fully rehabilitated himself in the public eye.
The new king is weak, pompous, priggish and ineffectual, but also vain enough that he will find it hard - unlike his mother - to resist meddling in politics. His accession to the throne is bound to energise the republican movement.
14 comments:
As a "headless chicken" (Charles's words) climate change questioner, I share your opinions Karl.
You're right Karl about Charles, a complete fruit loop if ever there was one. He'll be checking in with Klaus from time to time. A very sad day for Western Civilization.
Slight understatement. I believe if Charles doesn't quickly abdicate and allow William to succeed him it will mean the end of the Commonwealth, with all the former Commonwealth nations becoming republics. I also predict Canada will move first.
And I'm not convinced Justin Trudeau won't try and go full Putin.
Can't agree - I couldn't have been stuck with Diana either.
If and when New Zealand does become a republic, what happens to the Treaty and the special people who believe they are ruling the country in partnership with the Crown, ie "co-governance"? I have always preferred having the royal family provide our Head of State, for reasons of economy and because waking up everyday to Helen Clark as President for Life would be intolerable. But perhaps we need to become a republic in order to finally grow up?
Charles was forced into the marriage with Diana
I wholeheartedly join you in lauding Queen Elizabeth 2 for her 70 years of faithful service to her country. However, I am a bit unsure about your conclusion that Charles’s accession to the throne will “energise the republican movement”. You are completely ignoring the existence of The Commonwealth - this extraordinary phenomenon of a political association of 56 free independent nation states in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe and the Pacific. I believe Queen Elizabeth’s time was spent mostly in the service of the Commonwealth - not in the service of England. And this with the full blessing of the House of Commons right from the beginning in the 20th century. She, more than anybody, has actually stemmed the tide of countries becoming republics – 20 of the 56 countries remain with the Westminster system with Charles 3 as their monarch. The rest are still members of the “British Commonwealth of Nations” - headed by the English monarch (with the House of Commons behind him/her!).
Will New Zealand ever become a republic? I doubt it - even if our neo-marxist masters will do their best to brainwash us. Our monarchy is simply too popular, too ingrained in us, I think; and of course, becoming a republic will in no way make us more independent than we already are – only be a great deal more expensive! Any rational person will eventually cotton on to that.
Charles 3 is now head of the Commonwealth - his biggest job, in my opinion. He knows it is his bounden duty to carry on, emulating his mother in every way. Is he “weak, pompous, priggish, vain and ineffectual”? With all due respect, Karl – I think you are stretching it a bit. Among world figures our Charles is certainly not the worst sort of character – he is nowhere as bad as all that.
Our democratic, limited-monarchy system will survive perfectly well under Charles 3. Will he stop “meddling in politics”? Well - 400 years ago the House of Commons chopped off the head of the first King Charles. They will most certainly not put up with too much climate-change nonsense from Charles 3 (who is fully versed in English history, I’m sure!).
Just in case my comment was misconstrued, I'm not a republican. Quite the reverse. But republicans will seize on the death of the Queen, and the accession of her much less popular son, as a golden opportunity to promote their cause.
I agree that Charles is unlikely to be as circumspect as Elizabeth, though I think there was a hint there that Charles is expecting William to take up the vocal role more.
He was pretty much forced to marry Diana. If he'd been allowed to marry Camilla from the get go, I think that would have been better for him, although of course there would have been no William or Harry as we know them.
It will be interesting to see if there is a rush for the door. I think at least a year, out of respect for Elizabeth
Charles has openly declared his climate change stance, and is a WEF supporter, I believe. Could you ever imagine Her Majesty going public with these sorts of views? An apolitical stance is important imho to protect and maintain the dignity of the monarchy.
I see parallels with the last Prince of Wales (and the last Prince of Wales to be crowned) who ascended the throne after the long reign of his mother and popular monarch 121 years ago.
When Prince Albert became King Edward VII, there were many critics who expected the worst due to his apparent dissolute lifestyle (continual affairs with married women - makes Charles’s affair with the real love of his life (and who he should’ve been allowed to marry in the first place) pale in comparison) and the parties he hosted.where he gathered politicians, leaders of business, banking, arts etc. However, at the end of his short reign, the critics had been silenced as he proved to be a popular king who laid the ground work for the successful reign of his son George V.
Charles has been brought up and educated to be the monarch, having served a particularly long apprenticeship. In his speech yesterday, he indicated that he will no longer be able to continue with his causes and this work will have to be picked up by others.
Personally, I think that Charles will be a good king, and will pleasantly surprise most people.
Good evening Folks,
History…Thoughtful comments from A.N.Wilson..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11198423/A-N-WILSON-Queens-death-moment-republicans-waiting-for.html
Yes, Yes I know…..The DM…really…..but all the xspurts that say they never condescend to read are usually B*ll Sh***ers
aye
I note that the Maori Party still haven't put out a statement even acknowledging her passing. Given how they continue to bang on day in and day out about the bloody treaty, surely you'd expect at least some acknowledgement of the relevant head of state's passing. To call that disrespectful is, to say the least, polite.
Russell,
I've seen tributes paid to the Queen by both Maori Party co-leaders - by Rawiri Waititi on RNZ and by Debbie Ngarewa-Packer on Stuff. Possibly elsewhere too.
Post a Comment