AIBU in thinking that King Charles' passing will devastate Britain?

[monrymeadows73]

If you remember back when Queen Elizabeth II died, how upset most British people were and how it caused some social insecurity as many British people saw her as a sense of strength and a rock due to her continuity and longevity, but with her gone, they weren't sure how Britain would fare. Hence, the large crowds of mourners and a lot of upset.

King Charles III - though not as admired as Queen Elizabeth was - also has longevity and a sense of continuity in a different way: not as monarch since he's only been in the role for three years, but as a royal figure, i.e. he has been in the spotlight since the 1940s and conducting royal duties since the 1960s. When he dies, will Britain finally feel as though the older generation of royals - who for so long have provided reassurance and comfort to the British people - have gone?

Will this lead to a lot of soul-searching about where next Britain must go and perhaps cause social tensions due to the insecurity of identity? Who will the British look to to guide the nation from then on? Who will be their new rock?

This is absolutely true. We can't know that somebody whose whole job is in top-level PR is actually like that in private. How would we?

Do people think that Anthony Hopkins is a cannibal in real life - just because they saw him publicly exposed as one on the screen?!

By contrast, there's a certain very popular comedy writer/performer who plays loveable rogue characters on screen but is widely known as very unpleasant indeed in real life.

Why ever would being rich and famous automatically make somebody kind, wise, beautiful or of impeccable moral character? Yet, for some reason, these characteristics are very regularly ascribed to them without any justification apart from happening to be wealthy and immensely well-known. I rather think that a former prince relied very heavily on these assumptions and took enormous advantage of them.

This is absolutely true. We can't know that somebody whose whole job is in top-level PR is actually like that in private. How would we?

Do people think that Anthony Hopkins is a cannibal in real life - just because they saw 'him' publicly exposed as one on the screen?!

By contrast, there's a certain very popular comedy writer/performer who plays loveable rogue characters on screen but is widely known as very unpleasant indeed in real life.

Why ever would being rich and famous automatically make somebody kind, wise, beautiful or of impeccable moral character? Yet, for some reason, these characteristics are very regularly ascribed to them without any justification apart from happening to be wealthy and immensely well-known. I rather think that a former prince relied very heavily on these assumptions and took enormous advantage of them.

One thing that really got me was the way people kept referring to it as a hugely important historical event, why? we all die and this includes the so called royals and when the boss one goes there is another one lined up ready to keep the gravy train rolling. Historical events are wars (sadly) the overthrow of governments, the introduction of laws that enhance social progress or inflict social opression not the funeral of someone who happened to be be born into vast wealth and privilege

It’s not a 5 day week either. The Queen worked 3 days a week, for 3 months of the year 🤷‍♀️ I doubt the rest work much more.

I think it would be very sad, but also think that - likely due to his cancer - King Charles hasn't been very visible for most of his reign so far and so he doesn't feel like the same ubiquitous presence as the Queen did.

Also obviously her reign was unique in length and she was ever-present for a lot of us. Clearly that can't possibly be the case with King Charles due to his age when he ascended the throne, though I very much hope he has many years to come.

Ah this thread is a breath of fresh air to my Republican heart. Good to see the majority of people are capable of critically thinking about this lazy bunch of twats.

I don't think it went the OPs way ...

The idea that I would be 'upset' or 'devastated' when a monarch passes just makes me smile OP. The late Queen passed away in her 90s, at the end of an immensely privileged and comfortable life. That is much more than most other people have.

I suppose it is sad for them though that they can't take their riches and privilege with them & have to leave it all behind.

This. I don't know on what basis people conclude that W and K are 'good people'.

The signs are not good I'm afraid. W like his father has been shown to be making millions through profiteering from charities & public services, he is even more secretive about his taxes than his father was. The latest is that W & K evicted tenants to make way for their 'forever home' and have also put up a no go zone barring the public from about 150 acres of what was previously public land. This included the closure of a children's nature hub.

It makes K's soft focus videos supporting outdoor education & access to nature look a little hollow doesn't it? So I will need a lot more convincing to believe they are any less dysfunctional than the rest of the family.

She must be used to it by now, what with the threads about how we had an empire so why do people want to reverse Brexit, and the like…

Aaah I remember the Queens death fondly…my ex In-laws we’re visiting (they were in their 70’a) and I took great pleasure in popping my head into the room and declaring “Queens dead” and then leaving 😂😂😂😂

oh! Its her!

Yes wasn't one of Kates groundbreaking Early childhood revelations that no one had ever come up with before that you should take your kids out in nature? Clearly the plebs kids don't count- just her kids. Are they going to pay for the children's nature hub to be moved somewhere else in the park or is she just going to waft around another wood?

New rock? I don’t consider any of them that. Certainty a few cocks amongst them.

I won’t be devastated when Charlie goes, wasn’t when the Diana, Philip or the Queen went. Zero impact on my life and gave it no thought.

Will give the news channels something new to bang on about though.

William doesn’t want any job, he just wants to jet around the world babbling on about earthshot or cumshot, whatever it’s called.

Ah yes! I’d totally forgotten about The Paradise Papers which revealed how the late Queen and KC invested millions in offshore funds some of which ended up in controversial businesses; even though technically they were legal and taxed voluntarily, didn’t they raise some ethical concerns?

I think the exploitation of vulnerable families was one area of concern in relation to one of the Queen’s finds? And wasn’t one of Charles’s chosen funds run by a friend of his as I recall leading to questions about conflicts of interests. And another which invested in environmental projects I believe?

The revelations prompted calls for greater transparency in managing royal finances, as these offshore details weren't in public records.

Does anyone know if any more transparent practices were put in place after that?

Ah yes! I’d totally forgotten about The Paradise Papers which revealed how the late Queen and KC invested millions in offshore funds some of which ended up in controversial businesses; even though technically they were legal and taxed voluntarily, didn’t they raise some ethical concerns?

Don't be silly, as if the queen and charles would do such a thing!

That was their staff acting on their behalf. They wouldn't have known how dodgy it was, the staff wouldn't have bothered them with that sort of detail. It's not their fault.

No, we must concentrate on the hard work they do, personally on everything that is good, such as the environment and homelessness, and spending time in nature.

How silly of you to forget that the bad stuff they won't have known anything about, and that they work incredibly hard just on good stuff.

Re: the children's nature hub, of course Catherine won't have known anything about that! And after all, it's just a few acres that's closed off, just for privacy, and we all deserve privacy don't we, every ordinary family does.

doffs cap

Can I just say, totally agree on the scrutiny of young children being completely off whack,

And the most threat comes from their fans!

I caught a bit of footage on the news of Catherine, William and their dc leaving the carol concert the other night, and I was really shocked by the barrage of flashing cameras and unhinged screaming from the crowd that they were subject to in the short time it took them to exit the church and get in to their car.

Utterly insane, poor kids! I’m sure their parents do everything they can to protect them but growing up in a world where everyone has a camera phone and where AI prevails, is not going to be much fun, to put it mildly.

I never understand this argument. Why would an unelected head of state bring stability to a country? Many countries which report the highest levels if satisfaction and happiness such as Finland don't have royal families.

If monarchies provided such stability, then the world would still be dominated by monarchist nations. Which it isn't. And anyway we have a constitutional monarchy in this country and it makes the head of state constitutionally pointless. Their neutrality has no value when they are told what to do by the prime minister.

I find it hard to see how they bring unity to the country to the country and in fact they highlight inequality and division to me. People get up in arms in the amount of money spent on people on benefits yet here we are in a cost of living crisis, with public services in desperate need of cash spending hundreds of millions of pounds on taxpayers money funding a family who already have enormous amounts of private wealth and a staggering property portfolio. Why not the same outrage about this?

History suggests that Britains place in the world (whatever that may be) is in spite of the monarch, rather than because of it.

The less control the monarch had the (admittedly slowly) better things got.

Until recently I would have suggested that the US was the logical proof of this. However now they've revived the monarchy, I may have to reassess that.

Let's see how well they do with their Kings. (I can't see them having a Queen anytime soon*)

*You made that dirty in your own heads.

Charles seems decent but is no way as popular as the Queen was! I also think he has a not so nice side, remember he refused to speak to Harry for a long time after Megxit. (I think they have spoken now)
Many people loved Diana and see a lot of her in William, and Kate has definitely earned her stripes by now. They will be much more popular than Charles and Camilla.

Agree and not only are they funded by the taxpayer, they do not follow the laws of the land like everyone else.

I'd also love to know how they amassed their private wealth and massive property portfolio. It wasn't from an honest day's work that's for sure.

Yes <head slap> of course!

And my memory is so bad it’s completely slipped my mind the number of occasions that crop up when finances are shown to be a a little murky but of course the usual rules that apply to the rest of us, don’t apply to the royals, because it’s either private wealth that is none of our business, or wealth which is apparently for the public good ie investing in public buildings! But we are never quite sure where one starts and the other begins!

And yet this lack of transparency somehow isn’t acceptable for others holding public office?

"Most people"?? I don't know anyone who had a coronation party let alone looked forward to one. Thankfully I move in the social circles that don't celebrate such nonsense.

I think it's a national embarrassment the amount of tax payers money we use to fund such occasions including that of royal weddings and funerals.

It'll bring the country together, as long as we get a couple of days off to mourn/go down the pub