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?

My memory is muddled - it wasn't the Queen's dying wish, it was her Jubilee wish 🤔

The establishment did say she would never be known as queen and then it got slipped in later and nobody objected as they had down a PR job on the public

nonody seemed to remember

Reply to title of post- NO

Many were devastated by Diana’s because she was so young very small children. People loved the Queen Elizabeth and also the Queen Mother so we’re sad about them. I feel sorry for Charles. He waited so long to be King and got terminal cancer almost straight away. I don’t think there is a deep love in.

Did people love the Queen Mother? I think the opposite.
Elizabeth, yes, because of longevity
Diana died in a tragic accident so yes
QM was an overbearing snob who drank too much and died in debt.

To reiterate - loathe all the free loading, Chinless Hanoverian Twats. Only hope that someone is allocated to count in and out the amount of (mostly looted / appropriated from Colonies) jewellery Mistress adorns her bedraggled facade with. I would like to know how many gifts in kind re rent free properties / jobs she's managed to assign to her family / cohorts. Yup - loathe them all but getting away with sticking a Crown on mistress during a supposed sacred ceremony takes the biscuit.

In fairness the grace and favour business and the crowning of your mistress business goes back hundreds of years so it’s not like a new low or anything

In 'ye olde days', you'd benefit the child of mistress - yours or others - with surname 'Fitzroy'; acknowledging yet not and perhaps a very minor, non productive Dukedom. So Mother would have to be acquiesced to. Not sticking purloined Crown on head of said Mistress - who never gets tired of stroking his furrowed brow as he can't consider which of his Gardeners to sack after his organic Courgettes (not a euphemism) have failed to thrive. Smoking a Fag at same time takes skill.

I don't think she died in debt, I think she was above paying her bills, so she had lots of unpaid debts when she died.

She certainly had assets that were passed on.

I utterly despise people who don't prioritise paying their bills....especially those who have the means to pay. Businesses have their own bills, wages, rents, inventory to pay for; when customers fail to pay promptly they jeopardise all of that besides causing business owners huge stress.

But who cares how the 'little people' were affected by the nation's favourite grandmother eh?

But who cares how the 'little people' were affected by the nation's favourite grandmother eh?

Can we add the little people left to sink by the future king's PIL's?

Unpayable debts handily saved from becoming a millstone round their necks by a timely yet unusual and undoubtedly coincidental business restructuring.

I think she was above paying her bills, so she had lots of unpaid debts when she died.

She reportedly bleated about the bank manager 'scolding' her about her deficits at some boozy lunch for her mates.

If only he'd bounced a cheque or two instead...

DM (I know!) article on E2M's debts and expenditure:

archive.ph/XRQfX

She appears to have been a kind of ur-Fergie.

And her daughter took after her, trying to benefit from a grant for poor people to pay her heating bills! As well as having legislation amended to her benefit.

All scroungers.

The bank didn't mind, Coutts, they knew they'd get it back with interest when she died, she had so many assets.

There was a lot of talk at the time that the “debts” were advantageous tax dodges but who knows?

I won't go into details but I had a very unpleasant experience with Charles once and really seen another side of him

@CalmShaker I used to know someone who was a year behind him at Gordonstoun and at Cambridge who had some pretty stunning recollections about him. He turned some people's lives upside down.

Also know he wasn't very popular at Dartmouth Naval College

I agree with all this - but simply don't like Charles. Never have; I would've preferred Anne to be monarch. William seems reasonable, as far as one can tell from here in the cheap seats.

I think they should massively pare down their cost to the nation - and, actually, give back a sizeable chunk of the assets held by and for them. Having a monarchy's okay in my book - much as we have Morris dancers, cheese rolling, stately homes & castles, historical continuity all over the place. It's good (imo) to have a human embodiment of all that. We're not getting rid of the aristocracy any time soon; the royals are the most emblematic part of it but we overpay them for the work they do.

They are not, however, the core of a devoted nation 😂

I agree that, if we have to have an unelected monarch - and if it has to be a member of the Windsor family - I would have much preferred Anne.

The thought that, if Charles had been killed in an accident before 1982, we would now have Andrew as King is horrifying. All the work and paying off that the late Queen did to protect him... none of that would even have been necessary as, if he had been king, Andrew would have been utterly legally untouchable. In fact, there would now be ordinary petty criminals up and down the country being prosecuted in his name for relatively minor crimes, whilst he would have been free to do absolutely anything himself, with total impunity.

Then again, how can we know what appalling things any of the other royals might be up to, but which are more strenuously covered up if they have any chance of ending up on the throne?

At
least having the monarchy and constitution we do means that the monarch’s power is symbolic - I’d rather have a Windsor as Head of State than a Trump or Kim Jong Whatever.

Can you give some kind of indication what it involved? Or maybe you could tell us what 'a celebrity whom you once met' did, aside from Charles?

It's not symbolic, though. They interfere and get actively involved with lawmaking, so that it massively benefits them. They 'voluntarily' pay tax if they feel like it, which none of us have any choice about. They use their power a lot behind the scenes, whilst happily relaxing in the public perception that they are only symbolic figureheads.

They're hugely influential - as most billionaires are. You might as well say that Elon Musk has no influence on politics and world events at all, as long as you don't use Twitter or buy a Tesla... yet even he could be prosecuted under law, if he committed a terrible crime, unlike the Windsors. I'm no fan of Musks' whatsoever, but at least his connections and affiliations are largely known; whereas centuries of assured reign by the Windsors will have left an enormous web of influence and power across the world - whether for good or bad - of which the general public won't have the faintest idea.

Why is it always a juxtaposition of a choice of either the Windsors or somebody like Trump? For all we know, there could be a carbon copy of Trump or Kim Jong in all but name currently yet to born into the Windsor family, who would one day automatically become king. Why do we have to rely on the luck of the genetic bran tub as to who gets it? It's a phenomenally low bar to set, if we say that we'll cheerfully make do with an unelected Windsor as king or queen, purely on the basis that they could have been even worse like <insert name of elected leader who turns out to be terrible, who can at least be voted out after a few years>.

Would you rather have King Andrew than President Floella Benjamin?

Why is it always a juxtaposition of a choice of either the Windsors or somebody like Trump?

Because that's all that the supporters of monarchy have got.

They can only suggest ludicrous people because saying, but what if we got someone like Mary Robinson, wouldn't fit the fairly weak argument about why an elected Head of State would be worse.