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?

Exactly! There do actually exist some people who aren't on the Epstein list or closely related to someone who is, it's possible for one of them to be a head of state.

I really can't but it'll all come out in the wash one day. If I were to say telescopic ladder and a pair of judphurs you'll just have to use your imagination

Wow, my mind's gone somewhere very dark!

The monarch used to ride into battle with their troops. Somehow, an image of Charles in armour, doesn't sit right, nor William or Kate. Now, Princess Anne is a different matter. Followed by her daughter and ex rugby playing husband.

@CalmShaker you can't leave us hanging - are you are Shire Horse predisposed to inter species cross dressing plus really good at accessing internet via amazing mouth dexterity utilising handy farm implements / woven Straw by equally handy fellow Beasts? Have you all read "Animal Farm"? If so, and you are a Shire Horse - get out - NOW!!!

@southerngirl10

The monarch used to ride into battle with their troops

But did they though or was that just spin? It struck me when they found Richard III skeleton and archaeologists* assumed initially it was female (*"unusually slender, almost feminine") so he obviously hadn't had a robust skeleton his bones not showing markers of much physical exertion that he hadn't being using weapons regularly or done much rigorous training. I know he had health issues but he has gone down in history as a seasoned military leader who fought in several battles. The quote "History is written by the victors" springs to mind. It makes sense that they were protected from fighting as once they were killed their side would lose.

I remember an episode of QI where they were laughing at paintings of past monarchs clad in armour that they didn't wear in reality as they never fought in battle. I thought, well how is that much different from RF wearing military uniforms now with shoulders clad with a line of medals when most* of them haven't been anywhere near a battlefield or fought in any conflicts?

*with a relatively few exceptions

I get your point though Southerngirl. It wouldn't look right on some of them!