Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Charles back in hospital

242 replies

Londonrach1 · 27/03/2025 21:42

Sadly Charles is back in hospital.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2025/03/27/king-charles-cancels-engagements-taken-to-hospital/

OP posts:
BeHere · 28/03/2025 19:07

jeffgoldblum · 28/03/2025 18:47

Did you miss this post?
@BeHere as far as I’m aware that was the only time the U.K. successfully removed a monarch and had a republican movement.
are you saying there was another one I missed?
otherwise I’m still confused as to not providing an exact date would be confusing!

It's not confusing. It's sufficiently wrong that multiple posters pointed out the dates, needing clarification of whether you knew what you were actually talking about! Especially as your point seemed to be about splitting powers, and that looks really different in the 17th century than in the constitutional monarchy era when the monarch didn't really have any.

I'm gobsmacked you'd think this is about potshots.

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 19:10

PigeonDress · 28/03/2025 19:02

Because the second his mother died, he became king, and all the duties that came with it were thrust upon him immediately, as well as all the ceremonial stuff. He didn't get a chance to draw breath, let alone let the grief sink in. Goodness knows if the man even slept. Have you ever lost a parent? You can prepare for their death all you like, but it still hits you. Nobody prepares you for the death of a loved one, even though you know it's coming. Now imagine taking on the biggest job of your life that comes with public facing duties and responsibilities the minute your mother dies, and not having time to grieve. We get it, you hate him. But you don't seem to have an ounce of humanity.

well being king he didn't have to do all the ceremonial stuff.
he could have said " you know what, when my time comes we'll just sign the legal stuff ( whatever that is) and not spend £75 million of tax payers' money.

he could have also quite easly said he wanted a couple of weeks of silent private reflection before starting the public engagements and evryone would have been fine with that.
But no, he wanted the big shiny carriages, and the big shiny hats and the whole world to know RIGHT NOW that he was king.

So no, I don't excuse his stroppy behaviour towards people he obviously views as underlings

TheBackupPlan · 28/03/2025 19:14

It might have been kinder and better for everyone if the Queen had stepped down and let Charles be King for a while before she died. That way he wouldn’t have to get used to being King at the same time as grieving his mother. Maybe he should do that for William, knowing how hard it was to deal with the two things at once.

MissRoseDurward · 28/03/2025 19:31

It might have been kinder and better for everyone if the Queen had stepped down and let Charles be King for a while before she died.

She would have had to abdicate, which she never would have contemplated, given the negative associations the concept of abdication would have had for her.

PigeonDress · 28/03/2025 19:36

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 19:10

well being king he didn't have to do all the ceremonial stuff.
he could have said " you know what, when my time comes we'll just sign the legal stuff ( whatever that is) and not spend £75 million of tax payers' money.

he could have also quite easly said he wanted a couple of weeks of silent private reflection before starting the public engagements and evryone would have been fine with that.
But no, he wanted the big shiny carriages, and the big shiny hats and the whole world to know RIGHT NOW that he was king.

So no, I don't excuse his stroppy behaviour towards people he obviously views as underlings

You have no idea with what "everyone would have been fine with". You also don't know what it feels like to be bereaved until you are. Things you think you can cope with, eg going through with the traditional ceremonies (which is the backbone of the RF) suddenly become hard because you are tired and sad. And he got annoyed about a pen not working, he didn't punch anyone. Maybe said "underling" (your revolting word for an employee, not mine, not Charles') should have checked the thing before placing it there, which I assume was his or her job.

No, I don't think they would have cancelled any of the pomp and ceremony, because, whether you republicans like it or not, that's the stuff the public actually like. It's the stuff that makes us unique and the stuff that provides the continuity from monarch to monarch. It's the stuff that make millions flock to this country and millions watch our ceremonies. I note on Republic's website, they are quite happy to keep some of those traditions going too, so they obviously recognise the value of it. And, in any event, a "swearing in" session would have had to go ahead, just as it would in a republic if a head of state was suddenly replaces. Our "swearing in" session is set out in legal procedures that were followed after the Queen's death.

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 19:44

@PigeonDress

Things you think you can cope with, eg going through with the traditional ceremonies (which is the backbone of the RF) suddenly become hard because you are tired and sad

well don't do them.
or do them at a later date
or do them like many other countries with a simple oath swearing
Or do them but pay for it out of his own pocket
There is no need for "continuity from monarch to monarch"
the ceremonies are traditions that the monarchs have made and expanded on ove rthe years; no reason they can't change.
Lots of people may watch the ceremony but an awful lot are thinking WTF and a lot are cringing at the naffness of it all

But if you're saying none of that can change because they don't want it to, then you can't use it as an excuse for stroppiness.
He became king. He's literally above the law so I'm sure he could change the timetable of dressing up days if he wanted to

Our "swearing in" session is set out in legal procedures that were followed after the Queen's death.

I've just been looking for this and all I can see is that he became king as soon as she was dead .
he makes a personal declaration to the accession council apparently but that appears to be it.
What are the other legal procedures he had to follow?

TulipTiptoer · 28/03/2025 19:46

I so agree @Mightymoog

Those that are trying to support me during a difficult time need to be treated kindly. They are just doing their best.

There is nothing written anywhere that you have to sign whatever papers when you do. Or is there? Do tell me so if that's the case.

jeffgoldblum · 28/03/2025 19:47

BeHere · 28/03/2025 19:07

It's not confusing. It's sufficiently wrong that multiple posters pointed out the dates, needing clarification of whether you knew what you were actually talking about! Especially as your point seemed to be about splitting powers, and that looks really different in the 17th century than in the constitutional monarchy era when the monarch didn't really have any.

I'm gobsmacked you'd think this is about potshots.

cromwell 1653 to 1658

The Glorious Revolution (1688–89) permanently established Parliament as the ruling power of England—and, later, the United Kingdom—representing a shift from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.
obvious really!
do you know what you are talking about?

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 19:52

TulipTiptoer · 28/03/2025 19:46

I so agree @Mightymoog

Those that are trying to support me during a difficult time need to be treated kindly. They are just doing their best.

There is nothing written anywhere that you have to sign whatever papers when you do. Or is there? Do tell me so if that's the case.

I've just had an admittedly quick look and there doesn't appear to be anything.
He doesn't sign a contract etc.

Wakemeupbe4yougogo · 28/03/2025 19:53

I'm a bit disappointed with Charles to be truthful. He's letting his son and his daughter in law in the USA make an absolute mockery of the BRF and no doubt funding their ability to do so. He needed to stop their titles from being used overseas but instead Meghan is now profiteering financially from her title as the Duchess of Sussex. I've pretty much lost all respect for him at this stage.

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 19:53

@jeffgoldblum
Just finished watching a really good series called Kaos with your man Jeff in it.
Very good

CathyorClaire · 28/03/2025 20:11

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 16:53

He'll need a couple of weeks off after that then

Private schools will be breaking up imminently if they haven't already done so.

Poor worn out thing will be taking a month just to be on the safe side.

TheBackupPlan · 28/03/2025 20:15

MissRoseDurward · 28/03/2025 19:31

It might have been kinder and better for everyone if the Queen had stepped down and let Charles be King for a while before she died.

She would have had to abdicate, which she never would have contemplated, given the negative associations the concept of abdication would have had for her.

I don’t think anyone would have thought any less of her, she’d definitely done enough years and people would have understood. The same for Charles, we know he has cancer so I think people would understand.

MissRoseDurward · 28/03/2025 20:17

I'm a bit disappointed with Charles to be truthful. He's letting his son and his daughter in law in the USA make an absolute mockery of the BRF and no doubt funding their ability to do so. He needed to stop their titles from being used overseas but instead Meghan is now profiteering financially from her title as the Duchess of Sussex.

But can you imagine the whinging from Montecito? Much better, I think, to do nothing, give them no more ammunition, and let them slide further and further into obscurity - which is what is happening. Barely anyone who matters is talking to them now.

And I don't suppose it's all been entirely Charles's decision. I expect he has consulted and taken advice.

PigeonDress · 28/03/2025 20:21

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 19:44

@PigeonDress

Things you think you can cope with, eg going through with the traditional ceremonies (which is the backbone of the RF) suddenly become hard because you are tired and sad

well don't do them.
or do them at a later date
or do them like many other countries with a simple oath swearing
Or do them but pay for it out of his own pocket
There is no need for "continuity from monarch to monarch"
the ceremonies are traditions that the monarchs have made and expanded on ove rthe years; no reason they can't change.
Lots of people may watch the ceremony but an awful lot are thinking WTF and a lot are cringing at the naffness of it all

But if you're saying none of that can change because they don't want it to, then you can't use it as an excuse for stroppiness.
He became king. He's literally above the law so I'm sure he could change the timetable of dressing up days if he wanted to

Our "swearing in" session is set out in legal procedures that were followed after the Queen's death.

I've just been looking for this and all I can see is that he became king as soon as she was dead .
he makes a personal declaration to the accession council apparently but that appears to be it.
What are the other legal procedures he had to follow?

Edited

We have a constitutional monarchy and a constitutional framework that requires certain things to occur through royal proclamation under the royal Seal. Eg, Acts of Parliament only become acts under royal proclamation, eg the dissolution/summoning of Parliament. Charles' ascension to the throne was made official through royal proclamations, here and throughout the rest of the countries where the UK monarch is the head of state. He needed to sign those proclamations, along with an oath towards the Scottish church. That's what happened in the ceremonies the day after QEII died. Everything that happened after she died fell under Operation London Bridge, the procedure that had been honed since 1960 in the event of the Queen's death. I don't really think it was an option for Charles to call in sick or decide he was cancelling everything.

jeffgoldblum · 28/03/2025 20:24

Mightymoog · 28/03/2025 19:53

@jeffgoldblum
Just finished watching a really good series called Kaos with your man Jeff in it.
Very good

Oh I heard about that but haven’t had time to view 👍

vandelle · 28/03/2025 20:25

I thought that the immediate swearing in or whatever it's called seemed to be done with unseemly haste - lest the peasants revolted! I know it's part of the package, but it could have been done in private and filmed for showing later.

Same for the frantic racing around his realm immediately, just to make sure we all knew he was now our King - and here I am to prove it to you all, my dear subjects. Again, I thought (these are just my feelings on the matter), that he could have made a short broadcast saying I love you all my dear subjects, Mama is gone, but I am here now and I'll visit you in the four corners of my Realm as soon as Mama is buried. Then we'll have a scaled down Coronation with golden carriages, and I'll divest myself of my robes behind the altar and wear a big gold crown. The Bishop will make my forehead all smelly and I'll wave to you all. I don't really need to do all that but I want to, so as you, my subjects can see that I am following the great tradition of the British Monarchy. God save the King.

And where is my bloody pen you imbeciles.

TulipTiptoer · 28/03/2025 20:31

Wakemeupbe4yougogo · 28/03/2025 19:53

I'm a bit disappointed with Charles to be truthful. He's letting his son and his daughter in law in the USA make an absolute mockery of the BRF and no doubt funding their ability to do so. He needed to stop their titles from being used overseas but instead Meghan is now profiteering financially from her title as the Duchess of Sussex. I've pretty much lost all respect for him at this stage.

I hate to bring this up, but....

Why can a divroced from the royal family for 30 years make a mockery of the royal family like Sarah has? I really really need someone to tell me why Sarah can use her title but Meghan can't?

Because it makes a mockery of your arguments tobe honest

TulipTiptoer · 28/03/2025 20:35

vandelle · 28/03/2025 20:25

I thought that the immediate swearing in or whatever it's called seemed to be done with unseemly haste - lest the peasants revolted! I know it's part of the package, but it could have been done in private and filmed for showing later.

Same for the frantic racing around his realm immediately, just to make sure we all knew he was now our King - and here I am to prove it to you all, my dear subjects. Again, I thought (these are just my feelings on the matter), that he could have made a short broadcast saying I love you all my dear subjects, Mama is gone, but I am here now and I'll visit you in the four corners of my Realm as soon as Mama is buried. Then we'll have a scaled down Coronation with golden carriages, and I'll divest myself of my robes behind the altar and wear a big gold crown. The Bishop will make my forehead all smelly and I'll wave to you all. I don't really need to do all that but I want to, so as you, my subjects can see that I am following the great tradition of the British Monarchy. God save the King.

And where is my bloody pen you imbeciles.

Love that post!

Let's not forget that silly busiiness behind a curtain with him dressed in a big vest!

Love your post... hilarious!

TulipTiptoer · 28/03/2025 20:37

Wakemeupbe4yougogo · 28/03/2025 19:53

I'm a bit disappointed with Charles to be truthful. He's letting his son and his daughter in law in the USA make an absolute mockery of the BRF and no doubt funding their ability to do so. He needed to stop their titles from being used overseas but instead Meghan is now profiteering financially from her title as the Duchess of Sussex. I've pretty much lost all respect for him at this stage.

Stop Duchess of York then!

She's not been married to Andrew for 30 years!

MissRoseDurward · 28/03/2025 20:41

Why can a divroced from the royal family for 30 years make a mockery of the royal family like Sarah has? I really really need someone to tell me why Sarah can use her title but Meghan can't?

Sarah has never publicly slagged off, or told outright lies about, the royal family.

(Though I'm not one of thse saying H&M should lose their titles, though I do think many of the things they have done are tacky in the extreme.).

CathyorClaire · 28/03/2025 20:41

their "duties" are not in any way essential for the running of the country, apart from the weekly audience and approval of legislation maybe. Would anyone notice or care if they were to take a long sabbatical from the visitations and ribbon cutting?

Well no-one seemed to miss them while Covid regulations were in force.

They did manage to score the usual pay cheque though so they must be value for money 🤑

glitterturd · 28/03/2025 20:41

@TulipTiptoeryou are just so funny .

CathyorClaire · 28/03/2025 20:48

It might have been kinder and better for everyone if the Queen had stepped down and let Charles be King for a while before she died.

It might have been kinder and better for everyone had they voluntarily melted away into the sunset after an allegedly tremendous gig.

That said, I'm here for certain unedifying spectacles unfolding 👀

TulipTiptoer · 28/03/2025 20:49

glitterturd · 28/03/2025 20:41

@TulipTiptoeryou are just so funny .

Glad you appreciate me! It means a lot