Community Chat

[vsm]

---

@Oznell wrote:

He's still in the middle of his speech.  How do you assess he has done?  I think his tone of deep respect for his mother's achievement will sit well.   His praise for her sense of duty, tradition, service, guiding faith, speaks to the weight he'll give those virtues in his own reign.

"The nation changes, our values remain constant".   Reaching out.  Nice acknowledgment of an evolving Britain, while remaining moored in the highest goals of British tradition.

He made sure that Camilla gets her due--  "my darling wife....  Queen Consort"....

Affection for family--  paramount.

William becomes Prince of Wales!

Good speech, in my 'umble opinion.

---

I agree it was a good speech, @Oznell , but I think his "sense of duty, tradition, service, and guiding faith" is quite different from his mother's. Unlike her, he is a decidedly political animal, seeking out opportunities to pronounce on the issues of the day and (as widely reported by the media this summer) exercising deeply troubling judgment with regard to the funding of his charity. Some of this isn't surprising, given his stage of life and his freedom from the constraints that his mother lived under since before he was born. I wish him and Britain well, even if I'm less sangine than you are about his commitment to ensuring that "our values remain constant."

[barrel racer]

Not interested in what England does, I'm a US citizen. He's a cheating dirtbag.

[Firefly901]

For functioning government they have a parliamentary form of government.  The key roles they provide is the right to appoint a prime minister and certain ceremonial roles for the government.  I have been listening to the people there and it seems that despite the massive reduction in their colonial empire, the monarchy with the queen was able to maintain its existence and relevance by transitioning into providing some sort of psycho/social/emotional support to the people, giving hope for the future, providing stability, and philanthropical support to the nation during all these decades of tremendous change and much transition.  It is a relic of the past, but it works for them.  Let's see where this new king takes it.

[Oznell]

So many great, thoughtful responses, even while not everyone agrees.  LOVE that!

@BlueFinch,  excellent,  so well put and thought out!   And you put into words very much how I react.

Thanks for further elaborating, @beach-mom --  you give me more insights into how many people feel.  I'm going to guess that in other realms, you might be an unreconstructed romantic, a good thing to be....

@vsm,  you are right to be cautious.  I was too, knowing Charles'  "flibbertigibbetness",  and still not entirely sure he can put all of that aside.  But, interestingly, some of the long time observers of the British scene, seem to feel that he will see that as King, he must be 'above the fray',  and the king of *all* the people.  His speech, while no guarantee, seemed to be hitting the right notes.  Even Nile Gardiner, former aide to Margaret Thatcher and think-tanker, seemed guardedly optismistic, which I thought was a good sign.

Thanks again to all those here who put such considered thought into their remarks, and without rancor.

[jubilant]

---

@kaydee50 wrote:

Did not watch.  While QEII was admirable in many respects, I won't say what I think of King Charles III.  Just part of another dysfunctional family.

The only useful part of this is that is has taken the focus off our political situation for awhile and the various weather problems throughout the USA.

---

@kaydee50  Quite frankly, I have never known a family without someone in it who was dysfunctional. In fact everyone has been dysfunctional at some times in their lives. I would hope and think that King Charles III has learned a lot of lessons in his life from his mistakes and is the wiser for it now. I pray that is the case.  He had a good example to follow. I pray that will be a reminder to him.

[BlueFinch]

Well, it's official. Charles signed the Proclamation and delivered another admirable speech. King Charles III will reign.

All the associated activities today have seemed lovely, and well orchestrated, while carrying out official details and still celebrating the Queen's life and service. 

However, I wasn't happy with Charles' angry episode for his official signature, gruffly directing his aide to assist in clearing the table. He looked quite angry, which seemed uncalled for. If you get this angry with an aide on camera, what happens privately? Perhaps, it's just an indication of how tired and stressed he may be, but we'll see. 

Enjoyed seeing Will and Harry doing the walk-around greeting citizens with their wives. It's reported William invited Harry and Meghan to walk with them. It's a start. I hope that they can work out difficulties.

These brothers need one another. They have a shared history of deep value that should be preserved.  

[gertrudecloset]

---

@Oznell wrote:

@beach-mom,  I think I see what you're saying, about being disappointed in Charles' sort of 'doubling down' (for lack of a better phrase) on the Camilla thing.

I do look at that aspect a bit differently.  I see the royals as flawed individuals, who do make major mistakes,  i.e. Charles and Camilla's adultery and  deceptions-- and numerous other royal  poor behaviors-- Andrew, Princess Michael, Edward and Wallis, and so on.

But, from a historical perspective, Charles and Camilla seem now to be a solid unit (and I expect have "paid" in terms of their own consciences and recognition of personal foibles). 

As an American, my first concern is:  

How does the British monarchy help shore up the strategic, ultra-important "special relationship" that America and Great Britain have at their cores? 

Objectively, it looks to me like Charles will be much in his mother's tradition of supporting and liking the U.S.,  and nourishing that relationship.  Of course they're not "rulers" like the real, elected leaders of the U.K. are, but in so many ways they do set a tone, of continuity and reassurance.

So, from that perspective, the signals to me, are pretty good coming from old Blighty.   I'm not swayed by the personalities of individual royals themselves, although the Queen herself was utterly admirable.

I still enjoy hearing yours and others' views of different aspects of the speech--  quite eye-opening.  

---

@Oznell While I did not and do not plan to watch King Charles' speech to the Nation of Great Britain, you make interesting points and ask some very important questions for Americans with relation to a long time Ally of America.  I don't believe that the Monarchy shores that up; provides any stability; or anything that affects our daily lives here across the pond.

The Prime Minister and Parliament and our own President and Legislature here, are and should be the only groups who make decisions on how we move forward as a member of the global community which GB is part of as is the U.S.

King Charles can not, nor will he ever have power to effectuate policy in Great Britain, that will affect the lives of Americans.

[Lucky Charm]

---

@BlueFinch wrote:

Well, it's official. Charles signed the Proclamation and delivered another admirable speech. King Charles III will reign.

All the associated activities today have seemed lovely, and well orchestrated, while carrying out official details and still celebrating the Queen's life and service. 

However, I wasn't happy with Charles' angry episode for his official signature, gruffly directing his aide to assist in clearing the table. He looked quite angry, which seemed uncalled for. If you get this angry with an aide on camera, what happens privately? Perhaps, it's just an indication of how tired and stressed he may be, but we'll see. 

Enjoyed seeing Will and Harry doing the walk-around greeting citizens with their wives. It's reported William invited Harry and Meghan to walk with them. It's a start. I hope that they can work out difficulties.

These brothers need one another. They have a shared history of deep value that should be preserved.  

---

I wonder if that's what I saw on our local news this morning.  

He clumsily hit the lid to his ink pot or whatever and then looked to the side and gnashed his teeth, wonder if he growled, too?  There was no audio.  Thank goodness.  

[Johnnyeager]

I didn't see anger, but he definitely appeared to be a little testy.

All things considered, not a major faux pas (in my view.)