Last year, the Guardian published a macabre-yet-fascinating article about what will happen in the days and weeks after Queen Elizabeth II passes away. There was a lot of new information for me: I didn’t realize that Prince Charles – who will then be King Charles – will literally have to meet with leaders and representatives from the British Commonwealth within, like, a day. Each Commonwealth country will have to decide whether they want Charles to be their king, basically. Well, this is the year that the Queen really seems to be feeling her age more and more. She’s been making arrangements all over the place to give Charles and her grandchildren even more responsibility. And now this: the Queen is saying flat-out that the Commonwealth countries should look no further than Charles as their new Commonwealth leader.
In a rare move, Queen Elizabeth publicly backed her son, Prince Charles, as the next Commonwealth leader. On Thursday, the monarch, who turns 92 on Saturday, formally asked the Commonwealth Heads of Government to appoint Charles as her successor of the association of Britain and its former colonies.
Queen Elizabeth has been the group’s symbolic figurehead since 1952. On Friday, leaders are expected to discuss who should follow her in the role. The position is not hereditary, but Prince Charles is expected to get the nod. (As the Queen’s firstborn, Charles is the hereditary heir to the British throne, which he will automatically inherit upon his mother’s death.)
“It is my sincere wish that the Commonwealth will continue to offer stability and continuity for future generations and will decide that one day the Prince of Wales should carry on the important work started by my father in 1949,” the Queen said at the formal opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Buckingham Palace. “By continuing to treasure and reinvigorate our associations and activities, I believe we will secure a safer, more prosperous and sustainable world for those who follow us: a world where the Commonwealth’s generosity of spirit can bring its gentle touch of healing and hope to all.”
It seems like an odd idea to me that the symbolic figurehead of the British Commonwealth would be someone other than the British monarch or her heir. I mean, what would the other option be? Like a rotating symbolic figurehead? Justin Trudeau for a few years, then Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull, then someone from Malta? I mean… it’s the BRITISH Commonwealth, the remnant of the British Empire. Of course the symbolic leader is going to be the British monarch. But don’t ask me – I’m a gauche American. What do I know?
Here are photos from last night’s Buckingham Palace reception, which was attended by Commonwealth leaders, Prince Charles, the Queen, Prince Harry and Prince William.
Photos courtesy of Getty.
Commonwealth?! Is this the nineteenth century?! I thought she was going to announce at the very least a change in the name.
Right?
It’s crazy to me that in 2018 the British Monarch thinks she should be telling other SOVEREIGN nations who they should select as the figurehead of the ‘commonwealth’. Also the whole ‘symbol of stability’ malarkey is a farce. Ugh.
I think it’s because the other countries are accepting of the status quo. It’s weirder to me that they don’t tell her her opinion is no longer needed, not necessarily that she’s giving it.
Edited to add:
I saw down thread it mentioned that Charles was voted in. I didn’t realize that’s how it worked. So her giving her opinion is probably like a Party leader giving his or her opinion on Brexit — she can give her opinion and then it’s up to everyone else to make their own decision.
The concept of this position seems a little strange in and of itself. It almost seems a little easier for a prince who doesn’t have much of anything else to do to hold the tile while the rest of the political leaders get to the task of actually taking care of their individual countries. If I were Trudeau, I’d want to simply be responsible for the citizens of Canada rather than be tasked with the responsibility of worrying about the citizens of another country whose interests may diverge from what I actually know about. Of course, anyone please feel free to correct me as I thought I understood what the Commonwealth was, but now I’m realizing I may actually not. Yikes.
As a Canadian citizen who has sworn an oath to the Queen, I feel safe saying that some of us are very loyal to the crown, thankyouverymuch.
Ok, Canadian here: this isn’t really a political issue. It’s a ceremonial role driven by custom. As a citizen of the “Commonwealth” I think it’s great that I can get work Visas in other Commonwealth countries like Australia, the UK, and South Africa without as much fuss. I also like that the ceremonial roles are separate from our government. I think it’s pretty messed up that in the States, you attached what really looks to be like “royal status” to your Presidents. For example, the role of First Lady – being the wife of a democratically elected leader shouldn’t be a job. That’s a leftover from the days of Kings and Queens. I LIKE that my Prime Ministers has to get yelled at for an hour in Question Period everyday because his primary role (although Justin does shit a bit differently because the Canadian public “knew him” as the child of PM Pierre Trudeau and his hot wife Maggie) is as a lawmaker – not as a physical embodiment of government. That’s what the Queen is for. She’s just a face that cuts ribbons.
I remember hearing way back when that both QEII and Prince Phillip would have preferred Princess Anne taking over the throne. But honestly, I think that the Queen’s corgi Willow – who just passed away – was #1 in her heart.
And those pictures of Trudeau prove he makes everyone around him look uggo.
Yes, it’s especially sad about Willow since HM stated some time ago she wouldn’t breed anymore corgis aka the “moving carpet” as Diana allegedly called them. I hope HM changes her mind. HM looked strong at the Commonwealth meeting, she will desperately miss her corgis. I’m hoping LAK has more information about HM’s furry companions.
Her *dorgis, Vulcan and Candy, are still alive, so she still has afew dogs left. It’s only her corgis that are dead.
*dorgis = dachshund + corgi mix.
One of Margaret’s dachshunds mated with HM’s corgis which is how dorgis came about.
She stopped breeding corgis in 2012. The breeder said she told him she didn’t want to leave any dogs behind when she passed away.
She also still has a corgi!! Just not one that she has had since puppyhood —last year she Whisper after its owner (her groundskeeper) passed away
She also still has a corgi!! Just not one that she has had since puppyhood —last year she Whisper after its owner (her groundskeeper) passed away.
Also later after the queens speech yesterday, the commonwealth after all voted that Charles WILL be the next head of the commonwealth. Signed sealed delivered.
I think Willow was the last of Susan’s line unless the Queen let other people have some of Susan’s descendants. I think the Queen still has 1 or 2 dorgis which are a cross between the corgi and a dachshund. .
I have never heard any such rumor that HM & Philip would prefer Anne. HM firmly believes in the line of succession, and Anne would have been fourth anyway until the recent changes. Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne.
Anne would be a nightmare monarch. She gets away with loads, as do her kids, which tons of people ignore. She can be uncouth, ignorant, snappish, hurtful in her public comments – a lot like Philip in those ways.
Sometimes I think that people mistake Anne’s unchanging nature with steadiness. And she is definitely the most like Philip.
I think people’s preference for Anne is due to little exposure to her and knowing little about her.
It’s the same as people who called for William to skip Charles until they were exposed to William.
So true.
Anne would be a terrible monarch. She is not well-versed in the art of diplomacy.
Anne would be dreadful….many have been on the receiving end of her bad tempered rudeness.
Please use that William photo from now on.
I like Charles and Camilla but they are going to have a hard time after HM. At least they will be somewhat wealthy.
They voted him in this morning. Between her expressed hopes and the ‘farewell’ toast at last night’s dinner, QEII seems to be offloading duties while she is still healthy and on it. Smart, I guess, but infused with melancholy. I hope she makes it to 100.
I truly don’t understand how this all works, so bare with me. If the Queen abdicated and gave the throne to Charles now, would it not even be an issue later? And if so, why doesn’t she step down already and enjoy these last few precious years? I get she’s THE QUEEN and she has always felt it was her duty, but geez Louise, she’s in her 90’s. She’s earned the right to sit down and relax.
He automatically gets the UK throne, which is governed by UK legislation. UK legislation naturally is not going to have power to make him King in other countries, so those other countries have to accept Charles of their own free will.
She believes the monarch is anointed by God. Abdication is an extreme last resort and would be Plan Z. If she wants to have relaxed duties (which isn’t unreasonable at her age), she may prefer what Digital Unicorn said below. I think deep down she knows the time is now to start pushing Charles up. He needs her backing. He has the work ethic but not the popularity level as the Queen.
We don’t do voluntary abdication in the UK though never say never.
Further, the British throne is not the same thing as the commonwealth. The commonwealth is more like the EU (or EEC as it used to be). The Queen took it over from her father at a time when the British throne was revered. If you follow news about the commonwealth, you would know that they’ve been discussing the next head for over a decade and the Queen is tolerated out of habit and nostalgia. It’s the stated reason they keep voting her as the head. Once the rumblings started, the Queen started lobbying to make sure Charles is voted as it’s next head after her.
They vote every few years. They will give it to Charles this time,but there is no guarantee that they’ll vote for Charles next time. And once the Queen dies, her influence will be lost and people truly won’t care to vote for Charles unless they use the same ol’ argument of sentiment.
As long as we accept a monarchy, his place is certain because that is a separate issue from the commonwealth and has no bearing on the British throne.
This makes sense to me. Give it to him now, vote for the person they really want after HM is gone. This was a nod to her long-time commitment but not the choice they would make freely if she was no longer with us.
So what happens if he gets passed over the next time and is not the head? Forgive my ignorance on this…
It gets confusing because of the history of how it all started. If they didn’t make him the Head, then he’s not the Head of this economic union. He would likely continue as the UK’s representative to the union.
53 nations in the Commonwealth, only 16 have the British monarch as their head of state. He would remain as the Head of State of those 16 (until such time as those countries vote internally to dump the monarchy), but wouldn’t be the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations.
If Charles wasn’t voted in, it would be embarrassing for him given how the Windsors and Britain have taken the commonwealth headship as part of their personal brand, but not a catastrophe.
Britain would remain part of the commonwealth.
Canada would have to approve the next head of state and pass legislation. It is not automatic that Charles takes over in Canada, just as it wasn’t when George VI took over from Edward VIII. In theory Canada could choose someone else. It is only convention that they follow the British order of precedence. Especially following the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982. They also had to pass a law to remove male primogeniture from the succession order recently. I believe New Zealand and Australia are also the same. Charles will not automatically be the next sovereign. That said, I believe they would either stick with Charles or remove it altogether.
I would like to see the Queen retire, partly for her and partly for me. I think she deserves to do whatever she wants with her life now, she has served long and admirably. Also, she’s 92. You can’t tell me she doesn’t hurt when she gets out of bed in the morning. Knees that won’t bend willingly, a neck that’s stiff and hard to turn at first, traces of arthritic pain in her hands, creaky back. I don’t think she should have to work herself to death to prove she was worthy to wear the crown.
For myself, I would much rather see Charles on the throne knowing that Elizabeth is enjoying her retirement, than see Charles on the throne knowing it’s because she has passed. Selfish of me, I know.
I understand that the Quuen doesn’t believe in abdication. But wouldn’t this be a good time to actually hand over the reins to her heir? I mean the guy is coming up to seventy, and has been preparing for this for fifty years. He is perfectly capable, and I think to make him wait until she’s dead is unfair. She could retire and spend time with Phillip. This isn’t about Uncle David is it? That was eighty years ago, can she just get over it and take her dorkies or go live somewhere?
This is just a prelude to the Queen handing over Commonwealth responsibilities and duties to Charles, and this is going to happen very soon. The Queen is not going to be doing international travel anymore. Charles is not young and this is why he has roped Harry and Meghan in to help him out with the Commonwealth. There was no doubt that Charles would talk over, all this stuff is just a formality.
Maria: No. Nothing to do with David and only an accident of a long-lived Queen.
The UK and Denmark do not have a tradition of abdication. Monarch serves, in whatever capacity they can, until they pass away. Because they believe it is a life-long commitment to the job. Or as Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has said, “I’ll be on the throne until I fall off!”
I think that in general, abdication in old age is a modern concept, and it goes hand in hand with the fact that most royals are simply figureheads now.
I really applauded Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands when she abdicated to Prince Willem Alexander. She still gets to go to functions and look spiffy, she’s getting a chance to see her son do the job, and she still gets to live in a fabulous country house and enjoy her granddaughters.
I like Prince William, but in that pic, he looks like a startled otter.
At least he doesn’t look disinterested and over it.
Commonwealth: ho ho ho.
The head on Camilla while she said it though!
Charles has been confirmed as the next Commonwealth leader – they voted him in this morning. I think TQ’s speech made him a shoo in, esp as she is very well respected and loved by the people of the Commonwealth (even those who want a republic).
I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with some sort of pseudo regency, where Charles becomes de facto King doing all the big events etc.. with TQ stepping into the background to enjoy what time she has left with Phillip. We will only see her on big occasions.
It feels like they agreed out of respect for her, but I anticipate another change one she’s gone.
What kind of change Nota? You don’t think he will be king?
@Maria No… The crown is completely separate from the Commonwealth. She’s talking about a change in Commonwealth leader. Charles will be king regardless, unless he predeceases his mother. Thus far, the monarch has been head of the Commonwealth for ceremonial and symbolic reasons, but King Charles could be voted out of the position as head of the commonwealth. But he’ll be king until he dies regardless.
I don’t think that anyone was really going to object about Charles being the next leader of the Commonwealth because it’s not a position that holds any real power. There are no binding economic treaties between the parties and it is simply more an association of former British colonies.
No pic of Jacinda Ardern? She wore a gorgeous traditional Maori cloak and delivered the welcome address. Why would anyone choose Charles when the Commonwealth has so many better options?
Is Ardern Maori ? Or just wearing the Kahu just ’cause? I do know that Arden is the PM of NZ, but still a Pahkeha wearing an indigenous symbol. What do the Maori’s think about it? Because she looks like a white woman wearing indigenous symbols to me.
No, she is Pakeha (ie non-Maori). For those reading this outside NZ, anyone who is not Maori (indigenous to New Zealand) is Pakeha.
Jacinda Ardern was given the cloak to wear by a London-based Maori club, Ngati Ranana. These cloaks are worn to show status and mana (power). It would have been loaned to her as she is the leader of New Zealand.
I was wondering about that as well & hoping someone could enlighten me. Save me some googling time.
I am Maori. As she was gifted (well technically loaned) the korowai in recognition of her mana, it’s appropriate for her to wear it. Everyone was really happy about it.
William’s face is very “soon I’ll have three children! What was I thinking??”
Did anybody read that article on The Guardian about what Charles said to the lady from Manchester? ‘You don’t look like it!’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/apr/19/prince-charles-brown-skin-british-people-head-of-commonwealth
The Royal Family are born and bred racists. They make these comments a lot and people just dismiss it as an older generation or as a joke. They are really out of touch with reality.
Outrageous. Thanks for posting.
I’d like to say I’m surprised but sadly, I’m not. Such ignorance. Anita is spot on that he’s not fit for purpose, either as the next monarch or head of the commonwealth.
Ugh, yuck. I remember Harry saying something like this to a Black British guy some years ago. They are all out of touch. It really makes me wonder about the makeup of their social circles. Don’t the have any wealthy British POC friends? No wonder they’re trotting Meghan out.
Ugh
This needs to get more attention, as it is completely unacceptable. Thank you for posting it as I hadn’t seen it yet.
How people interprete comments is upto them, but considering her specialist subject was Guyana, I’m not surprised he told her she didn’t look Mancunian.
What he was saying was actually rude (in a joke) about Mancunian rather than her, but I guess she took it to mean race.
I mean if someone said I didn’t look like I was from Dorset, one of the whitest counties in the land, I’d go to race because frankly, we were the only blacks in the village / county.
…but for a city like Manchester, I’d interprete it as a cultural comment rather than a racist one. Like saying someone doesn’t look like a New Yorker. IMO
LAK is right…Why Oh why do people jump to conclusions…..I don’t think he was referring to her race but paying her a compliment and dissing Mancunians at the same time.
I know you are a fan of Charles, LAK, but come on! I could list all the stupid racist comments he’s made over the years, particularly when visiting us ‘Commomwealth’ plebs.
Kath, i will always ask for more information before tarring someone with something so ergregious. This comment wasn’t explicitly racist. I live in a country that makes fun of each other based on stereotypes. I gave my own real life example of not looking like someone from Dorset.
Further, my real life experience with people like Charles, and growing up in Dorset, makes me give the benefit of the doubt to people who ask or make comments that are ambiguous. I ask for more so that i can determine if they are being offensive or ignorant (oxford dictionary definition). Often the ignorant either don’t mean to offend because they are seeking information or they do because they don’t care to know the truth and are already prejudiced.
Further to your comment, my original comment was about this particular incident rather than a commentary about Charles at large. My opinion of Charles has no bearing on this situation. My life experience tells me that this was a cultural comment that was rude about Manchester and not the lady. And really it’s the people of Manchester who should be offended.
Thank you LAK! I get so worn down by the PC generation’s inability to understand context. Or maybe they don’t want to understand? A story is always better with melodrama and truthiness.
Exactly. Here’s a link to a great article about implicit bias. The “firm”needs to shut down for a day of training. Charles is a disgrace.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/04/does-implicit-bias-training-work-starbucks-racial-bias-plan-will-probably-fail.html
Implicit bias isn’t a thing- it’s a way for racist people to absolve themselves of their racist behaviour. Racism is a thing.
In reply to NewKay, Implicit or Uncon Bias is a real thing. And it’s nit excuse for people to be discrimanatory or racist. We all have biases. Acknowledging them is the first step to correcting them or at the very least not using it as an excuse for a persons on racism, etc.
Was just about to mention this. The royal family is a haven for inbred racists who are so used to sycophants laughing at their jokes that they don’t realise they are neither intelligent nor witty.
On a superficial note, I’m glad the Queen chose to wear the Girls tiara. It is my favorite of all her tiaras.
Loved all of the Queen’s glittering goodies.
Question, how much of a decline will the monarchy be once The Queen leaves us? I always assumed The Queen is mentoring William and Kate cause she knows Charles is unpopular. Am I wrong?
I think Charles will be a competent, reasonably respected monarch but certainly not a beloved one.
I can see that but the monarchy will decline a lot though,
oh kitty if there is one constant in this world its you asking the same question in every royal thread lol
ETA: not meant to sound mean. just amused (and perplexed lol)
Well I would like to know an honest answer.
You are frequently given honest opinions whenever you ask this. As for an answer? Only time will tell what the answer turns out to be.
No one can fully know until it happens.
HM believes firmly in the line of succession. The word “abidication” is said to be banned in her presence. She wants her son Charles to succeed her and to be a rousing success. Her decade of advocating for him to be Head of the Commonwealth is an example of that.
If HM was mentoring W&K, they wouldn’t be the lazy, excuse-filled, unprofessional mess that they are. Multiple members of the BRF have said through the years that you learn the job by doing it. They and courtiers have been on record many times stating royals set their own schedules. That HM lets you make your own mistakes then come to her for advice. William even said this in an interview a few years ago, in case you think I’m making it up.
They are grown ups, or at least they are the age of adults even though they constantly act like spoiled teenagers. The choice to be this lazy and unprofessional? That is a choice W&K are making, not a choice being made for them by someone like Her Majesty.
@Nota, But I have read on here in some other articles that The Queen has personally mentored William as he is a future King.
@kitty: what are you even asking?
Nota, I think the Queen really wants Charles to be king, not only because she must see that William is not up to the job, but also because she wants William and Kate to have time for their children which is something she missed due to the early death of her father.
OMG! “Lazy, excuse-filled, unprofessional mess” This made me laugh out loud! Thank you, and very well said.
I may need to have a tshirt made with that statement on the front.
IRL, I have several younger relatives who exactly fit that wording. 🙂
I do have a soft spot for QE, Bless Her!
I wonder how often she feels disappointed in her children/grandchildren for their lousy work ethic and messy personal lives? At her age, she should be enjoying herself and not working.
Charles will be the next monarch, and it’s likely that William will wait a couple of decades until his turn.
But realistically, it’s a completely outdated concept. At least in its present form, it’s days are numbered.
Ugh. I’m a gauche Canadian and I don’t understand why we still support this ridiculous pony show.
Ugh, fellow ‘colonial’ here and yeah, same.
I don’t expect the support to last much longer, imo. A few more years once she dies, and countries will probably really push to get out and become republics.
@AYRA, the real question is will the country be better off without the monarchy? Leaders today are so incompetent.
It’s already a mess with the monarchy, I’d say that it can only get better from then but I don’t want to jinx it lol.
Another colonial here too. I wish the 53 heads had shown some guts and called the Queen out. They were just too weak. The shameless nepotistic pitch, the 92nd birthday the following day, her corgi dying, wheeling out the ugly family, the pomp and all that it entails… seduction, pure and simple. I hope we’ll ditch Charles as HoS when the time comes.
All this British enthusiasm for the Commonwealth is tied to Brexit. The Brits are banking on the Commonwealth becoming its trading empire as a replacement for the EU. It is a delusional position. The Commonwealth as a whole takes only 9.5% of Britain’s exports, the equivalent of its exports to Germany. It can’t replace the huge European market, at least, not only on its terms.
@Addie, but I thought the British royals are going to make Brexit okay with their Brexit charm offensive tours!
Kitty, what sarcasm from your innocent mind!
These charm offensives have little effect, IMO. The British government thinks because Britain bows to it ‘royals’, everyone will follow suit. Not so much. It’s a bottom line decision; all countries will extract the best trade deal for themselves.
@Addie, I also think its because non of the royals aren’t any good with soft diplomacy and being effective. Aren’t even good ambassadors when overseas. It has little effect. I know many here dislike her but I have read so many articles that are accurate and they have all said Diana was amazing with diplomacy and it was effective.
Apart from Canada and Australia I don’t think that there are many Commonwealth countries that have the resources and capacity to lead the Commonwealth properly, so they are quite happy to allow Britain and Charles to continue to run it all.
Doesn’t the royal family cover its costs by bringing in tourism revenue and increasing other intangible U.K. assets?
The Yorks were in attendance as well.
The Queen looked lovely last night. It’s time for her to put Charles in charge, even if it’s only in the shadows.
The Common Wealth is an irrelevant body especially to former African British colonies like mine. We see it as a social club, but if Britain is hanging on to it as a way of finding relevance after Brexit, so be it. We know Queen Elizabeth and Princess Diana but believe me when I say 9 out of 10 people, especially millennials in my country which is one of the largest in Africa have no idea who Charles, William or Harry are. When I asked my University educated 65-year old dad if he knew Prince Charles, he had absolutely no idea who I was talking about. These people are popular in America and Europe but we really don’t care about them in Africa. Sorry.
I am really surprised by this. So do some African countries not receive world news? Like they don’t know about the royal wedding coming up? Just wondering. I guess I find this fascinating that a country in this day and age is so isolated still.
Isolated and not receiving world news?? I think you’ve missed the gist of her post, she meant to say that most Africans don’t care, whether it’s about Charles, his kids or even Meghan.
What I find Fascinating is that in this day and age, people are unable to comprehend that the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily revolve around the west. SMH
They don’t care, Suze.
MM & Harry marrying doesn’t affect us, the same way William being lazy or Kate having children doesn’t affect us.
Not to be that person, but:
1. Malcolm Turnbull is the Australian Prime Minister, not President. The Queen is still our head of state.
2. It hasn’t been called the British Commonwealth since 1949.
Good catch, actually.
Just an FYI, it is NOT called the “British Commonwealth” anymore it is called “The Commonwealth of Nations”. We do move with the times dear.
I’m sorry if she’s feeling her age a lot this year (probably b/c the DOE retired) but she sure seems to be very fit and happy.
You could never select a prime minister as head of commonwealth as their position is totally flimsy. They can be removed from power very easily and then leaves you in a very awkward situation having a persona non grata as head of the frickin commonwealth!!! British royalty are figureheads and are stable. They should continue to be in this role.
You are having a point, that I am thinking of too, but couldn’t the position get attached to the country? I have to say, the british royals are working their butts off to soften brexit consequences and one can see that the queen has been more foreseeing over the last decades regarding commonwealth relations than the actual politicians.
Plus, the queen is politcally more active in the role as commonwealth head than in her role as british queen. Due to brexit the political impact also begins to matter more, which is why I think, over the next decades, it perhaps won’t be seen as such a drama, having a political figurehead of the commonwealth. Charles will have to work his butt off nonstop to work against this perception.
I dont think she would have said anything if it wasnt already decided that Charles would be the next leader. The fact that Harry was given a life long role in the Commonwealth by the Queen earlier in the week says its probably something thats been in the works for a while.
It was already stitched up, for sure. The Queen would not have humiliated herself, Charles or their respective positions if it were still under discussion. That Harry has also been given a nepotistic life-long position is also untenable. The Queen has prioritised her family over merit.
Addie, why does it surprise you that the Queen has prioritised family? That’s what she does. She always prioritises family. Always. If family is threatened, she acts. Robustly so. When it comes to her subjects, she’s an ostrich and much admired for doing nothing.
I will say it again, she’s been a terrible Queen who only cared about her position and her family position. Everything else is just PR designed to make the public overlook that fact.
@ LAK
I agree. The Queen didn’t do anything when she should have done a lot of things. Like when Thatcher slashed the mining industries and because of the way Thatcher did it there were a lot of business affiliated with mining who went down as well. Even today unemployment in these former mining areas is higher than anywhere else in Britain. The Queen should have acted and she didn’t. I don’t like it . The Queen is visitied by the Prime Minister every week so why didn’t she grab Thatcher by the ears and gave the head a good shake – speaking metaphorically.
Lol at complaining about royalty getting a life-long nepositism position. I mean, isn’t that literally the point of royalty?
So if it weren’t Charles it would be…?
One of the national representatives from the other countries in the Commonwealth (total of 53, only 16 or so have the BRF monarch as their Head of State).
Umm meh.
If olaying rols will mskr thrm happy so be it, other than thr gsme time, I doubt most of the countries care.
I respect her for her longevity and her service to our country.
But this is an outdated institution, an accident of birth, time for a Republic or at least a slimmed down version!
OMG Prince William is looking more like a caricature every day. What happened to him?
Blue blood DNA.
The Windsor genes kicked in. He’s turned into a bland, balding and boring middle aged git. He is not aging well.
One day he will look like Prince Andrew except William will look more boorish / arrogant in the face. Prince Andrew does have a twinkle in his eyes often and he seems like a warm if somewhat stiff person. William lacks that warmth.
Facially, William is ageing fine. His skin is still smooth unlike Harry’s. He also has a fit body. With William, if you put a hat on his head, he looks handsome. Take it off and it’s not so good. Lol.
It has to be Charles. William and Kate aren’t ready; and probably never will be truthfully. Best case, Charles has a 20 year reign and Wills will have matured by then. Although I can’t picture William or George ever making it to the throne.
@PATTY I think it’s pathetic that William and Kate aren’t ready and are still lazy. Makes me sick.
No, it doesn’t. There is absolutely NO reason for a member of the BRF to lead the commonwealth. It is NOT the same thing as being monarch and there is NO REASON for this to be treated as equivalent. No one mentioned Willliam or Kate. No one suggested it. That was never even a thing. *sigh*
We all know once The Queen is gone they will replace Charles.
Yeah. No.
Somehow, I tend to forget that she has been Queen for 60+ years..dang
The Queen is trying to make a non-hereditary position into a hereditary position for the Monarch of Britain. If she keeps this position in her family then the importance of the British Royal Family is safer. Because due to Brexit Britain is looking at other unions like the Commonwealth. And if the British monarch owns the position of head of Commonwealth by inheriting it … well, good for the Royal Family and likely bad for Britain and the Commonwealth.
I think it is a stupid move because the Commonwealth might not like cooky Charles.
The Queen is really pulling out all the stops for this Please Take Charles Commonwealth shindig.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the British government is rounding up black people and flying them in chains to Jamaica. In chains! The post-war Windrush generation and all their descendants are told to get out, denied health care, next stop deportation. The prime minister deliberately destroyed all the records and then lied about it. The government is trying to force teachers, medical workers, civil servants, to turn in anyone they suspect of being an immigrant. And that’s just a short list.
The Queen must be quite furious with Theresa May for crapping all over her Commonwealth. How delightful for all the prime ministers to have to drink and dine with the prime minister who masterminded the policies to discriminate against and ruin the lives of of their former countrypersons. This Tory government is scum.
I love learning so much from you all about the UK. I find it fascinating. Between all the reading on the monarchy threads I do here and my liberal viewing of BBC television (I went as the 11th doctor and my daughter went as a tardis for Halloween), I caught myself the other day telling someone I was cross. And my little girl now says “Allo” instead of hello and refers to manatees as sea cows because of Sarah and duck.
Thanks Porpupette for bringing the issue of the windrush generation up.
well I went off on it again in the Prince Charles micro-aggression thread
Longtime lurker here. Does anyone know how Sixer is doing? I always loved her knowledgeable comments about Britland, but she hasn’t posted in a long time that I’ve seen.
Trudeau would never in a million years support anyone but the British heir for that position. He’s not down for revolution.