Just joking.

I wonder do the Royalty turn a profit, when you consider the tourist revenue from people who love all the pomp, pageantry, etc. They also have an uncanny ability not to laugh or blush, despite appearing quite ridiculous to some.

Odd that Prince William swore allegiance to his father but Harry wasn't required to.

NO ONE is REQUIRED to, it is a matter of pride and an honor. As a family member who has distanced himself from duty to the crown he is present to honor Charles, support the family, and support the crown, but not to resume his status. Currently he is fifth in line of succession, and hops never to be called. If it happens that he ever becomes second in line, no one doubts that he would return and resume his oath, duties, and status. (Which does not mean they are correct, but it is what one would expect.) It appears his hope that never happens, and it is certain that if it did his return would be associated with certain changes.

His biological father would probably not care: https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/45036065001237542/

First it rains on coronation day, and then the Archbishop (the man who fitted the crown on) gets done for speeding.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-for-speeding

God, don't you care no more? Hello?

I think

1. You named yourself well.
2. Nobody really does care. Charles is boring. The time-honoured traditions are falling flat in the internet age.

but, then the opinion of one uninterested Irishman hardly matters.

It always rains on Coronation Day. It did for the late Queen too, and look how well she did!

I don't think Charles is boring. He strikes me as a reasonably decent man who was right about a lot of things that he was once mocked for saying. Yes, modern architecture is ugly, and we should be taking more care of the natural environment than we currently do. I hope he can keep the institution rolling along long enough for William to inherit it.

As to Justin Welby, he's probably the least impressive archbishop of Canterbury we have had for a very long time. Even George Carey did a better job of it! And I'm speaking as an Anglican.

What? Rain in England? Now I never...

I remember Charles years ago, when he was on a "crusade" about the London skyline. Now I hear some mumbling about taking on (the always popular) environment...


If I may suggest HRH a noble cause, how about putting his weight on eradication of poverty in the Kingdom https://www.statista.com/topics/3809...#topicOverview

It was with difficulty I witheld my views of the C of E & Prince/King Charles. But don't ask Charles to do anything. He is King. He has no weight to throw. Let's not attack Hazel's opinions, who is English and entitled to her Church and her monarch. As far as the monarchy goes, he was born and spent most of his life taking orders from the 19th century, while living in the 20th century. He has now landed as King in the 21st century. That can't have been easy.

I'm not a monarchist. I never have been. I love England but I don't often sing the national anthem because it isn't actually a national anthem at all; it's a royal anthem. The implication that the country can go to hell as long as God saves the King doesn't match my idea of patriotism. I'd much rather be singing Jerusalem.

But in my old age, I have reluctantly decided that a constitutional monarch is the "least worst" option. I certainly prefer it to an executive presidency like those of Russia or the USA. No politician should be able to yoke patriotism to his policies. And I don't fancy a symbolic president who usually turns out to be a retired politician. Tony Blair, anyone? Ugh!

No, a monarch is probably better at embodying the spirit of a nation, especially when there is a crisis going on. King George VI did it very successfully during the war (even my parents admired him and they were very left wing), his daughter did it brilliantly during the covid crisis, and I think Charles could probably do it too if he had to. The fact that he has is an essential feature of the role. The only authority a modern constitutional monarch has or should have is the moral authority that comes from saying the right thing at the right time.

"North Korea bolsters leader Kim Jong Un with birthday loyalty oaths"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/n...ths-rcna150805

Just like our dear beloved tax-free hereditary billionaire.

Not mentioned anywhere on the BBC.

You realize you bumped this thread when it had been dead for a full year?
Please give it a rest.

Like most of the OP's threads, this one is typical "kneejerk outrage". He sounds off about the British monarchy, yet supports the ideals of the very political party which was founded to represent their interests and those of the landed gentry / aristocracy. Ironic.

Aren't you referring to the Whigs?

Tories are people who like to work rather than be freeloaders.