Hey Pandas, How Do You Feel About Prince Charles, Now Becoming King Charles? (Closed)

I am still not convinced a man can do the job of Queen.

Truth? I think he and his wife are horrible, out-of-touch-with-reality AHs & an embarrasment.

I understand that rules are very important to them and he has been waiting for this for decades, but still believe it would have been wiser to give it to William, for a longer reign.

I was in the pub when the King gave his speech, a mixed crowd of folk, all silent and listening, at the end he got a round of applause and a cheer. He will be fine in the role, he will do it differently, it's his moment he's been in waiting for 50 years. Just looking at the packed sombre respectful scenes in Edinburgh today, it looks like Scotland has come out in force to pay respect en masse for the Queen and the new King.

Funniest and truest meme I have seen said something to the effect of "they are letting a man be queen?!?" And that sums it up well for me - I've always admired the Queen, and since she has been the Queen my whole life I simply can't get my head around a King. Especially given how much I admired Diana. I feel like it would have been an easier transition to accept William as King, and allows Charles to continue to pursue his passions as he has very affectively been doing.

I wish the king and his subjects the best, but am glad not to be one of those subjects.

I know that I shouldn't judge his capability of being king based off of this, but I still have a grudge against him for divorcing Princess Diana.

In some ways, if the monarch wasn't a totally powerless symbolic thing, it would have been good for this country to have someone committed to environmental / green issues, but sadly by the look of it, his ascension to the throne coincides with us being lumped with one of the most environmentally unfriendly governments in UK history. Now, if Charlie could lop Rees-Mogg's head off, we might get somewhere!

i have mixed feelings regarding charles taking the throne. some of them, i realize, are based in tradition which is even kind of crazy for me because i do realize that the monarchy needs to progress along with society. that being said, here we go:

again, based in tradition, there was a time when a divorced person was not received at court. it was one of the reasons that edward abdicated the throne. charles is divorced as is camilla. also, their long relationship has been known about before, during and after the divorces. in light of this protocol it does not sit comfortably with me. but, that is only on a traditional basis.

the more pragmatic reason i feel that charles should not sit on the throne is the fact that he is about 73 yrs of age. even with the longevity of his gene pool it seems that he will reign no more than 15+ years. every time the monarchy changes there is a large financial cost due to the pomp and ceremony associated with it, along with changes in the currency, flags, etc. it would be better if prior to the coronation charles would abdicate for his son, william, who would be able to have a long reign, barring illness/accident. it would allow for a continuity for the people as well. it would also be a signal to the people by charles that he is concerned for the people of the nation rather than just having the ability to say he was king.

finally, and i realize this has little to no bearing on the question, i find it difficult to acknowledge camilla as queen consort. i find her to be a vapid individual who is self centered and is ill prepared to take on the duties and responsibilities of the position with integrity.

Charles The First was beheaded by his own people. Charles The Second ruled during plague and the Great Fire of London. Hopefully Charles The Third will break the tradition.

I think the only reason to keep the monarchy around was to keep the Queen's streak going. Now that she's out of the picture, it's time to stop.

I feel that King Charles will bring a breath of fresh air to the modern monarchy.

Considering the cost of maintaining this antiquated dysfunctional family, people should be throwing stones instead of flowers. Let this be the end of the line. Rest in peace.

It's really not going to make any real difference to my life. One thing I will say is that we should have a rule that a monarch should rule for a limited amount of time. I think the way we do it presently means that our monarch is always really old and any new coronation of a king or queen is always marred by the previous ones death. The queen should have abdicate in the 90's and I think our new king should be making way for William now. That's just my opinion.

Is Charles a real person or a store mannequin?

I don't like Charles. the Throne should have went to William

DOWN WITH THE MONARCHY

When EIIR became Queen, the center of the world was the North Atlantic. Now it's shifted to the Pacific, and the UK is more isolated than it's been in decades. I think Charles will have a hard time keeping the Commonwealth together.

Saw a documentary recently, that noted parliamentary democracies tended to have greater variety of representation, and "better government" that republics. Most PD's have multiple parties instead of two, and there is less "entrenched power blocks". They couldn't really explain the reasons, but I live in a PD and next door to a republic whose politics absolutely CANNOT be ignored, I would suggest that having a person whose sole real authority is the ability to basically fire the government and force an election keeps the shitheads in line. Since they cannot be sold to the highest bidder, they act as an honest check on the senior officials.

In a republic, such as our southerly neighbour, there is no one to roll up the newspaper and smack them on the snout yelling "bag doggies!"

I never thought he would ever be king. I thought it would have been King William.