# Charles III



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

We must now look forward to his reign, the third with his name, Charles I was excited, Charles II died of a stroke after trying to resolve religious arguments, unsuccessfully.

Hopefully, Charles III will rapidly settle into his reign, as Head of the Commonwealth probably overseas travel is on the cards.

BUT, when will his Coronation be ?

My suggestion, echoing what others have said is - keeping the date of Elizabeth’s Coronation in the calendar for events such as Trooping the Colour.

Maybe, that will be declared a Public Holiday like today ?


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

Yes I noticed his face quiver a bit Dave, not half as much as mine did though, it was an amazing day, I wonder if they had any idea of the amount of people that would be lining the streets, there will probably be the same amount for his Coronation.
He won´t age as well as his Mum though, he already looks very old.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Growing old rapidly was IMO showed VERY clearly by President Biden today, he looked very much older now than when he became President - not that long ago, of course.

I suspect the strain of trying to do so much, for so many, in so many different places at once would cause any of us to age rapidly.

Charles has the close support of Camilla, Queen Consort, but, of course she is a little older than him.(75 c/w 73),
he will need her, if for no other reason than to be someone that he can open up with “after a bad day at the office”.

I was pleased to see a little evidence of his private grief - he deserves it, trying to grease and carry out so many public duties at the same time is an incredibly difficult task - one that he has fulfilled without any slips.


----------



## jiwawa (Jun 22, 2007)

Penquin said:


> We must now look forward to his reign, the third with his name, *Charles I was excited*, Charles II died of a stroke after trying to resolve religious arguments, unsuccessfully.


I bet that wasn't his primary emotion Dave!


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

I did notice, but thought it’s Dave’s spell check excusing the execution 😉


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

I suspect CR111 will have to bite his lip as he reads the King's Speech this year.

His politics are not a secret and definitely at odds with Truss and her puppet masters.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Glandwr said:


> I suspect CR11 will have to bite his lip as he reads the King's Speech this year.
> 
> His politics are not a secret and definitely at odds with Truss and her puppet masters.


CR11?


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

I think we all know who he means.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

GMJ said:


> CR11?


Opps


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

If he gets fed up he'll be C3PO.


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

I just rang the Passport office, It was quite strange to hear her say `His´ Majesty's passport office, I said to her it sounded strange and she said they have to think before they say it now.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

He now has to give up all his campaigning. Must be very difficult for him. Of course he always knew that the day would come but to be in that position and not be able to really change anything must be very difficult. I was reading about all his properties today. He had a couple already and now he inherits a couple more and then there are the ones that belong to the nation. I think I read that he is in favour of reducing the number. Camilla has, apparently, kept her old place for such time as she may be left on her own should Charles pre decease her.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

I wonder if William will now step up and become a little more outspoken on certain issues, taking over the mantle from his dad.


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

I thought that Graham, him or someone else who is as keen as King Charles was,
as his mouth piece.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

I think it will be, among others, mental health that he campaigns on. With Kate I think it will be children that she focuses on. The early years are so important. Not sure if anyone else heard it but Jeremy Vine interviewed a chap, Pastor Mick Fleming, yesterday who suffered childhood trauma and turned to drugs and crime. He has written a book, which I have ordered, called Blown Away about the trauma and the life of crime that he engaged in before finding a faith. The early years are so important and politicians only ever play lip service to these issues.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

I think Charles missed an opportunity in preventing Harry wear his military uniform.
Charles was king and empowered to allow that if he'd chosen. He didn't and I think a lot of people will see that as petty and spiteful.


----------



## Relyat (Oct 6, 2020)

Pat-H said:


> I think Charles missed an opportunity in preventing Harry wear his military uniform.
> Charles was king and empowered to allow that if he'd chosen. He didn't and I think a lot of people will see that as petty and spiteful.


I hope that is the case. 
It might add weight to the discussion of whether we need them in this day and age


----------



## jiwawa (Jun 22, 2007)

patp said:


> The early years are so important and politicians only ever play lip service to these issues.


I'm not sure that's true Pat. The Labour Govt put in place the Sure Start scheme which was well thought of. The Conservative Govt proceeded to dismantle it. I did hear something very recently that implied they'd finally realised how important early intervention is but will wait n see if there's any action.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

Pretty sure that even knowing early intervention is important won't produce any meaningful changes.
If you come from entitlement then you will be looked after. Otherwise it's just unimportant.


----------



## Relyat (Oct 6, 2020)

Some children's lives are mapped out for them, at both ends of the societal scale. It will take decades, generations for any political change to take effect. They only have interest in the next 5 years. 
The only way to change the system, which perpetuates this, is revolution.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Pat-H said:


> I think Charles missed an opportunity in preventing Harry wear his military uniform.
> Charles was king and empowered to allow that if he'd chosen. He didn't and I think a lot of people will see that as petty and spiteful.


I'm not so sure about that Pat tbh. I think there is still a high degree of opprobrium out there against Harry and his wife regarding his marriage and move to the USA...and the way that they have conducted themselves since. There is also the question of his soon to be published book which may also deepen the rift.


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

This thought crossed my mind about Harry and Megan, I think it is they who missed an opportunity knowing how crazy the Americans are over Royalty, they could have become the Royals of America if they’d played their cards right, maybe. 🐸 👑


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Interesting comment Colin with which I think I largely agree so long as the definition of revolution isn't too narrow.

So a few questions.

Revolution as in forcing the introduction of PR or revolution as in the people taking to the streets?

Some of The People will understand taking to the streets readily enough but the organs of the press which tell them what they think won't be telling them to do that. Quite the reverse. They would also resist PR and tell the people what a bad thing The People think it is.

So how does the revolution look, where do the ideas come from and who or what starts it and leads it? I have pondered this often but these are questions I haven't been able to answer. The only revolution I see as a possibility in England would be a right wing one led by some new Farage/Johnson/Trump clone.

I am very keen to hear more.


----------



## Relyat (Oct 6, 2020)

Sadly Alan I do not have the answers to your questions. 

I have long believed that Britain is in the state it's in due to no "recent" history ov revolution or throwing off of other shackles. It is still beset with a forelock tugging attitude to the Royal family and the aristocracy. There is a wide spread belief that those people are better. Look at the recent funeral and the furore over two TV presenters being in a different queue, no question at all of why there were two queues. The protocol surrounding what form of address should be used to someone and whether you are allowed to even talk to them. 
These sort of attitudes, so deeply embedded in society and reinforced by media, are the root of the problem. 

France has a proud memory of the revolution, when people take to the streets there the authorities are worried, and they do take to the streets. Spain and Portugal both recently were freed from fascist dictatorships. The people of these countries will not allow themselves to be returned to anything like that. Germany has been reunited, former Soviet bloc countries have found their freedoms. All of this was gained by people power, the population saying enough is enough and continuing to remind their rulers, to keep them in check. 
Britain? We had the community charge protests that worked, but it stopped there. Other protests have seen many on marches but they have been one issue, stop the war, rejoin the EU, black lives matter, etc. 
The closest I can see is the current industrial disputes that may increase and the anti Union legislation that will surely follow. However, people are continually subjected to the propaganda that those seeking to maintain their pay and safety standards at work are the bad guys. 
I'm sure, although I have no figures, that union membership has fallen over recent decades. A sure sign that the establishment is keeping the plebs in their place, getting them to believe that all they have to do is work harder. 
I imagine that all I've written will not be news to you and again I don't know how a revolution would occur. I fear that it never can. 
If the establishment doesn't fear the people then the people are lost.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I see it the same way Colin.

The People won't revolt because they will have been made to think the enemy isn't the system.


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

I see for and against the Royal family, 
*for* instance, these people forgot all about the rest of the world while they watched, many of them watched most of the day as I did, 
An average of *26.2 million* people watched the hour of the Queen's funeral service in Westminster Abbey on TV screens, according to the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board.
_But who do we believe here because this says_----- *Queen Elizabeth II’s Funeral Watched By 37.5M Viewers In UK. *








Queen Elizabeth II’s Funeral Watched By 37.5M Viewers In UK


Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral was watched by around 37.5M UK viewers through the day yesterday and 27M tuned in for the procession at peak. The 37.5M was recorded across the BBC, ITV, Sky and …




deadline.com




I bet non of those that watched all day thought about Mr. Putin or what they were going to eat that day or how they will be able to keep warm this winter.

*Against *what I don´t understand is, if the late queen had a big say in what was going to happen at her funeral why doesn't she or her estate have to pay for it. That doesn't seem right to me.

My view is, you can talk about it, hope they will disappear eventually, but I am sure it won´t happen in our lifetime or your Children, grandchildren, or even great grandchildren's lifetime, but it is a real conversation maker, thats another *for* thing. 😁


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

I will be interested to see what shape/size the royal family will be if/when Charles follows though with his previous statements and thoughts on reducing its size and scope. 

He has been given some help in this area by the antics of his son and younger brother!


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Why shouldn't the Royals be a series of disfuncional families? It's the norm everywhere.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Yep...no different to most in that regards.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

JanHank said:


> I see for and against the Royal family,
> *for* instance, these people forgot all about the rest of the world while they watched, many of them watched most of the day as I did,
> An average of *26.2 million* people watched the hour of the Queen's funeral service in Westminster Abbey on TV screens, according to the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board.
> _But who do we believe here because this says_----- *Queen Elizabeth II’s Funeral Watched By 37.5M Viewers In UK. *
> ...



I'm not sure that it's possible to measure the worth of a group of people or institution by the number of viewers they/it can attract on television.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Good point Alan.

Morecombe and Wise got well over 20 million for one of their Xmas specials in the 70's!


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I understand that The Sopranos was quite popular world wide and yet it's hard to think of a less pleasant bunch.

Perhaps a thing can be popular because it is entertaining/fascinating without it necessarily being a good thing. People watch war footage and car crashes attract gawkers.


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

Oh my, I just had a look at the Sopranos on you tube, I have never seen it, no wonder `that word´ has come into daily use, was this really on television?
I don´t think you can compare that with last weeks performance. 😁 

watch


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Well actually I thoroughly enjoyed The Sopranos, many millions did.

But I wasn't comparing it to anything. I was commenting on it's popularity


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

erneboy said:


> Well actually I thoroughly enjoyed The Sopranos, many millions did.
> 
> But I wasn't comparing it to anything. I was commenting on it's popularity


Another one I can´t see, it does look good thought the bits I have watched on Youtube.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

Oh dear not a good start for Charles 
The very idea the royal family can claw back footage already broadcast and force the broadcasters to be limited to only 60mins of the footage they shot (and even then Buckingham palace can veto any of that footage)









UK broadcasters battle monarchy over control of Queen’s memorial footage


Palace has said TV channels can only retain an hour of footage from events during the mourning period




www.theguardian.com


----------



## jiwawa (Jun 22, 2007)

I don't see why they should have such a say - the funeral was paid for by the tax-payer. Obviously they would not want anything probing into the grief of the family but from what I saw, the cameras were careful not to do that. 

I bet they've vetoed the clips of Charles losing his rag.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Seems an absurd demand and I hope it will be seen widely as a complete misunderstanding on the part of the palace of the relationship the monarchy has with Britain. What they do in public is public.

If there is any sense in the palace they will find a way to climb down very quickly before it gets a lot of publicity.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

1. The Palace does not have the legal right to ban such things - theyare already in the public broadcast category and they have lost all rights over such things - are they going to demand everyone deletes such items from their recordings made at the time ?

Totally preposterous. If the Palace continues to insist the broadcasters should refuse to obey and let it go to Court. The Palace would lose, both in the Justice Courts and in public opinion. Such an event will strengthen the move to abolish the Monarchies privileges.

2. if they continue, then ALL public broadcasters should refuse to cover ANY Royal events while the dispute continues but as the BBC is a “”public service broadcaster” the Government can insist they cover it - more Justice Court time for HRH.

The Court of St James is getting into a battle they must not be allowed to win, if they are then the tail will be wagging the dog.

Maybe a much closer investigation into Royal finances needs to be offered.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It hasn't had a mention on Today. Maybe it's been withdrawn as a misunderstanding.


----------



## Relyat (Oct 6, 2020)

Or perhaps the state broadcaster has been told not to make an issue of it yet


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

The are just now running a very jolly item on the new King and his interest in artisan cheese. 

The biggest royal story of the day gets ignored, if it is for real.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

The coronation is going to make or break CR111. Too muted an event and royalists will complain of the monarchy being down graded.

Too extravagant and expensive especially at this time will make enemies. And then there's the investiture of the Prince of Wales.

So many tight ropes to walk.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

We have days of coverage of the old kings funeral, Elizabeths marriage, coronation, life events. So why only 12 mins of her funeral?

Ray.


----------



## JanHank (Mar 29, 2015)

No comments about Charlie cutting back on his coronation?
I had no idea Westminster Abbey could hold 8,000 people.
Interesting to read








King Charles III’s coronation to take place on 6 May 2023


Service will retain elements of past ceremonies but takes place on a weekend and will ‘reflect monarch’s role today’




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Seems it'll be a smack in the mush for Harry & Meghan, it's on Archies birthday.


----------

