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

Report

Final score:

32points

Trillian

POST

Show comments

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

Report

Final score:

23points

MariaHanssel

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

20points

Falcon

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

12points

Pat Bond

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

12points

ThisIsMe

POST

Show comments

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

Report

Final score:

11points

Leo Domitrix

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

10points

Lea Panthera

POST

Show comments

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!

Report

Final score:

9points

Peej Maybe

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

7points

talliloo

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

6points

Lily Anne

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

5points

Something

POST

Show comments

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

Report

Final score:

4points

SotonScotty

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

4points

Octavia Hansen

POST

Show comments

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.

Report

Final score:

3points

anarkzie

POST

Show comments

Is Charles a real person or a store mannequin?

Report

Final score:

3points

Daniel Yamada

POST

Show comments

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

Report

Final score:

3points

HeatherJ

POST

Show comments

DOWN WITH THE MONARCHY

Report

Final score:

2points

Bonnie Szabo

POST

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.

Report

Final score:

2points

Lola G

POST

Show comments

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!"

Report

Final score:

2points

albernistuff 4sale

POST

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

Report

Final score:

2points

Mrs.King0315

POST

Never been a royalist to be honest. There are pros and cons to having a monarchy but one pro must be that at least there is someone the Prime Minister has to answer to. God help us if our only head of state was a president.
The Queen was a product of her time, unaccessible to most and uncontroversial. That's not to say the public didn't love her of course, anyone can see the effect she had on the nation. But now is a different time and so a new style of monarchy is needed. William would have been perfect but I think Charles could be ok.

Report

Final score:

1point

Jules

POST

Really enjoyed the queen in all of her movies and TV shows. Not sure will watch the spinoffs with Charles.

Report

Final score:

1point

Hello_my_name_is_Genevieve

POST

Don’t care

Report

Final score:

1point

Alias-the-shade

POST

Indifferent

Report

Final score:

1point

H M

POST

As a thirty-something-year-old American, Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II being the only British monarch whose reign I have witnessed so far was and remains remarkable! She reminds me very much of my late maternal grandmother, as they were born a year apart and had very similar beliefs and personalities:

-both loved God and their families dearly, which anyone who knew them even casually or observed them even once, publicly or privately, could see clearly.

-both held their beliefs close to their hearts

-both lived through the Great Depression and World War II, etc., surviving on hard work and determination to do what they knew they had to do to live as selflessly and reasonably as possible.

-both knew deep love and deep loss, both ready to commend those departed and here alike to God and trust Him with their relationships with those they loved altogether!

-Both had a deep love for nature and reverence for God's handiwork in that respect. HRH Queen Elizabeth, I see, loved Corgis and Dorgis as my grandmother loved cardinals: they were evidence of God's goodness and a pleasure to have in one's surroundings!

-Both led their families by example with the invaluable support and co-leadership of their respective husbands, always ready to respect his leadership. Both handled widowhood with remarkable grace also.

-Both died peacefully, prepared to see the Lord whenever He was ready to bring them Home to Him, by all accounts.

I pray His Majesty King Charles III will lead his family and nation in much the same way his mother and my grandmother led their loved ones. May God be with all who grieve Her Royal Highness' passing and take comfort in knowing she is with God and all who went Home before her, just as my family did when my grandmother passed almost four years ago.

Report

Final score:

-2points

Michelle C

POST