Lol. Can you tell me next week's lottery numbers too?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I don’t get this “William and Kate will be really popular with young people once they get on the throne” idea because surely they will be about 50 (at least) once Charles croaks?
I’ve read they are meant to appeal to young people now but I don’t think so. Kate dresses alright but apart from that there’s nothing appealing about them. I would say their target audience is middle aged?
It isn't really, the fundamentals of life are not much different to where they were a thousand years ago, even if technology has changed and we live a bit longer due to better medicines.
Constitutional monarchy is part of the core identity of the UK, we are simply a country which has zero interest in a divisive President Trump, Macron or Le Pen. Sorry.
Divine Right ended with the English civil war, basic historical knowledge. Parliament now makes the law, the monarchy is just a ceremonial figure.
Constitutional monarchy also has zero to do with religion. Countries like the United States, Brazil, India, Italy, Poland, most of Africa etc are far more religious than the UK but also republics unlike us. Countries like Japan, Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands and Scandinavia which are more secular like us also have constitutional monarchies like us.
Yes there are also problems in the world but the probability of the entire world being wiped out is near zero too
Charles is already 70. But 50 is relatively young for a monarch and of course it is 50 and late 40 year olds who decide elections and the direction of the country, not 18 and 20 year olds. George of course will also be a popular Prince of Wales and in his 20s when his father is King
Last edited:
Charles has a grandmother who made it to over 100, a father who got to within touching distance and a mother who is mid 90’s and counting. Including his near relatives, Princes Edward is 86 and was last seen in a bearskin for Tropping the Colour and Prince Richard is 77. Princess Alexandra is 85 and they are all still representing The Queen on official engagements. Even ascending the throne at 70-ish it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility he will reach a silver jubilee. Which would make William 60 plus.
I don’t think we are going to have a particularly young monarch anytime soon.
I don’t think we are going to have a particularly young monarch anytime soon.
Charles has never looked particularly healthy though, especially when you compare to how other members of his family looked at 70. His fingers and face are constantly bloated, and if Camilla’s shakes are anything to go by (as long as they’re not an illness), they both love a drink. & I could see Charles’ being way more affected by the passing of Camilla than The Queen was to Philip, so I don’t think it could be beyond the possibility that his reign could be short.
Charles has always been … florid … though.
Camillia, I think, was quite badly affected by Covid but she’s carrying quite a heavy pack habit.
let’s not forget as well, they have the absolute top doctors on speed dial So if there is an underlying medical issue it will be treated with the cutting edge stuff … and kept completely under wraps.
My take on this is that M twisted the truth again. The RF bent over backwards to make her feel included giving her more perks than Kate ever got. So their saying she could work and be a Royal too was twisted to you will have to work as we can't afford to keep you. Or the amount she wanted paying was far in excess of what the RF/parliament? would allow someone of her level in the RF.
American w/British family here - I can't see the monarchy going anywhere as it would need to undermine the entirety of not just culture but the political system. A complete overhaul - it would be too much to change and too much money - maybe eventually but not in my lifetime and I am younger than William and Kate.
I like Charles - think he will make a good king - and I always had a feeling he will never be king or he will be king for a fleeting period of time.
I like Charles - think he will make a good king - and I always had a feeling he will never be king or he will be king for a fleeting period of time.
Actually, the Japanese Emperor has everything to do with religion. The very title that we translate as Emperor means "Heavenly Sovereign" and he is the High Priest of the Shinto religion - around 80% of the Japanese population attend a shrine at least once a year. Although Japan has no state religion, Shintoism is the traditional religion. High Priest, he has religious duties to perform which he does in private in the Palace shrine. The Emperor is believed to be a direct descendent of the Sun Goddess and holds three symbols - a mirror, a sword and a jewel -which were given to the first Emperor by the gods and are his mandate to rule. All this was seen at Naruhito's enthronement just a few years ago (Prince Charles attended).
The Emperor is far more bound up in Japanese religion than the Queen is, even taking into account her status as Head of the Church of England and her representation by a Lord High Commissioner at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Princess Royal has been Lord High Commissioner (twice), as have the Duke of Rothesay (Charles), the Earl of Inverness (Andrew), and the Earl of Wessex (Edward, before he was also given the Scottish earldom of Forfar). The Queen is also monarch of Canada and New Zealand and therefore their constitutional monarchies are not completely separate to that of the UK, being vested in the same person.
The Danish monarch and their family must be members of the Church of Denmark; the supreme secular authority of the Church lies in the monarch and parliament together. According to the Norwegian constitution, the monarch must be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway. Only Sweden and the Netherlands of your list do not appear to make any religious demands of their constitutional monarchies.
This is almost word-for-word what people were saying before Brexit.
So what that has zero to do with the original point that constitutional monarchies depend on strength of religion in the country to survive. Which as I proved was completely wrong.
Japanese religion is just really a folk religion. While the reason the UK monarch is head of the Church of England and Denmark and Norway require the monarch to be a member of the Lutheran Church is to ensure the effective head of the established Church is not the Pope. That has been the case since the Reformation. In those countries the Church of England and Lutherans are still bigger than Roman Catholicism. Whereas in the Netherlands Roman Catholicism is now more numerous than Lutheranism.
Whereas in Spain the monarch has never been head of the Church. The head of the largest Church in Spain was and still is the Pope
No it isn't, being in the EU is not part of UK culture. Indeed we were largely divorced from continental Europe since the Reformation and were never occupied by Napoleon or Hitler like most of Europe.
We have a trade deal with the EU now without being in its structures.
Constitutional monarchy is part of UK culture, the one time we were a republic under Cromwell it was such a disaster people were desperate for the restoration of the monarchy under Charles IInd. People do not want a divisive powerful party political President half the country hate here, nor a non entity President most have never heard of
Last edited:
I don't think that Harry's brief visit to the UK, had much to do with any olive branches being offered. A more likely explanation, could be that the Royals are conerned about what might be in Harry's book. Therefore they have asked for the delay in publication of the book, so that parts of it can be rewritten.
If the monarchy is so secure forever and ever, why all these essays about how essential it is and how anybody who disagrees with it is wrong?
I suspect that the people who are madly pro monarchy or madly against Monarchy are dwarfed by people who couldn't care less about them. I think apathy is what will save them in the end. There are far more important things to worry about than changing the Monarchy to a Republic, even though they are allowed to get away with far too much, which is really the fault of the press and the establishment. ( The Queen exempting herself from laws etc, which I was surprised she could do). Its why the Caribbean countries grumbled but didn't do anything about about becoming a republic until Wills and Kate turned up. They were suddenly reminded that their head of State was an old White lady from thousands of miles away.
Not enough people are bothered enough about them to get rid of them, and they are masters at survival. Charles will do whatever it takes to keep them there. I don't think they will be 'popular', apart from among Monarchists, who are a dying breed anyway. Wills and Kate are bland enough in their 40's, never mind in their 60's and are off on yet another holiday, recovering from their gruelling schedule of going to the Jamaica for 8 days and going to church. Not exactly inspirational, so I think they will be able to hide away being inoffensive and not doing much, as they do now, and will cling on at least for another generation.
Not enough people are bothered enough about them to get rid of them, and they are masters at survival. Charles will do whatever it takes to keep them there. I don't think they will be 'popular', apart from among Monarchists, who are a dying breed anyway. Wills and Kate are bland enough in their 40's, never mind in their 60's and are off on yet another holiday, recovering from their gruelling schedule of going to the Jamaica for 8 days and going to church. Not exactly inspirational, so I think they will be able to hide away being inoffensive and not doing much, as they do now, and will cling on at least for another generation.
Last edited:
Because you Republicans keep posting how insecure it is, so we Monarchists will reply to give the opposite view of course!
To be fair Barbados became a republic well before Wills and Kate arrived but their decision and having a white head of state for a majority black nation does indeed look odd. However for the UK constitutional monarchy I agree is secure
My spidey senses say that there would be quite a large cross over between people who voted for Brexit and people who want to keep the monarchy.
Spidey senses also say that tossing in a few big state occasions (even if a funeral) wouldn’t hurt. Comments along the lines of, say what you like but we do these occasions better than anyone and they’re secure for another few years.
What on earth do you mean that Shintoism is a folk religion? It has temples, structure, rituals, and is a huge part of state occasions, as well as being popular amongst the population. Do you mean that it isn't a Middle Eastern religion originally imposed on the population, like Christianity?
As for the UK not being part of Europe by culture, that is a hugely Anglocentric viewpoint. Scotland has traditionally looked towards Europe for trade and alliances, and still celebrates the Auld Alliance as opposed to the Auld Enemy. We're still pissed off about being dragged out of Europe by England and Wales, especially when London lied by saying that there was no need for all nations to agree as the referendum was "advisory". The feeling is reciprocal; there's a huge difference in the welcome from European countries when they realise that you're Scots as opposed to merely British. The reason why the Scots crowned Charles II at Scone immediately after his father's death was that London had over-reached by executing the King of both England and Scots without consultation, nothing to do with the years of a republic created by the English who had to impose it on Scotland by force of arms.
Please get your history and culture correct if you are going to use it as part of your arguments.
Well for starters there are no Gods in Shintoism. It is completely different from the Abrahamic religions and based solely on spirits and shrines. It is not a religion as such, more Japanese custom.
Second, Scotland is less than 10% of the UK. Scotland was England's second longest enemy after France before the Act of Union. The fact you Scottish Nationalists are still whinging about Brexit may well be a reflection of that but my point still holds true for the vast majority of the UK. Though of course Scotland as a Presbyterian nation is still distinct from the vast majority of continental Europe in that like England and Wales it is mainly Protestant not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
The Scottish Parliament fought with Parliament and Cromwell for years against what they saw as the High Church of England until Charles was executed when they decided to switch sides and back his son. It was perfectly happy fighting Charles 1st in the First Civil War despite the fact he was the Stuart monarch of Scotland as well as England
Her style is really odd, and he needs to accept his fate as being bald or invest in some hair plugs. Half-in half-out with the monarchy didn’t work, and if won’t work with your hair either Harry.
How is a Boris Johnson any different (or less divisive) than a Trump or Macron?
This always seems to the the argument of Monarchists, they don’t want a Presidential system (and nowadays always site Trump, as if he was the only President to exist) but coming from a Conditutional Monsrchy system myself (Canada) and now living in a Republican one (France, then the US), I really don’t see how having the Queen as head of state shields me from bad politics. In fact, often when we would like her to step in she can’t (and rightfully so) but we still get tit head political leaders regardless.
Last edited:
- Status