I thought Charles dumping Dianna for Camilla ,would have been the end of him and here he is King ? The sooner Australia becomes a Republic the better ? Or at least dump the monarchy.
Charles the Third and the Two-Headed Beast
by Anony Mous 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
punkofnice
What do you Canadians, English, Scots, Irish and Australians think about your new leadership?
Brit with a lot of Scottish ancestors here. I think the Royal family are basically parasites.
I don't believe they actually have any influence here, really. Just figureheads. A bit like Biden is.
Why should they have all that adulation and privilege? It hasn't been earned, I don't think.
Forgive me for being abrupt but, neither am I a communist.
Society isn't fair, I don't have to like it.
-
stan livedeath
smiddy35 hours ago
I thought Charles dumping Dianna for Camilla
hmmm..but did he? the marriage was in bad shape --but was he solely to blame ?
-
Diogenesister
I'm actually vaguely embarrassed about it all. I'd like someone with psychological insight to weigh in about why that is🤦🏻♀️😂
Annoy mousYour take on Ireland is interesting. When I was young years ago I was up in the mountains in Spain with some Irish friends & we were talking to some elderly villagers.
They were surprised when they learned I was English & my friends were from the republic. "But aren't you bitter enemies?" they asked...of course we all roared with laughter.
The irony was that whilst my maiden name is very Irish, some of my Irish friends had English names. You are correct the British don't really view the Irish as not British. How they see us may be another matter😂
-
Journeyman
...it seems the sword is a bit dull and the two heads are now both octogenarians with severe dementia...
Funny, I didn't realise Rishi Sunak was that old?
Seriously though, the equivalent of Biden is not the monarch, but the British PM. For all the bluster of republicans who whinge about the royals, the fact is that the politicians run the country, not the monarch or any royals.
Regarding Charles, I would say that even many sympathetic or positive towards royalty and their role in British history (such as myself) are much less invested in the accession of this adulterer king than they were in the reign of his mother. The UK and Commonwealth have been fortunate to have had nearly a century of two monarchs who actually embodied public service, in George VI and Elizabeth II. But that pattern is about to end with Charles, who is much more self-centred and spoilt.
As soon as his mother had died and he became king, Charles was caught having a spoilt tantrum over a leaky pen. That was a small indication of the sort of person he is, which those of us in the UK who have observed him over years were not surprised about in the slightest. Now the idea of the public making a "pledge of allegiance" to the king is another, even more egregious, example of how Charles completely misunderstands his relationship with the people.
I thought Charles dumping Dianna for Camilla
Charles did not "dump" Diana for Camilla - in truth, he never gave up pursuing Camilla even during his marriage to Diana. Charles and Camilla first met in the 1970s, but she went on to marry another man. One article about their history says:
It is known that Camilla and Charles were romantically involved periodically both before and during each of their first marriages. Their relationship was highly publicised in the media and attracted attention for all the wrong reasons.
When Charles met Diana Spencer in 1981, he was still seeing Camilla. In Diana: Her True Story, author Andrew Morton wrote that Diana almost called off the wedding two days before it was due to take place after she found a bracelet Charles got made for Camilla.
Camilla's divorce was finalised in 1995. Charles and Diana's marriage officially ended in 1996.
After a lot of push against Camilla within the Royal family for various reasons, the two finally got married on February 10, 2005, in Windsor Castle.
And then of course there was the awful "Tampongate" conversation. Ugh.
Charles was determined to maintain the relationship for his own sake and has insisted he got his way all the way to today, first insisting he be allowed to marry Camilla, and now insisting she be styled 'queen' consort (although few Britons will ever accept calling her that!)
With Diana, I suspect he thought he would get a glamorous queen for public appearances and a mother to give him heirs, while being able to have his mistress Camilla on call in the background. Once his marriage fell apart, he determined to bring Camilla in, regardless of what his family or the public thought - and still insist on having the crown in time, too, despite the protocol and constitutional implications. He didn't even have the 'honour' to take Edward VIII's route out (when he renounced the throne to marry Wallis Simpson) and step aside in favour of his son William. No, Charles wants it all on his own terms. Never a good sign from any monarch through history (nor, to be fair, any politician - but we're used to them behaving that way!)His entire adult life has been about him getting his own way. The problem with being heir to the throne for decades is that he's been groomed to expect this for so long, I think he genuinely believes he's 'entitled' to it, in every sense.
-
Journeyman
In summary, to the point about the "two heads" and the state of the US/UK relationship, one of the JW interpretations is that the feet of the statue of Daniel of "iron mixed with clay" symbolises 'hard' power not mixing well with the 'clay' of people (the population). Frankly, that interpretation is looking quite accurate these days.
Both the US and UK are struggling to keep their people engaged in the 'system' - suspicion, cynicism, divisions and negativity about politics and our leaders are like never before: COVID and vaccines; conspiracy theories; race, migration and national identity; fears about laws around protest, data collection and surveillance - the grievances go on and on. And while both the US and UK are on the surface "free democracies", they're just as willing to use blackmail (such as sanctions) or "hard" power (invasion, bombing, etc) against their enemies and even turn their laws against their own populations if they feel it necessary.
Both countries are still 'active' and both are still allies (although the relationship has been strained by Obama, Trump and now Biden) and it's not likely that will suddenly change, but they're both far less stable and united than they've been for a generation, with much less confidence about their place in the world. A weakening of the monarchy in the UK (and the fallout from the rift with Harry & Meghan) is part of that bigger picture of tensions and divisions. -
Rivergang
In this part of the world at least, the coronation is unlikely to attract the same attention as in earlier times.
For example, 85 years ago, my grandmother invested what for her would have been a year’s wages in a radio set. She did that solely because she wanted to “listen to the coronation” (ie. of King George VI).
Cannot imagine this coronation generating anywhere near that level of interest!
There are a number of reasons for that - not just the unpopularity of Charles III. At the forefront would be declining British influence in this part of the world, paralleling Britain’s post-WWII decline as a world power. The clinchers would have been two events which happened almost at the same time - Britain’s withdrawal “East of Suez” and its entry into the Common Market. Upon entry into the EEC, Britain thereby abandoned trade with the Commonwealth.
Ever since, the term “Commonwealth” has meant very little, apart from that biannual Talk Fest called the “Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting”. Commonly referred to by its acronym CHOGM, it would more accurately be described as “NATO” - ie. “No Action, Talk Only”
-
Journeyman
Upon entry into the EEC, Britain thereby abandoned trade with the Commonwealth.
This is a good point, and one completely ignored by Remoaners, who are either too young to know, or couldn't care less, about how serious a betrayal that was to countries that had stood by Britain for decades, including through both world wars.
The sad thing is that while Brexit was a good opportunity to rebuild and strengthen relations with the Commonwealth, noone in power in the UK took the initiative to do so. The time to do it was before the death of the Queen, while there was still the goodwill from her status as head, but this opportunity was wasted. Even today, Commonwealth Day is barely recognised in the UK, and the Commonwealth Institute - which was a centre celebrating the organisation and its members in Kensington, London - was closed in 2016. Shockingly short-sighted.Now, with Charles as king, there is little hope of garnering the same level of international goodwill and cooperation again.