this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
131 points (95.8% liked)
UKCasual
6579 readers
1 users here now
A friendly place to chat.
No politics please. Don't be a dick.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes. But why remain as an impotent king?
I mean he's 70-odd and has basically been powerless his whole life, if the options are to rock the boat or kick the can down the road and live out his last decade or two doing bugger-all in unimaginable opulence, I can see why he'd pick the latter.
Like it's not necessarily the morally right option, but I get it.
The monarch has been technically impotent since Elizabeth II took over.
It's been politically/constitutionally impotent since a long time before that. But I get your point.
That's true, but I was thinking of things like Edward VIII and his friendship with Hitler.
They may not have direct power, but with their wealth and land ownership they're definitely pulling strings behind the scenes.
Liz used to have a weekly meeting with the PM every Thursday, I suspect Chaz does too. I'm guessing they don't just talk about the weather and the cricket
"So... how are things?"
Yes, I can understand that, but he's been a lead voice on the environment a lot longer than most. I guess he's swapped his beliefs & scruples for the trappings of monarchy, and that diminishes him rather than elivates him in my eyes.
You expected him to be making political statements as the monarch?
The only reason the monarchy still exists is because the head of it remains apolitical.
I guess I had some inchoate expectation that he'd be more influential. Sunak's just turned him into a hypocrite.
And that's the least bad thing Sunak has done this week!
I generally don't want some bloke who is only there through accident of birth to have any influence on policy.
Who voted for him to have influence?
I'd support constitutional reform.