#king charles iii of the united kingdom

[theroyalsandi]

British Royal Family - King Charles III and Queen Camilla, accompanied by the Prince of Wales, are hosting the annual reception for members of the Diplomatic Corps in the state rooms at Buckingham Palace (Photo by Aaron Chown) | November 19, 2024

[charlesoberonn]

Charles III: Don't paint my hands or face red, I don't want people to think I've got blood on them.

Painter: Of course, your majesty.

[gwiazdaerydanu]

Neil Oliver – SHOULD CHARLES BE KING?

‘…net zero, CBDC, energy crisis, impending food catastrophe, WHO, WEF…… as the West seems intent on tearing itself apart, in a few weeks time King Charles III of the United Kingdom is to be crowned  – will he swear to protect the freedoms & liberties of the people or will he side with the elite?

[3cheerlinding-zebras]

Heartwarming! A senior citizen (Charles) took over the family business (the British monarchy) after his mother passed away, so his family and friends (rich white people) threw him a party (an unnecessarily expensive coronation) to support him.

[phantom-of-the-memes]

So you’re going to have to start on them William coins and notes huh…

[catherinetheprincessofwales]

Buckingham Palace Statement: The Right Honourable Rishi Sunak MP had an Audience of The King this morning and tendered his resignation as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury, which His Majesty was graciously pleased to accept. 5 Jul 2024

[1lifeinspired]

LONDON, June 29 (Reuters) - A new photographic portrait of King Charles wearing military uniform was released on Saturday to mark Britain's Armed Forces Day.

The photograph shows the King wearing his Field Marshal No. 1 Full Ceremonial Frock Coat with medals, sword and decorations.

The King is Commander-in-Chief of the armed services.

[sequencer987]

As a Yank I can’t help but notice that whenever British Monarchists defend the institution of the royal family, they always talk about how it brings in tourism and is respected by people all around the world. Without fail, they’ll always bring up the fact that the monarchy “is” very popular in the United States. They’ll cite that as an example of the monarch’s respect abroad and like…

I genuinely hate to break it to you guys, but we here across the pond view the royals the same way we view mascot characters at Disneyland. Like, there is absolutely zero actual respect. Whenever children in the U.S. learn that the monarchy is still a thing, they are usually confused. Adults then explain the monarchy as “a silly little thing that the Brits do for fun.”

When I was a kid learning about the revolution, I just assumed sight unseen that the British must have had their own revolution at some point and got rid of the king.

When my dad told me that the royal family was an extant institution, I thought it was a joke at first. He liked to kid around, and it just seemed more likely that he was fucking with me. I could not wrap my head around why you would have a queen in the 21st century.

When I first learned how much the UK government gives royal family I was honestly kind of shocked. I had figured that the royal title was so ceremonial as to be completely meaningless in a governmental context. I thought it was like being made a colonel in the state of Kentucky; that being basically just owning a fancy medal that says you are.

And FURTHERMORE, we Yanks (we in a rhetorical sense. Not me lol) were only really crazy about Queen Elizabeth. The moment she died people over here pretty much stopped paying attention to the royal family outside of scandals.

I think people in both countries tend to overestimate the cultural similarities between the United States and the United Kingdom due to our sharing a language. We absolutely do not see the monarchy in the same way its hardline supporters in the U.K. do.

Also while I’m at it, I saw one guy speculating that we loved the Queen because of “Pride at their English heritage” and I also feel I need to clarify that English is pretty much the only heritage in the United States that people are kind of ashamed of. If you only have English heritage here that’s seen as a bad thing. Like, we associate that with like inbred Old Money weirdos and Mormons. Even the Boston Brahmin don’t wanna be seen as having ‘English Heritage.’ I don’t personally feel that way, but that’s sort of the attitude here.

[theroyalsandi]

British Royal Family - King Charles III attends the annual Diplomatic Corps Reception at Buckingham Palace (Photo by Aaron Chown) | November 19, 2024

[charlesoberonn]

[head-post]

King Charles set for October visit to Australia, Samoa

King Charles and Queen Camilla had planned to visit Australia and Samoa in October, but have cancelled a planned trip to New Zealand due to health concerns as the king recovers from his cancer diagnosis.

Some British and Australian media questioned whether the trip would take place at all, in the weeks after the King’s cancer diagnosis was revealed on February 5.

The palace confirmed that Charles and Camilla will attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Samoa, which will take place from October 21-25.

Read more HERE

[3cheerlinding-zebras]

Wow they made the British monarchy from Bridgerton into a real thing? Netflix really went all out on marketing this year…

[netscapenavigator-official]

I don’t know if I have the reach for this poll, but I’m gonna try anyway because I’m curious.

Also, this isn’t a poll asking on your opinion of monarchy, in general. All I want you to do is compare how much you like Prince William vs. King Charles III. That’s it.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

You can make all sorts of solid arguments against a constitutional monarchy - but the point of monarchy is precisely that it is not the fruit of an argument. It is emphatically not an Enlightenment institution. It’s a primordial institution smuggled into a democratic system. It has nothing to do with merit and logic and everything to do with authority and mystery - two deeply human needs our modern world has trouble satisfying without danger.

- Andrew Sullivan

This is the genius of the British monarchy, supremacy exemplified in the late Queen Elizabeth II and now in King Charles III. Walter Bagehot was the first to really get to the heart of the matter.

Walter Bagehot, a journalist who would co-found and edit The Economist magazine was one of the greatest Victorians of the 19th century and he concerned himself with the workings and the reform of the delicate constitutional arrangements between parliament, the House of Lords, and the monarchy as so much is based on custom and unwritten practice.

Walter Bagehot published his classic work, The English Constitution in 1867 but it is the best way to understand the delicate balance of parliament and the monarchy. No one has written a finer work than Bagehot and his book remains the bible for many interested in constitutional matters regarding the monarchy.

In it he argued that the constitution was divided into two branches. The monarchy represents the “dignified” branch. Its job is to symbolise the nation   through pomp and ceremony. The government - Parliament, the cabinet and   the civil service - represents the “efficient” branch. Its job is to run the country by passing laws and providing public services. He was right to say that the dignified branch governs through poetry, and the  efficient branch through prose.

In Bagehot’s view, a politically-inactive monarchy served the best interests  of the United Kingdom; by abstaining from direct rule, the monarch levitated above the political fray of tribal politics (of left and right), and remained a respected personage to whom all subjects could look to as  a guiding light. The monarch was to stay severely neutral and be apolitical. Instead the monarch was to embody in the flesh the core values of a nation.

There is a tremendous burden tied to that kind of role. When Elizabeth Windsor became queen, she was tasked as a twenty-something with a job that required her to say or do nothing that could be misconstrued, controversial, or even interestingly human - for the rest of her life. She achieved that both stoically and heroically in many people’s eyes. King Charles III has taken on that inhuman mantle now. Time will tell if he can follow the late Queen’s example.

Duty, sacrificial service, and honour....without power. That’s the role of modern royalty.

It’s hard for non-British people to understand how a monarch can come to embody the psyche of the nation. The Crown represents something from the ancient past, a logically indefensible but emotionally salient symbol of something called a nation, something that gives its members meaning and happiness. As Bagehot says, it’s an act of imagination.

Some of my non-British friends particularly can’t quite grasp this connection; to them the British royal family functions mainly at best as a different form of celebrity. But to these friends as well as those republican friends sincerely opposed to monarchy can and should grasp something else - nations and cultures need people and institutions who transcend politics, which left to itself quickly descends into tribalism or worse, authoritarianism.

[jacks-weird-world]

Jack's opinion on King Charles III's First Official Portrait.

👑🎨

[its-a-hare-pom-pom]

I think instead of printing out new money with Charles on, we should print out all the new money with Freddie Mercury on. He is the Queen and he’s already dead so we won’t have to keep reprinting money. Also I think a lot less people dislike Freddie Mercury than Charles III