Queen Elizabeth II has died, which means that Prince Charles finally becomes King Charles. But what number will he be?
We've already had King Charles I, who got into a fight with the Trumpists of his time and was eventually beheaded by their rump in 1649.
After a few years had gone by the Brits began to feel a little bad about what they'd done to Charles, so in 1660 they texted his son an invitation to come back if he'd promise to be nice. He did, and became King Charles II a few days later. Charles II presided over the founding of the Royal Society, the Great Plague of London, the Great Fire of London, the discovery of gravity, his wife's inability to produce an heir, his long affair with Nell Gwyn, and just generally a period of merriment and good times.
By the end of his reign, however, the British people were exhausted by kings named Charles, so they took a little break and then decided to have a run of Georges. This means Prince Charles is now King Charles III.
However, what's really important is how we can use the queen's death to stick yet another fork into Prince Harry. Here is the Daily Mail:
Flight data shows that Harry didn't make it to Balmoral in time to say goodbye! Take that, Harry!
In other news, the Mail tells us all about the code names that have now been activated:
Operation Unicorn will transport the queen's coffin back to London, with Operation Overstudy held in waiting in case the journey is made by air. This will be followed tomorrow by Operation Spring Tide, which spells out the details for Prince Charles' accession to the throne. These are all subsumed under the master plan named Operation London Bridge, details of which have been obtained EXCLUSIVELY BY POLITICO.
By the way, Prince William, now the heir to the throne, inherits his father's title of Duke of Cornwall, along with an income of about £20 million per year.
So there you have it. The queen is dead, long live the king. Plus we need to change the title of the national anthem.
I remember there was some brief speculation that he might take a different name, so as to not be "Charles III". His other names are "George", "Arthur", and "Phillip".
"George" would be the boring one. His grandfather was George VI, so he'd be George VII. Blah Blah Blah honoring the memory of his family Blah Blah.
"Arthur" would be the strangest, since the UK has never had a "King Arthur" outside of the mythical figure - the closest was Henry VII's oldest son, who died before he became King. It would also make him the butt of many jokes, and lead to an amusing debate over whether he should be "Arthur I" or "Arthur II".
"Philip" would be the funniest, since England has had a King Phillip. It was Phillip II of Spain, while he was married to Mary I of England for four years. You know, same guy who later tried to invade England with the Spanish Armada.
Charles may close any name as his regnal name; he is not limited to choosing one of his given names.
That would definitely upset the TERF community in the UK.
"Charles was born Charles Arthur Phillip George, & no bit of whimsy can change that!"
He ought to go with Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs. Like his mum, if you pull back the curtain on any monarch, especially a figurehead with adoring subjects, what you'll find is the Wizard of Oz, a con man from Omaha traveling with the circus.
Also note that monarchs avoided "bad luck names" for a couple of centuries, so no King Charles or King James. But Elizabeth sort of set a precedent for using one's actual name and Charles has lived 73 years of his life as Charles.
It's noteworthy that in 800 years there has not been a King John II.
Nor has there been a King Arthur.
The Roundheads were less like MAGA and more like the "Christian" "conservatives" of the 1990s -- Jerry Falwell etc. But we are condemned to replay the English Civil War and the Commonwealth period ad infinitum, because these were the foremost negative example for our Founders -- and still very fresh in their minds, even though more than a century had already passed. Today anything that happened more than a few weeks ago is inapplicably remote.
Yeah, no. The Stuarts (James & Charles & Charles & James) were the MAGA Trumpers of their day, advocating for the "divine right of kings," and working constantly to subvert parliament and the rule of law. C2 was semi-secretly on the French payroll in what was the 17th century preview of Putin's meddling in the 2016 election, inspiring to the "emoluments" clause of the US constitution.
Meanwhile, the parliamentary opposition created a brief Common-wealth, embraced religious freedom (Cromwell lifted the ban on Jews in England), and pioneered the first written constitution (the Levelers' Agreement of the People, which guaranteed legislative independence, expanded suffrage, due process, and equal protection). Sure, they were also religious fanatics, although no less than the vile Stuarts with their Star Chamber courts. The English Civil War was the first great democratic revolution of the western world, a precursor to our own. Obsessing over the role of stereotyped Puritans misses the forest for the trees.
The obsession of "maga" and "Trump" is your problem. Let it go.
Maga is a con. Idiots who suck the dick of free market globalism yet don't realize it.
Actually, I believe the new monarch, like the Pope, can choose any reigning name he wants. Sure he will probably choose to be Charles III, but he could also be King Ringo if he wanted.
King Peterbest.
Suck, Paul, Yoko, & Undead John!
I'm still waiting on Operation Screw Royalty Worship.
I had thought that we actually had that operations, and it ended in 1783. But I guess this, along with rising fascism, shows an awful lot of people really want to be subjects, not citizens.
Sad!
"A citizen, not a subject" is as concise a definition of what it is to be an American, and at this late date in our history it's a shame so many don't understand that.
They understand it, they just *want* to be subjects or, more accurately, they want *other people* to be subject to a monarch that shares their religious beliefs and will enforce them.
I think the longing to be "subjects" resumed with the fairy-tale marriage of one of those "royals" to the Disneyesque "Princess DI." It's been downhill over here ever since.
Nah the Anglophile trend began during WWI and kicked into high gear in WWII with the "Special Relationship".
…are they code words if everyone everywhere knows them?
And the media gets all creepy. Imagine what they will on that glorious day when Donald trump is exterminated! Creepiness permitted. Operation qadaffi! With a sharp knife!
It must be hard to play the victim all the time.
$20 million? That'll go over well when gas prices hit
How much of that will be hushmoney for his stable of Not-Kate concubines?
What did the queen ever do? I am curious to know. No doubt she had authority within the royal family, but what about for the 100 million or more or her subjects across the Commonwealth? She traveled and visited with people far and wide. She served as an unofficial ambassador of good will. She gave speeches occasionally, though it's hard to find a single memorable thing she ever said. She kept her opinions to herself, even on issues of great importance such as Brexit. Did she ever exert her influence for any great cause? Did she ever accomplish a single thing that will stand as her legacy?
I don't mean, Well, she preserved the monarchy? I'd like to understand what purpose the monarchy serves. Why does it exist? What is it good for? To my eye, the British monarch is as useful as the Grand Marshal of the Rose Parade, but on a far more grand scale.
Clearly, for the royals there's some good in it. They're one of the richest, most privileged families in all of history. They get to live in the finest castles. Elizabeth and now Charles get their pictures on pound notes and postage stamps. That's swell, if that's your thing. But for the country and its many millions, monarchy (not to mention, the insane celebrity worship it inspires) feels like one big waste.
Thankfully, the Founders of this country rid us of monarchy. Back then, of course, the king had power. But the modern-day powerless monarchy feels like a stupid and worthless institution, and we should be glad to be rid of that too. For all our own faults, we have nothing equivalent that is as expensive and wasteful, and even when presided over with a measure of dignity, as deeply corrupt.
Millions apparently adored the kind lady in the colorful hats. They will send flowers and shed tears. May she rest in peace, and may she be the last of her kind.
A tweet I saw summed it up pretty well:
She was basically a fancy Walmart Greeter.
Tourism Ambassador for the UK. The Royals attract billions in tourism $$$ to the UK.
A mechanic during the war?????
Actual sense from Shooter!?
A constitutional monarch only has one real job: If there's a serious dispute over who gets to run the country, the monarch steps in to make the call, and everyone accepts it. Since this has never happened in America, I guess you don't need a monarch. In the event that you do, I'm sure your Supreme Court will function adequately.
No it did not on multiple occasions.
touche
Thank you. Like +28.
Quite a few countries have heads of state, who have very little power, Germany and Italy to name but two. The Queen was just a more colorful version, who attracted more tourists than other Presidents do (can you name the presidents of Germany and Italy?). I think the reason why the monarchy is still reasonably popular in the UK is because Brits have a horror of the cult of personality that surrounds the US President, and want to keep their leaders more boring. It could be argued that Boris Johnson wanted to be the UK Trump, but he was never able to create a MAGA cult and people turned on him pretty quickly when they realized how much he lied. Demagoguery is just a little more difficult when you have to defer to someone in an ermine robe wearing a crown.
I think she also helped the UK transition from being an imperial power to a second rank nation state with a little more grace. It has always surprised me that many former British colonies still want to remain a part of the Commonwealth, even after brutal insurgency campaigns and a history imperial humiliations. I think she deserves some credit for that. I'm not sure whether the Commonwealth will survive now she's gone, but in her time it seemed to give some dignity to countries that were finding their feet after throwing off their imperial yoke.
A shrewd and unsentimental pre-telling of Charles's reign. On PBS a few years ago, they might run it again. Also on Apple and Kanopy.
https://youtu.be/4KYY_u8OwuM
And as we speak every country in the Commonwealth is frantically printing new money with the king's noggin on it.
They need to "Hold the presses!!" to make sure Charlie doesn't abdicate in favor of his son.
He just promised to the British public that he wouldn't.
Wow. This is the most the Queen has ever accomplished.
Was poet John Milton one of "the Trumpists of his time" ... ?
The Orson Scott Card of his day...
Queen Elizabeth II is the last leader to have actual ties to WW II. The entirety of our modern life has always been viewed through that war, that fight for freedom and democracy. When we lose people whose lived experiences transcend history, then we lose our collective ties to that history, and what follows is always the loss of the lessons learned from those experiences. Her passing is the end of the post-war era. Forty years ago from today was 1982, for some of us, that decade is not unlike this one. But in 1982, forty years before was 1942. And nothing about those two decades is similar.
I wasn't born so...
But now a new battle is happening to see what will become of democracy and what freedom is. The post war era ended Feb. 24 when a full scale European war began again.
Interesting that now prince Phillip can be buried along side his wife.
His remains were interred at the Royal vault within Saint George's Chapel until such time as his beloved Lillibet died.
Now they can be buried along side each other
Ngl, I wish Cromwell had managed a stable regime.
"By the end of his reign, however, the British people were exhausted by kings named Charles, so they took a little break and then decided to have a run of Georges."
Poor Anne. Everyone always forgets her. But seriously, you ought to remember William of Orange and Mary, who ran Charles out in the Glorious Revolution. It took a while to get to the Georges.