Queen Elizabeth II

[mancity2012_eamo]

...but he was elected.

Two positives can’t make a negative.
Yeah! Right!

 

[bluethrunthru]

I’ve read numerous times from royal ‘experts’ that he would most likely go with George. But seems he’s sticking with Charles.

Would have been a bit weird for him anyway. Imagine getting to 70 odd and then just changing your first name? You’d probably just ignore every fucker who called your name, thinking they were talking to someone else.

Probably better than going with Sandra though lol

 

[Octavian]

If he is King Charles - Charles is not a lucky name for UK monarchs - I recall reading some years ago that he would use Phillip as his monicker - however so long has passed its hard to see how that would work given how we have all known him as Charles all our ( and his ) lives

As monarchs go from eras gone, Charles II wasn’t a bad one. He restored a lot of tradition after that **** Cromwell was done in.

Obviously he’s hoping his reign is nothing like Charles I (small “ha”).

But the name Charles doesn’t come with the baggage “John” does, who nobody would ever be named after again, in a Royal sense.

 

[meltonblue]

We'd have a mandate to vote Presidents Thatcher, Blair and Johnson into office. And if they were hopeless, we'd be able to vote them out. And they wouldn't deposit their families indefinitely in palaces the width and breadth of the land without so much as an introspective glance as to why that's bad optics.

Therein lies the rub of a monarchy. A complete anachronism that had no place in the 19th century, nevermind the 21st.

And yet in our current political system, all of those could achieve that mandate on less than a majority vote or getting anywhere near the approval rating of the monarch we’ve had for the last seventy years…

I agree with you in principle. It doesn’t work without a change in our political system though, nor does it reflect the difference between a constitutional monarch and a president.

 

[johnmc]

As monarchs go from eras gone, Charles II wasn’t a bad one. He restored a lot of tradition after that **** Cromwell was done in.

Obviously he’s hoping his reign is nothing like Charles I (small “ha”).

But the name Charles doesn’t come with the baggage “John” does, who nobody would ever be named after again, in a Royal sense.

Fuck you

 

[A57 the snake]

There’s a match day thread in discussion regarding if the game goes ahead or not.

Today the Queen has passed.

 

[ctidcarl]

R.I.P Queen Elizabeth II

I'm surprised how sad this has made me feel

 

[Octavian]

Fuck you

“In a Royal sense”

John was also the disciple “Jesus loved” so you do have that.

It’s a nice name, just not King John.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Dickheads all over Facebook laughing and taking the piss out of a little old woman they’ve never met and never done them any harm! Stay classy you absolute arse wipes!

F*ckin hate social media with a passion these last few years, the vitriol and hatred towards celebrity’s, footballers, politicians and others. It’s spawned a nation of angry bitter folk

 

[cleavers]

Two positives can’t make a negative.

I suspect many in Ukraine (and russia) would argue otherwise.

That's the problem with "electing" a head of state, they can do what they want and changethings so they can do what they want.