If you are so confident he represents us best out of anyone, let’s put it to a vote shall we?
We could have an open candidate list and a few months of no holds barred campaigning. I very much doubt Charles would win against his son or against candidates willing to trawl through Charles’ past misdemeanours, even with a servile media.
Charles is King because he is the eldest son of his mum who was Queen. Nothing more, nothing less. He has no special claim to best representing anyone but himself. And his prattish mistakes suggest he’s not even very good at best representing himself.
I’m not advocating for a presidency. But to suggest Charles is uniquely qualified above all others is delusional devoteeism.
People inspired by Monty Python’s “well I didn’t vote for you” anarcho-syndicalist peasants as the last word in political theory always seem to overlook the fact that they eat dung.
As I said, I’m not advocating for a president, I’m criticising the fawning pretence that Charles is a better representative of the people whose influence should be expanded under the guise of Royal Commissions.
He has had decades of life experience – following the ups and downs of society with different politicos in power. He has no need to offer unsustainable promises to gain power and has the wherewithal to be incorruptible.
Perhaps we need a benevolent monarch like Frederick the Great!. . ..
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Yes, let’s do away with all that messy democracy. What’s needed is a government of academics, bankers and globalist bureaucrats led by a thick as mince man child who talks to plants. Yep, that’ll do it.
MPs of course are famous for having never pursued careers in academia, finance or the public sector before being elevated by the democratic will of their two-dozen strong local party selection committee and inflicted on a safe seat.
You: the King taking a more active constitutional role means rule by academics, bankers and globalist bureaucrats.
Me: that’s what we have right now.
You: why do you hate democracy?
Aaron James
1 year ago
I did not read the article, but say I do like Charles – as I grew up he was ahead of me in age and on TV a lot, and seemed a good man, And since our wonderful Queen passing away, I have felt he will make a good King. I support him as King.
But the thing is him and the World Economic Forum WEF….(our psychopathic overlords) just do a search – this is what I wish was being addressed – sorry if it was in the above, I just scanned it for those 3 letters.
you will find endless stuff like this, and some gets pretty wild…
‘Now-King Charles has a long history of working with the World Economic Forum. Charles has been attending WEF meetings since at least 1992. Daily Mail said in 2020, “Earlier this year, Prince Charles launched his Sustainable Markets Initiative at Davos,” which is the meeting place of WEF.’
I believe the ‘Global Elites’ (Davis) are behind all which is bad/evil in the world, and are out to enslave the planet – so I would like Charles, or his spokesperson, to address the Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink thing….
Christopher Chantrill
1 year ago
Given King Charles’s involvement in Poundbury and his advocacy for climate change, I would call him a creature of the educated ruling class, and therefore likely to be much beloved of university professors like the writer.
But beloved of ordinary Brits? I wonder.
A bigger question is King Charles’ Head, as David Copperfield’s pal well knew back in the day.
Last edited 1 year ago by Christopher Chantrill
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
This makes an elegant case for the British monarchy while also touching on the problems of true democracy (i.e. elite capture). Historically speaking, as far as Europe is concerned, the power of monarchs was generally limited by the power of landed nobility, and vice versa. The monarch’s ability to unify many lands and peoples was counterbalanced by the fact that the nobility collectively had more direct control over far more wealth/manpower/territory than any monarch. Thus, a persuasive and popular monarch could further restrict the nobility (oligarchs) by threatening them with the will of the people, or more literally, confronting them with the brutal reality that more of the people would take his side in any perceived conflict. Weaker monarchs, on the other hand, were more easily manipulated by members of the nobility. This dynamic takes many other forms but the pattern remains; the most potent threat to oligarchy is a powerful autocrat. As an American, I rather admire the British monarchy as it represents another safeguard against a truly horrid bunch of oligarchs gaining power as the monarch could theoretically wrest control if he or she had enough popular support to do so, and even without formal power can still wield a counter-influence. Whether Charles III can be that sort of monarch is a debatable point, but even if he isn’t, the next one still might be, and that’s the point. The monarch may be just a symbol, but symbols can have great power, as the author reminds us.
Martin Brumby
1 year ago
A more political monarchy?
Doubtful – but bearing in mind that Charles has been banging on about the Climate for a generation but still obviously hasn’t the faintest idea of the well established fact that tiny increases in temperature in 170 years, followed by a small increase in a trace gas essential for all life on Earth, may be interesting, but is certainly not a harbinger of doom; is unpersuasive that he is the Man for the job.
A thousand pitties that we couldn’t have had Queen Anne Ii.
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Ah, there it is: Above all, Charles could expand the role of Royal commissions, colleges and trusts. I guess the author is hoping Charles is an Unherd subscriber.
Claire D
1 year ago
I found this is a profound and moving essay on our situation at the present time after the Queen’s death. I share John Milbank’s appreciation of our King and his hopes for Charles’s reign, but I doubt whether certain powers, including the media, would allow him to extend his influence much. I hope I’m wrong though.
Thank you.
Well said Claire. One of the best essays I’ve read all year. Im doubtful too, but while both the Left & Right have reason to distrust him, he also receives support across the spectrum. It will be as God wills it.
Alan Thorpe
1 year ago
Diana would not agree.
Terry M
1 year ago
This essay makes me think the British are bigger fools than I had imagined.
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
Truss can at least claim the support of the majority of Conservative Party members. Whose support can Charles claim? Camila’s?
If you are so confident he represents us best out of anyone, let’s put it to a vote shall we?
We could have an open candidate list and a few months of no holds barred campaigning. I very much doubt Charles would win against his son or against candidates willing to trawl through Charles’ past misdemeanours, even with a servile media.
Charles is King because he is the eldest son of his mum who was Queen. Nothing more, nothing less. He has no special claim to best representing anyone but himself. And his prattish mistakes suggest he’s not even very good at best representing himself.
I’m not advocating for a presidency. But to suggest Charles is uniquely qualified above all others is delusional devoteeism.
“let’s put it to a vote shall we?”
Well, no. That’s the point.
People inspired by Monty Python’s “well I didn’t vote for you” anarcho-syndicalist peasants as the last word in political theory always seem to overlook the fact that they eat dung.
As I said, I’m not advocating for a president, I’m criticising the fawning pretence that Charles is a better representative of the people whose influence should be expanded under the guise of Royal Commissions.
Pretty much like any politician then other than we are stuck with him and he with us.
He has had decades of life experience – following the ups and downs of society with different politicos in power. He has no need to offer unsustainable promises to gain power and has the wherewithal to be incorruptible.
Perhaps we need a benevolent monarch like Frederick the Great!. . ..
Yes, let’s do away with all that messy democracy. What’s needed is a government of academics, bankers and globalist bureaucrats led by a thick as mince man child who talks to plants. Yep, that’ll do it.
What is it about Nottingham University?
MPs of course are famous for having never pursued careers in academia, finance or the public sector before being elevated by the democratic will of their two-dozen strong local party selection committee and inflicted on a safe seat.
Even an imperfect democracy is preferable to the authoritarian plutocracy that you seem to prefer.
You: the King taking a more active constitutional role means rule by academics, bankers and globalist bureaucrats.
Me: that’s what we have right now.
You: why do you hate democracy?
I did not read the article, but say I do like Charles – as I grew up he was ahead of me in age and on TV a lot, and seemed a good man, And since our wonderful Queen passing away, I have felt he will make a good King. I support him as King.
But the thing is him and the World Economic Forum WEF….(our psychopathic overlords) just do a search – this is what I wish was being addressed – sorry if it was in the above, I just scanned it for those 3 letters.
you will find endless stuff like this, and some gets pretty wild…
‘Now-King Charles has a long history of working with the World Economic Forum. Charles has been attending WEF meetings since at least 1992. Daily Mail said in 2020, “Earlier this year, Prince Charles launched his Sustainable Markets Initiative at Davos,” which is the meeting place of WEF.’
I believe the ‘Global Elites’ (Davis) are behind all which is bad/evil in the world, and are out to enslave the planet – so I would like Charles, or his spokesperson, to address the Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink thing….
Given King Charles’s involvement in Poundbury and his advocacy for climate change, I would call him a creature of the educated ruling class, and therefore likely to be much beloved of university professors like the writer.
But beloved of ordinary Brits? I wonder.
A bigger question is King Charles’ Head, as David Copperfield’s pal well knew back in the day.
This makes an elegant case for the British monarchy while also touching on the problems of true democracy (i.e. elite capture). Historically speaking, as far as Europe is concerned, the power of monarchs was generally limited by the power of landed nobility, and vice versa. The monarch’s ability to unify many lands and peoples was counterbalanced by the fact that the nobility collectively had more direct control over far more wealth/manpower/territory than any monarch. Thus, a persuasive and popular monarch could further restrict the nobility (oligarchs) by threatening them with the will of the people, or more literally, confronting them with the brutal reality that more of the people would take his side in any perceived conflict. Weaker monarchs, on the other hand, were more easily manipulated by members of the nobility. This dynamic takes many other forms but the pattern remains; the most potent threat to oligarchy is a powerful autocrat. As an American, I rather admire the British monarchy as it represents another safeguard against a truly horrid bunch of oligarchs gaining power as the monarch could theoretically wrest control if he or she had enough popular support to do so, and even without formal power can still wield a counter-influence. Whether Charles III can be that sort of monarch is a debatable point, but even if he isn’t, the next one still might be, and that’s the point. The monarch may be just a symbol, but symbols can have great power, as the author reminds us.
A more political monarchy?
Doubtful – but bearing in mind that Charles has been banging on about the Climate for a generation but still obviously hasn’t the faintest idea of the well established fact that tiny increases in temperature in 170 years, followed by a small increase in a trace gas essential for all life on Earth, may be interesting, but is certainly not a harbinger of doom; is unpersuasive that he is the Man for the job.
A thousand pitties that we couldn’t have had Queen Anne Ii.
Ah, there it is: Above all, Charles could expand the role of Royal commissions, colleges and trusts. I guess the author is hoping Charles is an Unherd subscriber.
I found this is a profound and moving essay on our situation at the present time after the Queen’s death. I share John Milbank’s appreciation of our King and his hopes for Charles’s reign, but I doubt whether certain powers, including the media, would allow him to extend his influence much. I hope I’m wrong though.
Thank you.
Neither Kings nor Politicians ever come with guarantees.
Well said Claire. One of the best essays I’ve read all year. Im doubtful too, but while both the Left & Right have reason to distrust him, he also receives support across the spectrum. It will be as God wills it.
Diana would not agree.
This essay makes me think the British are bigger fools than I had imagined.
Truss can at least claim the support of the majority of Conservative Party members. Whose support can Charles claim? Camila’s?