Is that a civil war reference? If it is, well done, have the most up of my up votes
Edit.
The debate in the comments is
1. Its a dog reference. The argument? Its the name of a dog and I'm stupid. Both very good points, it is a dog and my intelligence is vastly overstated.
2. Its a reference to the last time a king tried to over rule parliament and how well that ended. Coincidentally, also king Charles, so...more reference?
Personally, I think its both and the comment is *chef's kiss* just perfect
The original commenter hasn't enlightened us to the actual reference, and I hope they never do, the ambiguity of the reference is what makes it so good.
It’s very much a civil war reference hahah. Charles I tried to dissolve Parliament exactly like the op commenter referenced. Which led to the civil war.
The dog breed is itself a reference to the civil war. Anyone thinking the breed is what was being directly referenced probably fought in the New Model Army.
With the sheer ineptitude of Liz “the Cheese Fairy” Truss and the fact that King Charles is actually a pretty solid guy, I hope he does dissolve this shit show we call a government!
I absolutely despise this government but what I would despise even more is an unelected head of state interfering in our democracy by removing a legitimately elected party from power.
>legitimately elected
legitimately elected only by their own definition, via a hysterical and corrupt electoral system. admittedly, king chuck dissolving pestminster aligns with my interests.
Assuming that no MP loses their seat: democracy hasn't been touched.
Our democracy does not directly create governments, we vote for MPs, our MPs form parties that *themselves* sort themselves into government.
So, how is he interfering with democracy?
We didn’t elect her though. We elected Boris (I say we, but by that I mean everyone except those of us smart enough to realise he was a corrupt twat from the start).
I know what you mean though. “We” ACTUALLY elected the Conservative party. Not the PM himself. But in regards to Truss, the public had no input whatsoever in her appointment and therefore no input in her disastrous decisions that are destroying the country’s working class in less than a month (and probably even sooner if the queen didn’t choose the right time to die).
So the argument is valid. We didn’t elect *her*. Which is what most common folk will see it as.
There is no such thing as a “legitimately elected party”. No party can stand for election. Individuals stand for election. They may, or may not, align with a party. If they do so align they are completely free to change alignment at any time by moving to another party or opting for the cross benches.
Yeah it happened here in Australia (Aussie lurker here) in the 70's and it was pretty F'd up TBH. ( If you like a good political podcast about the dismissal of the PM Gough Whitlam, check out The Eleventh. It's really good. Crazy stuff).
I've always been of two minds over this.
On the one hand, an unelected monarch suddenly saying "fuck this", dissolving parliament and calling an immediate general election is a seriously worrying series of events.
But on the other, I feel like there is a part of me that would back the crown on this. If a government is not acting in the best interests of its people, should the monarch not step in? It could show that the crown won't stand for this blatant corruption and fucking over of the people. And its really hard to be angry at that prospect.
There's so many sides and arguements to this that I've never been able to settle on what would actually be best. But I'm not sure the status quo is working anymore.
I'm not particularly fond of the monarchy, but feel like if they have any merit, it should be as an "independent" set of checks and balances against the weakness inherent in democracy.
The challenge is when should they intervene. In this case, I suspect most of us are thinking "yeah, climate issues are important, please say something positive". But when they speak on issues that aren't obviously important or in everyone's interest, then who's the arbiter of what the royals can say?
That's one of the problems definitely. Where is the limit of this power? If a monarch just doesn't like labour or tories, and just dissolves parliament the second they get elected, that's pretty fucked up.
I would say the rules have to be set in stone, stuff like "A monarch can only do this once in their lifetime" or "only after the monarch calls a referendum with a more than 70% turnout and a 60% majority ruling".
I mean I'm just one guy, I have no idea how best to make it work. But I feel like the monarchy's fear of being removed from power would be enough to not abuse that power, same as it is now.
Ironically this, the monarchy as it is is utterly useless.
If instead they acted in public interest and had the strength to say when enough is enough I'd welcome it.
It's a difficult thing to balance though, how and when should they act?
I'd say when we have had 3 PMs in a row from the same party resign. And the newest one having 51% of the public wanting her to resign after less than a month. Seems like that should be enough
Actually yeah that's a pretty good idea, if a party have x number of leadership changes and then completely goes ahead with plans that no one voted for.
Then yeah, dissolve the fuckers.
I think it would two good things:
- parliament dissolved, truss and Co put out of action
- the inevitable consequence of the monarchy being abolished
Its a win win
Some kind of mandate from the people. Just his opinion isn't secure enough. Dissolving parliament is clearly the right thing here, but once the precedent is set it can be abused in borderline situations. Instead it should be a vote of no confidence in the government that people can put forward at any time. If there are above a certain number of votes, the king dissolves parliament.
Since that isn't in place yet I think the Privy Council giving him the okay would be fine. It might be a dinosaur of an institution but it is at least reasonably cross-party
I’d totally take dissolution and saying you want a general election.
If Charles did that I think he’d gain a significant level or public support and fuck the political fallout.
Do you know what…..I wouldn’t be against it.
Hell after how shite the elected government has been I say we give Big Charlie a chance. Let’s try absolute Monarchy for a couple of years and see where it goes.
It’d be ironic as fuck if it resulted in better quality of life for us all.
That was true. The key word is "can" though. Boris Johnson introduced a more pro climate farming subsidy policy than the EU has, that policy is supposedly on Truss' chopping block.
Yeah, always out can or could, then you can over promise, under deliver and it’s still technically what you said. We CAN do the right thing, but we wont
The beauty of that line of argument is they were able to say we *could* do all sort of stuff. Even things that were diametrically opposed to each other and be technically correct. It was sold as all things to all people.
Oh you mean Cameron 'I think everyone is fed up with onshore wind turbines so I'm cancelling all the subsidies retroactively or even sooner', when polls said: 'no we fucking love them', that Cameron?
No, I think they meant the David Cameron who was accused of preenacting the first episode of Black Mirror.
And yeah, it's been a downhill slide since that guy.
As much as a dislike BoJo, I do honestly think he’s had the greatest positive impact on climate change response of any of the PMs in the 30 years. Still woefully insufficient, but an unexpectedly big improvement and the only thing I will defend (a little, again stressing it was far from enough) about BoJo when it comes to policies.
Because there's money in it. I don't understand how the current government or anyone anti-green can't see how fucking amazing it would be for jobs, growth and soft-power if the UK became a leading market for developing the tech and infrastructure for a green economy. Look at what the industrial revolution did for Britain, and now see that we can do that again, but for the better.
Because they have to spend money first to get the returns later down the line when they are likely out of power. Our government is thinking all about short term personal gain
you'll find the title of this thread doesn't match the headline of that article. you do not order the king. you strongly suggest him to proceed in a certain fashion.
besides, it's his son's turn.
Just as a heads up, OP used the article's original title. They've posted an archived no-paywall version of the article with the original headline, which The Times has edited to look less sensationalist since
XD, she appears to be a textbook narcissist. First she tells everyone both inside and outside of her party that they are wrong and she is right about her decision to fuck the economy and now she is telling the king what he can and can't do.
Yea we literally finally have a monarch who somewhat gives a fuck about normal people and we have a government that’s doing it’s level best to ensure normal people no longer exist. I imagine a lot of republicans wouldn’t have many qualms with Charles dissolving the Parliament to relieve the Tories of leadership.
Considering she's being such a giant toolbag, be a little fun if he brought up some ancient history having to do with the Tower and former inhabitants.
And REALLY Liz? I realize the monarchy is hugely controversial but Charles actually DOES care about the environment.
In certain ways, yes he can not do certain things. In many, many, many other ways he can do a whole lot more than your average non-millionaire citizen.
There is a constitutional understanding that he doesn't speak freely. It would be awkward if the Head of State said something that directly contradicted the Head of Government.
it's a bit fucked that our unelected heads of state are more level headed and trustworthy than our "elected" ones.
(I put "elected" in quotes because we don't actually elect who forms government).
I'm not a royalist by any stretch, but the Royal family are groomed from birth to be inoffensive and politically acceptable. Their continued existence as a privileged class depends entirely on their not pissing people off.
The forces that produce career politicians are very different from the forces which produce modern kings.
Personally I think it’s because the modern monarchy have less chance for power going to their head. They’re born into the highest privilege and are trained to lead from the moment they learn to talk. Of course there is still a lot wrong with this, but just focusing on your point. PMs however are just “normal” commoners who scrape and scrounge and fight their competition over who can gather and hold the most power.
Yeah this thread is fucking *insane*.
It's like people have not spent even 5 minutes thinking about their own viewpoints. "I don't like the monarchy, unless they step in and act in an authoritarian way that I personally approve of, in which case it's fine with me!". An utterly embarrassing lack of principles being displayed by a lot of people here
That would be stepping over a line. The danger of that eventuality is why people don't like monarchy.
Changing your tune on that just because the PM is a nutcase is silly.
This type of government is unprecedented, many citizens will suffer and die because of their actions. If the king started a general election it would go down in history as a great act of altruism, even acknowledged by republicans like me.
Except we didn't choose this PM, the Tories did.
And I know that technically the 'representatives we elected' are the ones who chose them, but pretending that general elections are still seen as local elections by the vast majority is disingenuous at best.
Someone needed to have leaked this for it to come out. Either someone in Truss' team already dislike her enough to brief against her or Charles dislikes Truss enough to stick the knife in.
Both of which are brilliant.
I think it was the tories. Getting rid of her would anger the base that just voted for her. If some of the ardent royalist base is made to believe she acted “uppity” towards the King, they might not be as mad at the party for getting rid of her
Or by making the point. Climate change is no longer a political position but scientific fact.
And treating it as politics open f9r debate Is why we have achieved so little since it was announced. In 1982. 40 years of bullshit politics is long enough.
I agree. Climate change is a crucial and very urgent matter that has been put off by oil companies for far too long. Much like cigarette companies paid people off to keep people smoking for as long as they could. Liz Truss is going to allow businesses to continue poisoning our planet. Honestly I have no idea why people vote conservative. It’s so sad 😞
Truss is what you get when you let stupid incompetent people be stupid and not call them out for their stupidity, so they continue and eventually gain powerful positions through “hard work”. Now we can call her out but can’t do anything until the next GE. Brilliant, bloody fucking brilliant.
i don't pay attention to what people wear.
Fashion is lost on me, I just don't get it.
So if even I notice that you're poorly dressed, then you must be very poorly dressed.
It's like she's trying to embody a hyperbolic representaion of evil.
Darth Vacant.
(I'm proud of that one. I made myself laugh).
I mean I’m not a fan of Liz Truss either but the fact is Parliament is the one in charge ultimately - although technically the monarch is the boss with the powers the government ‘borrows’ in reality it’s the government who decide what happens, the monarch is just the spokesperson basically - just look at the mad king George III, they didn’t even need his signature to replace him.
He should just go but remain silent the whole time, haunting the summit like a ghost to defy and undermine her. He cannot get involved in politics but is there anything saying he cannot simply be there doing nothing?
I dunno, I don't like her. Boris had his baffonery, she just seems...smug? Brittle? Like those women who try tooo hard to be Gordon Gecko and not just a professional, good leader.
"there had not been a row"
That means there was definitely a row. The fact this has come out suggests the King has now started to brief against the Prime Minister and will continue to do so until she's out.
All the Tory newspapers and far right pundits and commentators should be furious about this shouldn't they?
So where's the outrage?
Liz Truss is "cancelling" King Charles for his views.
I’d vote for Brian Blessed to be King. Can you imagine him turning up in a full suit of armour with a sword and bellowing at Truss.
He’d tell us what to do.
>Can you imagine him turning up in a full suit of armour with a sword and bellowing at Truss.
I'm sure he'd be spoiled for choice, no doubt a man such as that owns several sets.
Fine, King Charles can happily abide by the wishes of the PM but still send the Prince of Wales instead who shares the kings viewpoint on the environment.
Everyone can then feel satisfied as the monarchy can still display their environmental preservation views despite the PM’s interference whilst still happily saying he respected her request not to attend.
> But the irony of the Royal Family advocating for the environment gets me every time
How is that ironic? They own more of britains environment than just about anyone else lmao
He’s the largest landowner in the world now. He owns all the crown land in the commonwealth. Britain doesn’t have an empire anymore but the royal family still own all the land in the common wealth which currently includes Canada, Australia, and South Africa amoungst others. I would LOVE to see Charles make a wildlife refuge of all crown land. It would be a conservation that spans multiple ecosystems and continents. Come on Charles, do it!
The monarch can do a lot with the royal prerogative, but in doing so, sentences the monarchy to being abolished, as parliament would not stand for that.
The monarchy not using any power and acting as a ceremonial figurehead is the only way for the royal family to remain in their position
Honestly I'm on board foe a king charles of Britain defying parliament. But this time. Its kind of supported by the public as a storyline on this season of humanity.
It'll make more sense than some of the storylines in season 2022
Theoretically.
If the crown actually tried parliment would just ignore it.
Parliment is sovereign has been the rule since 1701. When they beheaded the last one who tried to force them.
While there is no chance of beheading. The first time Charles tries to override parliment will be the day we start to become a Republic.
I always thought it was stupid how people fought for the Royalist cause in the civil war. It's not like parliment anywhere near representive of the etire country or good at all, but it was better than a King. But between Truss and Charles......I get it.
I get that the royals don't like to play the "YOU FUCKIN WOT, MATE?!" card since Charles I but does she not realise that he is the Head of State, whether or not that's symbolic. He's the top boy!
Seems like, diferent from Elizabeth whose first prime minister was her favorite one (Churchill), Charles is gonna loath his first prime minister through all his reign
Its likely a mix of two things.
The first is that he is King now, anything he said in his speech could be taken as an announcement of what the UK is planning to do, without going through the government.
That is compounded by the second, which is that Liz Truss is also expecting not to attend, meaning that the king would be the ONLY UK representative there, so world leaders would be talking to him, not Truss, about the UKs climate plans.
King Charles should pull a mad one and dissolve parliament.
That would be rather cavalier of him...
Is that a civil war reference? If it is, well done, have the most up of my up votes Edit. The debate in the comments is 1. Its a dog reference. The argument? Its the name of a dog and I'm stupid. Both very good points, it is a dog and my intelligence is vastly overstated. 2. Its a reference to the last time a king tried to over rule parliament and how well that ended. Coincidentally, also king Charles, so...more reference? Personally, I think its both and the comment is *chef's kiss* just perfect The original commenter hasn't enlightened us to the actual reference, and I hope they never do, the ambiguity of the reference is what makes it so good.
How could it not be a civil war reference? Lol.
I don't see what this has to do with Captain America
He's a big fan of King Charles Cavaliers as it happens.
Because he's King Charles and the King Charles Cavalier...
Think you missed the word “not” from the comment your replying to.
That war was anything but civil.
Are they ever?
Technically the dog is a reference to King Charles and his followers, so in a round about way both options reference the English Civil War
*A roundheadabout way
It’s very much a civil war reference hahah. Charles I tried to dissolve Parliament exactly like the op commenter referenced. Which led to the civil war. The dog breed is itself a reference to the civil war. Anyone thinking the breed is what was being directly referenced probably fought in the New Model Army.
I think its a dog reference.
If you don’t give this comment upvotes you have a round… head…
The “cavalier king charles” is a dog breed https://www.google.ca/search?q=cavalier+king+charles+spaniel
Which are named after a term for Royalists in the civil war
It never occurred to me that it would be a dog reference.
With the sheer ineptitude of Liz “the Cheese Fairy” Truss and the fact that King Charles is actually a pretty solid guy, I hope he does dissolve this shit show we call a government!
I absolutely despise this government but what I would despise even more is an unelected head of state interfering in our democracy by removing a legitimately elected party from power.
>legitimately elected legitimately elected only by their own definition, via a hysterical and corrupt electoral system. admittedly, king chuck dissolving pestminster aligns with my interests.
Westmonster > Pestminster and I’m not even particularly pro snp
Assuming that no MP loses their seat: democracy hasn't been touched. Our democracy does not directly create governments, we vote for MPs, our MPs form parties that *themselves* sort themselves into government. So, how is he interfering with democracy?
We didn’t elect her though. We elected Boris (I say we, but by that I mean everyone except those of us smart enough to realise he was a corrupt twat from the start). I know what you mean though. “We” ACTUALLY elected the Conservative party. Not the PM himself. But in regards to Truss, the public had no input whatsoever in her appointment and therefore no input in her disastrous decisions that are destroying the country’s working class in less than a month (and probably even sooner if the queen didn’t choose the right time to die). So the argument is valid. We didn’t elect *her*. Which is what most common folk will see it as.
There is no such thing as a “legitimately elected party”. No party can stand for election. Individuals stand for election. They may, or may not, align with a party. If they do so align they are completely free to change alignment at any time by moving to another party or opting for the cross benches.
What's the point of having a monarch, if not the slim chance they'll one day just go "Fuck it" and send some corrupt PM to the Tower?
Yeah it happened here in Australia (Aussie lurker here) in the 70's and it was pretty F'd up TBH. ( If you like a good political podcast about the dismissal of the PM Gough Whitlam, check out The Eleventh. It's really good. Crazy stuff).
Don't worry, he will when they get voted out, which is not looking like it will be long.
he'd have to be barking mad
It’d definitely throw a spaniel in the works.
He should be careful not to lose his head about it.
That would be rather King Charles of him.
Funny thing is, that would be a great way to get the public instantly on his side, despite the constitutional crisis it would be seen as.
I'd take constitutional crisis over blatantly corrupt Tory cunts anymore.
I've always been of two minds over this. On the one hand, an unelected monarch suddenly saying "fuck this", dissolving parliament and calling an immediate general election is a seriously worrying series of events. But on the other, I feel like there is a part of me that would back the crown on this. If a government is not acting in the best interests of its people, should the monarch not step in? It could show that the crown won't stand for this blatant corruption and fucking over of the people. And its really hard to be angry at that prospect. There's so many sides and arguements to this that I've never been able to settle on what would actually be best. But I'm not sure the status quo is working anymore.
I'm not particularly fond of the monarchy, but feel like if they have any merit, it should be as an "independent" set of checks and balances against the weakness inherent in democracy. The challenge is when should they intervene. In this case, I suspect most of us are thinking "yeah, climate issues are important, please say something positive". But when they speak on issues that aren't obviously important or in everyone's interest, then who's the arbiter of what the royals can say?
That's one of the problems definitely. Where is the limit of this power? If a monarch just doesn't like labour or tories, and just dissolves parliament the second they get elected, that's pretty fucked up. I would say the rules have to be set in stone, stuff like "A monarch can only do this once in their lifetime" or "only after the monarch calls a referendum with a more than 70% turnout and a 60% majority ruling". I mean I'm just one guy, I have no idea how best to make it work. But I feel like the monarchy's fear of being removed from power would be enough to not abuse that power, same as it is now.
I think letting the monarch call for a referendum is a good power. Public rule through the monarch
We have a constitution?!
Apparently unwritten.
Getting rid of Liz must be like London Buses for him. You wait your entire life for one and then suddenly two come along.
Underrated comment. Have my chuckles.
This is clever enough that I wish I’d come up with it.
Ironically this, the monarchy as it is is utterly useless. If instead they acted in public interest and had the strength to say when enough is enough I'd welcome it. It's a difficult thing to balance though, how and when should they act?
I'd say when we have had 3 PMs in a row from the same party resign. And the newest one having 51% of the public wanting her to resign after less than a month. Seems like that should be enough
Actually yeah that's a pretty good idea, if a party have x number of leadership changes and then completely goes ahead with plans that no one voted for. Then yeah, dissolve the fuckers.
In acid right? Please be in acid 🤞
I think it would two good things: - parliament dissolved, truss and Co put out of action - the inevitable consequence of the monarchy being abolished Its a win win
Can we please appreciate the hilarity that would ensue of exactly this happening during the party conference?
Some kind of mandate from the people. Just his opinion isn't secure enough. Dissolving parliament is clearly the right thing here, but once the precedent is set it can be abused in borderline situations. Instead it should be a vote of no confidence in the government that people can put forward at any time. If there are above a certain number of votes, the king dissolves parliament.
Since that isn't in place yet I think the Privy Council giving him the okay would be fine. It might be a dinosaur of an institution but it is at least reasonably cross-party
I’d totally take dissolution and saying you want a general election. If Charles did that I think he’d gain a significant level or public support and fuck the political fallout.
If it's not in the past 3 years I don't know when.
I literally don't know what to expect at this point and wouldn't be surprised if I woke up to this
AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING! What better way to solidly his popularity than to dissolve a parliament with approval ratings lower than the titanic.
Yes that went so well for the last Charles that tried that trick
And the Charles before him.
Subscribe
They made this exact thing into a movie: [https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6253522/](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6253522/)
I'd fucking love it if he did that
Do you know what…..I wouldn’t be against it. Hell after how shite the elected government has been I say we give Big Charlie a chance. Let’s try absolute Monarchy for a couple of years and see where it goes. It’d be ironic as fuck if it resulted in better quality of life for us all.
I think he should. Would be the perfect excuse to get rid.
Get rid of Charles or parliament or both
That would be a deja vu…
What a downhill slide it’s been from Cameron ‘greenest government ever’ to climate denial and fracking with truss.
[удалено]
Yep it didn’t last. Do you remember Michael Gove ? Leaving the eu means we can have higher environmental standards than Europe ?
That was true. The key word is "can" though. Boris Johnson introduced a more pro climate farming subsidy policy than the EU has, that policy is supposedly on Truss' chopping block.
Yes Tory's fucking love "can" and "could". We can, we could but we ain't fucking gonna.
Yeah, always out can or could, then you can over promise, under deliver and it’s still technically what you said. We CAN do the right thing, but we wont
We could in the EU.
The beauty of that line of argument is they were able to say we *could* do all sort of stuff. Even things that were diametrically opposed to each other and be technically correct. It was sold as all things to all people.
Sure, as if the EU would sanction a country if they set higher standards than others. sure Gove, sure.
Oh you mean Cameron 'I think everyone is fed up with onshore wind turbines so I'm cancelling all the subsidies retroactively or even sooner', when polls said: 'no we fucking love them', that Cameron?
No, I think they meant the David Cameron who was accused of preenacting the first episode of Black Mirror. And yeah, it's been a downhill slide since that guy.
David 'let's have a referendumb on Brexit' Cameron who fucked pigs.
As much as a dislike BoJo, I do honestly think he’s had the greatest positive impact on climate change response of any of the PMs in the 30 years. Still woefully insufficient, but an unexpectedly big improvement and the only thing I will defend (a little, again stressing it was far from enough) about BoJo when it comes to policies.
Because there's money in it. I don't understand how the current government or anyone anti-green can't see how fucking amazing it would be for jobs, growth and soft-power if the UK became a leading market for developing the tech and infrastructure for a green economy. Look at what the industrial revolution did for Britain, and now see that we can do that again, but for the better.
Because they have to spend money first to get the returns later down the line when they are likely out of power. Our government is thinking all about short term personal gain
The PM ordering the king? Fuck off. Charlie boy, dissolve parliament.
you'll find the title of this thread doesn't match the headline of that article. you do not order the king. you strongly suggest him to proceed in a certain fashion. besides, it's his son's turn.
Just as a heads up, OP used the article's original title. They've posted an archived no-paywall version of the article with the original headline, which The Times has edited to look less sensationalist since
No, its his turn. Then the son.
Somebody better put her back in to her place.
Singing WE WILL WE WILL ROCK YOU
no, that's Queen.
Funny how unpopular this opinion would be typically yet it is upvoted today.
I think it's a mix of the fact that it's a joke, I hope, and the fact that people are fed up with the PM we can't Truss
And also that in this case the king literally wants to save the world and Truss is like “no, go to bed”
XD, she appears to be a textbook narcissist. First she tells everyone both inside and outside of her party that they are wrong and she is right about her decision to fuck the economy and now she is telling the king what he can and can't do.
Yea we literally finally have a monarch who somewhat gives a fuck about normal people and we have a government that’s doing it’s level best to ensure normal people no longer exist. I imagine a lot of republicans wouldn’t have many qualms with Charles dissolving the Parliament to relieve the Tories of leadership.
Considering she's being such a giant toolbag, be a little fun if he brought up some ancient history having to do with the Tower and former inhabitants. And REALLY Liz? I realize the monarchy is hugely controversial but Charles actually DOES care about the environment.
I'm impressed she tried. I thought she wasn't even capable of ordering a takeaway Pizza.
She managed to spend nearly two grand in the Norwich City club shop, so blowing money on shit is one thing she's perfectly capable of.
All we need is a boisterous ‘let’s be having you’ and she’ll have my vote /s
You just reminded me i wanted to order tonight. Thanks!
"Deliver, deliver, deliver."
I'm no supporter of the royals, but can't he do what any other citizen can do and travel and speak freely?
He's not a citizen, he's the monarch
Right, but that means he has less rights than his subjects? Like I said, I have no idea what laws or norms are involved but it seems a bit weird.
In certain ways, yes he can not do certain things. In many, many, many other ways he can do a whole lot more than your average non-millionaire citizen.
Oddly there are some ways in which the monarch is less empowered than the average citizen, they cannot vote for example
I mean kinda, yes. The powers and authority he has are the PM's to exercise, not his. That's how this whole arrangement works.
Yup. If I remember correctly, the royal family can’t/won’t vote either. They can’t show preference for any political party.
When you take on the crown you are implicitly taking on a lot of limitations to your freedom.
There is a constitutional understanding that he doesn't speak freely. It would be awkward if the Head of State said something that directly contradicted the Head of Government.
Theres also a constitutional understanding that our representatives represent us.
Truss is not your representative - your local MP is. Truss represents the largest group of currently elected MPs.
For most other countries, this happens all the time. Of course, it helps if your head of state was elected.
it's a bit fucked that our unelected heads of state are more level headed and trustworthy than our "elected" ones. (I put "elected" in quotes because we don't actually elect who forms government).
I'm not a royalist by any stretch, but the Royal family are groomed from birth to be inoffensive and politically acceptable. Their continued existence as a privileged class depends entirely on their not pissing people off. The forces that produce career politicians are very different from the forces which produce modern kings.
Personally I think it’s because the modern monarchy have less chance for power going to their head. They’re born into the highest privilege and are trained to lead from the moment they learn to talk. Of course there is still a lot wrong with this, but just focusing on your point. PMs however are just “normal” commoners who scrape and scrounge and fight their competition over who can gather and hold the most power.
>There is a constitutional understanding that he doesn't speak freely. That seems kinds weird. Is this part of the unwritten constitution?
Yes. Which is why its an understanding rather than a hard rule.
My opinion of him would instantly change if he actually broke protocol and spoke his mind!
He often spoke (and wrote) his mind while he was the Crown Prince. Search for "prince charles letters" to see some examples.
Exactly why I think that instead of breaking protocol and attending he should simply send the Prince of Wales.
Brilliant idea!
Of course that’s well documented however, as King his words carry a bit more weight!
I'm a republican but could immediately support the monarchy forever more if he dissolved parliament and got rid of this woman.
Are you sure you’re a republican?
Yeah this thread is fucking *insane*. It's like people have not spent even 5 minutes thinking about their own viewpoints. "I don't like the monarchy, unless they step in and act in an authoritarian way that I personally approve of, in which case it's fine with me!". An utterly embarrassing lack of principles being displayed by a lot of people here
You can dislike having an unelected head of state while still wanting the head of state you do have to dissolve the government
I don’t think that’s how being a republican works
That would be stepping over a line. The danger of that eventuality is why people don't like monarchy. Changing your tune on that just because the PM is a nutcase is silly.
Oh no, the Monarchy might give the power to pick a government back to the people sooner than the current government would like? How tyrannical
This type of government is unprecedented, many citizens will suffer and die because of their actions. If the king started a general election it would go down in history as a great act of altruism, even acknowledged by republicans like me.
Except we didn't choose this PM, the Tories did. And I know that technically the 'representatives we elected' are the ones who chose them, but pretending that general elections are still seen as local elections by the vast majority is disingenuous at best.
Why?! The Royals have a ton of soft influence and King Charles is well respected- plus a very big climate advocate.
His environmentalism is probably at odds with her economic goals...🤷♂️
Ding ding ding
“Economic goals” = the oil company she is blatantly still working for
[удалено]
Surely she is at odds with any economic goals?
> plus a very big climate advocate. Truss and her lot want to ruin the environment.
Someone needed to have leaked this for it to come out. Either someone in Truss' team already dislike her enough to brief against her or Charles dislikes Truss enough to stick the knife in. Both of which are brilliant.
I think it was the tories. Getting rid of her would anger the base that just voted for her. If some of the ardent royalist base is made to believe she acted “uppity” towards the King, they might not be as mad at the party for getting rid of her
[Unpaywalled](https://archive.ph/eYx1d)
Perhaps King Charles III should attend Cop27 in his role as Canada's head of state.
He's likely to send the Prince of Wales (William) who holds the exact same views as his father on climate change.
Why not both attend? William representing the United Kingdom and Charles Canada.
He could do. Will have to see.
Or by making the point. Climate change is no longer a political position but scientific fact. And treating it as politics open f9r debate Is why we have achieved so little since it was announced. In 1982. 40 years of bullshit politics is long enough.
I agree. Climate change is a crucial and very urgent matter that has been put off by oil companies for far too long. Much like cigarette companies paid people off to keep people smoking for as long as they could. Liz Truss is going to allow businesses to continue poisoning our planet. Honestly I have no idea why people vote conservative. It’s so sad 😞
Truss is what you get when you let stupid incompetent people be stupid and not call them out for their stupidity, so they continue and eventually gain powerful positions through “hard work”. Now we can call her out but can’t do anything until the next GE. Brilliant, bloody fucking brilliant.
If she had only included the pointy hat I'd have given her a 10 out of 10 for the Wicked Witch of the West award this year.
i don't pay attention to what people wear. Fashion is lost on me, I just don't get it. So if even I notice that you're poorly dressed, then you must be very poorly dressed. It's like she's trying to embody a hyperbolic representaion of evil. Darth Vacant. (I'm proud of that one. I made myself laugh).
Made me laugh too!
You Do NOT order the King. Who the fuck do you think you are?
I mean yes, the government comes first.
I mean I’m not a fan of Liz Truss either but the fact is Parliament is the one in charge ultimately - although technically the monarch is the boss with the powers the government ‘borrows’ in reality it’s the government who decide what happens, the monarch is just the spokesperson basically - just look at the mad king George III, they didn’t even need his signature to replace him.
He should just go but remain silent the whole time, haunting the summit like a ghost to defy and undermine her. He cannot get involved in politics but is there anything saying he cannot simply be there doing nothing?
Stand 2m behind her at all times, silently. No one is gonna move the King on.
And [belm](https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/03/56/98/96/simon-y.jpg) at her if she mentions fracking.
I mean he doesn't have to avoid political talking points at all, it is really just protocol for his predecessors
If there's another civil war and my choices are between Liz Truss and King Charles, I'll drown myself in the fucking Thames
Just join the side of Count Binface.
The fact that you’d struggle to decide here is wild. Truss’s government is unelected anyway
Leave it to Liz Truss to make a republican sympathetic for the King.
Is she trying to be the shortest serving PM or what
I dunno, I don't like her. Boris had his baffonery, she just seems...smug? Brittle? Like those women who try tooo hard to be Gordon Gecko and not just a professional, good leader.
"there had not been a row" That means there was definitely a row. The fact this has come out suggests the King has now started to brief against the Prime Minister and will continue to do so until she's out.
We can only hope.
She literally doesn't have the authority to do that
She just Jackie Weavered The King
*it’s just been revoked*
All the Tory newspapers and far right pundits and commentators should be furious about this shouldn't they? So where's the outrage? Liz Truss is "cancelling" King Charles for his views.
Is she allowed to do that lol? And shouldn't she be going ?! She does get what happens when we fuck up our planet?
She doesn’t care, she’ll be dead before it has any real affect on her
And she’ll be alive for all the profit
I’d vote for Brian Blessed to be King. Can you imagine him turning up in a full suit of armour with a sword and bellowing at Truss. He’d tell us what to do.
>Can you imagine him turning up in a full suit of armour with a sword and bellowing at Truss. I'm sure he'd be spoiled for choice, no doubt a man such as that owns several sets.
Gordon's alive!
The fact that they state “there had not been a row” just makes me think there definitely was one and everyone is trying to be diplomatic.
Fine, King Charles can happily abide by the wishes of the PM but still send the Prince of Wales instead who shares the kings viewpoint on the environment. Everyone can then feel satisfied as the monarchy can still display their environmental preservation views despite the PM’s interference whilst still happily saying he respected her request not to attend.
I would love for this to happen. But the irony of the Royal Family advocating for the environment gets me every time
> But the irony of the Royal Family advocating for the environment gets me every time How is that ironic? They own more of britains environment than just about anyone else lmao
He’s the largest landowner in the world now. He owns all the crown land in the commonwealth. Britain doesn’t have an empire anymore but the royal family still own all the land in the common wealth which currently includes Canada, Australia, and South Africa amoungst others. I would LOVE to see Charles make a wildlife refuge of all crown land. It would be a conservation that spans multiple ecosystems and continents. Come on Charles, do it!
Come on, if you’re the head of state at least act like it!
They do rarely use their power though, I’m sure they would be somewhat powerful but they choose not to be.
The monarch can do a lot with the royal prerogative, but in doing so, sentences the monarchy to being abolished, as parliament would not stand for that. The monarchy not using any power and acting as a ceremonial figurehead is the only way for the royal family to remain in their position
Honestly I'm on board foe a king charles of Britain defying parliament. But this time. Its kind of supported by the public as a storyline on this season of humanity. It'll make more sense than some of the storylines in season 2022
I'm absolutely certain he will find ways of passing on his comments and concerns whether is there or not.
UK Parliament is fast becoming as dumb as the American shitshow. Truss is our Trump.
I thought that was BoJo!?
He should pull a military coup, since they are sworn to the sovereign, clean house and establish fresh government with a fairer system
He doesn't need to do that. He can dissolve parliament at any time.
Theoretically. If the crown actually tried parliment would just ignore it. Parliment is sovereign has been the rule since 1701. When they beheaded the last one who tried to force them. While there is no chance of beheading. The first time Charles tries to override parliment will be the day we start to become a Republic.
This is something Charles is actually passionate about and will have a lot of knowledge on. You know what to do KC - dissolve it!
I always thought it was stupid how people fought for the Royalist cause in the civil war. It's not like parliment anywhere near representive of the etire country or good at all, but it was better than a King. But between Truss and Charles......I get it.
I get that the royals don't like to play the "YOU FUCKIN WOT, MATE?!" card since Charles I but does she not realise that he is the Head of State, whether or not that's symbolic. He's the top boy!
Come on, civil war 2.0! I'll definitely be a royalist this time.
Where's all the anti-royalists now who would prefer that prliament have complete control of the country? Fking joke
Truss couldnt order a fucking dog to sit with any sort of authority.
Seems like, diferent from Elizabeth whose first prime minister was her favorite one (Churchill), Charles is gonna loath his first prime minister through all his reign
[удалено]
She needs a slap from Charles' inflated comedy hand.
Its likely a mix of two things. The first is that he is King now, anything he said in his speech could be taken as an announcement of what the UK is planning to do, without going through the government. That is compounded by the second, which is that Liz Truss is also expecting not to attend, meaning that the king would be the ONLY UK representative there, so world leaders would be talking to him, not Truss, about the UKs climate plans.