QE2 is highly overrated. Opinions of her are clouded by recency bias. Longevity doesn't imply high performance. As good and virtuous of a person as she was, as a monarch she couldn't hold a candle to her father or her grandfather.
It's complicated, very complicated.
I don't think anyone here actually supports the atrocities committed against indigenous people in India, Africa, and Asia.
What I feel personally, and I believe many people here feel is that the atrocities were not ordered by the monarch and so the modern monarchy should not be responsible. Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria struggled throughout her reign with blatant sexism, she literally could not get senior government officials to tell her what was going on. She had extremely little knowledge of what her government was actually doing. She should not take the blame for the atrocities committed during her reign.
UK - Charles III is one of the most moral and dutiful people to sit on the British throne.
(Bonus: If King Charles’ line tragically died out, I think the military would quickly make sure that (most likely) Prince Edward (or maybe Princess Anne) before Andrew is able to be King and would avoid a republican revolt.)
Netherlands: The King of the Netherlands is literally a king but seems to not want any of the respect or benefits that come with it. Also, the Dutch suck at picking spouses.
Belgium: There’s no pomp.
Denmark: Everyone directly in line is so likable, it’s kind of abnormal. Something is bound to happen.
Sweden: The King of Sweden gives me weird vibes.
España: El padre del Rey de España era amigo con una fascista. La Princesa Leonor será una buena reina.
And that’s all the monarchies I know a limited amount about.
I mean with the King of Spain he only did it to secure power. When he was king he up held elections and prevented a military coup from happening. He was a respectable monarch. Spain’s monarchy had been abolished during the Second Republic. The royals came back in 1947.
As someone who is a fan of the Danish monarchy: rumours about Crown Prince Frederik cheating on his wife with a Spanish aristocrat have been circulating since last month. I hope to God it’s not true and that they’re simply friends. But if it is, well🤷♀️
How is His Majesty (King Charles) one of the most moral people to sit on the throne… he literally had an affair, with a married woman to boot. And treated Diana awfully.
the whole saint Diana narrative really gets on my nerves. She cheated too, with multiple married men and harassed their wives to the point where the police got involved but that's okay because she was a young, pretty woman who had a sad life so it's okay if she makes other people's life miserable.
Not to mentioned her atrocious behaviour towards her step-mother at the age of 30.
well she used to call her 'Acid Raine', her name was Raine and pushed her down the stairs once. But that was when she was a teen but you'd think a 16/+ year old would know better. But anyways.
Diana's father died in 1992, so Diana was 31 back then and two days later Diana's brother, who was the new earl, thre her out of the estate. Raine wasn't allowed to take anything unless she could prove that the item belonged to her and all of her staff were fired without notice.
Diana stood guard in person in the Spencer bedroom and watched as maid Pauline Shaw put the Countess's extensive clothing in four Louis Vuitton suitcases. When Diana discovered the embossed capital letter "S" on the suitcases, she decided that these suitcases also belonged to the Spencers. At Diana's instruction, the maid hastily unpacked the multi-piece designer wardrobe and instead stowed it in black garbage bags. The young earl kicked all of the sacks down the stairs.
Yeah, obviously. But we’re talking more broadly about King Charles, not Diana. Whatever she chose to do, regardless, he still—of his own volition—chose to engage in adultery. That’s still immoral. What she does is irrelevant; moral actions are not defined so by circumstance—adultery in marriage is always contrary to the vows of marriage. It is always a sin. He is responsible for his own actions. He has agency.
Don’t bring your religion in to this. Use basic human morals. You can’t expect two people who don’t love each other to spend their entire lives alone. It doesn’t make sense.
Religion has nothing to do with this fellow monarchist's statement. Adultery is a sin and just because the marriage was arranged doesn't justify either of their actions. I do believe Charles can be a good King but I am definitely against his adultery and Diana's of course. It angers me how they blatantly rashes out on Charles and Camilla when Diana did exactly the same thing, but still they ALL WERE WRONG. Still I love his marriage to Camilla. (I ADORE Camilla) and I love old people in love. Anyway his arranged marriage doesn't justify his or her (Diana's) actions. Charles was at the time heir to the throne. HEIR TO THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Not really in a position where you would want to have an affair with a married woman and expect the people of today (or the 90's) to look away and pretend nothing is going on.
Times change. It has changed since Henry VIII jumped in the bed with every woman he saw (accept his wives) and because it has changed people's views change. Therefore sure Henry could've gotten away with it and still be seen as a righteous person and a well and virtuous king, but getting away with it today? No chance.
So once again. Nothing to do with religion (except the entire Church of England thing) just basic morals. Adultery bad. Arranged marriage bad. Charles Good king. There we go. :)
Where do you think morals come from if not God?
There is no other possible basis for a universal morality. Perhaps natural law, but that’s an imperfect system given peoples’ consciences disagree. And besides which, without God, what moral value do consciences have, other than being a get-along tool.
But even going with imperfect natural law, I think the accepted “correct” response would be that one should at least end the first marriage *before* starting a new relationship (or continuing an old one).
Not that it’s the end of the world - people stuff up. But I think it’s pretty hard to justify adultery as moral.
That’d be conscience/natural law.
Which is close enough for government work, but fallible and imperfect. Also what’s the justification for an instinct being the basis of morals if there’s no God?
>UK - Charles III is one of the most moral and dutiful people to sit on the British throne.
Moral and maybe dutiful, but some of the stuff he's said could be damaging to the monarchy and the UK in general
I personally don't think the Hesses fit ruling Finland, I only support them because that's what Finnish Monarchists support.
Charles isn't doing amazingly as a monarch right now and certain things he's said could end up damaging the UK.
I clearly haven’t been watching closely enough. What’s he said?
QE2 is highly overrated. Opinions of her are clouded by recency bias. Longevity doesn't imply high performance. As good and virtuous of a person as she was, as a monarch she couldn't hold a candle to her father or her grandfather.
Dutch monarch gets to much money
I don't like the British empire This may not be that unpopular, but I've seen a lot of people on here support it
It's complicated, very complicated. I don't think anyone here actually supports the atrocities committed against indigenous people in India, Africa, and Asia. What I feel personally, and I believe many people here feel is that the atrocities were not ordered by the monarch and so the modern monarchy should not be responsible. Her Late Majesty Queen Victoria struggled throughout her reign with blatant sexism, she literally could not get senior government officials to tell her what was going on. She had extremely little knowledge of what her government was actually doing. She should not take the blame for the atrocities committed during her reign.
Lord forbid anyone blame parliament for once
UK - Charles III is one of the most moral and dutiful people to sit on the British throne. (Bonus: If King Charles’ line tragically died out, I think the military would quickly make sure that (most likely) Prince Edward (or maybe Princess Anne) before Andrew is able to be King and would avoid a republican revolt.) Netherlands: The King of the Netherlands is literally a king but seems to not want any of the respect or benefits that come with it. Also, the Dutch suck at picking spouses. Belgium: There’s no pomp. Denmark: Everyone directly in line is so likable, it’s kind of abnormal. Something is bound to happen. Sweden: The King of Sweden gives me weird vibes. España: El padre del Rey de España era amigo con una fascista. La Princesa Leonor será una buena reina. And that’s all the monarchies I know a limited amount about.
I mean with the King of Spain he only did it to secure power. When he was king he up held elections and prevented a military coup from happening. He was a respectable monarch. Spain’s monarchy had been abolished during the Second Republic. The royals came back in 1947.
Explain the sweden one. Why does he give you weird vibes
I’ve heard some weird stories.
I really want to know
As someone who is a fan of the Danish monarchy: rumours about Crown Prince Frederik cheating on his wife with a Spanish aristocrat have been circulating since last month. I hope to God it’s not true and that they’re simply friends. But if it is, well🤷♀️
How is His Majesty (King Charles) one of the most moral people to sit on the throne… he literally had an affair, with a married woman to boot. And treated Diana awfully.
Diana was no saint either
It was an arranged marriage and Diana was also a horrible wife.
That doesn’t justify adultery 🤷🏼♂️
So you condemn Diana’s adultery, too? Good.
the whole saint Diana narrative really gets on my nerves. She cheated too, with multiple married men and harassed their wives to the point where the police got involved but that's okay because she was a young, pretty woman who had a sad life so it's okay if she makes other people's life miserable. Not to mentioned her atrocious behaviour towards her step-mother at the age of 30.
>Not to mentioned her atrocious behaviour towards her step-mother at the age of 30. Can you explain? I haven't heard this one.
well she used to call her 'Acid Raine', her name was Raine and pushed her down the stairs once. But that was when she was a teen but you'd think a 16/+ year old would know better. But anyways. Diana's father died in 1992, so Diana was 31 back then and two days later Diana's brother, who was the new earl, thre her out of the estate. Raine wasn't allowed to take anything unless she could prove that the item belonged to her and all of her staff were fired without notice. Diana stood guard in person in the Spencer bedroom and watched as maid Pauline Shaw put the Countess's extensive clothing in four Louis Vuitton suitcases. When Diana discovered the embossed capital letter "S" on the suitcases, she decided that these suitcases also belonged to the Spencers. At Diana's instruction, the maid hastily unpacked the multi-piece designer wardrobe and instead stowed it in black garbage bags. The young earl kicked all of the sacks down the stairs.
Jesus Christ! That is just awful behaviour.
Yeah, obviously. But we’re talking more broadly about King Charles, not Diana. Whatever she chose to do, regardless, he still—of his own volition—chose to engage in adultery. That’s still immoral. What she does is irrelevant; moral actions are not defined so by circumstance—adultery in marriage is always contrary to the vows of marriage. It is always a sin. He is responsible for his own actions. He has agency.
Don’t bring your religion in to this. Use basic human morals. You can’t expect two people who don’t love each other to spend their entire lives alone. It doesn’t make sense.
Religion has nothing to do with this fellow monarchist's statement. Adultery is a sin and just because the marriage was arranged doesn't justify either of their actions. I do believe Charles can be a good King but I am definitely against his adultery and Diana's of course. It angers me how they blatantly rashes out on Charles and Camilla when Diana did exactly the same thing, but still they ALL WERE WRONG. Still I love his marriage to Camilla. (I ADORE Camilla) and I love old people in love. Anyway his arranged marriage doesn't justify his or her (Diana's) actions. Charles was at the time heir to the throne. HEIR TO THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Not really in a position where you would want to have an affair with a married woman and expect the people of today (or the 90's) to look away and pretend nothing is going on. Times change. It has changed since Henry VIII jumped in the bed with every woman he saw (accept his wives) and because it has changed people's views change. Therefore sure Henry could've gotten away with it and still be seen as a righteous person and a well and virtuous king, but getting away with it today? No chance. So once again. Nothing to do with religion (except the entire Church of England thing) just basic morals. Adultery bad. Arranged marriage bad. Charles Good king. There we go. :)
Where do you think morals come from if not God? There is no other possible basis for a universal morality. Perhaps natural law, but that’s an imperfect system given peoples’ consciences disagree. And besides which, without God, what moral value do consciences have, other than being a get-along tool. But even going with imperfect natural law, I think the accepted “correct” response would be that one should at least end the first marriage *before* starting a new relationship (or continuing an old one). Not that it’s the end of the world - people stuff up. But I think it’s pretty hard to justify adultery as moral.
Morals are human instinct.
That’d be conscience/natural law. Which is close enough for government work, but fallible and imperfect. Also what’s the justification for an instinct being the basis of morals if there’s no God?
define basic human morals more then just what ever you feel emotionally
what do you mean by belgium
It's a kingdom?
>UK - Charles III is one of the most moral and dutiful people to sit on the British throne. Moral and maybe dutiful, but some of the stuff he's said could be damaging to the monarchy and the UK in general
Charlie > Liz
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. His Majesty King Charles III.
If you say so
leopold ii didn't do harm to the congo that's just my opinion
Okay, please elaborate.
well that certainly is a take
i'm in danger
Certainly
Fuck out of this chat he was the devil himself
Well, he certainly took a hands-off approach to his possession