Charles III - A Recommendation

Hey all, I've just watched Charles III, a netflix movie, and I was astonished. I mean, it's not too big of a movie (98 minutes I think) and it's not that spectacular. However, the values it transpires, the principles and frictions within the Crown that press upon them and a Royal Family today are very much present. Not only that, but the movie accurately (in a way) represents how Prince Charles would position itself as a monarch, as he's very vocal about climate change causes, social causes and what not, which could bring about a problem should he become a monarch.

I'll leave you with a trailer:




Do you think the British Monarchy will suffer radical change when he becomes the Monarch?*



*incase you haven't realized yet, and for those who don't know me, yes, I'm a monarchist (and yes, a minority in my country)

Just curious (since there is no such thing as a monarchist here in the US ) from your point of view, why a monarchy is beneficial/why it's needed?

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 06.02.2019 at 23:21

Just curious (since there is no such thing as a monarchist here in the US ) from your point of view, why a monarchy is beneficial/why it's needed?

Personally, I think a Monarchy is beneficial and is needed because they're (and they have to be) a Neutral entity within the Nation. They're neutrality allows for everyone, with no exceptions, to look up to them because they're the embodiment of the nation, the living representatives of the Nation of Today in coherence with the Nation of the Yesterday and of the Past, because they hold an historical legitimacy that asserts their capacity as protectors and ensurers of the people, of their wellbeing and interests.

In a Republican regime, you don't have that Neutrality, because a President is elected, which means they were elected yes to serve the nation, but by an electoral majority, which then ultimately means they'll have to serve that electorate's will, appeal and appease them in order to get re-elected. A Republican Regime does not transpire a long-term view, but a political cycle-term view. Politicians tend to worry about a 5 to 10 year period of time, while a Monarch or the Crown acts bearing future generations in mind, because its in their Family's interest, and because they have no interest in short-term views, as their reigns surpass political cycles.

A Monarch's unelected position means he does not owe anything to an "electorate" and does not have to act on to appeal and appease it, putting the Crown beyond common and redundant political games and rules - They're supposed to represent the whole Nation, and their eminent neutrality and unelected position within the said Nation let's them do just that, as the Monarch is regarded as a living embodiment of the Nation, empowering him to represent it, protect and ensure it.

Of course that position of defense of constitutional order, wellbeing, justice and interest has to be severely restricted not to clash with Democracy, but a Monarchy can be a good moderating force against Politics and the radicalization that tends to happen in it. Not only that, but it's a representation of the Nation and of National History, of an aspect of the Nation that goes beyond the day-to-day politics.


Also, the only reason why there's no such thing as a monarchist in the United States is due to your national and historic tradition. In Europe, the continent has been defined by the Noble Families representation of their country's interests, and how they acted on it. There's royal dynasties today, even those that are mere pretendents that are over 1000 years old, they're pretty much the "evolution in continuity" society needs xd

You gotta remember that the royal family are A lizard species, I've seen that Queen of theirs shapeshift right on television. It's very eye opening and all I can say to the British is wake up.

Monarchy is an outdated undemocratic system that should have been long replaced by republics throughout the entirety of Europe. It just doesn't belong in the 21st century. A life of privilege just for sake of being born, something that goes completely contrary to the whole ethic of ''who works hard gets rewarded''. These people contribute nothing to society either, they're essentially parasites that feed of taxpayer money and live lavish lives. Many nations experienced their golden ages in Europe aswell at the time the monarchy was removed.

Luckily, they hold no real constitutional power anymore these days, so even the most incompetent king/queen won't be able to affect a lot. It is just limited to squandering money by building random palaces or overpriced items aswell as overly excessive ceremonies funded by taxpayer money. And making some derpy statements/actions in public. The bonus is that they do diplomatic missions sometimes. But presidents and ministers do the same thing, so this is a benefit that is not worth the cost in my opinion. They king and his family don't even hold responsibility for their actions either, it is the prime minister who has to apologise publicly for their actions.

These days the monarchy has to run a 24/7 PR campaign to convince the people that their function isn't backwards and completely redundant. Some spectacles here and there, marrying an exotic wife seems to be the latest thing when looking at the Netherlands and Great Britain.
I personally would just prefer a republic with all it's neat perks and the extra money we'd have. But there is bigger problems we face than removing the monarchy. The average person is generally neutral towards the monarchy since people don't really care as it won't change. Also in part due to the stuff you see on tv and the big PR they have going on.

(I refer mainly to the Dutch monarchy, I don't know what power monarchs in other nations have exactly. But I expect it all to be similar due to them all being constitutional monarchies.)

To answer your question - No. Radical change won't be a problem - 'radical' simply isn't on the menu. Nothing the monarch does could be considered radical. It will have a change of tone, a new face, a new 'cover' - but the underlying core values will remain untouched.

I agree with Empirezz, I don't see what good monarchs nowadays do. They suck down tax dollars and are basically celebrities paid by the state. If we're being honest, the only relevant monarch (from perspective of most people in US) is the english monarchy, and thats basically because their a british karadashian family.. (tell me im wrong D)

yes republics tend to be short term focused, you are 200% correct in saying that. Which is the main pitfall of republics; but this is what makes America so great, party lines last beyond just that 1-2 term period since parties want candidates elected that are in line the most with party beliefs. Therefore policy does last beyond a president, especially in regards to foreign policy. Generally, american foreign policy carries over from president to president in regards to international organizations. Policy in dealing with where boots are placed most definitely changed, but membership generally is bi-partisan (which makes trump such an oddball politician)

Interesting plot, ill watch this movie.

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 09.02.2019 at 09:51

I agree with Empirezz, I don't see what good monarchs nowadays do. They suck down tax dollars and are basically celebrities paid by the state. If we're being honest, the only relevant monarch (from perspective of most people in US) is the english monarchy, and thats basically because their a british karadashian family.. (tell me im wrong D)

yes republics tend to be short term focused, you are 200% correct in saying that. Which is the main pitfall of republics; but this is what makes America so great, party lines last beyond just that 1-2 term period since parties want candidates elected that are in line the most with party beliefs. Therefore policy does last beyond a president, especially in regards to foreign policy. Generally, american foreign policy carries over from president to president in regards to international organizations. Policy in dealing with where boots are placed most definitely changed, but membership generally is bi-partisan (which makes trump such an oddball politician)

i had this view and i think most people agree with this - a prof of mine recommended this book: [click for pdf file from a university [UCLA] server==>]
'operating manual for spaceship earth'
by Buckminster Fuller (the guy who invented geodesic domes). He explains how monarchies evolved in terms of a 'trade' , which is more or less mainstream (old shipping guilds, hanseatic league etc) but uses metaphor so he wouldn't annoy monarchs or mainstream people. High recommend if you want a good overview of how the 'system' works, from a mainstream friendly source. It provides a happy perspective for understanding illuminati, admiralty law, and other darker subjects. You realize the monarch is in the same boat as us, only a little more comfortable lifestyle since if we rebel, we likely would turn on the monarchs first.

Kirjoittanut The_Empirezz, 08.02.2019 at 17:07

Monarchy is an outdated undemocratic system that should have been long replaced by republics throughout the entirety of Europe. It just doesn't belong in the 21st century. A life of privilege just for sake of being born, something that goes completely contrary to the whole ethic of ''who works hard gets rewarded''. These people contribute nothing to society either, they're essentially parasites that feed of taxpayer money and live lavish lives. Many nations experienced their golden ages in Europe aswell at the time the monarchy was removed.

It's true and in my opinion, poses to be the great downside of having a monarchy: the life of facilitism and out-of-touch posture they kind of tend to have. However, it's profoundly ignorant to claim Monarchy = Undemocratic as the majority of the world's most democratic nations are (constitutional) monarchies, which is the type of monarchy I was defending above. In addition, if you take Spain for an example, if Spain's a Democracy currently, they owe it to Juan Carlos I of Spain, who helped putting an end to a coup in the late 70's by the Army and used his position to mediate between the different, conflicting positions.

Sure, they might not belong to the 21st century. Sure, perhaps, out of modernity and evolution, perhaps they should be replaced by republican regimes that bring the principle of equality to actual implementation and all that ethic of "who works hard gets rewarded". However, in today's constitutional monarchies, they tend to be a sign of stability, as (with the exception of the UK, maybe),they're references for stability and progress. Take the Nordic Monarchies as an example. Their Constitutional Monarchies did not limit the people's possibilities and needs, and they have prosperous peoples and a stable economy.

As said, It's true they're kinda leeches of the public treasury that feeds them a life of privilege and lavish. If you take the United Kingdom as an example, (though it's a bad example, since they're the epitome of privileged and lavish lives), the Crown costs 100m £ to taxpayers, but ends up giving 500m £ due to all the tourism centered around them, which ends up defeating the argument of usefulness.

Besides, if you take a look at other State's apparatus, you'll see some Republics can be as expensive as financing a Crown/Royal Family. Despite that argument, that is a totally valid one and truthful, I believe it's a price the country pays for a communion with the traditions and history of the old with the world and prosperity of today, it's a bond of tradition and national heritage.

Kirjoittanut The_Empirezz, 08.02.2019 at 17:07

Luckily, they hold no real constitutional power anymore these days, so even the most incompetent king/queen won't be able to affect a lot. It is just limited to squandering money by building random palaces or overpriced items aswell as overly excessive ceremonies funded by taxpayer money. And making some derpy statements/actions in public. The bonus is that they do diplomatic missions sometimes. But presidents and ministers do the same thing, so this is a benefit that is not worth the cost in my opinion. They king and his family don't even hold responsibility for their actions either, it is the prime minister who has to apologise publicly for their actions.

I don't know the case about the Netherlands, but on some Constitutional Monarchies, the monarch still holds some important power. The thing is that some customary proceedings and rules have developed (contra legem) and ended up derogating, "throwing shade" on those same constitutional rules, which end up made the monarch become a tendentiously powerless figure. Now, the fact that they are tendentiously powerless does not make them completely useless to the political system and to pose a good contribution to bring about Stability. As every major political position, and especially with a Monarch, if they're well-favoured enough (you could kind of point Elizabeth II as an example, or at an early part of the reign, Juan Carlos I of Spain) they could use their "soft power" and their "influence" to mediate and facilitate understandings or keep the political system within boundaries, should attrition build up, for instance- Basically, with their build-up influence and status, they could be a force of stability, at greater lengths than a President, who is elected and thus, has a political background affiliated to him.

It's true the other major downside to a monarchy is the genetic lottery it ensues. Because there's a risk that the throne will not be filled by persons of brilliance and merit, but perhaps by some dumb prick who lacks a raison d'état or a sense of national duty, or is just overall mentall ill (like the Habsburgs and the Romanovs). However, in my personal opinion, that tends to not be a real, explicit or grave concern anymore, as the education of princes tends to be really tightly-controlled, whether by Government or state officials, whether by the Royal Family/Crown itself, as a successful education and formation of the princes or princesses as good people poses to be a good PR stunt, which the Crown always wants, to increase approval. All the ceremonies you're speaking of are all part of a larger, wide State-Crown propaganda stunt that is not unique to monarchies. It has always been tradition and usual for all States to parade around in splendour or force to show how prosperous and vigour they are. This will not change if a Monarchy is abolished and replaced by a Republic. There'll always be shows of splendour that will be as costly. The particular aspect to a Monarchy is that their ceremonies also tend to show their stronger, "divine" status, to show their strength, rather than just the State's. In regards to Palaces, no Monarchy engages on construction on new stuff xd, they either restore what's currently standing, which is also a bonus, since some State Patrimony and Monuments under Republics tend to be abandoned to its decay due to lack of funds, whereas in a Monarchy they'll tend to care for it as they're properties of theirs and thus lobby against the State to push for monument and historical sites conservation - They can be a force to value national heritage, as said above.

In regards to the Diplomatic Contribution, yes, their strongest practical asset is the diplomatic soft power they can leverage that can prove to be as effective or even more effective if it had been done by a Minister or another elected official. Taking Portugal as an example, every time there's a Royal wedding or Royal Ceremony across Europe, it has become sort of customary that the President nor the Government attends these ceremonies, as it's a bit of redundant that they do so. Instead, the Government, with the Presidency's acquiescence grants the Duke of Bragança, pretender to the Portuguese Throne a diplomatic passport that enables them (ofc, should they be invited to royal ceremonies, that is) to represent not only the Portuguese "Royal" Family, sure, but primarily, to represent the Portuguese State. Portugal usually uses the House of Bragança to represent the country on these occasions because of their larger diplomatic soft power and influence they can pull up, something a Minister and President wouldn't be able to do, mainly because there's no blood relation that helps in the occasion, establishing a greater diplomatic connection.

Kirjoittanut The_Empirezz, 08.02.2019 at 17:07

These days the monarchy has to run a 24/7 PR campaign to convince the people that their function isn't backwards and completely redundant. Some spectacles here and there, marrying an exotic wife seems to be the latest thing when looking at the Netherlands and Great Britain.
I personally would just prefer a republic with all it's neat perks and the extra money we'd have. But there is bigger problems we face than removing the monarchy. The average person is generally neutral towards the monarchy since people don't really care as it won't change. Also in part due to the stuff you see on tv and the big PR they have going on.

Here, it's exactly the same. There's no real deepened support for a Republic anymore in Portugal and the number of "monarchists" is rising, because people are disappointed at the so-called "republican morale" has been failing for years, especially with all the corruption charges recently, the Republic has developed sort of an image of harbouring corrupt individuals and so on. Still, people are neutral or just don't care about a change of regime, because eventually, the core will remain the same. Not only that, but the Duke of Bragança has a contested, dubious legitimacy and doesn't have the personality that would be demanded of a true, good King xd

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 09.02.2019 at 12:08

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 09.02.2019 at 09:51

I agree with Empirezz, I don't see what good monarchs nowadays do. They suck down tax dollars and are basically celebrities paid by the state. If we're being honest, the only relevant monarch (from perspective of most people in US) is the english monarchy, and thats basically because their a british karadashian family.. (tell me im wrong D)

yes republics tend to be short term focused, you are 200% correct in saying that. Which is the main pitfall of republics; but this is what makes America so great, party lines last beyond just that 1-2 term period since parties want candidates elected that are in line the most with party beliefs. Therefore policy does last beyond a president, especially in regards to foreign policy. Generally, american foreign policy carries over from president to president in regards to international organizations. Policy in dealing with where boots are placed most definitely changed, but membership generally is bi-partisan (which makes trump such an oddball politician)

i had this view and i think most people agree with this - a prof of mine recommended this book: [click for pdf file from a university [UCLA] server==>]
'operating manual for spaceship earth'
by Buckminster Fuller (the guy who invented geodesic domes). He explains how monarchies evolved in terms of a 'trade' , which is more or less mainstream (old shipping guilds, hanseatic league etc) but uses metaphor so he wouldn't annoy monarchs or mainstream people. High recommend if you want a good overview of how the 'system' works, from a mainstream friendly source. It provides a happy perspective for understanding illuminati, admiralty law, and other darker subjects. You realize the monarch is in the same boat as us, only a little more comfortable lifestyle since if we rebel, we likely would turn on the monarchs first.

i was on board with you all the way until you said we'd turn monarchy if we were to rebel. America would never be a monarchy. It goes against every principle Americans have been raised on, not to mention America is far too diverse for a monarchy to ever truly be successful.

tho i will give this a read, sounds interesting

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 09:42

....until you said we'd turn monarchy...

soz... thought you knew i was canadian... so yeah it was the 'royal we' - not meaning you.

(not really sure what 'mericans would do if they had a ruthless nutjob at the helm - always thought they'd revolt, but evidence suggests otherwise ♥)

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 10.02.2019 at 09:48

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 09:42

....until you said we'd turn monarchy...

soz... thought you knew i was canadian... so yeah it was the 'royal we' - not meaning you.

(not really sure what 'mericans would do if they had a ruthless nutjob at the helm - always thought they'd revolt, but evidence suggests otherwise ♥)

o i didnt know actually tbh lmao. your post makes a whole lot more sense now hahaha. OK, then yea I agree with you completely now

P.S: "always thought they'd revolt, but evidence suggests otherwise ♥)"


screw you.

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 09.02.2019 at 12:08

i had this view and i think most people agree with this - a prof of mine recommended this book: [click for pdf file from a university [UCLA] server==>]
'operating manual for spaceship earth'
by Buckminster Fuller (the guy who invented geodesic domes). He explains how monarchies evolved in terms of a 'trade' , which is more or less mainstream (old shipping guilds, hanseatic league etc) but uses metaphor so he wouldn't annoy monarchs or mainstream people. High recommend if you want a good overview of how the 'system' works, from a mainstream friendly source. It provides a happy perspective for understanding illuminati, admiralty law, and other darker subjects. You realize the monarch is in the same boat as us, only a little more comfortable lifestyle since if we rebel, we likely would turn on the monarchs first.

I'll give this a read, honestly

Kirjoittanut Sultan of Swing, 10.02.2019 at 09:42

i was on board with you all the way until you said we'd turn monarchy if we were to rebel. America would never be a monarchy. It goes against every principle Americans have been raised on, not to mention America is far too diverse for a monarchy to ever truly be successful.

tho i will give this a read, sounds interesting

America will never be a traditional, Constitutional Monarchy because there's no tradition of nobility, or of a Monarchy, besides your country was founded on republicanism, with a complete rejection of monarchistic elements, unlike the Netherlands, who went from a republicanist-ish burgher republic to a Monarchy xd