Should King Charles abdicate for failing to disclose what he knew about Andrew and Epstein?

[Anonymous]

[Chazmatazz269]

Everyone who victimizes kids should be executed publicly. Everyone who enables people to victimize kids should be executed publicly. Everyone who covers for people who victimize kids should be executed publicly.
I will happily refresh the world’s memory of what true fascism looks like. You know how to put an end to crime? By executing everyone who even toes the line. The mere appearance of impropriety and you are dead. Maybe i execute someone you care about first. So the second thought through every sick f*ck’s brain is “Doing this will get my family publicly executed”. No more crime. Everyone would report everyone else just to make sure that they aren’t the next criminally adjacent victims. Poof! Overnight crime disappears. You’re f*cking welcome!

[Anonymous]

No I don't believe so 👑

[madhatters4]

how does this video suggest that the King knew of the Prince's activities with Epstein beyond the secret files thing?

No i don't think he should abdicate for this regardless. Fair or Foul, a King's responsibility is to the crown and the country. This often leads to decisions that may be morally wrong for the sake of preserving the crown and country's status. concealing affairs, stashing away sick family members, squashing stories from the public, etc all have been done for the sake of preserving the reputation and authority of the crown and nation

morally if the king knew he should've done something but from the perspective of crown and country over everything, exposing his brother would've done far worse to hurt the throne and country's reputation... again presuming he knew of the dirty details

he did the right thing for his position... but many times we've seen that the right thing for the crown/country are not necessarily the right things from a moral perspective

[Asker]

It will be his decision to abdicate. Obviously, a thorough investigation would need to be conducted. If and investigation proves that King Charles knew something, then to save face or embarrassment, he could choose to abdicate.

[madhatters4]

if an investigation uncovered this then perhaps there may be pressure on him to abdicate.
i haven't heard and doubt there will be much of a push for an investigation, as king charles didn't do anything wrong, wasn't king during the prince's active relationship with epstein (remember elizabeth was queen til 2022) so even if he knew stuff had gone on, he wasn't the monarch at the time

[OlderAndWiser]

Isn't that the king's brother?

[Asker]

Yes, the former prince.

[Anonymous]

Kings dont abdicate. Remember he is above the law as is Andrew.

[Asker]

The last UK king to abdicate was Edward VIII, who renounced the throne on December 10, 1936, in order to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcée.

[Opinion Owner]

Edward VIII was never crowned king. Thats the difference

[Asker]

You are confusing being king with having a coronation ceremony. They are not the same. A coronation is just a formality. This happened frequently in British history. He immediately became king upon the death of George V. Edward VIII's reign lasted 326 days making it the shortest reign in British history.

[Opinion Owner]

Nothing formal about the coronation. Its very symbolic in terms of the British establishment, without it Edward VIII was king in name only and even if he didn't abdicate they could very well have crowned his brother instead of him. James the 2nd and 50 others were skipped out of succession to the British throne in 1702.
King Edward V had a shorter reign as did lady Jane grey.

[Asker]

The coronation is a formality. It's not essential to become a monarch. King Edward VIII was an actual king (not "in name only") BEFORE the coronation ceremony which never happened. If he wasn't king, he couldn't abdicate. You have to be king or queen to abdicate. His reign was certified by Parliament as lasting 326 days.

[Opinion Owner]

The Coronation is the state, church and people recognising the monarch as king or Queen and the monarch takes all the relevant oaths. James the 2nd didn't abdicate, another skipped the line by 50 places to take his place

[Asker]

King Edward VIII was the last king to abdicate. It's a historical fact whether you choose to believe it or not. A coronation is not an absolute requirement. The ceremony happens happens after a person is recognized as monarch. Again, you cannot abdicate if you're not a monarch.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes and Nixon resigned.
Without the ceremony you are not officially recognised as monarch by parliament or church. They can then leap from you whether you abdicate or not.

[Asker]

What does the resignation of Nixon have to do with this? When JFK was assassinated in 1963, LBJ became President. Him taking the oath on Air Force One was for show. It wasn't necessary to make him President. When JFK died, he immediately became President. The focus here is on abdication by British monarchs. You don't understand how this works. Please go back and study British history. This is not rocket science. King Edward VIII was king before his coronation. If he wasn't, he couldn't abdicate. This part of the official record. If he wasn't officially recognized, he couldn't abdicate. I don't know why you find this so difficult to understand. This is not a matter of personal opinion.

[Opinion Owner]

The constitution of the United states clearly states that the president elect has to be sworn in before becoming president otherwise the vice president must be sworn in as president and on down the chain of command. When JFK died LBJ was immediately sworn in on airforce one 1hr30 minutes after the shooting.
King Edward was king but without the coronation another could have been named in his place as has happened before with James the 2nd and 50 others that got skipped over in the line of succession. Charles 2nd was king yet did not reign until the death of Cromwell

[Asker]

Again, you are confused, the 25th Amendment states that the vice president becomes president if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office by impeachment. It mentions nothing about having to be sworn in. IF A PERSON IS ELECTED PRESIDENT (PRESIDENT-ELECT), THEN THEY HAVE TO BE SWORN IN. THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE VICE PRESIDENT. HE ASSUMES THE DUTIES IMMEDIATELY. So, yes, King Edward VIII was king, that's why he had the title of "King Edward VIII." That is why HE COULD ABDICATE. Obviously, his coronation was not required, OTHERWISE HE WOULD NEVER BE REFERRED TO AS KING. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Your other comments about line of succession are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if someone else COULD HAVE BEEN NAMED. The historical fact is ANOTHER WASN'T NAMED, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN KING. THIS QUESTION IS ABOUT ABDICATION... NOTHING ELSE.

[Opinion Owner]

No, you cannot officially act as President of the United States without taking the oath of office. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution mandates that the president takes a specific oath or affirmation before executing the duties of the office. While the ceremony can vary, the oath itself is constitutionally required.
James the 2nd was named king until he wasn't. Without a coronation King Edward VIII title as king was a formality

[Asker]

Article II , Section 1 refers to a person that is ELECTED President. The previous President is President until 12 pm on Inauguration Day. This doesn't apply to Vice Presidents who assume the duties after the conditions explained in the 25th Amendment. The US Government doesn't wait for the Vice President to be sworn in to have the full authority of the Presidency. If you actually think about it, that would be dangerous and stupid to have to wait. The same thing applies to becoming a monarch. Can you actually imagine what would happen during a war or natural disaster? No one is waiting for a ceremony to make it official. That would be completely idiotic.

[KostasKouvalis]

No. It's human nature not to snitch on a family member

[beefcakebradybatson]

No unless it's proven he hindered the investigation of his brother and Epstein.