Can we make the U. K. an absolute monarchy again?

[KostasKouvalis]

I just watched King Charles's speach, and he seems much more aligned with Trump and Conservative values then Starmer, and he would run the UK much better and be a much better ally then the Labour Party.

Let's do it

Let's not

Updates

1 mo

He complimented the US for its high quality national parks and breathtaking landscapes and geographic diversity. And he has a sense of humor

[Dargil]

Let Charles be a placeholder for William. Have the conservative/nationalist movements in UK and America groom him to take the reins, with the support of President Vance as a benevolent dictator for a 20 year term to rid the UK of all the socialist nonsense and unassimilated islamism.

Vance should fortify England's military (like we are the Philippines) and then William would appoint a President to take over for him at the end of his self declared term. There would be no hereditary royalty in power it would be ceremonial again.

He should give Ulster a vote to rejoin Ireland and re-industrialize England to supplant failing Germany. I short, MEGA. Make England Great Again. The royals could pull this off and not fully restore the Monarchy, because they love their country and respect what we have done with ours.

When I traveled in Scotland years back, before Charles ascended, I sat across the table from a distinguished British banker. With the assistance of single malt Scotch from his portable bar I addressed this idea. He sat back, considering it. And he said, you are American aren't you? I said yes sir. Then he said you Americans keep things so simple. I said, is there any other way?

[Zack-Bann]

You’ll never have an absolute monarchy in the historical sense:
One where vassals and subjects bend a knee to their king as he passes judgement on them and decides the ownership of their land and prosperity.


But a strong monarchy is still better than some neo-communism regime pillaging people’s futures in the name of an equality that somehow never comes.


The king sounds like a much more optimal ruler

[KostasKouvalis]

He should at the very least be allowed to have more influence in politics

[Zack-Bann]

To be fair the concept of “should be allowed” doesn’t make any sense when we’re talking about a king.

So if he wanted a bigger part of politics he has to claim it himself.

The reality is, his mom was queen for a long long time.
So things were done a certain way for a very long time as well.
But if we look back at the era of his grandfather which is less then a century ago he seemed to have a bit more to say about the affairs of state compared to queen E who just enjoyed the peace and quiet of being a passive monarch

And there’s a good chance Charles doesn’t want the hassle either which is why he’s left things as they were.

[purplepoppy]

The speech would have been written to be as diplomatic as possible. Had Biden been in another one would have been delivered. What makes kings useful on the world and domestic stage is their political neutrality. There's a reasonable argument that Charles could tell Starmer he's not up to the job and needs to call an election.

[KostasKouvalis]

Apparently only 3 British monarchs ever visited us. King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II and him.

[KostasKouvalis]

I think the King should be alotted SOME political influence.

[Anonymous]

You mad? He went from defender of the Faith to Defender of the FAITHS.

[Keyboardkat]

Two questions: First, who is "we"? And secondly, why would you want to? Are you a British citizen? If not, you have no standing to opine on the Brits' choice of system of government. You have no "skin in the game," as it were.

'

[KostasKouvalis]

But Brits can bitch about Trump and protest for George Floyd?

[Keyboardkat]

I agree with you there. They don't know all the facts, but they are loud about their opinoins there, too!

[RavVid]

Sadly not as the 1689 Bill of Rights put an end to Stuart absolutism with the Glorious Revolution. It is part of England's constitution and also every Commonwealth country's.

The English Revolution put an end to absolutism earlier between 1642 and 1651. Americans copied it in 1765 to 1783.

[KostasKouvalis]

So what? Bukele changed the Salvadorian constitution to end term limits. Constitution can be ammended

[RavVid]

UK doesn't have a written constitution. Which does mean that it can be changed by statute. Catholics are permitted guns now which the 1689 Bill of Rights banned.

Since 1689 all Monarchs have been pleased not to bear the odium of raising taxes. I'm not sure they would want to start copping the shit again.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

I don't think anyone can do that lol.

Absolute monarchy in a developed country like UK? That means wiping out all democratic institutions, how? Also means erasing Historical background like nothing ever happened, how?

This dystopia, in its current form, needs huge improvements to be credible.

[Master_Debator]

Queer Starmer needs to go... He is more beholden to Islam than any British person on this earth.

[Anonymous]

What do you mean by that? Do you mean the king just have political power? Or are you talking pre Magna Carta?

[KostasKouvalis]

Political power is perfect

[Anonymous]

I kinda prefer the Oliver Cromwell's system.

[KostasKouvalis]

What was that?

[Opinion Owner]

Military dictatorship.

[KostasKouvalis]

It's almost there

[najekim]

Perhaps if the United States revert back into being a British colony.

[MereAnarchy]

You do realise that his official speeches are written by Starmer's people, right? He has flexibility in his style of oration but not the messages.

[strawberryapple]

Yes! If not then what's the point?

[KostasKouvalis]

I agree. At the very least give him more political power. Otherwise, what's the point of even having a monarchy?

[strawberryapple]

No point at all.

[Smegskull]

As soon as he passes the crown to William.

[noohair]

I don't care...