Do You Think the Accession of 73-year-old Charles to the Throne will Benefit the Public?

Question

As you know Queen Elizabeth passed away yesterday (09/08/2022) and her son Charles has succeeded as king. But he is 73 years old. Do you think acceding to the throne at the age of 73 is good or bad for the public?

nightdrot · Accepted Answer

In fairness, only time will tell. However, based on King Charles' conduct in the initial days of his reign, the auguries are promising.

King Charles will bring to the throne the benefits of continuity. This not only in the sense that he represents a continuation of the royal line, this rooting Britain in its' history in a most direct and personal way, but also in that the benefits of his age will tend to give him a greater sense of history.

For King Charles, the history of his mother's reign is not just something he read about in a book or is growing up with. Rather it is something he has experienced over many years. Thus he is apt, at an almost intuitive level, to conduct himself with a balance between tradition and innovation that will suit both the monarchy as an institution and the British state overall.

The latter being particularly important as the UK is undergoing, at this time, much economic, political and indeed social and cultural upheaval. In such circumstances, people most need a link to what they have been and to what made them what they are. Indeed, when that sense of cultural continuity is lost, that is when the greatest upheavals and even crimes are apt to occur.

As Jospeh de Maistre put it, "The first and perhaps the only source of all the evils we experience is contempt for antiquity, or, what amounts to the same thing, contempt for experience: while there is no is nothing better than what is proven. The laziness and arrogant ignorance of this century cope much better with theories that cost nothing and flatter pride, than lessons in moderation and obedience that must be painfully asked of history. In all sciences, but especially in politics, the many and obscure events of which are so difficult to grasp as a whole, theory almost always is contradicted by experience." Suffice to say that this is a failing that a 73 year old man is not apt to indulge in.

To be sure, King Charles, as Prince of Wales, often articulated controversial views that would tend to divide. However, even in these early days the evidence suggests - as he has spoken with temperance and compassion to his people - that Charles understands the difference, both moral and practical, between being heir to the throne and wearing the Crown.

Even then, it is to be added that he is free to express his views, in full privacy, to the Prime Minister of the day. It being recalled that in his seminal work on Britain's "unwritten constitution," Walter Bagehot had said that it was among the duties of the monarch to "advise, guide and warn" the Prime Minister. There being an advantage to being a figure above and outside of politics and thus not subject to its' daily pressures in the same way that a Prime Minister would be.

Thus, if he wishes, King Charles will have a venue to proffer advice and express his opinions - and a not inconsiderable one at that. This having the advantage of being able to bring to the table a lifetime of public service that no elected public official can equal. It being further added that, unlike with a young monarch, this will be wisdom gathered over decades.

By no means does this ensure that King Charles will always put a foot right and offer good advice, nor that the Prime Minister of the day will take that advice. Rather, the point is that, on balance, and this is a matter of weighing the pros and the cons and taking into account that even the King, at the end of the day, is an imperfect human being, the public is apt to benefit from the long life and experience of King Charles.

It being also recalled that those who tend to reject such experience as "the dead hand of the past" are prone to the greatest hubris. Such a man or woman is, as someone once said, "A self-made man who worships his creator." There being too many of those at this moment in Western history.

genericname85 · Accepted Answer

no it won't benefit the public. but that has nothing to do with his experience or his person at all. he really doesn't have a big influence. i mean the king has veto rights and can dissolve the pairlament and the government. but that doesn't normally happen and the laws and decisions on policies are made there, not by the king himself. The king is more a representant. less a decision maker. the problem with having a new king is that it's expensive. new currency has to be created and printed. new postal stamps. and the entire bureaucratic bullshit around changing the royal will cost the country a few billions. so they'll spend billions for something that the population really doesn't get anything for in return besides a new face on their money.

Lynn7dsd · Accepted Answer

Yeah, although I don't believe in 'monarchy' its a made up archaic philosophy... I do think that the monarchy brings in a ton of revenue and perceived prestige across the world. Even if it is a f*cked up concept. If I were britain I would probably want to keep it... but maybe they should get rid of it? Its so dumb. I also don't like how Meghan Markle seems to monetize and exploit her status. She still uses 'Duchess'... but trashes the same institution that "gave" her that title. Its obvious she cares a lot about status. America does not have royalty and quite frankly, the fact that she still flaunts that here is telling. I kind of hope Charles doesn't reward her by giving her kids titles. We don't hear the end about "America's prince and princess". So obnoxious.

SphynxUK · Accepted Answer

He’s becoming king at 73 because it was his mothers choice not to give up the crown until her last breath, and he knows this.
He’s spent his life preparing for this moment and will dedicate himself to the role in honour of his mother for as long as he is able to.

AviatorTom · Answer

It's good to continue the monarchy with peaceful change but Charles is not Elizabeth. He will have a difficult time following in her legacy. I also find it interesting that Queen Elizabeth, in planning for her death, has put a time limit on Charles' reign... when he turns 80, he is to abdicate to his son William.

abc3643 · Answer

Absolutely. Why? Because Charles is very astute and passionate about environmental causes and I suspect that he will make the remainder of his life's work as King Charles III be toward doing what he can to help protect our species and our planet from the peril it faces. Being King, not only does he put a more public face on the issue, but he can perhaps actually do something about it.

Adam1978 · Answer

No lets retire monarchy to the history books, UK can function as today without it. And when our Swedish king either die or retire we should do the same. Just remove that relic system from our country. And go ahead as it is, no need for presidents, we shouldn't have a singel person in charge of the whole country. We should have a whole range of experts.

lightbulb27 · Answer

what good is the throne anyway? These ideas are relics of a by gone era. But maybe he can provide a good model through william and kate for others to follow... traditional families. that's what they are... demonstrating what other people could be like if they decided to develop some class and standards. right?

Kaneki05 · Answer

The thing is he's pretty vocal about how he wants to change things but he'll find out that in reality he has no power and is just there for tourism reasons and making out country look powerful.
But if he does try to change things he's just gonna be a problem for everyone. His views aren't exactly helpful.

Anonymous · Answer

well, no because Charles is SATAN! lol. He's involved in all kinds of "new world order" sh*t and that's not good for anybody. But strictly going on the age thing, I don't think that matters. I'm actually tired of people saying it should be the young people in charge.

The "young people" can't define what a woman is, sometimes identify as random household objects depending on the day and their mood, believe climate change and socialist propaganda from mega rich people flying around the world on private jets, who own more houses than we do pairs of underwear, and continue to show a belief that physical violence is an acceptable solution to disagreeing with someone's beliefs.

That being said, I'm a big fan of William and Kate. I think they'll actually do well when it's William's turn to sit on the "iron throne". 😁

Anonymous · Answer

Why would his age be a bad thing? It's not like he has to perform any physical feats or something. He has been part of the royal family since birth, so he knows what's up. He has the advantage of many years' of experience and the wisdom that comes with it. He's still 20+ years younger that the queen when she passed. He'll be fine.

RavVid · Answer

Is it good for the British public? Despite a bad start with Dianna/Camilla there is no reason he cannot connect with the British public and hence be good for the public.

As for retiring, well British Monarchs don't.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

His Mom was 23 years older, and no one saw an issue with that. Unlike some other ''new'' monarchs (so-me-whe-re else in the world), Charles is a man everyone can respect.

Curmudgeon · Answer

You know, if they had just LET Charles marry Camilla back in 1972 or so like he originally wanted, the Royals could have saved themselves a lot of grief.

cth96190 · Answer

Charles is a prominent member of the anti-human global elite who want to exterminate all but 500 million of the population of the planet.

Charles is raving mad, which is not uncommon among European monarchs due to close breeding.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

The Queen served for 23 additional years after reaching the age of 73, so that is not too old for the position. Charles becoming King is probably a better option than William.

20yearsolder · Answer

They don't do anything anyway, you have parliament that takes care of the laws. They're just a figurehead. For some reason people idolize them. Bunch of rich fucks that have no power

Lynx122 · Answer

Does it even matter? It's a ceremonial role. Honestly with this government it would probably be better for the UK if they actually had a queen/king again :D

USLegionary · Answer

Can't retire. He's the king until he dies at best his son can be regent. He's actually done quite well as Prince of Wales built himself a kingdom within a kingdom

madgoat · Answer

He understands the role and will take it seriously. And in only a few years will hand over to William.

bbsbbsnsnskskd · Answer

Just feel like there’s a lot of arguments about him due to Diana’s death and a lot of people believe he was behind it so he doesn’t have much of Britains support.

ThePartyGirl93 · Answer

I believe he'll lead the UK and the commonwealth into great success! He is the future of the country now!

MarkRet · Answer

Probably not. The problem isn't Charles himself, but the fact that the Monarchy is still even in existence. He will have no real power anyway.

SlightlyEccentric · Answer

Oh sure, the old bag at 96 was doing just fine but now Charles at 23 years younger should retire? Impeccable logic.

Luopio27 · Answer

Governments spend hundreds of millions of tax payers money on one family, no one bats an eye.
Governments spend hundreds of millions if not billions to welfare, to keep poor people alive, everyone looses their minds.

therealadamreed44 · Answer

Should of gave up the throne and handed it to William

MikeInHawaii · Answer

Age, by itself, is not the problem. Elizabeth II was 96 and more lucid than Joe Biden. But, combined with age, Charles has the charisma of a dish rag.

rachel776 · Answer

what good did the Queen do for the public from age 25 to 96?

Anonymous · Answer

Not many people like him cos of what he did to princess Diana. Such a twat. He doesn't have a good reputation. I think prince William would be a better choice...

Haha456 · Answer

haha good question... how will he benefit us? tell me...

LazerBean · Answer

Wasn't he married to Dianna? Because I know that guy was a shit bag.

Rania05 · Answer

Wait a second!!  Queen Elizabeth passed away? How? Why?

Anonymous · Answer

No idea but I feel he will feel the pressure from the public to hand over the throne to William. There is already people saying it should be William who is king.

dragoblack · Answer

The Royal family doesn't run the country, parliament and the house does. The royal family is basically figure heads.

monkeynutts · Answer

I guess it's tradition, it's not like a Roman republic, or you have rival houses starting wars to secure the throne for their own interests. He might only rule for a decade.

Jackblue · Answer

His ability is irrelevant, his coronation will draw tourism from across the globe. Any British person selling items to tourists will make a fortune.

nomandik · Answer

Queen Elizabeth III made it to age 93 I'm pretty sure she was doing okay at the age of 73

boredgal · Answer

if King Charles retires, who will be King? (sorry don't know much about it)

Roseboy · Answer

the role is just ceremonial it doesn't change anything if he tries to use power he technically has out of line he'll just be told no

MountAverage · Answer

I don't understand your logic. The queen reigned for another 23 years after she turned 73. Why is it now an issue that Charles reigns at 73?

Jamie05rhs · Answer

Wow. Give the guy a break. He just became King yesterday.

Iron_Man · Answer

Those don’t mean anything those titles it’s comical now at 73 he’s a king instead of a prince

FireFox001 · Answer

How stupid are you? The royal family has literally no say in politics. Their presence is a money sink (and a tourist attraction maybe) for the UK. That's all.

Sarahplus2 · Answer

I am an American so the whole royalty thing is confusing to me anyway.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

Well, he's gotta be in his 70's, how much longer is HE gonna last?

joeldalton · Answer

It’s not going to be good. Hopefully he’ll be dead soon.

Soulforged · Answer

He was waiting for long time to wear the crown...

Fromdusktilldawn · Answer

they should quit commonwealth, now is the chance. Its outdated, we ain't in colonial times anymore

jongreat46 · Answer

no, but then again he could be one of england's greatest monarch's; however he has proven time and again he is a wimp.

KostasKouvalis · Answer

He's too long. I give him 20 years max. He won't become an icon like his mother

imfreeze95 · Answer

I’m all for tradition, rules and protocol but they need fresh blood and Prince William is a good man and has an impressive resume

Dinosaursandanime65 · Answer

Now that I think about it, it’s depressing as F she never got the chance to watch Season 05 of Cobra Kai

maximumpower · Answer

Doesn't matter - he's already there. If past record is any indicator, he won't be there long - especially w/o scandal.

Anonymous · Answer

Why having king and queen? why do people love that people? is non sense

Anonymous · Answer

Dudes just a transition King. Gonna be dead in a decade and Wiliam will be King for a few decades.

Anonymous · Answer

As I understand it he's not really suppose to do anything at all.

Anonymous · Answer

No, he might try to get rid of feminism. I dont think that's good.

TroyDT · Answer

I am not certain, but his speech was epic, which pleasantly surprised me.

bolverk · Answer

All we can do is wait and see, we will not know for at least a year, maybe more.

zagor · Answer

I think he'll pretty much just be a placeholder for awhile.

Anonymous · Answer

Why do you even need these monarchs? Just kick them out.

TallAnon · Answer

Nah, if he dies maybe the UK will shift to be a bit less conservative, but that's all.

CuriousMufuxka · Answer

Doesn't really matter. Monarchy has been quite the novelty for many a century.

Bklynbadboy12 · Answer

I'm that was the guy married to Diana he's an asshole

Do You Think the Accession of 73-year-old Charles to the Throne will Benefit the Public?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Do You Think the Accession of 73-year-old Charles to the Throne will Benefit the Public?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.