Mon 05 Feb 2024 04:26:45 PM CST
Third and last?
Last one
named Charles anyway. There may
indeed be another king or queen, depending on how long Chuck hangs in there. His mama did pretty well. He's only 75 so he may outlast the country itself.
It can't go on much longer whether it succumbs to the hordes or to another war. In any case he doesn't have any offspring named Charles.
Maybe the first one didn't figure his subjects
would actually chop his head off. It was
after all nearly another century and a half before
the French would do away with a monarch that way.
My personal view is that he was something of a twerp, Cromwell was a solidly credentialled monster. Anyway that might be why there are so few kings named Charles.
Charles II already had his name when dad got extinguished.
It would be quite a while before there was another one, maybe someone was a Tudor fan. The first Elizabeth was the daughter of
Henry VIII and outlived - by the skin of her teeth according to some - the two previous heirs. Her
pick (being childless) for a successor was one James I (James VI in his native Scotland) and he begat Charles I. I believe I got most of that right.
Elizabeth II was fairly decent. I lived among the English people off on on for years and never got
the thing about kings and queens. Being the monarch was a matter of lopping heads off anyone that might want to get it from you or was competing with you as
you tried to take it from whoever had it. Once that era was over the ones that had it had a
pretty good deal. Life of luxury and the people paying for it thought you were the greatest thing since contraception.
The current Charles may as a young man have thought it would always be like that. People our age never would have imagined the change that
could take place, in terms of societal decay. I suppose the Brits might get lucky, Trump returns and fixes things here the UK might have
enough people with the balls to join us. Despite the third world invasion of Europe their demographics aren't nearly as bad as in the U.S.
But if the UK somehow survives it doesn't mean the monarchy will, and if it doesn't it would be a good thing. Not so much of the money wasted
on it but it just looks dumb. Nevertheless if Charlie's cancer is serious you can be the
NHS
that's too broke to provide for British citizens (but not third-world invaders) or
kills children when treament
is offered free of charge outside their dominion will spare no expense to keep him alive for as long as possible.
