Charlie Farley

Originally Posted by ianch99

It is about the unsuitability (or not) of the current incumbent of the office of constitutional monarch.

Coincidentally, there is a new book out that adds to the debate:

Abolish The Monarchy : Why we should and how we will

Personally I think we should be more concerned about the suitability of our actual voted for government. Charles has no real chance of screwing up the economy and country.

[Sephiroth]

I suspect that he’s getting used to being as non-influential as the Archkent of Cant except with his flunkies.

It’s interesting, thiugh. Queenie came to the throne in the near-immediate post- war years. Little TV - just the radio and newspapers. The royals were held in great respect. She grew into the role as Empire ceased and Commonwealth formed, where she was a centrepiece.

Charlie Farley was in her shadow and his prominence arose out varying degrees of cretinousness. Such as talking to vegetables, stiffing Diana, eyes too close together, publicly ill tempered.

So, nothing important to do.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I suspect that he’s getting used to being as non-influential as the Archkent of Cant except with his flunkies.

It’s interesting, thiugh. Queenie came to the throne in the near-immediate post- war years. Little TV - just the radio and newspapers. The royals were held in great respect. She grew into the role as Empire ceased and Commonwealth formed, where she was a centrepiece.

Charlie Farley was in her shadow and his prominence arose out varying degrees of cretinousness. Such as talking to vegetables, stiffing Diana, eyes too close together, publicly ill tempered.

So, nothing important to do.

I would agree with this analysis. He is the perfect incumbent to accelerate the demise of the "firm" and bring the country into the 21st century.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I would agree with this analysis. He is the perfect incumbent to accelerate the demise of the "firm" and bring the country into the 21st century.

I mostly agree with you, Ian. "... bring the country into the 21st century" isn't what the firm's demise would achieve. It would casue a huge upheaval. He will make the monarchy irrelevant during his reign and the next king will have his work cut out to impress the nation.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I mostly agree with you, Ian. "... bring the country into the 21st century" isn't what the firm's demise would achieve. It would casue a huge upheaval. He will make the monarchy irrelevant during his reign and the next king will have his work cut out to impress the nation.

The only meaningful "upheaval" as you describe it would be for the Establishment which would be long overdue.