King Chuck - wow.

[Elixir]

I didn’t watch it live, so my impression might be wrong. Indeed, the fact that nobody here has written about it might indicate that I’m off base. BUT -
Did The King actually get Republicans stand and clap for observations that, if made by an American comic, would result in indictments, threats to withdraw network broadcast licenses etc.?
Yes, he trashed the phony American King, bashed his foreign policy foolishness and re-stated his and the EU’s support for all things that piss off Putin and Trump - and Republicans clapped.
I suspect they didn’t get the joke. Or any of the jokes.
AMIRITE?

 

[bilby]

What did he say?

I generally don't pay attention to English monarchs, as they are not allowed to have opinions without first checking with the Prime Minister, so their speeches lean towards pablum and platitudes (possibly duck-billed platitudes, as they are also the Head of State of Australia*).

Last time a King thought he was allowed an opinion, parliament staged a coup and put his sister's husband on the throne in his place; He could count himself lucky though, when his dad tried to tell parliament what to do some forty years earlier they lopped his head off, so a mere coup d'êtat seems like he got off softly.

Charles (the one currently visiting the US, not the one who was beheaded) was allowed more leeway when he was Prince of Whales (possibly also dolphins? Cetaceans, anyway) and as he was in that role for a loooooong time, and hasn't been wearing the big metal hat for long, he may have forgotten that he's meant to be purely ornamental.









* We Australians like to keep our heads of state as far away as possible; Charles couldn't live any further from our country without joining the space program (which he has so far not been persuaded to do).

 

[Elixir]

What did he say?

For one thing he was funny. But what impressed me was his continual references to the limits of a king’s power, phrased such that unwitting Republicans (apologies for redundancy) stood and applauded as if he wasn’t telling The Felon to FOAD.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Haven't watched it all yet. Your transcript will be available shortly, Your Highness.

 

[Tigers!]

Sometimes a hereditary head of state can be a bonus.

Charles at least can follow a teleprompter, is coherent and logical.

 

[crazyfingers]

OK so I watched it. It's unusual for me to watch a video.

It was a good speech. "people of all faiths, and of none". There were several disguised digs at Trump's unilateralism. Plugs to protect the environment. Respect for all faiths and all peoples. Looking out for all people.

He got multiple standing ovations. I couldn't tell if the Dems stood up more than the Repugs.

I wonder if the Repugs really got any message. The messages about multilateralism and checks and balances on an Executive may have been above the Republican's pay grade - as they say.

 

[Toni]

Here's a link to the transcript for those who do not wish to watch the video:
There is a transcript on the AP site but its full of ads and pop ups which is annoying. So: Town and Country:

Read King Charles’s Full Address to Congress

“The story of the United Kingdom and the United States is, at its heart, a story of reconciliation, renewal and remarkable partnership.”

www.townandcountrymag.com

We do not embark on these remarkable endeavours together out of sentiment. We do so because they build greater shared resilience for the future, so making our citizens safer for generations to come.

Our common ideals were not only crucial for liberty and equality, they are also the foundation of our shared prosperity. The Rule of Law: the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice. These features created the conditions for centuries of unmatched economic growth in our two countries

 

[ideologyhunter]

So, an actual monarch tells us that we must have checks on executive power, that our NATO alliances are crucial, that our planet must be protected from the damage done by burning fossil fuels...while our pretend monarch tells us that as President, the Constitution lets him do whatever he wants, that NATO is a disgrace and hasn't done us any good, that windmills are bad and coal needs to make a comeback. And that those crazy bastards need to open the fuckin' strait or their civilization will die.
The only hopeful sign in all this is that something like 60 to 63% of us now see our pretend monarch for what he is.

 

[Politesse]

I generally don't pay attention to English monarchs, as they are not allowed to have opinions without first checking with the Prime Minister, so their speeches lean towards pablum and platitudes (possibly duck-billed platitudes, as they are also the Head of State of Australia*).

As indeed this one was, but here's the problem: Much as with the Pope's Easter address a few weeks back (wishing vaguely for peace on earth) being interpreted as an attack on the Iran war specifically, our right-wing radicals have gotten so goddamned far off their rockers that even "the usual platitudes" come across as a biting challenge to their illegal regime. American centrists are finding deep meaning in the King of England showing up and, however indistinctly, endorsing democracy and the rule of law, and the newspaper bylines are helping by framing it all as just such a biting critique.

 

[thebeave]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

 

[Arctish]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

The one in 1776 or the one in 2026?

 

[thebeave]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

The one in 1776 or the one in 2026?

2026

 

[bilby]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

The one in 1776 or the one in 2026?

He was probably wondering what took you so long; England had theirs in 1649 and 1688.

By the time the US fought against English rule, they were fighting the forces and policies of the Parliament and Prime Minister, not the King, who was so irrelevant by that point that when he went mad, they just rolled out his wastrel son and carried on ignoring them both.

It suited both sides to pretend that the King was in some way important.

 

[Arctish]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

The one in 1776 or the one in 2026?

He was probably wondering what took you so long; England had theirs in 1649 and 1688.

By the time the US fought against English rule, they were fighting the forces and policies of the Parliament and Prime Minister, not the King, who was so irrelevant by that point that when he went mad, they just rolled out his wastrel son and carried on ignoring them both.

It suited both sides to pretend that the King was in some way important.

Well, yeah, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun watching Parliament singing You'll Be Back:

 

[Elixir]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

I bet he thought “Those guys should not be protesting Kings! I am actual King, and that guy isn’t even a wannabe King, he wants to be a Dictator.”

 

[thebeave]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

I bet he thought “Those guys should not be protesting Kings! I am actual King, and that guy isn’t even a wannabe King, he wants to be a Dictator.”

I dunno. If I was KC and saw thousands of people angrily protesting against Kings, I'd say, "On second thought, maybe I'll just stay home until this simmers down a bit and play catch with the corgis." Given my decades long disdain for the Royal Family, that would be the best possible outcome.

 

[Elixir]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

I bet he thought “Those guys should not be protesting Kings! I am actual King, and that guy isn’t even a wannabe King, he wants to be a Dictator.”

I dunno. If I was KC and saw thousands of people angrily protesting against Kings, I'd say, "On second thought, maybe I'll just stay home until this simmers down a bit and play catch with the corgis." Given my decades long disdain for the Royal Family, that would be the best possible outcome.

Aw c’mon Beave. Chuck was impressively close to human, and certainly made some people uncomfortable who richly deserved it. I seriously doubt that he considered “no kings” as anything addressed to him.

 

[thebeave]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

I bet he thought “Those guys should not be protesting Kings! I am actual King, and that guy isn’t even a wannabe King, he wants to be a Dictator.”

I dunno. If I was KC and saw thousands of people angrily protesting against Kings, I'd say, "On second thought, maybe I'll just stay home until this simmers down a bit and play catch with the corgis." Given my decades long disdain for the Royal Family, that would be the best possible outcome.

Aw c’mon Beave. Chuck was impressively close to human, and certainly made some people uncomfortable who richly deserved it. I seriously doubt that he considered “no kings” as anything addressed to him.

Yeah, I think you're right. He might be redeemed in my eyes if he would come to California and take the insufferable Meghan Markle and that eunuch husband of hers back home with him. Californians should have had a "No Harry and Meghan" protest instead!

 

[Jarhyn]

I wonder what King Charles thought about our "No Kings" protests.

I bet he thought “Those guys should not be protesting Kings! I am actual King, and that guy isn’t even a wannabe King, he wants to be a Dictator.”

I dunno. If I was KC and saw thousands of people angrily protesting against Kings, I'd say, "On second thought, maybe I'll just stay home until this simmers down a bit and play catch with the corgis." Given my decades long disdain for the Royal Family, that would be the best possible outcome.

Aw c’mon Beave. Chuck was impressively close to human, and certainly made some people uncomfortable who richly deserved it. I seriously doubt that he considered “no kings” as anything addressed to him.

Well, he's barely even a "king" anyway. King in name only (plus a huge pile of looted wealth inherited from his forebears) whose kingly powers are diluted beyond recognition.

Trump is in fact more a "king" today than Chuck has been for his entire life.

I would prefer Trump to be a king with as much power as Chuck has over being a "president" in the same vein as the Kim family in NK.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I think we do ourselves a disservice by referring to Trump as a king. He is where he is through populist anger. He didn't inherit shit. I understand the meaning of king in No Kings but meaning and understanding shifts with time. They should have gone with something more harsh and to the point. That is the concern, is it not.
It was a great speech, Your Majesty but you are but a ceremonial ornament. We have a wannabe dictator to deal with.
I'm wondering, I hope we've reached peak populism with this asshole and the country is ready to move on, if our Constitution can survive these next...takes off sock, 32 months.