----For her jubilee.

He is wearing his formal or "mess dress" and sporting all his shiny medals.

For a dude that grew up a wuss and a pacifist, he sure does take a lot of pride in those ribbons he "earned".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2022/05/10/did-prince-charles-serve-in-the-military-and-what-medals-is-he-wearing-16617365/amp/

The one he wears around his neck is his television loicense

Oyster DuPree said:

---

The one he wears around his neck is his television loicense

---

I remember living in England as a kid and they had a truck that would drive around to determine if people had TVs and if they had paid for their license. Kinda thought that was weird...

He did his time. Active duty for 6 years. If we poo-poo'ed on a guy here for "only" serving 6 years we'd get skewered.

That being said, there are two men in the Royal Family (well, kinda "in" right now) who are bona fide war heroes.

Prince Andrew - yeah, the pedo. He was a Sea King pilot during the Falklands War. He flew anti-submarine and ground support missions, even though his mother didn't want him flying into danger. So he was really getting shot at. He was decorated for his service. He was active duty for 20 years.

Prince Harry - He too was insistent that he be treated like anyone else with his MOS. Served in Afghanistan twice, first as a ground pounder and second time as an Apache pilot. Served 10 years.

He's most famous for having married Diana, who turned out to be a *****, and then Camilla, who is...among the least attractive royal mistresses of all time.

To me, it's fair to dump on him for most anything, as he also is filthy rich but wants American working class types to 'sacrifice' at the altar of green dreams.

nortex97 said:

---

He's most famous for having married Diana, who turned out to be a *****, and then Camilla, who is...among the least attractive royal mistresses of all time.

To me, it's fair to dump on him for most anything, as he also is filthy rich but wants American working class types to 'sacrifice' at the altar of green dreams.

---

Diana at least brought some beauty to the royal family. It's strange to me, though, that their son, William, used to be very attractive as he favored his mother but has slowly morphed into looking more like his dad. Good thing for Harry that his father was more attractive than Charles.

wbt5845 said:

---

He did his time. Active duty for 6 years. If we poo-poo'ed on a guy here for "only" serving 6 years we'd get skewered.

That being said, there are two men in the Royal Family (well, kinda "in" right now) who are bona fide war heroes.

Prince Andrew - yeah, the pedo. He was a Sea King pilot during the Falklands War. He flew anti-submarine and ground support missions, even though his mother didn't want him flying into danger. So he was really getting shot at. He was decorated for his service. He was active duty for 20 years.

Prince Harry - He too was insistent that he be treated like anyone else with his MOS. Served in Afghanistan twice, first as a ground pounder and second time as an Apache pilot. Served 10 years.

---

Good for him that he served 6 years as the Royal Paper weight for some flag officer.

Wear a suit and tie. The medals are meaningless.

Insignificant people need to put things on their chests.

nortex97 said:

---

He's most famous for having married Diana, who turned out to be a *****, and then Camilla, who is...among the least attractive royal mistresses of all time.

To me, it's fair to dump on him for most anything, as he also is filthy rich but wants American working class types to 'sacrifice' at the altar of green dreams.

---

Royal families deserve all the crap they get. No one votes for them, but they get all the power.

The American fascination with them has always been puzzling

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

He's most famous for having married Diana, who turned out to be a *****, and then Camilla, who is...among the least attractive royal mistresses of all time.

To me, it's fair to dump on him for most anything, as he also is filthy rich but wants American working class types to 'sacrifice' at the altar of green dreams.

---

Diana at least brought some beauty to the royal family. It's strange to me, though, that their son, William, used to be very attractive as he favored his mother but has slowly morphed into looking more like his dad. Good thing for Harry that his father was more attractive than Charles.

---

Looking pretty is sort of the job definition I guess for the royals, so sure.

I dunno, the two boys of Charles/Diana seemed normal for a while, but marrying bat **** crazy women has an impact on a lot of guys (and vice versa). Diana's mom was right about her, at the end (when she was sleeping with the moslem shipping merchant etc.)

What power do they get? I thought it was just money.

She can dissolve parliament at any time and must approve every law they pass

Just curious, is that de facto symbolic? Has there been a recent instance where the queen has vetoed something passed by parliament?

I would imagine if the royal family actually tried to leverage that power their gig would be up pretty quick.

No. But they have that power

BMX Bandit said:

---

No. But they have that power

---

At one time they had the power to tax people in the North American continent. I'd like to think we taught them a lesson about the difference between having the power to do something, and how smart it is to exercise that power.

if Charles would've been in Braveheart...

Burdizzo said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

He's most famous for having married Diana, who turned out to be a *****, and then Camilla, who is...among the least attractive royal mistresses of all time.

To me, it's fair to dump on him for most anything, as he also is filthy rich but wants American working class types to 'sacrifice' at the altar of green dreams.

---

Royal families deserve all the crap they get. No one votes for them, but they get all the power.

The American fascination with them has always been puzzling

---

Poor Charles is gonna get about 5-8 years on the throne and then it becomes William's

BMX Bandit said:

---

She can dissolve parliament at any time and must approve every law they pass

---

I think they key word there is "must." Does she even have the option to not approve a law passed by Parliament?

The royal family are basically a PR tool for the UK.

I sort of equate the British royal family discussions to how we argue / discuss the paint and color scheme of Air Force 1. Roughly equal importance and significance.

Without the royal family the British would have a much less significant role and footprint internationally. The commonwealth provides them substantially more influence around the world and the royal family brings substantially more press coverage than they'd otherwise have or really deserve. I think it's an overall net benefit for the UK and probably well worth the expense.

It's also interesting to me how everyone loves Elizabeth but, during her "reign" the British empire has essentially evaporated.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Poor Charles is gonna get about 5-8 years on the throne and then it becomes William's

---

I would love to get 5-8 years on the throne. I could get a lot of Sudoku done in that time.

Every time I see Charles mentioned I think, "Long live the Queen".

Zarathustra said:

---

Just curious, is that de facto symbolic? Has there been a recent instance where the queen has vetoed something passed by parliament?

I would imagine if the royal family actually tried to leverage that power their gig would be up pretty quick.

---

Yes, if the sovereign decided to override the will of parliament, that would probably be the end of the monarchy. However, there are theoretical situations where the sovereign might have some discretion and might actually get to make a real decision. The first is if you have an election that produced a true stalemate in parliament. There are "rules" (really, just conventions) as to who the sovereign should call on to form a government, but if the UK ever had a really splintered election result, it's possible to conceive of a scenario where the sovereign's decision as to which MP to call upon to form a government might be crucial.

The other area where it comes up is when you've got things going on outside the realm of established practice and history. We saw this during the post-Brexit election maneuvering, largely as a result of the fixed term parliament act. Prior to the passage of that act, whenever the PM lacked a majority to get legislation through parliament, one important option was the ability to call for a new election to seek a mandate from the voters. However, the fixed term parliament act (passed in 2010 when the Conservatives entered into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats) removed that discretion from the PM, and required a super majority to call an election early. This left the government in limbo when it couldn't get Brexit bills passed, but also couldn't go to the voters to get a mandate. There were some possible moves that might have involved the sovereign exercising some discretion if the Remainers hadn't finally taken the bait and voted to hold an election (resulting in a huge victory for Johnson).

If you don't have a monarch, in a parliamentary system, you have to select someone to be head of state to fill the same roll, and being a politician, this person would be much more likely to get involved than a monarch would be.

For the life of me I cannot comprehend peoples obsession with the Royal Family. A bunch of ultra rich and pampered British snobs who actually believe their role in society is because of Gods plan.

The only aspect of it all that interests me is seeing what happens when Elizabeth dies and Charles ascends the throne. Will the royals survive the transition or will the Brits say "enough" when the iconic Elizabeth is replaced with a guy that looks like a Muppets reject.

It will continue for the same reason the Kardashians still have a TV show. Except the UK benefits from them vs Hulu (and formerly Bravo/NBC) for the Kardashians.

Clob94 said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

He did his time. Active duty for 6 years. If we poo-poo'ed on a guy here for "only" serving 6 years we'd get skewered.

That being said, there are two men in the Royal Family (well, kinda "in" right now) who are bona fide war heroes.

Prince Andrew - yeah, the pedo. He was a Sea King pilot during the Falklands War. He flew anti-submarine and ground support missions, even though his mother didn't want him flying into danger. So he was really getting shot at. He was decorated for his service. He was active duty for 20 years.

Prince Harry - He too was insistent that he be treated like anyone else with his MOS. Served in Afghanistan twice, first as a ground pounder and second time as an Apache pilot. Served 10 years.

---

Good for him that he served 6 years as the Royal Paper weight for some flag officer.

Wear a suit and tie. The medals are meaningless.

---

They're not meaningless to those for whom the sundry decorations & orders have meaning. A lot of those chivalric orders are pretty rare and only awarded by the sovereign, and he gets then as a birthright. Oh well. He's not wearing any personal decorations for valor; just service-type medals.

Very few royals ever pretend to be any more than a figurehead, but there are some who indeed served with distinction over the years- Prince Louis of Battenburg & Lord Louis Mountbatten come to mind, as does Prince Phillip. Phillip was, in fact, broadly acclaimed as a naval officer and his own minor nobility aside, his contemporaries believed he was going to be First Sea Lord someday. He was extremely good at what he did. Then he married beneath his station and the rest is history.

Clob94 said:

---

----For her jubilee.

He is wearing his formal or "mess dress" and sporting all his shiny medals.

For a dude that grew up a wuss and a pacifist, he sure does take a lot of pride in those ribbons he "earned".

https://www.google.com/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2022/05/10/did-prince-charles-serve-in-the-military-and-what-medals-is-he-wearing-16617365/amp/

---

What's your military service resume'?

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

Will the royals survive the transition or will the Brits say "enough" when the iconic Elizabeth is replaced with a guy that looks like a Muppets reject.

---

Thanks. Forgot about Price Philip. He was a certified war hero. He was awarded the War Cross and the Croix de Guerre for heroism.in WW II.

A Net Full of Jello said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

He's most famous for having married Diana, who turned out to be a *****, and then Camilla, who is...among the least attractive royal mistresses of all time.

To me, it's fair to dump on him for most anything, as he also is filthy rich but wants American working class types to 'sacrifice' at the altar of green dreams.

---

Diana at least brought some beauty to the royal family. It's strange to me, though, that their son, William, used to be very attractive as he favored his mother but has slowly morphed into looking more like his dad. Good thing for Harry that his father was more attractive than Charles.

---

I've always thought this was the most bizarre thing. He was a Diana clone when he was a kid and now he's Charles clone.

And then the Royal Ginger went from being the ugly one to a fairly handsome daywalking, war pilot playboy who then morphed into a p whipped, little *****.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Poor Charles is gonna get about 5-8 years on the throne and then it becomes William's

---

I think the royal family is going to end with Prince William. I suspect most in the UK no longer care about the royal family, but still retain some admiration for Queen Elizabeth just because she has been there for so long. That affinity certainly won't carry over for Charles, and probably not William either despite how much people may have liked his mother.