King Charles III Coronation – A Political Monarch?

Almost every living person in the United Kingdom was born or grew up under a monarch who stood apart from the day-to-day machinations of government. Armed only with the powers to advise, suggest, and make feelings known, the late Queen Elizabeth II spent her reign as one above the fray, and it would be a rare soul that could tell of her political leanings. But long before King Charles was crowned today, May 6, the British public knew all too well where his ideological sympathies lie. And with this historic occasion perhaps comes the end of an era.

As someone who lives in and is a citizen of the UK, Liberty Nation Managing Editor Mark Angelides is not, nor has he ever been, someone who revered the monarchy. He joins LN Editor in Chief Leesa K. Donner for a frank discussion of what the new king will bring to his unique position.

Leesa K. Donner: Mark, it’s notable that Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne at a young age whereas, at age 73, her son just became the oldest to ever be crowned king. The new king is a formed adult who has spent much of his life waiting for this moment. But aren’t there concerns among the British that he’s a bit of a strange bird?

Mark Angelides: I grew up hearing stories about his odd ways, talking to plants, environmental obsessions, and the like; these tales are pretty much a staple of British tabloids. I think much of the concern felt by the public is that he has never cut an impressive figure and has often been made smaller by his own actions. He is the figurehead of an institution that, to many, seems anachronistic and overly privileged; in the eyes of the British, he will either be a steady hand or the final nail in the coffin. That’s a lot of responsibility for a man who may not have many years of service left.

LKD: Charles turned to many fringe activists in his younger days. From gurus to climate-change zealots, his character and beliefs have largely been shaped by these people. How will that influence his reign?

MA: It begs the question of whether he will be easily led, or even used, by smooth operators – after all, his life has been somewhat sheltered up until now. If an individual gets duped, or loses face, it impacts that person alone; if a monarch does, well, that’s a potential embarrassment for the whole country, even worse than it would be with a prime minister or a president. Politicians come and go, but, due to the nature of British law, the family is here to stay, and any blemishes on the national reputation will be long lasting.

He has a well-publicized history of working with the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab, and to be honest, pretty much every globalist enterprise that ever sought to subsume national sovereignty. He does not seem to be the man ready to inspire the next generations in patriotic fervor, perhaps even the opposite.

LKD: The BBC claims, “Being monarch supersedes the individual.” But I wonder if that will be the case for King Charles, whose beliefs have not been closely held in his many decades as a prince.  In other words, he’s a known quantity, and I think it will be much more difficult for him than it was for his mother to zip it and stay out of controversy. Yet he was recently quoted as saying, "The idea that somehow I'm going to carry on exactly in the same way is complete nonsense." But is it?

MA: Good question. Few people could jettison a lifetime of convictions, even fewer in the public eye. He has built a public persona that will be near-impossible to craft anew, even if he really wanted to make a change. I suspect many Brits are wary of his aforementioned ties to globalist outfits and whether he will carry these connections into his reign.

LKD: Unlike his mother, who appeared very humble and reserved, Charles has shown himself to be petulant and imperious. Do you foresee this type of attitude being a problem for him with the people of Great Britain and the Commonwealth countries?

MA: It seems to me that the issue is that he grew up a prince, with all the trappings and benefits of office, but no crown to weigh him down. Queen Elizabeth was a young woman when she assumed the throne; she had a lifetime of duty and responsibility to grow into the role. Charles is already an old man, now assuming a level of accountability he’s never had to deal with. It’s possible he feels trapped into an obligation that he would have happily assumed 20 years ago, but now perhaps resents.

LKD: In her compelling compendium Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life, biographer Sally Bedell Smith wrote about the prince’s need to create a fuss. “Sometimes he would withdraw from the field of battle, only to charge back with even greater vigor. Sustained by his ironclad convictions, he was no less messianic in his drive to change the world. He was determined to lay out his opinions for all to see – exhorting and encouraging his allies even as he provided fresh material to people who opposed him.” This sounds a lot like a man who has something to prove, which leads me to wonder how his obvious insecurities and defensiveness will inform his reign as monarch.

MA: When you spend your childhood and the vast majority of your adult life in the shadow of someone else, the urge to break free on the world stage must be awfully compelling. But, of course, Charles is no child of a Hollywood producer or corporate magnate – he’s lived in one of the most uniquely privileged positions to have ever existed, always in the glare of the camera. I think his understanding of what it means to be “his own person” is skewed in such an irreparable way that he is desperate to prove himself, regardless of the risk. And that likely won’t be to the benefit of the monarchy or the nation.