King Charles III.
For 70 years the Queen dutifully served her country. Well, at least symbolically. You know what, I'm gong to repeat myself, in all caps. SYMBOLICALLY. Then when she died, she gave King Charles III a lifetime achievement award for being a weenie. A loyal weenie.
But as I read scathing rebukes of the Queen from Woke American Media Whores as varied as Jamele Hill and Tirhakah Love, I am reminded that Americans are really poor at history.
In the year 1649 King Charles I was executed and, for all intensive purposes, that was the beginning of the end of the English Monarchy as rulers. The union of Scotland and England in 1707 established the House of Commons of Great Britain. The first prime minister of Great Britain, generally recognized by historians, was elected in 1721, Sir Robert Walpole.
You're asking about Henry VIII? That guy ruled England from 1509 to 1547. His reign started over 700 years ago. All the monarchy is today is a public relations tool for the British Government.
Now you're questioning my history skills, you're countering that we fought the Revolutionary War against King George III. Not so much, even KG III understood that Parliament was the true sovereign in Great Britain in the mid 1700's. Thomas Jefferson used George as an evil caricature of the rich ruling class across the ocean. The Stamp Act of 1765 was levied specifically on the American Colonists by the British Parliament.
So don't get me wrong, the Queen passing away was sad, sad in the same way Betty White or Bob Hope passing away was sad. What it doesn't do is change American/British relations.
With that being said, blaming the Queen for colonialism is absurd. What you can blame her for is her poor judgement in a successor. The Queen was basically the CEO of the biggest PR Firm in England (or the world, for that matter.) The problem is, earlier this year, half of all Britons agreed that Charles should step aside for William. If you're the head of a monarchy style of government, popularity is immaterial in choosing a successor. If you're the head of a PR firm, popularity is definitely part of the equation.
Once Princess Diana died, that should have eliminated Charles from the line of succession to the British Crown. And listen, his siblings are no better, one's a disgraced pedophile* who barely leaves his house anymore.
The best thing for Great Britain would have been to skip a generation of the House of Windsor and start fresh with someone younger who could grow into the role of King, someone like William.
I'm sorry, did you say Harry and Meghan? Uh, no. They're more in line with current American celebrities like the Kardashians, D-Listers famous for being famous. Most Britons agree that America can keep them.
William has the earthy stoicism to represent Great Britain to the next generation of world leaders. Because he's not negotiating trade deals or breaking down international relations, William appears to have the key trait of being King in the 21st Century, which is image management.
Do people really want Charles to be the face of Britain? Don't forget, there is a surge in the Abolish the Monarchy Movement.
Canada needs to protest Charles' accession to the throne.
Put a Native Canadian on the 20.
* ahem, ahem
cough, cough
ALLEGEDLY.