A tizzy of speculation has been spun up about the state of the British Monarchy, now that Queen Elizabeth, whom everyone loved, is gone and Charles steps into the role of King.
The big buzz is whether Monarchy is even relevant and/or useful in this 21st century.
Recently, while reading blogs and comments on UnHerd, I saw one comment referring to the new monarch as “Charles the Last.”
’T’was just over a century ago—1914— that the entire continent of Europe was cast into War, as a consequence of the assassination of one Royal, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria.
When at last the dust settled in 1918 as war yielded to Armistice and Peace, the question of Royal relevance was a hot issue, and has been on the back burner ever since.
Several years ago, we visited the Schonbrunn palace in Austria, palace of the Hapsburgs. While there, I snapped this picture; it is the room in which Emperor Karl the Last, in 1918, signed away the Hapsburg empire, although he “would not abdicate,” whatever that means.
Are Kings and Queens even useful for anything any more?
Now the Brits have Charles III and speculation arises about just how relevant his role will be.
My curiosity about the issue was kindled ten years ago when I acquired an original edition of the Times of London Coronation Issue, commemorating the Coronation of Charles’ grandfather, George VI, on May 12, 1937.
Looking back into European history, there are Charleses all over the place.
The original monarch was Charles the Great, which is an anglicized way of pronouncing the French nomen, Charlemagne. His notable accomplishment was an 8th-century AD manifestation of reviving the Roman empire, after its long, 400+ years of slumber after the Huns had plundered ancient Rome during earlier centuries.
Prior to acceding to that expansive title, Charlemagne had reigned over the Carolingian dynasty, an 8th-century royal development that arose among the Franks, or early French people.
During the next thousand years there were several European Charleses.
Most notably, in the 1500’s, along came Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, which royal role included multiple honors such as Archduke of Austria, King of Spain, Lord of the Netherlands, Duke of Burgundy and first head of the House of Hapsburg, in Austria.
Much later, in 1918, came Karl (German for Charles), the last emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, last emperor of the Hapsburg dynasty, which reigned over Austria, Hungary and several other nations of the Hapsburg dynasty. More about Karl, later.
As for England, Henry VIII’s disputes in 1500’s with continental Europe and the Catholics had forced a permanent separation. By the 1600’s, the independently-minded Brits had their own homegrown royals and priests. But their contentious habits precipitated a Civil War (1642-51), during which King Charles I was beheaded, in 1649, by the Parliament and the rebellious Protestants therein.
But, not to worry, the monarchy of the Brits was restored when his son, Charles II was crowned in 1660, after the Brits had figured out a way to get along with each other.
All was well until the Americans stirred up a hornets nest of rebellion in 1776.
But we Yanks made up for our rebellious ways when we helped the Brits and Allies during World Wars I and II. But I digress.
So now, in 2022, along comes Charles III, son of the longest-reigning monarch of all time, Elizabeth II.
And the big question in British minds is just how relevant and/or useful can a King be in this 21st century.
Time will tell . . . what Charles III will able to contribute to the welfare and strength of the British people, and how his choices will set the course for his progeny.
Meanwhile, while watching a movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRxsLwqx4VM&t=2737s
about Karl, last Emperor of the Hapsburgs, I saw this:
The face in this frame is an actor’s. Here’s a pic of the real Karl the Last of Austria-Hungary.
As for Charles III of Britain and his acceptance by the British people, Will he be Charles the Last (monarch)? Time will tell.
All we can say is: God save the King!
