WASHINGTON (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 13th September, 2022) King Charles III, who has ascended the United Kingdom (UK) throne following the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth II, could lead his country to disaster through a combination of his mystical and activist tendencies and the terrible state of the national economy, experts told Sputnik.
Queen Elizabeth II passed away on September 8, at the age of 96, after over 70 years on the British throne. Her eldest son, Charles III, became the new king immediately after her death, but the official ceremony took place on Saturday at the St. James's Palace in London.
He made his first address to the UK parliament on Monday after he was officially proclaimed the country's new sovereign.
"Elizabeth gained the throne during the great postwar boom, so all she had to do was sit there in order to look good: Charles is gaining it during a deepening economic and political crisis and so will likely wind up looking bad no matter how hard he tries to behave," US constitutional historian and political commentator Dan Lazare told Sputnik. "Britain is a kingdom, so if it goes down, the king goes down with it. Something tells me that Charles's reign is not going to be a happy one."
Lazare also said Charles is much more likely to get into trouble because he is more emotional and less adept at keeping his thoughts to himself.
"He's in favor of both traditional architecture and medicine, he has a streak of New Age mysticism, and tends to the authoritarian as well," Lazare said. "The question is whether he'd ever emulate his two namesakes - Charles I and II - and act on the basis of such tendencies. Fascism runs in his family, so it's impossible to say he won't."
If Charles stumbles into controversial policies, both the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth could disintegrate, Lazare warned.
"If so, no one knows what the Canadian or Aussie reaction would be, although Charles could certainly send them fleeing if he overplays his hand. The same goes double for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The pressures on both are enormous thanks to Brexit, the economic crisis, and the growing threat of war," Lazare said. "My guess is that the North (of Ireland) will end up joining the Irish Republic even though the process could be turbulent. Scotland is the great unknown, but Charles could well end up pushing the Scots over the edge."
Political commentator and former hedge fund manager Charles Ortel said much depends on whether the UK crafts an inspired restructuring of its productive economic base and reduces the size and costs of its many bureaucracies.
"Should living standards and opportunities for Britons improve, then perhaps the population will abide an opulent monarchy," Ortel told Sputnik.
However, if new Prime Minister Liz Truss fails to implement a swift economic turnaround, the country could fall into a dangerous depression, Ortel added.
"In this second scenario, I imagine the monarchy will likely find itself on its last and perhaps final legs," he said.
Canadian historian and Rising Tide Foundation Vice President Matthew Ehret predicted that Charles III's well documented desire to play a more activist role, combined with his lack of political judgment, boded ill for his future prospects.
"Charles is a weak shadow of anything approximating a leader, which wouldn't be so terrible if he genuinely wished to fulfill the stated purpose of the Crown and do nothing. Sadly, he is also a self-proclaimed activist royal with an obsessive drive to impose his beliefs of the way the world should be re-sculpted onto his kingdom," he said.
Charles had already throughout his life identified himself with controversial globalization policies that were bringing unprecedented hardship on billions of people around the world, Ehret warned.
"Charles also sees himself as founder of the World Economic Forum's Great Reset and leader of the global decarbonization agenda which are the two most disastrous schemes ever made by mankind which will result in billions of deaths if not aborted," he said.
Charles III's continued commitment to these policies could only end in catastrophe both for the United Kingdom and its monarchy, Ehret concluded."
"So in the final analysis, Charles' rule looks to be one of unmitigated disaster and will likely end in rebellion and possibly the same fate as befell his name sake (King Charles I, who was beheaded) in 1649," he said.
