Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway

Charles I tried to make himself closer to an absolute monarch, but that didn’t end well. Charles II restored royalty following he Puritans. They were both heroes for royal power, which might be why that name was chosen 70 years ago.

That being said, Charles III is such a jerk, and should abdicate. William V would make a much better king.


31 posted on 09/08/2022 5:46:50 PM PDT by xxqqzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xxqqzz

Why do you think he would be a good king? He’s still an inbred with two idiots for parents. Charles and William are both secret Muslims, right? Which one dressed as a Nazi?


35 posted on 09/08/2022 5:49:20 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

To: xxqqzz
might be why that name was chosen 70 years ago

not because of the original "Charles the Great" ... whom we call Charlemagne?


40 posted on 09/08/2022 6:02:10 PM PDT by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson