Listen to a reading of this article.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth has had to skip out on yet another public appearance due to failing health, this time reportedly due to a sprained back. If she’d been able to make her scheduled appearance for Sunday’s Remembrance service it would have been her first since resting on medical advice after spending the night in hospital undergoing unspecified tests last month, leading to much speculation about her health.

“We none of us will live forever,” the 95 year-old monarch said in her speech for the COP26 summit earlier this month, shown via video as she was also unable to attend that event.

We are reminded that ol’ Liz won’t be around forever not just by the fact that her body is turning into Pringles chips but by the sudden uptick in the use of the phrase “future king” in news media references to Prince Charles, who will inherit the throne upon his mother’s overdue demise. It will take a lot of prepping to get members of the British Commonwealth used to the idea that they are about to have a King, after all, because on its surface the very idea of it is so cartoonishly absurd.

And make no mistake, having a king is something that people are going to have to be groomed into accepting. Because if there’s anything more ridiculous than having a queen, it’s having a king.

At least having a queen is something we came into the modern world with. For most of us it’s all we remember having; Elizabeth took the throne in 1952 and was around for the rise of feminism and the mainstreaming of women in politics and the workplace, and the fact that there was a woman heading the British monarchy throughout that time made the obscene existence of royals in the modern age seem a lot less abrasive than it otherwise would have. We’ve gotten used to having a queen.

Now it’s going to be a king, and it’s going to be in the 2020s, and it’s going to be hilarious.

We’re gonna have a king you guys. An actual, literal king. Not in a children’s fairy tale. Not at a Renaissance fair. Not in a JRR Tolkien movie. Not in a Dungeons & Dragons live action role-playing game. In real life.

Not as a joke, either. People are going to take it very seriously. They’re going to refer to him as “the King” and call him “Your Majesty,” and do it completely unironically. He’ll take out a sword and “knight” people, like some nerdy cosplayer at a fantasy convention.

He’s going to be on people’s money. Not just in the UK, but in places like here in Australia as well. He will even have the power to oust our elected officials through his governor-general if he sees fit.

It’s about the silliest thing you could possibly come up with, and it’s going to be happening at a time when people are already getting fed up with ruling power structures as it is. I mean, think about it. Everyone’s being exploited by billionaires and betrayed by politicians and dominated by opaque and unaccountable government agencies as living conditions get worse and worse for the working class, and you’re going to throw some dusty old wanker in front of them wearing a crown and tell them “Okay this is your King now”?

It’s not going to go well, and it’s going to be very, very funny watching it happen. It was a hard enough ask in the 2020s that there’s still a blood-soaked royal family from a long line of murderous white supremacist thieves leeching off of taxpayers for no legitimate reason, but now you’re going to replace the old pug lady we’ve all gotten used to with some asshole and call him our King? Yeah, good luck with that.


My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

61 responses to “Elizabeth Will Die Soon And Then We’ll Have A “King” And It Will Be Hilarious”

  1. Thing I love about Charles is having seen his gap-toothed double shirtless in a single strap overall at any number of nameless gas stations in Appalachia over the years. I’m serious: hand that fucker a banjo and he’d fit right in. Apparently the Brits got shed of a heap of royal relations here at one time or another, cause jug-eared, cross-eyed, and inbred is pretty much standard back in the coves.

  2. Long live the King! Go Chuck!

  3. Glen John Batterham Avatar
    Glen John Batterham

    Just because some aquatic tart gave one your ancestors a sword ain’t no mandate to rule the masses mate.

    1. What if I had some moistened minx fling a scimitar at me, then? Would that make me emperor?

  4. It’s such a riot to hear you say “we have a queen” / “we’ll have a king”, just because you live almost out of this world, with the head down and the feet up.
    But enough of the joke. You guys and the British and many others are subjects of King Joe, soon to be replaced by Queen Kamala the Appropriately-named (look up “Kamala” in a Finnish dictionary.)

    1. What you don’t understand is that the purpose of vice president is to serve out the reminder of president’s term he is to die in office, if he dies before his four year terms end. Then she would have to stand for re-election if she were to continue as president after that and history speaking quite few vice-president failed to be elected as presidents once their running mate is term ended.

  5. …..praise the plastic god(s)….pass the shrinkwrap….alas, another illusion preserved for your amusement… and cover, lock and load…..fill the bowl with a few hits….enjoy the show!……5G is on the way….gimme, god, guns, gold, and glory……HISstory be told…..death metal rains from the sky with a deafening roar of shrapnel laden cadavers dumped upon the royal consumers of planet trash…..the real mandate is……………..the end……..

  6. Who’s up for a game of checkers?
    King me!
    It’s good to be the king!

  7. haha haha haha.

    Well depicted Caitlin. Kudos dear.

  8. And the King was in his counting house counting all his money.
    The slaves were in their crumbling homes.
    The King counts that as funny.

  9. If you think a British king is absurd, you should take a look at the current one in Thailand. Is worth 80billion and is an utter fruitcake (he appointed his pet poodle to be an Air Vice Marshall complete with uniform and medals). At present dozens of student protesters are languishing in jail being charged under archaic lese majeste laws. The extend royal and noble families rule Thailand with an iron fist exploiting ever last bit of wealth for themselves, while the King spends most of his time in a luxury Germany hotel/villa with 100+ servants and a nubile harem. Despite his vast personal wealth he lives off the public purse while average Thai citizens receive little or no social security, especially now as Covid has devastated their economy and livelihoods.

  10. HA HA HA – the thing I loved most about HBO series ‘Game of Thrones was it portrayed Royalty as they really bunch of inbred psychopaths existing for one purpose and one purpose only – POWER

  11. The problem with upcoming King Charles is that he’s one of the leading snake oil salesmen of the Great Reset who want to “build back better” so that “in 2030, you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”.
    Err… wait a minute. This has been in the agora for months now and nobody seems to wonder how the fuck it is going to happen – not even mentioning the dubious correlation between happiness and ownership or absence thereof.
    It’s a fact that a lot of people own their homes to start with, a basic freedom. How can they not own it anymore or their children in ten years? There aren’t many possibilities.
    The most likely is that they’ll be so impoverished by student loans, inflation due to the “Covid relief” spending spree to make up for state-imposed unnecessary lockdowns, skyrocketing medical bills and other such scams – like conceivable skyrocketing succession rights – that they won’t be able to pay their bills and taxes anymore and will have to sell to people who can buy. Names like Gates (already the largest US farmland owner), Bezos, Musk, bloodline families – including royals -, banking families and the Forbes 500 list in general… come to mind. This has already started with millions of Americans being driven out of their jobs by an experimental-gene-therapy-abusively-called-vaccine mandate that violates their constitutional rights as well as the Nuremberg code.
    The Pope, who’s heading a millennia old mind-control enterprise with thousands of dissidents burnt at the stake to its credit, says “build back better” implies the end of building armament and means living in peace and love ever after. Does he really believe that dudes who’ve been making billions for ages out of wars are gonna suddenly become Great Reset hippies singing Hare Krishna around the Pentagon?
    How delusional does one have to be to believe that this Great Reset is gonna be anything else than what it has already started to be in the Australian test-tube, a fascist dictatorship enabled by a fake pandemic propaganda to turn people into willing slaves compared to whom the medieval serfs will be considered lucky because at least they didn’t have digital surveillance and could have a fuck in the bush without being exorbitantly fined for failing to respect social distancing.
    What’s being put into play before our very eyes indeed is the spitting image of 1984 with a planet permanently at war and permanent martial law. Long and heavily lobbied Prince Charles himself says this transition will cost “trillions of dollars” (who will pay?) and will require a “vast military-style campaign” (!) beyond the power of “even the governments of the world leaders.”
    Good luck to those below who would take him over 95% of politicians. At least, even if elections are a joke, the executive and legislative jokers are elected, the judiciary can exert some form of control and the people some kind of pressure. What recourse will you have against King Charles’ Lonely Hearts Club Band (bankers, globalist shareholders…) and their “new world order” next to which the late British Empire will look like a vibrant democracy?

    1. Am feeling lots of resonance with your words.
      I get *really* annoyed when the decadent private-jet-setting, profligate, idle party-going rich eugenicists who sit at the top of the environment-destroying capitalist pile, point a quivering finger of blame at everyone else. When they bleat about the need for [violent] population reduction as lauded by Malthus, I fume and demand that they go first to show us the way. For the rest of us I echo the Cherokee(?) proverb: “If it’s no good for all then it’s no good at all”. I’m suggesting we would be better off in all sorts of ways without wasting our lives in the capitalism paradigm and without institutions such as the monarchy.

      1. Between Bezos wanting to send millions of people in space (and exterminate the rest of the present 7,9 billion? This is not clear) to keep the Earth sustainable for him and his billionaire caste – and supposedly their servants – and Bonnie Prince Charlie willing to launch a “vast military-style campaign” to make everybody happy to own nothing in 2030, we are clearly in Nurse Ratched’s ward. I’m afraid the fate of Randie McMurphy is not terribly encouraging.

  12. I am just waiting to see how the BBC deals with the chants of F*** King Charles.

  13. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
    Carolyn L Zaremba

    There are kings in other countries, not just England, so relax. All monarchy is ridiculous in the 21st century, but Charles will not be the only king. By the way, he is exactly the same age as I am, so though he may be a doofus, stop the ageist jokes.

    1. My, aren’t you in a mood today?
      It’s not out of bounds to mention that Charles is not likely to wear the crown for half as long as his mother. That’s just a reality of his being human.

  14. decrepit, mushy-brained, entitled, death’s door fogeys are perfect representative of the British State. The US State, too. We have our Monarch, Elizabeth. The US has its President, Branden.

    1. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
      Carolyn L Zaremba

      Stop the ageist jokes. I am the same age as Charles.

      1. I’m older than both you and Charles. In my opinion these comments are not ageist jokes. When your leaders are soft in the head or weak in the bones it’s concerning.

  15. This piece made me ridiculously happy. Thanks, m’lady.

  16. Goodness, he’s over 70, he probably won’t last long, anyway, but you still get a king after that.

    Wasn’t there a plan a few years back to skip over Charles and make one of his sons the next king?

    1. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
      Carolyn L Zaremba

      I am 73, the same age as Charles. I am neither feeble or gaga. I still work for a living. You must be about 12 to make a comment like this.

      1. Not ageist at all. Yes, I am older than 12. Closer to ypur age, actually.

        Just look, Charles is 73,. He won’t be king more than 30 years, at most. More likely 10 or 15 years. Certainly not 70 years, as long as his mother has already been queen.

        1. Apparently you all missed the bit where Charles was diagnosed with COVID, recovered and if we’re in any luck, received a jab or two, therefore it behooves us all, to sit back and relax and allow the jab to do it’s work. Rest easy, Charlie won’t be around for much longer. B.T.W. what’s the bet, the Queen herself has, or is recovering from Covid ?

          1. Placebo springs to mind! Leading by some sort of an example? The political/social stratosphere heaves with lies as it would never survive in its present form telling the truth.

          2. Relevant how? Please explain.

  17. Interesting topic. I committed some bloggery about it awhile back. So I will pull it out of the memory hole. There!
    My main theme is, the monarchy at least has some entertainment value. There is no way to really change it because no on will agree on what to replace the monarch with.

    The Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, and Spanish all have kings and do not seem too troubled. I think monarchy will remain in these countries until they get a fool for a monarch who seriously pisses people off.

    For Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, monarchy is really about the Governor General. Again, a foolish anachronism that will not change because people cannot agree on what to replace it with.

    I don’t think Charles the third will be around long. William the fifth would make a reasonably good king. He is a fairly regular person whom most of his subjects can identify with.

    1. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
      Carolyn L Zaremba

      Stop saying that a 73-year-old (same age as me) “won’t be around long”. Look how long his parents lived. My paternal grandmother lived to be 99. And with Charles’s access to advanced health care, he could be around longer than you.

      1. In all honesty Carolyn, it’s not about you. I too am 72 years of age, but with this COVID crap, IMHO no one who partakes of the jab, can say they will live to a ripe old age, (whatever that is) what’s happened in the past, it in the past, these days it’s whole new ball game and incredibly unpredictable. To be brutally honest, I’m not looking forwards to the future with everything that’s going down, it’s shaping up to become a very nasty place, no place for oldies I’d think.

  18. This is just one reason why all the reporting, in the U.S. – about British royals – is so annoying and an utter waste of time, that interrupts things and news that we actually need or want to know about. It’s bad enough that we have – and have also had – quite a number whose goal is to be president of an entirely corrupt politcial system.
    We no longer get to choose the lesser of two evils – simply, because evil is simply too unencompassing a term to describe the depth of their depravity.

    1. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
      Carolyn L Zaremba

      Don’t kid yourself. Plenty of Americans wish they could become kings or queens. Plenty of them have more money than the House of Windsor, too. They are the ones, like Bezos, Musk, et al., that we have to worry about.

    2. Actually the royal families now are a good thing. While total dicks like Trudeau, Trump, Biden, Putin, Xi are depressing us as they line up to bring on the apocalypse, the world is falling into the hands of billionaires – the beauty of that torrent of cash being soaked up in credits without affecting supply and demand means you and I can almost afford a home and 3 squares as we trundle down our parabolic extinction curve. Happily we are diverted, entertained by the harmless pratfalls of the royal sprogs, Liz’ Easter bonnet and Kim Kardashian’s omnipresent arse.
      We in the southern hemisphere will welcome them for a while as Greenland meltwater turns the Gulf Stream around and the irony of frozen winters in Buckingham palace sends them scarpering our way to swelter for a while, until the Royal Yacht Britannia can return, right up the Thames, mooring handily over Hyde Park. In the meantime, indulge your children, respect and love your betters, it is all part of the cosmic joke.

  19. Alexander Kershaw Avatar
    Alexander Kershaw

    A woman has been monarch of the UK for all but 50 of the last 184 years yet it is still called a kingdom. “Queendom” is not a word in the English or any other European language that I know of. Maybe it is because when women have power they act much like men when they have power. On top of that as others have commented the monarch is not in control and hasn’t been at least since the Bank of England was established.
    Nathan Rothschild said it. “The man who controls the British money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply”

    Nathan Rothschild.

    He is also reputed to have said when Congress did not renew the charter of The First Bank of The United States in 1811 that there would be a nasty little war. Banksters have long ago learned not to tell the truth in public

  20. Annie MCSTRAVICK Avatar

    On what basis do you claim that Charles’ wife Camilla is “hideous”?

    1. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
      Carolyn L Zaremba

      Good question. If Charles doesn’t think so, everyone else should just shut up.

    2. if we consider the name to be cognate with ‘Kamala’, that’s Finnish for “hideous”

      an interlingual pun if nothing else

  21. Very interesting perspective, Caitlin. I guess we will see in due time. The monarchy will be firing up their narrative managers to counter the possible peals of laughter emanating from the peasants.

    Charles is preferable to many, based on his espoused values and emphasis on organic farming and such — but highly doubt he will “reform” the monarchy.

    I’m in Canada and it will be so funny to see a king on our money. Of course, they might take away all our paper/metal money by then. I really wish we could completely cut ties with the British monarchy and become our own country — but those white supremacy ties are just too beguiling.

  22. He’s another one who thinks there are too many people on the planet. Orf with their heads, eh?!

    1. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
      Carolyn L Zaremba

      On that subject I entirely agree with him.

      1. Let me firstly establish where you are in this debate, Carolyn. Do you favour euthanasia, forced or otherwise? Are you of the opinion we need more wars everywhere to deal with our numbers? More famines? More lives hanging in the balance for god-like supremacist banksters to disconnect digital currency lifelines with impunity? More indoctrination into ill health regimes? Forced sterilisations, and so on? Or do you, like myself, feel that the answer is to tackle the dangerous rate of population growth (currently exponential in nature) all done without recourse to the savage butchery of humans everywhere? What, pray, does Marx say?

    2. Naw, we”ll finish each other in the usual way as massive crop failures draw down food reserves (grain harvest in some states and Canadian provinces down 65% this year). As kids we used to catch ants and put them in jar. When you shake it they can’t do the usual friend or foe routine with their antennae and they get right down to butchering each other.

  23. It’s bad enough having the Queen as our Head of State, but when the obnoxious inbred Charles becomes our Head of State it’ll be 10x more embarrassing. And don’t get started on his hideous wife, Camelia. We should’ve rejected the Monarchy when had that referendum.

  24. *Corgi*. Not pug.

    Apart from that, spot on. We are about to coronate the King of the Goons (literally).

  25. As an Australian, I’m no monarchist, and much of your analysis is correct, Caitlin. But you would have made your points more powerfully and with additional validity if you had avoided the banality of undergraduate Australian criticism of the royals. Just saying.

    1. “I’m no monarchist”

      Yeah mate, no worries.

  26. Politics is all theater now anyway. King, President, Senator, Congressman- they’re all stuffed shirts. The real decisions are made elsewhere, and our “representatives” do their bidding, not ours. Elections are theatrical productions in which the proles get to choose corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B. They have about as much legitimacy as “King” Charles.

  27. The only problem with your analysis is that Prince Charles is infinitely preferable to 95% of our elected officials and 100% of government ministers. I’d choose him over Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to rule over me any day.

    1. Annie MCSTRAVICK Avatar
      Annie MCSTRAVICK

      I couldn’t agree more!

      1. Once upon a time, when I was a young man, I remember a picture in which Prince Charles was holding up Schumacher’s “Small Is Beautiful” and apparently praising it to the heavens. I haven’t kept up with the prince since that memory was made, but I’d like to think that maybe, just maybe, a spark of that fire still burns. We’ll soon find out.

        1. The British monarchy have been and continue to be a force for good. The US loves democracy because it is corruptible and easily overthrown. There is an strong argument for non-elected uncorruptable power (how do you bribe a woman who has inherited the greatest fortune in the world, with no business interests whatever?)

          1. Just keep shovelling more and more huge stacks of money her way instead of dealing with the homelessness problem, etc. Value for money, eh?

          2. Granted, debate on this post has strayed somewhat from what I presume to have been its original focus – the place of the British monarchy in Australia – but on that original point, the original assumption is correct, if cast in somewhat undergraduate terms. It is the British monarchy. There isn’t an Australian one, and neither should there be. Australia is de facto a crowned republic (Paul Kelly – the journalist, not the pop guy – coined that phrase) and remains attached to the royal apron strings by ennui and indifference, which in true Australian fashion have failed us on constitutional change. That isn’t to say we should disrespect the British monarchy, or slag off at members of the royal family on prompts from Private Eye, by the look of most of them.

  28. The only problem with your analysis is that Prince Charles is infinitely preferable to 95% of our elected officials and 100% of government ministers. I’d choose him over Boris Johnson to rule over me any day.

    1. Carolyn L Zaremba Avatar
      Carolyn L Zaremba

      Yes, but Charles has no political power. He is a figurehead like his mother. All kinds of public deference aside, the Queen does not make policy.

Leave a Reply