King Charles III. Nope. Sorry, it just doesn’t work. We don’t have a king, we have THE Queen. If he’s going to replace her, he’s got to be Queen Charles.

I’m not having a dig at his possible gender confusion or his preference for wearing skirts. It’s just the meaning of the title. King is a medieval concept. Kings were warlords. In our feudal past, no matter how they dressed it up with religious anointing and talk of justice and law-making, a king was just the strongest thug with the biggest army, who could butcher anyone who opposed his right to grab the land.

Queens were wives (breeding machines) for kings, and couldn’t possibly rule in their own right, because they were never going to be the biggest thugs. But then we emerged into a slightly more rational state where intelligence and diplomacy began to overtake thuggery as requirements in…