Alright folks, let’s talk about our monarchy and who should take the throne after Queen Elizabeth II. Apparently, there’s this genetic lottery system called the minute swaps and it’s meant to determine who will rule the country next. So, why should it be this King Charles when we have so many other hilarious options to choose from?

First up, we have Charles III AKA Professor X, leader of the X-Men, and a telepath. Sure, he seems powerful and grave, but let’s not forget that the British king’s job is to protect us from overreaching politicians and uphold democracy. We don’t need a telepathic king who will put us on a fast road to tyranny. Next!

How about Charlize Theron as our next monarch? She’s a gifted actor and drop-dead gorgeous, but let’s be real here, the tabloids would have a field day with her. They would turn on her faster than you can say “recycling” once they realize she’s a human being, just like Meghan Markle. Charlize III is too good for that.

Moving on to Charlie Bucket, the protagonist from Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” Now, we’re talking! Charlie proved himself to be a worthy heir to Willy Wonka’s confectionery by being humble, which is basically the ideal of Christian kingship. I’m not crying, you’re crying!

Or, hear me out, we could just have a waxwork of King Charles III at Madame Tussauds. It’s a win-win situation – people can touch him without him getting grossed out and it’s easy to clean. Plus, more people would get to meet him than the real king would ever meet during his entire reign. Talk about value for taxpayers!

Now, what about Charlemagne III, our very own French king? We’ve had French kings before, so why not bring that back? But let’s be real, warrior kings who fought Saxons and scared people are a little outdated now and could be accused of toxic masculinity. Also, spoiler alert – he’s dead.

Let’s not forget about Charlie Sheen, who already comes from a famous dynasty. He’s handsome, sure, but he’s also a bit too combustible to be a good monarch. However, the tabloids would have a blast under his rule.

Last but not least, we have King Charles (Dickens) III. As much as we love his work, novelists would make terrible monarchs. They’re too emotionally porous, and King Charles (Dickens) III wouldn’t be able to handle the homelessness, child poverty, and the lack of affordable housing. He’d probably end up writing a best-selling novella calling for his own abolishment.

At the end of the day, the monarchy serves the same purpose as a sacred grouping of standing stones. And if we’re being honest, a Charleshenge would be our best bet. It’s honest, it’s a bit boring, but it’s functional. And in a circular way, it’s historical.

Serious News: nytimes