The Monarchy under Charles

[PetticoatLane]

By my knowledge there is no Constitution in the United Kingdom.

What an extraordinary statement. If the UK has no constitution then I'm not sure what I studied during my constitutional law classes at university.

The British constitution certainly does exist. It is made up of a range of acts of Parliament, the common law and, of particular importance in this context, conventions. It is the settled convention in the UK that the monarch does not make political statements. Another is the deferment of the royal prerogatives of the monarch to ministers.

The moment British monarchs start to make overt political statements, of the like given just the other day by the Belgian king, is the day they sign their death warrant. However important Charles may think his opinions are and however much the public may agree with his opinions (there's plenty of disagreement in the country with what he says), he's going to have to learn to keep them to himself.

 

[Jacknch]

I think what Duc was implying is that there is no written constitution setting out the role of the monarch and the limits of what they can and cannot do etc etc as there is in the Netherlands.

Charles has always been outspoken on a number of different issues, we know that and are used to it. If and how that changes once he becomes king is a different story.

The matter is often discussed in the following thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/prince-charles-being-political-11549.html

 

[PetticoatLane]

Oh, I know there's no written constitution in the UK. But that does not mean, it doesn't even come close to meaning, that it does not exist.

Duc_et_Pair seems to be suggesting that because there is no single piece of paper that states the monarch should remain apolitical and steer clear of expressing personal political opinions in public, Charles has the option legally to continue on as he does now. That couldn't be much further from the truth. The settled conventions of the British Constitution are every bit as binding as any piece of legislation.

The only reason the British monarchy, compared to the other major European monarchies, managed survive following WWI is that the monarch reigns but doesn't rule. Charles has to understand that.

 

[Mbruno]

The moment British monarchs start to make overt political statements, of the like given just the other day by the Belgian king, is the day they sign their death warrant. However important Charles may think his opinions are and however much the public may agree with his opinions (there's plenty of disagreement in the country with what he says), he's going to have to learn to keep them to himself.

That is actually the problem with so-called political statements: no matter how justified they may be, they will never have unanimous approval as politics are by nature divisive and there will always be people who disagree with one's political opinions and have an opposing view.

 

[Rudolph]

Prince Charles wants a Queen Camilla. He’s still wrong. Here’s why -From The Spectator

Prince Charles wants a Queen Camilla. He’s still wrong. Here’s why

 

[Pranter]

Interesting article.


LaRae

 

[muriel]

Prince Charles wants a Queen Camilla. He’s still wrong. Here’s why -From The Spectator

Prince Charles wants a Queen Camilla. He’s still wrong. Here’s why

Perhaps written by one who has never "sinned"

 

[AdmirerUS]

Dear Melanie McDonough: So the premise is that the qualification for the Title of Queen is to be beloved? History is laughing at the idea.
And I'd posit that adultery on the throne has been rewarded in the past, just as long as things appeared placid on the surface. We all smile when someone notes "Happy wife, happy life." But "Happy Monarch, Happy Realm," has a ring of truth as well.
Interesting read, but I don't completely agree with the logic.
In fact, I'd say the modern monarchy does very much pay attention to the "like ability" of all its members. So what?
Surely some will choke on their breakfast cereal if Camilla becomes Queen. But many, many others will not give a nit, as long as she does not overspend or overstep.

 

[muriel]

Dear Melanie McDonough: So the premise is that the qualification for the Title of Queen is to be beloved? History is laughing at the idea.
And I'd posit that adultery on the throne has been rewarded in the past, just as long as things appeared placid on the surface. We all smile when someone notes "Happy wife, happy life." But "Happy Monarch, Happy Realm," has a ring of truth as well.
Interesting read, but I don't completely agree with the logic.
In fact, I'd say the modern monarchy does very much pay attention to the "like ability" of all its members. So what?
Surely some will choke on their breakfast cereal if Camilla becomes Queen. But many, many others will not give a nit, as long as she does not overspend or overstep.

Well put.

Let's also not forget that social norms have changed quite considerably in the 20th century. On average, c40% of UK marriages end in divorce. Also, the notion that sex outside of marriage is unacceptable just belongs in a different era.

 

[Osipi]

OK. I've thought about this a bit and for me, the answer is simple. If Camilla is to considered as unfit to be Queen because of an adulterous past, it stands to reason for me that Charles, then, would not be fit to be King. It takes two to commit adultery and if both were married at the time, they are both equally guilty.

What gets me in this recent article (as with many, many others), is the portrayal of a heinous relationship that totally devastated Charles' wife. No mention of her own dalliances at all going on at the same time. Once again the quote "There were three of us in the marriage" crops up and totally puts into obscurity the fourth, fifth and I have no clue how many more there were before the divorce.

This is not a place to rehash the C&D&C triangle at all but the point I'm trying to make is that if stones are going to be thrown at one person for adultery, in an egalitarian world of the 21st century, the stones should be heaved at all adulterers and not single one one specific person.

 

[Dman]

OK. I've thought about this a bit and for me, the answer is simple. If Camilla is to considered as unfit to be Queen because of an adulterous past, it stands to reason for me that Charles, then, would not be fit to be King. It takes two to commit adultery and if both were married at the time, they are both equally guilty.

What gets me in this recent article (as with many, many others), is the portrayal of a heinous relationship that totally devastated Charles' wife. No mention of her own dalliances at all going on at the same time. Once again the quote "There were three of us in the marriage" crops up and totally puts into obscurity the fourth, fifth and I have no clue how many more there were before the divorce.

This is not a place to rehash the C&D&C triangle at all but the point I'm trying to make is that if stones are going to be thrown at one person for adultery, in an egalitarian world of the 21st century, the stones should be heaved at all adulterers and not single one one specific person.

A headache that I'm sure no one within the royal family are looking forward to once Charles becomes King.

 

[cepe]

Speaking as a Brit, I dont think the public will mind. Journos will go on the rampage because they will think its a good story but I dont think its an issue.

I do get tired of the "three people in this marriage" line because as far as I can see there was more than that.

Its sad Diana died young and without having a life partner but she wished C&C well. So should the rest of us.

 

[Osipi]

I agree with you Cepe. I think the general public (in the UK and the world) will just go "well that's that" and get on with their lives. Of course the sensationalism will ran rampant (I refuse to even call some of the media journalists) because, as you said, it'll sell.

What really remains is that by law, when Charles is crowned King, his wife will be Queen. I'm seriously hoping that they'll pull out all the stops and Camilla will be crowned alongside her husband.

 

[Dman]

Speaking as a Brit, I dont think the public will mind. Journos will go on the rampage because they will think its a good story but I dont think its an issue.

I do get tired of the "three people in this marriage" line because as far as I can see there was more than that.

Its sad Diana died young and without having a life partner but she wished C&C well. So should the rest of us.

I think it's just fine that Camilla will be Princess Consort. Queen or Consort, I think it's a huge honor. It's going to be a Palace PR nightmare though. The media will make sure of it. I think the palace officials and royal family tried to make things clear with the Princess Consort title statement, but the media feel Charles still wants different.

The Wales couple made a mess of things back in the day. Thank God it's all over. Sadly, she's no longer with us.

 

[Osipi]

I think it's just fine that Camilla will be Princess Consort. Queen or Consort, I think it's a huge honor. It's going to be a Palace PR nightmare though. The media will make sure of it. I think the palace officials and royal family tried to make things clear with the Princess Consort title statement, but the media feel Charles still wants different.

The Wales couple made a mess of things back in the day. Thank God it's all over. Sadly, she's no longer with us.

Y'know, I don't think it matters all that much to Camilla what she will be known as when Charles becomes King. Just as long as she remains his Gladys to her Fred.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The people who will care will be the very vocal Diana fanatics who will boo and hiss and make a huge noise even though they are increasingly in a minority now - due to the passing of the years.

 

[Dman]

The people who will care will be the very vocal Diana fanatics who will boo and hiss and make a huge noise even though they are increasingly in a minority now - due to the passing of the years.

Won't be just Diana's fans (although many of them have calmed down with the passing of the years) the British media will go into a tailspin over the title issue. Not to mention the media here in America and down under.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really doubt that the media 'down under' will say anything at all other than we should be a republic.

The media in Britain feeds the Diana fanatics as does the media in the US. As we have seen recently however the media don't reflect the views of the majority of the populations in many countries given how wrong they have been on elections etc.

 

[Skippyboo]

I think what is being forgotten is the issue of Camilla's title will be resolved very early on. The media will be too focused with the Queen's death and novelty of a new monarch after so many years to become outraged at Queen Camilla.

If William the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge gets on tv to reflect on the late Queen and then mentions fully supporting our new King and Queen, it almost will put the issue to rest. You have Diana's own son backing his father and Camilla.

 

[Dman]

I really doubt that the media 'down under' will say anything at all other than we should be a republic.

The media in Britain feeds the Diana fanatics as does the media in the US. As we have seen recently however the media don't reflect the views of the majority of the populations in many countries given how wrong they have been on elections etc.

The thing is- I thought the Palace pretty much solved the issue with the Princess Consort title statement- the media think the Statement was only issued to calm people down over the issue and a PR move to give people time to get it used to Camilla as a future Queen.

This isnt about the so called "Diana Fanatics" but real issues that's just have a bandage over it. Some feeling have mellowed with time and the PR game have worked for many though.

 

[ladongas]

So Charles' statement didn't really mean anything?

 

[Pranter]

I would be rather surprised if she was titled (as in called/referred to) Queen ...I really don't think she wants that anyway.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

The only somewhat verifiable quotes have come from Charles and Camilla. Over time, both of them have been asked if Camilla will be Queen. The remark in return was usually a "we'll have to wait and see" or something along those lines. That tells me its still up in the air.

The original statement released had the words "it is intended" within it. I intend to never set foot in New York but that could change as my life changes.
There's no definite to the "Princess Consort" title as of yet.

 

[MARG]

Perhaps written by one who has never "sinned"

Without a doubt. I am sure she is already a candidate for sainthood.

OK. I've thought about this a bit and for me, the answer is simple. If Camilla is to considered as unfit to be Queen because of an adulterous past, it stands to reason for me that Charles, then, would not be fit to be King. It takes two to commit adultery and if both were married at the time, they are both equally guilty.

What gets me in this recent article (as with many, many others), is the portrayal of a heinous relationship that totally devastated Charles' wife. No mention of her own dalliances at all going on at the same time. Once again the quote "There were three of us in the marriage" crops up and totally puts into obscurity the fourth, fifth and I have no clue how many more there were before the divorce.

This is not a place to rehash the C&D&C triangle at all but the point I'm trying to make is that if stones are going to be thrown at one person for adultery, in an egalitarian world of the 21st century, the stones should be heaved at all adulterers and not single one one specific person.

Strictly speaking, that should also apply to both William and Catherine as shacking up was also considered sexual sin, which actually is what it was all about, being seen to live examplary lives. Living their life as an example to the lesser beings.

I agree with you Cepe. I think the general public (in the UK and the world) will just go "well that's that" and get on with their lives. Of course the sensationalism will ran rampant (I refuse to even call some of the media journalists) because, as you said, it'll sell.

What really remains is that by law, when Charles is crowned King, his wife will be Queen. I'm seriously hoping that they'll pull out all the stops and Camilla will be crowned alongside her husband.

Won't be just Diana's fans (although many of them have calmed down with the passing of the years) the British media will go into a tailspin over the title issue. Not to mention the media here in America and down under.

As much as we may speculate as to the loathesome behavior of some baser media outlets, everyone is going to be focused on both mourning the death of the Queen and the end of an era. Charles will be king immediately and everyone will be focusing on the funeral itself. It's going to be quite some time before everyone is ready for the ancient blame game if at all.

As for the vindictive woman talking about "rewarding adultery", she needs to drag her mind out of the gutter and into the reality of this, the 21st century where adultery is not considered treason and the crown is not a "gift". As to the fans, they will be drowned out by the grief the nation a and a commonwealth in mourning, at which time nobody will want to wallow in spite but rather celebrate her HM QEII life.

 

[cepe]

I was in the process of writing a balanced post and then binned it because
A) I knew I would get tons of flack, and
B) the thread might be closed.

I think the focus for all of us should be Diana's words re hoping that C&C should marry and be happy.

Can we not just stick with that. Camilla took on royal life (not something she craved) late in life and has been exemplary in her work. She has tackled some v difficult topics such as domestic abuse and FGM. By some accounts she was terrified in the early days but this woman has backbone and has continued to represent the Crown in a positive way. what more would anyone want?

 

[ladongas]

Couldn't HM settle this by making a statement that she hoped her beloved DIL would be beside her dear son as Queen consort when the time comes?

 

[Dman]

The only somewhat verifiable quotes have come from Charles and Camilla. Over time, both of them have been asked if Camilla will be Queen. The remark in return was usually a "we'll have to wait and see" or something along those lines. That tells me its still up in the air.

The original statement released had the words "it is intended" within it. I intend to never set foot in New York but that could change as my life changes.
There's no definite to the "Princess Consort" title as of yet.

Right, it's why the media still beat this issue over the head over and over again. The issue isn't solved and the statements was just a PR spin to cool things down during the wedding year and to give people time to get used to Camilla as his future Queen Consort. In many ways it worked, but the issue will be a nightmare when the time comes.

Of course, the media and world will be busy mourning the passing of The Queen in the first weeks and a few months. It will all wear off though and the real issues will be debated leading up the Coronation Day.

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

The thing is- I thought the Palace pretty much solved the issue with the Princess Consort title statement- the media think the Statement was only issued to calm people down over the issue and a PR move to give people time to get it used to Camilla as a future Queen.

This isnt about the so called "Diana Fanatics" but real issues that's just have a bandage over it. Some feeling have mellowed with time and the PR game have worked for many though.

The question is, was Charles sincere when he said Camilla will be Princess Consort, or was he lying in order to get the marriage through with a minimum of fuss, planning that afterwards he would just change it t Queen.

Couldn't HM settle this by making a statement that she hoped her beloved DIL would be beside her dear son as Queen consort when the time comes?

What makes you think she would want to do that? She stonewalled the C+C relationship/marriage for decades.

 

[ladongas]

The question is, was Charles sincere when he said Camilla will be Princess Consort, or was he lying in order to get the marriage through with a minimum of fuss, planning that afterwards he would just change it t Queen.

This.

What makes you think she would want to do that? She stonewalled the C+C relationship/marriage for decades.

Of course. But her stamp of approval would mean a lot to those who don't wish the DoC to be Queen. So why doesn't Charles ask her to do it? Maybe he has, and she's said no. (That's my guess.)

 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

That would be my guess too. His late Grandmother made QE swear that she would never allow the marriage. It was not until after he death that the wedding became remotely possible.