Prince William's Suitability to be King

[Princess Peach]

When I think of the question "suitable to be king" the first thing that would come to mind is the morals and ethics of the person. Has he engaged in criminal or reckless conduct? No. Has he engaged in antisocial behavior such as bullying others or making fun of others? No. Has he displayed any conduct exhibiting egocentricity or arrogance? No.

He seems like a genuinely nice person, has a genuinely nice wife who is not too full of herself to wear off the rack clothing and do her own hair and makeup. They sound like nice, well rounded people. They are very young, they will evolve into their roles gracefully. I think they'll do s superb job when the time comes.

 

[cdngirl]

I haven’t read this whole thread, but here are my thoughts. I think way in the future William will be ready to be King. That boy however has a lot to learn till then. He is by no stretch of the imagination ready now. I have to roll my eyes when I see others say they want to bypass Charles and have William be King.

William, right now in my humble opinion finds the prospect of being King rather daunting (and probably rightly so). I have my reservations about William. I’m hoping he learns and learns well from his Father and his Grandmother.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

William, right now in my humble opinion finds the prospect of being King rather daunting (and probably rightly so). I have my reservations about William. I’m hoping he learns and learns well from his Father and his Grandmother.

I think anyone would find the prospect of coming King/Queen daunting, especially of the UK which attracts the most media attention, but I don't think there is anyone better for him to learn from than the Queen. All indications are that he still has enough time to ease into royal life more and more and have a family, so I see no reason to be alarmed. If there is anyone who will be ready to be a king in history it will probably be William.

From what we see of him in the media I think he certainly has the level-headedness, common sense and decency about him to manage the pressures of his future role appropriately and follow in the grand tradition set by his grandmother and be very successful at it.

 

[Tyger]

I think anyone would find the prospect of coming King/Queen daunting, especially of the UK which attracts the most media attention, but I don't think there is anyone better for him to learn from than the Queen. All indications are that he still has enough time to ease into royal life more and more and have a family, so I see no reason to be alarmed. If there is anyone who will be ready to a king in history it will probably be William.

His teacher will be his father, I think - and when it comes to anyone 'in history' ready to be king, it will be Charles. How can you see in William a man in any way as accomplished as his father? William has a very long way to travel before he is even close to being ready in the way Charles is ready to be king.

From what we see of him in the media I think he certainly has the level-headedness, common sense and decency about him to manage the pressures of his future role appropriately and follow in the grand tradition set by his grandmother and be very successful at it.

Interesting, because from everything I am seeing he is very far from ready to manage pressures of any kind, it seems - least of all being King, since he barely handles the pressures of being the heir to the heir. Hopefully, maybe in a couple of decades under the tutelage of his father, he will be ready but not yet.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Interesting, because from everything I am seeing he is very far from ready to manage pressures of any kind, it seems - least of all being King, since he barely handles the pressures of being the heir to the heir. Hopefully, maybe in a couple of decades under the tutelage of his father, he will be ready but not yet.

I haven't seen anything that say he is unable to manage pressures of being heir to the heir. From what I can see he is acquitting himself well on royal duties both within the UK and the Commonwealth and balances a career in the RAF with living a (relatively) normal life with his wife. He has been scandal-free if memory serves me correct and I can't see why he won't grow more into his role over time as I said in my previous post. I'm not saying he is "as accomplished" as his father but he is still young and I am sure he will rectify that over time. He still has quite a length of time before he has to step up and I think that he will have the benefits of the lessons learnt from his father's actions and those of the monarchy in general. As such I stand by my comment that when his time does come, William will be one of the most prepared kings.

 

[Zonk]

His teacher will be his father, I think - and when it comes to anyone 'in history' ready to be king, it will be Charles. How can you see in William a man in any way as accomplished as his father? William has a very long way to travel before he is even close to being ready in the way Charles is ready to be king.




Interesting, because from everything I am seeing he is very far from ready to manage pressures of any kind, it seems - least of all being King, since he barely handles the pressures of being the heir to the heir. Hopefully, maybe in a couple of decades under the tutelage of his father, he will be ready but not yet.

I would be very interested in what constitutes William being to barely handle the pressures of being the heir to the heir? From what I can see, being King and/or Queen is a daunting task. As Charles said years ago, you don't go Yippee I am going to be King (I am paraphrasing here). Before you even take your first step, your life is essentially planned out for you.

So what should he be doing?

The last heir to the heir in British Royal Family history was (and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong) was George, Duke of York. Until Victoria died in 1901, he was considered the heir to the heir (his father being Prince of Wales and than Edward VII). At that time he was married to May of Teck, his main activities at the time were the Royal Navy, marriage and family and doing some royal engagements. But he certainly didn't step up as heir until he became the heir. So in that respect, William is doing the same as his many times great grandfather.

Really at the present time, William is doing fairly well IMO. Its the modern age so everything (smile, tic, engagement, job, etc.) is analyzed by everyone and their mother. He is not like the royal men his age (Frederik, Haakon, Felipe, etc.) because he isn't their heir yet.

Both his father and grandmother realize that he has a lifetime of royal duties ahead and they appear to have confidence in him. And honestly, studying under someone is fine but at the end of the day you only have yourself, hopefully common sense, strong support system and decent Prime Ministers. George VI didn't have any "training" and he did fine.

 

[cepe]

My initial thought on joining this thread was "what makes a good/bad king?"

George V was not that well known when he became King - not an outstanding intellect; a quiet country gentleman is probably the best description. Short time a heir but a very long time as heir to the heir. But he showed leadership in terms of enabling the coalition government for WWI; positioning the Royal family as British (change of name); and making them more accessible to the public in order to show the purpose of the monarchy. Supporting organisations, visiting hospitals, businesses, schools and other events really began with George V.

I'm not going into Edward VIII except to say that as heir he did not show discretion - and that wasn't about Mrs Simpson but about making political statements when he was Prince of Wales which is against the rules of a constitutional monarchy. Lack of discretion and poor judgement. A bad king.

No one had any expectation of George VI who hadn't trained for Kingship at all but he showed great leadership during the WWII - this defines his reign.

QEII has discretion and longevity and the latter will define her reign. Possibly also her development and support of the Commonwealth.

Prince Charles was asked to leave the services by the Queen when he was about 25 - far too early IMO - to support her. As he said - no job description so he developed the role himself. He is a man of so many talents including musician, artist, linguist, polo player, pilot, environmentalist - the list is v long indeed. He is funny, a great speaker and a loving husband and father. He knows and understands the requirements of the monarchy and uses the flexibility he currently has (and its not much) to promote his causes. He is, for someone with his privileged background, incredibly inclusive and this will be key to his time as King. I think he is more than ready and I'm very positive about the prospect.

William is very young - in years and experience. I don't think that he has wide areas of interest (rather like the Queen) but he has time to develop. The cult of youth promotes the "William as king" argument but William doesn't want to be king yet. I think perhaps his seeming reluctance for the role is because he knows he's not ready. So I'd be very concerned if he was thrust (for whatever reason) into the job now as I think he would struggle. But he'd give it his best shot. What they all have in common (except Edward vIII) is the determination to do their duty.

 

[LauraS3514]

My initial thought on joining this thread was "what makes a good/bad king?"

George V was not that well known when he became King - not an outstanding intellect; a quiet country gentleman is probably the best description. Short time a heir but a very long time as heir to the heir. But he showed leadership in terms of enabling the coalition government for WWI; positioning the Royal family as British (change of name); and making them more accessible to the public in order to show the purpose of the monarchy. Supporting organisations, visiting hospitals, businesses, schools and other events really began with George V.

The future George V didn't become heir to the heir until his elder brother Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale ("Prince Eddy") died in January 1892. He was 26, relatively unknown, and had planned a quiet life in the Navy; it was then he became "a quiet country gentleman." He became the heir in January 1901, 11 years later, and then succeeded his father after 9-1/2 years, in May 1910. So, he had 20 years "prep time" for the fast evolving role of monarch and managed to keep his throne when so many of his relatives did not.

 

[LauraS3514]

I hit submit too soon (I had to run and get cookies out of the oven) so what I forgot to include was that both Charles and William have known their whole lives that they would be King one day; The Queen since she was ten. George VI had what, two weeks tops? I would suggest that it's not so much the time spent in preparation but the character of the person that's most important.

 

[Frelinghighness]

I hit submit too soon (I had to run and get cookies out of the oven) so what I forgot to include was that both Charles and William have known their whole lives that they would be King one day; The Queen since she was ten. George VI had what, two weeks tops? I would suggest that it's not so much the time spent in preparation but the character of the person that's most important.

From what I have read, King George V and others were very worried about Edward, and when he did become King, the crisis and real possibilty that the DoY would be King went on for much more than 2 weeks. However, it was of course, a shock because it just didn't seem possible that there woould be an abdication.

 

[Mariel]

Hi, I see no one has submitted to this thread in over a year, but I'm working my way around the forum to see what is here. I believe one royal heir you missed as very qualified is Guillome of Luxembourg. He qualifies on all the criteria you set up. He has an extensive economic education, as does his father and his brother Max, and I think his two other siblings are working on that now. He has represented the Grand Duchy many times. He has to speak fluent French, German, English, and Luxembourgish. His fiancee is a linguist, not only speaking French and German, but having studied in Russia, and she has worked in an investment firm. His mother is Cuban so maybe he speaks Spanish too. The Luxembourg policy is to get the heirs working early so they can take over in middle age (at least that has been the way it has gone for several generations).
One thing I'd add about William's (and Catherine's) education is this: they specialized in arts, and one of these was music. Their choice of the main music for the wedding included an amazing motet (right word?) from a composer they know in Wales--so wonderful, humble, and God honoring that I thought they must be interested in the church wedding as well as in the parties and clothing. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, who sometimes says things at variance with the usual creed of the Church of England, managed to keep his peace during this ceremony, which was a religious ceremony, to repeat, and had extraordinary music. The music was especially appropriate for today, when the world totters on the brink of economic ruin, possible WW III, and natural disasters from the earth and the sun.
Just being able to pick that music, especially the motet, showed a side of William which we have not seen before.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Kate's degree is in History of Arts and William changed to Geography after the first year.

Charles chose the music for the wedding - they asked him to do so as he has a greater appreciation of this sort of music than either of them.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

The last heir to the heir in British Royal Family history was (and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong) was George, Duke of York. Until Victoria died in 1901, he was considered the heir to the heir (his father being Prince of Wales and than Edward VII). At that time he was married to May of Teck, his main activities at the time were the Royal Navy, marriage and family and doing some royal engagements. But he certainly didn't step up as heir until he became the heir. So in that respect, William is doing the same as his many times great grandfather.

Really at the present time, William is doing fairly well IMO. Its the modern age so everything (smile, tic, engagement, job, etc.) is analyzed by everyone and their mother.

George V turned out to be a very good king, so William following this template seems promising. I agree and think he is doing splendidly, I haven't seen anything or heard anyone to suggest otherwise.

 

[scooter]

I haven’t read this whole thread, but here are my thoughts. I think way in the future William will be ready to be King. That boy however has a lot to learn till then. He is by no stretch of the imagination ready now. I have to roll my eyes when I see others say they want to bypass Charles and have William be King.

William, right now in my humble opinion finds the prospect of being King rather daunting (and probably rightly so). I have my reservations about William. I’m hoping he learns and learns well from his Father and his Grandmother.[/Q]

When Princess Elizabeth inherited at 25, she had a very poor education, compared to her grandson. Yet she has managed to be an exemplary monarch. She has been a moral and intelligent sovereign. Age, in many ways, has less to do with it than a compass of right and wrong, and a feeling for her subjects. She also, for someone raised 'in the bubble' seems much more in touch than her immediate heir. In the recent Newsweek (hardly a tabloid) Diamond Jubilee commemorative issue " It is this same public opinion that is likely to judge harshly the extravagant habits - the large entourages, the saville row suits, the private harpist - of Prince Charles in particular. He and his wife remain stubbornly unpopular, with just 31% of Britons happy to envision King Charles on the throne (according to a recent poll of more than 2,000 British subjects)". Charles' son and daughter in law are much more down to earth. When, after all, have you seen photographs of C or C shopping at the market? Hence some of the reasons that many think it would be better for the monarchy to not have Charles. Certainly William and Kate's white hot popularity at this time would usher in a love fest at their coronation. Something that is not likely to occur (given the poll numbers) with Charles and Camilla.

 

[muriel]

I haven’t read this whole thread, but here are my thoughts. I think way in the future William will be ready to be King. That boy however has a lot to learn till then. He is by no stretch of the imagination ready now. I have to roll my eyes when I see others say they want to bypass Charles and have William be King.

William, right now in my humble opinion finds the prospect of being King rather daunting (and probably rightly so). I have my reservations about William. I’m hoping he learns and learns well from his Father and his Grandmother.[/Q]

When Princess Elizabeth inherited at 25, she had a very poor education, compared to her grandson. Yet she has managed to be an exemplary monarch. She has been a moral and intelligent sovereign. Age, in many ways, has less to do with it than a compass of right and wrong, and a feeling for her subjects. She also, for someone raised 'in the bubble' seems much more in touch than her immediate heir. In the recent Newsweek (hardly a tabloid) Diamond Jubilee commemorative issue " It is this same public opinion that is likely to judge harshly the extravagant habits - the large entourages, the saville row suits, the private harpist - of Prince Charles in particular. He and his wife remain stubbornly unpopular, with just 31% of Britons happy to envision King Charles on the throne (according to a recent poll of more than 2,000 British subjects)". Charles' son and daughter in law are much more down to earth. When, after all, have you seen photographs of C or C shopping at the market? Hence some of the reasons that many think it would be better for the monarchy to not have Charles. Certainly William and Kate's white hot popularity at this time would usher in a love fest at their coronation. Something that is not likely to occur (given the poll numbers) with Charles and Camilla.

A few thoughts:

1) Thank God we do not choose our monarchs by opinion poll!

2) Methinks it has been suggested that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[Erin9]

I hit submit too soon (I had to run and get cookies out of the oven) so what I forgot to include was that both Charles and William have known their whole lives that they would be King one day; The Queen since she was ten. George VI had what, two weeks tops? I would suggest that it's not so much the time spent in preparation but the character of the person that's most important.

IA. Plus, even though the Queen knew she'd be Queen from the age of 10 onward, she was still a very young queen. No one expected her to ascend at 25. It was expected she'd have a longer private life and a much longer time to prepare. IIRC though George VI was preparing her because he didn't want her to come in totally unprepared the way he was.

George VI is really remarkable. He wasn't supposed to be King at all. He became King under dreadful circumstances--and did an amazing job. He rose to the occassion, as did the Queen.

 

[Kataryn]

[ When, after all, have you seen photographs of C or C shopping at the market? Hence some of the reasons that many think it would be better for the monarchy to not have Charles. Certainly William and Kate's white hot popularity at this time would usher in a love fest at their coronation. Something that is not likely to occur (given the poll numbers) with Charles and Camilla.

When the coronation takes place, Charles and Camilla will have been on the throne for around one year (the coronation takes place only after the year of mourning for the late monarch is over). Enough time for the British public to get used to them.

As for the shopping: when did you see William shopping at the local Tesco? While Camilla has been seen often enough entering shops, even charity shop Oxfam, in private and on her own to shop for gifts and personal items. On Royal appointments, you can see that both Charles and Camilla absolutely enjoy encountering new products, so if their life was different, of course they would go shopping for themselves.

 

[Lumutqueen]

As for the shopping: when did you see William shopping at the local Tesco?

I think it was before the wedding, after the engagement in Wales. William was caught on camera at the counter not being able to pay so Catherine had to.

 

[Zonk]

Please note that several posts have been deleted as off topic and speculative.

 

[Dman]

You know, I hope I will be around to witness the Coronation of King William & Queen Catherine. I think their Coronation would be awsome.

 

[Daria_S]

You know, I hope I will be around to witness the Coronation of King William & Queen Catherine. I think their Coronation would be awsome.

You and me both. However, I'm more excited and interested to see what they'll do/accomplish as King and Queen Consort. They certainly have a lot of potential and are loved by their future subjects. I believe that when given the chance, they would be unstoppable.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

You know, I hope I will be around to witness the Coronation of King William & Queen Catherine. I think their Coronation would be awsome.

Agreed and William will make a great king and Catherine a supportive consort. May God watch over them and protect them.

 

[Dman]

I agree. I try not to think about it too much because that would mean William and everybody else will lose The Queen & Prince of Wales but I just hope I'm around to see that great day and what the future have in store for King William & Queen Catherine.

 

[Meraude]

You know, I hope I will be around to witness the Coronation of King William & Queen Catherine. I think their Coronation would be awsome.

I have to say that I have my doubts that neither Charles, nor William will chose to have a coronation, the world have changed a lot since 1953 and depending on the world economy the next decade(s) I'm not sure that the expenses for a coronation will be welcomed by the people of the U.K.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I have to say that I have my doubts that neither Charles, nor William will chose to have a coronation, the world have changed a lot since 1953 and depending on the world economy the next decade(s) I'm not sure that the expenses for a coronation will be welcomed by the people of the U.K.

My goodness we are a monarchy and not a republic. Of course there will be a coronation. Around 80 percent of the country support the monarchy. The coronation will be bigger than last years royal wedding.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Continental monarchies may do things low key but as long as Britain and its realms have the House of Windsor, we will have a grand coronation. The lefties can moan and whine all they like, doesn't change a thing.

 

[Queen Camilla]

William is not ready.

Being monarch is more than just meeting and greeting people.

There are the red boxes and meeting with his/her ministers.

Charles has been assisting the queen since the 1970's. He has been writing to government ministers for several years. He is aware of government policies/directions.

William is very far removed from the running of the government.

Being popular doesn't mean he is ready.

The Queen receives the red boxes daily except Christmas and Easter. Does anyone really think William is ready for this?

William is still uncomfortable giving speeches.

He needs to increase his royal duties, quit his search & rescue job and began assisting his father assist his grandmother with the behind the scene work of being a monarch not just the pageantry aspect of being royal.

Until then it is very premature to even think of a King William much less a coronation.

 

[Lumutqueen]

William is not ready.

Being monarch is more than just meeting and greeting people.

There are the red boxes and meeting with his/her ministers.

Charles has been assisting the queen since the 1970's. He has been writing to government ministers for several years. He is aware of government policies/directions.

William is very far removed from the running of the government.

Being popular doesn't mean he is ready.

The Queen receives the red boxes daily except Christmas and Easter. Does anyone really think William is ready for this?

William is still uncomfortable giving speeches.

He needs to increase his royal duties, quit his search & rescue job and began assisting his father assist his grandmother with the behind the scene work of being a monarch not just the pageantry aspect of being royal.

Until then it is very premature to even think of a King William much less a coronation.

Well he's not going to be King tomorrow unless something drastic happens, so he'll learn everything you pointed out during his father's reign and then he'll be an 'able' King.

The Queen hasn't seen fit to tell William everything you have, so if she's happy to allow him to live a normal life for as long as possible, I'll accept that.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

William is not ready.

Being monarch is more than just meeting and greeting people.

William is very far removed from the running of the government.
.

Well Queen Camilla, HM doesn't run the government either, far from it.
Meeting and greeting the public IS a large part of being a 21st century constitutional monarch. As HM has said "I have to be seen to be believed"

William is an intelligent man that I'm sure when the time comes, will be capable of reading his red boxes and having his weekly chit chat with the PM

A monarch is to be informed on government policy but that's it. Publicly the Queen has to be politically neutral.

Charles' reign will be drastically different in many ways from HM's.
William's reign different from his father's but the one thing any monarch needs is the love and support of his or her subjects and all indications are at this stage, William has that love and support and will be a very popular and thus successful king.

 

[Osipi]

Charles' reign will be drastically different in many ways from HM's. William's reign different from his father's but the one thing any monarch needs is the love and support of his or her subjects and all indications are at this stage, William has that love and support and will be a very popular and thus successful king.

One of the major differences I think we're going to see starting with the reign of Charles is that the monarchy will seem to be more and more focused on the humanitarian. While the monarchy has always had strong ties with the military, we're seeing more and more programs coming out to aid those that have served such as with Harry and Walking with the Wounded. With the Prince's Trust, many are finding their way to a healthy, sustainable life and the charities of the Cambridges deal with people of the nation that 100 years ago were practically never talked about... the downtrodden, the homeless, the addicted. I'm not saying that the present reign doesn't do any of these things but I think it will become more pronounced and the monarchy will give real meaning to serving the people. In a way I think this will be a reflection of Diana's legacy as William and Catherine may be seen as "The People's King and Queen". The days of the mystique of the royal family will be left behind. 'Ich Dien" is not a motto that Charles takes lightly.

As far as the red boxes and government dealings with William, I think he must have had some kind of training in this so far if for some reason he may be called on to act as Councillor of State. As been stated, Charles has been assisting the Queen since the 1970s so he is well prepared to mentor his son in this aspect too during his reign.

I do think however that both Charles and William will definitely have a coronation with all the pomp and circumstance and traditions in full glory. Its so much part of the identity of the UK and for many of us even worldwide, the Crown is something we've rarely seen. Like royal weddings, it gives the people a sense of unity and something to celebrate. To not have a coronation would be like having a holiday dinner without the main course.