The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 03-23-2014, 10:54 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
Current polls seem to actually support Charles being king next, not William.

Regardless, the succession is determined by the Succession Act and not any popularity contest.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 03-23-2014, 10:56 PM
Cris M's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
IMHO with the recent threat of his interfering letters about to come out, He may not have that...just as well. A young heir and beautiful fertile wife the people are behind is what the BRF needs, not Charles who is married to a woman that poll after poll does not want as Queen. This board has a determined Queen Camilla faction which is not supported by the numbers on the polls of the actual subjects.
So, lets ignore a thousand years of laws and tradition in order to appease a bunch of people who can't get over the death a woman they never knew?

And this board also has a very determined and generally nasty anti-Camilla faction.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 03-23-2014, 11:48 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
IMHO with the recent threat of his interfering letters about to come out, He may not have that...just as well. A young heir and beautiful fertile wife the people are behind is what the BRF needs, not Charles who is married to a woman that poll after poll does not want as Queen. This board has a determined Queen Camilla faction which is not supported by the numbers on the polls of the actual subjects.

Not wanting Camilla to be titled as 'HM The Queen Consort' or 'HM Queen Camilla' is one thing but the polls also clearly show a preference for Charles to be King Charles rather than skip a generation for William.

These are two different things.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 03-24-2014, 01:16 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,159
I would really have to go back and check the article talking about the letters that started this uproar in the first place. IIRC, they were specific letters during a specific time period and dealt with communications pertaining to Charles' charity foundations or such. I don't recall them being named as being interfering letters to ministers on party political or government issues.

Regardless of his letters being made public or not, Charles is the heir to the throne and unless the Act of Succession is changed, he will be King. It just might not look good if some of his political views are revealed.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:31 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,320
And all of this sound and fury has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 03-24-2014, 02:46 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
And all of this sound and fury has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name!
You're absolutely right. I think it kind of got hijacked when it was surmised that Charles may possibly never have the opportunity to choose a regnal name.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 03-26-2014, 06:48 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Ardmore, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ontario Royalist View Post
My long-shot guess would be Louis I.
u think that Prince Charles will reign as "Louis the first", when... infact "Louis" isn't even one of his given names?? i have a better name for him, if he becomes king. King Arthur, of Camelot. U know the story: Sward in the Stone? Yes, that King Arthur... Round Table... Lancelot... u know where i'm going.

if i where Prince Charles... i'd go with eather King Charles III, or King Arthur I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 03-26-2014, 06:51 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,373
He can't be "of Camelot" as Camelot isn't one of his realms.

If I was him, I wouldn't want to be King Arthur because of the huge bar that sets. Even George sets a high bar.

As Charles he can continue on with who he's been for the last 60+ years though....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 03-26-2014, 09:42 PM
Ontario Royalist's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 24
Not at all. I referred to it as a "long-shot guess". But if he choses Louis or some other name not used before, I would understand why he would do so. He will have a relatively short reign, and therefore it would be a gentle way of beginning his reign with a mark of distinction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimmers Girl 1983 View Post
u think that Prince Charles will reign as "Louis the first", when... infact "Louis" isn't even one of his given names?? i have a better name for him, if he becomes king. King Arthur, of Camelot. U know the story: Sward in the Stone? Yes, that King Arthur... Round Table... Lancelot... u know where i'm going.

if i where Prince Charles... i'd go with eather King Charles III, or King Arthur I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 03-26-2014, 10:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 442
Charles will probably come to the throne in his 70:s and he has been called Charles during his whole life so i don't think he wants to be called something else.
But King Arthur I would be cool.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 03-29-2014, 07:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I would really have to go back and check the article talking about the letters that started this uproar in the first place. IIRC, they were specific letters during a specific time period and dealt with communications pertaining to Charles' charity foundations or such. I don't recall them being named as being interfering letters to ministers on party political or government issues.

Regardless of his letters being made public or not, Charles is the heir to the throne and unless the Act of Succession is changed, he will be King. It just might not look good if some of his political views are revealed.
It is the letters to government ministers which are at issue which the court just ruled will be made public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 04-02-2014, 06:57 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Ardmore, United States
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
He can't be "of Camelot" as Camelot isn't one of his realms.

As Charles he can continue on with who he's been for the last 60+ years though....

Ish - -

i know.... i was just giving an example. :O)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 04-02-2014, 08:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 998
Well, if he wanted to establish a bond of continuity with a widely-respected and loved monarch, he could reign as King Elizabeth I.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 04-02-2014, 09:19 PM
MarcosFenn's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Pickering, Canada
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Current polls seem to actually support Charles being king next, not William.

Regardless, the succession is determined by the Succession Act and not any popularity contest.
It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.

In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 04-02-2014, 09:27 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcosFenn View Post
It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.

In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.

And the reasons for that decision were simple:

It was believed that it would be too controversial a decision that could see a lot of unrest in the country.

It was also decided that it wasn't for the parliament to overturn a legitimate heir from assuming their rightful place.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 04-02-2014, 09:31 PM
MarcosFenn's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Pickering, Canada
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
And the reasons for that decision were simple:

It was believed that it would be too controversial a decision that could see a lot of unrest in the country.

It was also decided that it wasn't for the parliament to overturn a legitimate heir from assuming their rightful place.
In the end, it's Parliament that decides who is the legitimate heir, taking into account all circumstances. This is the lesson of the English Civil War, when Charles I thought he could rule without Parliament, whereas he could not.

Talk of preserving the blood royal is all very attractive, maybe, but the admixture of the consent of Parliament is essential to the existence of The King-in-Parliament.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 04-02-2014, 10:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcosFenn View Post
In the end, it's Parliament that decides who is the legitimate heir, taking into account all circumstances. This is the lesson of the English Civil War, when Charles I thought he could rule without Parliament, whereas he could not.

Talk of preserving the blood royal is all very attractive, maybe, but the admixture of the consent of Parliament is essential to the existence of The King-in-Parliament.
The situation we have today is a result of Charles I's actions. When he ruled without parliament - successfully - for many years he was within his rights.

Cromwell also ruled without parliament for a number of years but things changed with the situation that arose in 1688/89 with the Glorious Revolution when Parliament became supreme and decided that there also needed to be a religious qualification in order for a person to be in the line of succession.

Since the passing of the Act of Settlement there hasn't been any legislation that has changed that situation until 2013 and all that will do, when it comes into effect, is allow the first born child to inherit and for them to marry a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of succession.

Parliament has made it clear through their conversations with various monarchs, decisions that have been announced etc made it clear that the line of succession is the one that will be used to determine who is the next monarch and that there is no way they will interfere, unless asked to allow a monarch out of the position - as happened with the abdication - or if the person concerned had committed such a serious criminal offence that they had to be removed for the good of the country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 04-02-2014, 10:52 PM
MarcosFenn's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Pickering, Canada
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The situation we have today is a result of Charles I's actions. When he ruled without parliament - successfully - for many years he was within his rights.

Cromwell also ruled without parliament for a number of years but things changed with the situation that arose in 1688/89 with the Glorious Revolution when Parliament became supreme and decided that there also needed to be a religious qualification in order for a person to be in the line of succession.

Since the passing of the Act of Settlement there hasn't been any legislation that has changed that situation until 2013 and all that will do, when it comes into effect, is allow the first born child to inherit and for them to marry a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of succession.

Parliament has made it clear through their conversations with various monarchs, decisions that have been announced etc made it clear that the line of succession is the one that will be used to determine who is the next monarch and that there is no way they will interfere, unless asked to allow a monarch out of the position - as happened with the abdication - or if the person concerned had committed such a serious criminal offence that they had to be removed for the good of the country.
This is the beauty of Britain not having a written constitution.

Parliament does ultimately oversee the succession process; usually it does not intervene.

In 1936, Prime Minister Baldwin, at the time of the Abdication Crisis, told his Party's Members of Parliament: Cancel your engagements over the weekend, go to pubs and clubs and listen to what ordinary people are saying. A Parliament that listens to the ingenious ideas of elites behind closed doors and ignores the people is not doing its job.

A good Prime Minister will still wish to be made aware of what public opinion is about any succession issue that might be regarded as problematic.

I don't agree that Charles I was right to try to rule without Parliament. For example, he tried to mint money, without the backing of law. There are centuries of precedent now behind the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ex-officio, is Prime Warden and Master Worker of the Royal Mint, and responsible to Parliament. The same with succession issues: Parliament will scrutinize how its laws are implemented.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 04-12-2014, 11:10 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,523
The Prince of Wales can be King Charles III.
For several years he has had Charles as his first name.
For numerous years the press and reporters have referred to him as Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 04-13-2014, 02:02 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcosFenn View Post
It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.
In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Current polls seem to actually support Charles being king next, not William.

Regardless, the succession is determined by the Succession Act and not any popularity contest.
Erm, wrong!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcosFenn View Post
This is the beauty of Britain not having a written constitution.

Parliament does ultimately oversee the succession process; usually it does not intervene.

In 1936, Prime Minister Baldwin, at the time of the Abdication Crisis, told his Party's Members of Parliament: Cancel your engagements over the weekend, go to pubs and clubs and listen to what ordinary people are saying. A Parliament that listens to the ingenious ideas of elites behind closed doors and ignores the people is not doing its job.

A good Prime Minister will still wish to be made aware of what public opinion is about any su0ccession issue that might be regarded as problematic.
Once again, No. The Government did not interfere with the succession in any way. Prime Minister Baldwin and his government were firmly against the King marrying his once divorced and still married lover. He informed the King the Government would resign if he married Wallis.

Baldwin asked Churchill, in Opposition, if he would form a Government should he be called to. Churchill, a staunch supporter of the King, said no.

The King had three choices, marry Wallis and the Government woud resign, give up Wallis and reign, or Abdicate, marry Wallis and leave the country.

History records King Edward VIII's choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcosFenn View Post
It is determined by Parliament, from someone in the line of succession.

In 1936 there was private, ministerial talk of Prince George, Duke of Kent, becoming King when Edward VIII abdicated, but it was decided in due course to stick with the person at the top of the line of succession, who was the Duke of York, who became George VI.
And don't forget the Palace ferretts. Talk is cheap and there was absolutely no way they could have pulled that off. They learnt that the Throne was not up for popular debate.

When King George died there was private, ministerial . . . yada, yada that perhaps Princess Elizabeth was too young to reign and perhaps the Duke of Windsor could become Regent until such time as she was old enough.(Probably when he died!)

History records that outcome of both of those sets of wannabe King Makers. The Act of Settlement takes precedent. It is bigger than any individual Government. It is the history of the Monarchy.

Should HM predecease Prince Charles I believe he will become Charles III because he has been called Charles for over 65 years. If someone called him something else he'd probably be looking over his shoulder for him.
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ruling Family of Abu Dhabi: Al Nahyan dynasty 2: August 2011 - dazzling Ruling Family of Abu Dhabi 236 12-14-2014 06:48 AM
The Monarchy under Charles hofburg British Royals 1934 11-20-2014 10:04 PM
Charles as King: Choice of Regnal Name Madame Royale The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 221 10-14-2014 07:05 PM
Queen Elizabeth II and Duke of Edinburgh current events 24: July 2011-June 2 2012 Zonk Current Events Archive 916 06-03-2012 08:03 AM
The Prince of Wales & The Duchess of Cornwall visit Denmark: March 24-27, 2012 Viv Royal House of Denmark 338 04-04-2012 03:41 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:48 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]