Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Saragli]

It would not affect Camilla at all. The Church follows the law of Parliament in civic matters. Charles and Camilla are legally married in the eyes of the state and it is the state that procliams them King and Queen. Coronations are contemplery and like a church blessing. The church recognizes that the state has proclaimed her Queen Consort and will crown her so. There is no problem with the church at all as the Archbishop has repeaditly said. Camilla is respectable for the charity work she has done, giving up a leisurly life for the trappings of royalty, giving up the rest of her life to serve the nation, and keeping quiet throughout everything. It takes two to have an affair. Camilla and Charles continued their relationship because it is the only true love they have ever had. Think about your spouse or someone you love completly with all your heart. Could you just give them up in one day because of some backword protocal rules. You cant turn love on and off. You take it where you can find it because trust me this world needs a little more love. The only reasones I have read are that she is not Diana, not elegant and gorgeous, and fell in love with the wrong man. It is not Camillas fault the marriage fell apart. She was not the destructive third in the marriage. The marriage was doomed from the start. People have only gotten to start to know who Camilla is. All other past judgments are taken from Diana. We dont know much about Camilla but from what we have seen so far she is very nice and affable. You should either like her or not care for her. There is no reason to dislike her. Camilla has no constitutional role and if you want to rid the monarchy you should do it by judging Charles. Most republic presidents are symbolic too. The only difference is that the monarchy is more ceremonious and fun.
For all the Camilla dislikers on this board not many are posting valid reasons for disliking her. I highly respect Queen Margareth too. I was just saying Camilla might become like her personality wise. The easy going, down to earth Duchess and Queen Consort. Not the stuffy, no emotion typical british royal.

 

[Elspeth]

This is true, but, as far as I know, Charles and Camilla are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Church of England. This fact may interfere with Camilla being crowned as a Queen...

The fact that the church provided a service of prayer and dedication after the civil ceremony has made it a bit hard for the Archbishop to turn round and refuse to crown her as Queen, especially after he seemed to support the marriage. If the church is going to start getting rigid about who it does and doesn't crown, Charles would be in as much danger as Camilla of falling short of its standards after having broken his marriage vows, which were made in church in front of another archbishop. A person who breaks one lot of vows is not giving us a lot of confidence that he'd uphold another lot; Camilla isn't the only one who broke marriage vows.

 

[Elspeth]

And you said I complained. No, I just aired my own personal view (that I did not enforce upon any other member), which is something I see you also have no hesitation in doing (whether an administrator or not).

OK, so you aired your personal view that you would be supporting a Republic in Australia if she became Queen after the misinformation about her title. Whatever. I don't think any of us know where this misinformation originated; it was put out by Clarence House, and it's also on the royal family website, so it appears to be the story everybody was supposed to be adhering to, but I don't think any of us know for sure whether it originated in the Prince's household or not.

Are you saying that its ok for His Royal Highnesses Household to mislead the public, whether coming directly from the Prince or not?

For all any of us know, this directive came from the Queen's household or lawyer and the Prince of Wales's household was just sticking to the agreed story. The royal household has made a consistent practice of deceiving the public about the royal family for years; it seems to be their standard operating practice. I don't see any reason to be more outraged by this example than by others. People who have even a basic understanding of the situation would have known that as long as morganatic marriage doesn't exist in British law (which was one of the reasons why Edward VIII was got rid of), Camilla would be Queen when Charles became King. The present Queen certainly knew the reality of the situation but agreed to the marriage anyway and also agreed to the misinformation (or it wouldn't be on the royal.gov website). I see no reason to blame this entire situation on Charles's staff. The Queen's staff were bound to have had some major input.

 

[Margrethe II]

If you're inclined to say that your approach has been civilised, I think you to be rather mislead Princejonnhy25. But what does one expect...And to say that changing governments because of one person, is rather cheap when retorted by an American citizen (no offence intended to any other Amrican member).

Its also nice to see that there are those who dont have an agenda on this board.

Thankyou for your reply's Elspeth & ysbel

Sincere thanks to tiaraprin, Mapple & Idriel for your participation

I can see I have put a few noses out of joint, and if I have indeed offended I apologise.

best to you all,

"MII"

 

[Saragli]

No one was offended simply intrigued and asking for answers. I dont really understand your remark to americans though. This is civilized. It has not gone nasty. We are posting each others views. I have posted my views and backed them up and I just want a more reasons from others. I dont have an agenda, I post on other royal threads too. I would just like for people to open their eyes, be more accepting and to stop making life so hard.

 

[Margrethe II]

No one was offended simply intrigued and asking for answers. I dont really understand your remark to americans though. This is civilized. It has not gone nasty. We are posting each others views. I have posted my views and backed them up and I just want a more reasons from others. I dont have an agenda, I post on other royal threads too. I would just like for people to open their eyes, be more accepting and to stop making life so hard.

Like another poster made clear, I gave my reasons and I am not one to repeat myself. It isnt the best way to go about requesting soemone elses views in such a forcefull manner. And unfortunately, that was the approach you took (or how I percieved it anyway). You wont always have people who you agree with, and who agree with you. I am not making life hard for anyone, and if this has made your life difficult in any way, shape or form, it does say alot for you as a person (said in the kindest possible way). You expect me to approach your views with "open eyes" and yet you are not willing to budge and see it from anothers angle. Kind of hypochritical.

Anywho, I shall not be joining discussion as (for other reasons) I regreat to say that I am unable to focus attention on this forum whilst pursuing major commitments.

My sincere best to you all and I hope that a little more understanding and respect of indaviduals opinions can be adopted in future issues.

Have a great day/night everyone.

"MII"

 

[branchg]

This is true, but, as far as I know, Charles and Camilla are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Church of England. This fact may interfere with Camilla being crowned as a Queen...

Why would Charles and Camilla not be considered married in the eyes of the Church if the Archbishop of Canterbury provided a spiritual blessing during their wedding ceremony? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

 

[branchg]

No one has mislead anyone regarding Camilla' status once married. The issues were all exhaustively covered by the press in the weeks before their marriage. It was made clear the marriage would not be morganatic and Camilla would share her husband's rank as his wife. It was agreed Camilla would be styled as HRH the Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, with the assent of the Queen. Legally, however, she was HRH the Princess of Wales.

The issue regarding whether Camilla would be Queen Consort was also defined at the time. Legally, she would become Queen automatically when Charles ascended the throne and the intention was she would be styled as HRH the Princess Consort instead. However, unlike the present situation, Parliament would have to pass an Act to define Camilla's rights and dignity as Princess Consort, rather than Queen, since the law is clear that the wife of the King is Queen Consort and nothing else.

 

[Mapple]

Why would Charles and Camilla not be considered married in the eyes of the Church if the Archbishop of Canterbury provided a spiritual blessing during their wedding ceremony? That doesn't make any sense, does it?

Ah yes, the Archbishop did. I've forgotten...

 

[Von Schlesian]

Ah yes, the Archbishop did. I've forgotten...

BY the time the question becomes a real issue (in the very distant future, I pray), the Archbishop will have changed, and perhaps too the Church's official standing on it's acceptance of the marriage.

 

[Idriel]

No one has mislead anyone regarding Camilla' status once married. The issues were all exhaustively covered by the press in the weeks before their marriage. It was made clear the marriage would not be morganatic and Camilla would share her husband's rank as his wife.

[...]

The issue regarding whether Camilla would be Queen Consort was also defined at the time. Legally, she would become Queen automatically when Charles ascended the throne and the intention was she would be styled as HRH the Princess Consort instead.

This is wrong, and I gather you did not have access to British Newspaper and television at the time. The first information printed in Newspaper (from the Sun to the Guardian) and aired on TV (BBC and co), was that Camilla will NOT be Queen and will NOT be princess of Wales. That was exactly what was said in the official announcement of the engagement. The world known as was not mentioned for days. The issue has been debated for weeks in the media and even the government and several constitutional experts were involved in that very issue. Obviously, this was so because there were misinformation. I would advise you or other to go to the BBC website and search for Prince Charles video clips. Very informative.

 

[branchg]

This is wrong, and I gather you did not have access to British Newspaper and television at the time. The first information printed in Newspaper (from the Sun to the Guardian) and aired on TV (BBC and co), was that Camilla will NOT be Queen and will NOT be princess of Wales. That was exactly what was said in the official announcement of the engagement. The world known as was not mentioned for days. The issue has been debated for weeks in the media and even the government and several constitutional experts were involved in that very issue. Obviously, this was so because there were misinformation. I would advise you or other to go to the BBC website and search for Prince Charles video clips. Very informative.

Yes, I know that. However, in the weeks following the announcement, all details of the legal issues were clearly stated. Members of Parliament demanded clarification from the Lord Chancellor on whether the marriage would be morganatic and debated whether legislation would need to be passed for Camilla to assume a lesser rank once Charles became King. Like everything else, there was a strong political element which needed to be aired.

The point I am trying to make is the marriage is a done deal and Camilla is his wife. In my view, either she is worthy to be Consort or she is not. If she wasn't, then she would not have been able to marry Prince Charles. Since the Government, the Queen and the Archbishop all approved the marriage, then Camilla should be Queen when the time comes.

Assuming the style of Duchess of Cornwall is prudent and sensitive to the fact Diana was the Princess of Wales (while married), but I see no reason why that farce should continue when Charles is King. She is the wife of a future King and should be Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I believe that there were questions asked in parliament about Camilla's titles etc.

The question about whether or not she really was to be the Princess of Wales was answered in the affirmative - i.e. she would become the Princess of Wales BUT was not going to use that title but use the Duchess of Cornwall title instead - Charles' senior inherited title.

A few days later another question was asked about whether or not she would actually become Queen on the accession of Charles and again the answer was in the affirmative - i.e. she would actually be the Queen BUT again it was re-iterated that the INTENTION was that she would be known as the Princess Consort. The wording here is important - INTENTION does not mean that is what will happen at some time in the future but that in February 2005 that was what the ideas was to be. E.g. I intend on going to work on Monday - that doesn't mean that I will do so because other things might happen to change that situation but that is what my intention is. The only way she won't be Queen is to pass legislation but being Queen and using that title are two distinctly different things.b

If you check the Hansards you will find that these questions were asked and the government clarified the situation thus: she is the Princess of Wales but is not using the most senior title to which she is entitled and she will be Queen but intends on being the Princess Consort.

 

[Saragli]

There is a difference between ones title and how they choose to style them selves. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester and blah blah blah. But she chooses to style her self as The Duchess of Cornwall. In doing so she does not take over duties and ceremonys of the Princess of Wales. Like being colonel-in-cheif of the Princess of Wales regiment. Camilla will become Her Majesty The Queen Consort but if she is still on shaky grounds with the public then she will style herself HRH The Princess Consort and will not take part in any Queenly duties and ceremonies. Such as a Coronation.

 

[Idriel]

The Queen Consort but if she is still on shaky grounds with the public then she will style herself HRH The Princess Consort and will not take part in any Queenly duties and ceremonies. Such as a Coronation.

Is the coronation a ceremony orchestrated by the Parliament (or does it has to follow a ancestral protocol)?
What I mean, can they improvise or create a precedent like they wish? Is it the Court prerogative?
Because I find strange that a woman legally Queen Consort (as long as the Parliament does not pass a motion preventing her from beeing so) can withdraw herself from the coronation of her husband.
Beside, I totally agree with Branchg that either she is good enough for the position, or she's not. If she remains in this grey zone, that will cheapen the monarchy IMO.

I'm waiting for informed answers...

 

[ysbel]

I agree Idriel. But now that you mention it, if Charles does reign will he have a coronation? It looks like all the other monarchies have gotten rid of the coronation which is unfortunate.

 

[branchg]

There is a difference between ones title and how they choose to style them selves. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester and blah blah blah. But she chooses to style her self as The Duchess of Cornwall. In doing so she does not take over duties and ceremonys of the Princess of Wales. Like being colonel-in-cheif of the Princess of Wales regiment. Camilla will become Her Majesty The Queen Consort but if she is still on shaky grounds with the public then she will style herself HRH The Princess Consort and will not take part in any Queenly duties and ceremonies. Such as a Coronation.

Camilla is styled HRH the Duchess of Cornwall with the approval of the Queen. It is not a "choice" but a warrant from the Sovereign to assume a style that differs from her legal rank and title as Princess of Wales. Similarly, her granddaughter, Louise, has the Queen's assent to assume the style of Lady Louise Windsor, which differs from her legal rank and title of HRH Princesss Louise of Wessex.

As a Royal Highness and princess of the UK, Camilla can assume any military appointment the Queen grants her as the Sovereign, in addition to other duties representing the Crown. Her style as Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales, doesn't mean anything with regard to possible duties.

When Charles becomes King, Camilla is automatically Queen Consort. If it is still agreed she should not be Queen, Parliament will have to pass an Act of Exclusion permitting Camilla to assume a lesser style and title with precedence after His Majesty the King. Charles would then issue letters patent creating her The Princess Consort.

Regardless of this assumption of a lesser rank, Camilla would still be a princess of the UK and have a role during the Coronation ceremony similar to Prince Philip. Being Princess Consort simply means she would not be crowned Queen when Charles is crowned King.

 

[Elspeth]

Is the coronation a ceremony orchestrated by the Parliament (or does it has to follow a ancestral protocol)?
What I mean, can they improvise or create a precedent like they wish? Is it the Court prerogative?
Because I find strange that a woman legally Queen Consort (as long as the Parliament does not pass a motion preventing her from beeing so) can withdraw herself from the coronation of her husband.
Beside, I totally agree with Branchg that either she is good enough for the position, or she's not. If she remains in this grey zone, that will cheapen the monarchy IMO.

I'm waiting for informed answers...

Well, George IV barred his wife from his coronation and the Archbishop didn't insist that she be present, so there's precedent for making things up as you go along. However, I'll be very surprised if Queen Camilla isn't crowned alongside her husband. Anything else would raise some awkward questions about morganatic marriage and the need for the abdication of Edward VIII, which would lead to some more awkward questions about the way George VI and Queen Elizabeth treated the Windsors, and I don't suppose Charles would want his beloved granny's memory subjected to that sort of thing.

 

[branchg]

I agree Idriel. But now that you mention it, if Charles does reign will he have a coronation? It looks like all the other monarchies have gotten rid of the coronation which is unfortunate.

The Coronation ceremony is an ancient one which will continue for the British monarchy. The Crown is still supreme in the UK in tradition, although in law exercised by the will of Parliament as a constitutional monarchy, and the ceremony symbolizes the eternal succession of Sovereigns, both as Head of the Church and Head of State.

 

[branchg]

Well, George IV barred his wife from his coronation and the Archbishop didn't insist that she be present, so there's precedent for making things up as you go along. However, I'll be very surprised if Queen Camilla isn't crowned alongside her husband. Anything else would raise some awkward questions about morganatic marriage and the need for the abdication of Edward VIII, which would lead to some more awkward questions about the way George VI and Queen Elizabeth treated the Windsors, and I don't suppose Charles would want his beloved granny's memory subjected to that sort of thing.

The interesting thing about Queen Caroline is the public was very supportive of her (probably because she had given birth to an heir, Charlotte) and she literally was banging on the front doors of the Abbey trying to get in!!

I agree it will be difficult for Parliament to swallow passing an Act of Exclusion when Charles becomes King. The precedents of 1936 will have to be consulted and debated, which certainly would be very unpleasant given the legal conclusions reached at that time. I think it is highly unlikely the Commonwealth crown countries could be persuaded by the Prime Minister to pass the Act as well.

In my opinion, Parliament has no intention of passing a law which would set a precedent for a lesser rank for the wife of the King. It would basically require approval for a morganatic marriage for a Sovereign, which undoubtedly would be a nail in the coffin for the monarchy.

 

[ysbel]

The Coronation ceremony is an ancient one which will continue for the British monarchy. The Crown is still supreme in the UK in tradition, although in law exercised by the will of Parliament as a constitutional monarchy, and the ceremony symbolizes the eternal succession of Sovereigns, both as Head of the Church and Head of State.

I totally agree branchg, but other monarchies with equally ancient coronation traditions have given them up and Tony Blair is cutting out a lot of other revered traditions of the British monarchy. The House of Windsor is being criticized for being too expensive, too grand, and is being unfavorably compared to the simpler, more modernistic royal houses on the continent.

That having been said, I hope they don't cut out the coronation.

 

[Saragli]

I love the coronation and the regality of the British Monarchy. That is one of the reasons the British Monarchy is so famous and others are not. The others are boring. This is much more fun. I hate how Tony Blair is cutting down on traditions. Coronations are handled by the Church and Soverign and done on a tradition. There is no legal need for a coronation. It could eaisly be scrapped without any consequence. Charles has finalized his coronation plans. It has some new aspects of it. It reflects Britians multi culturism and multi religious society more. Charles modernized the coronation ceremony a bit by adding rather than taking away which is nice. I also think Camilla will be Queen and be Crowned. It will just take a while for people to realize its stupid to put so much energy in making the royal familys life so hard. Hopefully after Camilla is accepted the tabloids and people will be less intrested in scandal and the monarchy will be more loved. I think people are getting tired of scandal. I know I am. Acceptence makes life easier and less stressfull.

 

[Tara20052]

I hope that Queen Elizabeth stays alive for 20 more years and then on her death bed she tells charles that he will not reign and then give the power to Prince William even though I don't think that this will happen. It would be interesting if it did.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I hope that Queen Elizabeth stays alive for 20 more years and then on her death bed she tells charles that he will not reign and then give the power to Prince William even though I don't think that this will happen. It would be interesting if it did.

Could you tell me when the power to choose her successor was given to the Queen? My understanding is that she has no say over who her successor is. It is her eldest son followed by his eldest son etc.

 

[Saragli]

Why do you want william to be King and not Charles. Is it because Charles years of many charity work and utter devotion to his work and country are not good enough but Williams good looks are. Crazy people. I hope William has as many years of not being King as Charles has so he could have as long of a normal life as possible. Have some sense people.

 

[Elspeth]

I hope that Queen Elizabeth stays alive for 20 more years and then on her death bed she tells charles that he will not reign and then give the power to Prince William even though I don't think that this will happen. It would be interesting if it did.

It doesn't matter what she says - she could say that the crown should go to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but that doesn't make it so. It isn't up to a monarch to pick and choose his/her successor in the UK; that hasn't been done for hundreds of years, and it isn't going to be revived just because people want to see Diana's son knock his father out of the line of succession.

 

[tiaraprin]

I hope that Queen Elizabeth stays alive for 20 more years and then on her death bed she tells charles that he will not reign and then give the power to Prince William even though I don't think that this will happen. It would be interesting if it did.

Well, I like your idea, but it will never happen. The Queen cannot interrupt the line of succession even if she wished to. I wish the Queen to live for many more years and for William to get up into his late 30's. Then William may succeed the Queen. We don't know what the future holds. William is the hope of the monarchy.

 

[Saragli]

How is William the hope of the monarchy. We barely now him and he has barely done any charitable work. Is it because he is handsome. So if he balds in a couple of years will he still be the "hope of the monarchy". We dont need a young inexperineced monarch. We dont need inexperienced naive royals at all anymore. Too much trouble. William does not want to be king for a while so just stop wishing for him to be king. If he were to become king right now he would probably be the worst king in ages. He has no idea what to do. Charles will most likely be a great king. He has been training to be king for 50 years. That has to accumulate to something. Charles is a modern man and reflects modern britian. Charles deserves to be king and should be given that respect. He has worked way to hard. I want some thorough reasons as to why he should not be king.

 

[tiaraprin]

How is William the hope of the monarchy. We barely now him and he has barely done any charitable work. Is it because he is handsome. So if he balds in a couple of years will he still be the "hope of the monarchy". We dont need a young inexperineced monarch. We dont need inexperienced naive royals at all anymore. Too much trouble. William does not want to be king for a while so just stop wishing for him to be king. If he were to become king right now he would probably be the worst king in ages. He has no idea what to do. Charles will most likely be a great king. He has been training to be king for 50 years. That has to accumulate to something. Charles is a modern man and reflects modern britian. Charles deserves to be king and should be given that respect. He has worked way to hard. I want some thorough reasons as to why he should not be king.

I am not shallow to pick a king based on his looks number one. Number two, while William has much to learn, I think he is a better human being and more caring than his father. I believe William can successfully merge royalty with the caring mode like his mother did. William is also more intelligent than his father, his grades and degree prove this. William also has the benefit of learning from his father's numerous errors.

 

[Saragli]

I am not shallow to pick a king based on his looks number one. Number two, while William has much to learn, I think he is a better human being and more caring than his father. I believe William can successfully merge royalty with the caring mode like his mother did. William is also more intelligent than his father, his grades and degree prove this. William also has the benefit of learning from his father's numerous errors. From Tiarapin

We barely know William so we can not really judge how good of a human being he is. What makes Charles a bad human being. He has done more for charity than most people in this world. Maybe he doesnt show it in public as much as Diana did because he does not need to. He cares for his country and is constantly trying to find ways to keep tradition and move into the modern world. William took a different major than his father and the williams major was Geography. Not the best subject to judge intellegence on. William is a smart boy but is no were near as wise as his father is or as wise as he needs to be to survive the royal family yet. Charles has also learned from his past mistakes. We dont know that william wont make mistakes. He probably will and will learn from them. People are always growing and learning and Charles is so much more suited to be king than william is right now. I do agree that william is the perfect blend of his father and mother when it comes to his public figure from what we have seen from him so far, which is not much. He has his fathers sense of duty and occasion and his mothers compassion. But, that is so much better used as a Prince and Heir to the Throne. Remember,that william cannot be how he is now when he becomes monarch. Things change. It is better to have william waiting so we can have him longer rather than have him controlled by the crown as monarch. Lets not takes Williams life away from him so young. I hope he has until his 40's to live a free life.