|
|
|
|||||||
| Portal | Royal Articles | Royal Calendar | Register | FAQ | Members List | Royal Links | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#21
03-18-2005, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#22
03-18-2005, 11:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
i have a question. When King Edward got involved with Wallis Simpson, it was seen as an outrage with the people of Britain because she was a divorcee. Camilla is a divorcee so does that mean that Charles will have to abdicate if he does become King or does that mean he can never become King? I don't see any difference between Edward - Wallis and Charls-Camilla
|
|
#23
03-19-2005, 12:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The difference is two-fold.
In the 1930s divorcees were virtually never accepted in society. Therefore to have a Queen who was divorced would have meant that there were situations where it wasn't acceptable for her to be present e.g. Royal garden parties etc. Acceptable is the important word here as it would not have been due to law but to the social mores of the time. I know that Queen Mary did receive her but it was a one off and really for curiosity's sake because she was linked to her son. Mary generally refused to accept divorced people. Today very few people would refuse to meet someone because they are divorced as it it much more common and acceptable, especially since the no-fault divorce was introduced in the 1970s. Don't forget the Queen has three divorced children and a divorced late sister. Queen Victoria or George V would simply not have allowed a child to divorce regardless of how unhappy they were whereas the present monarch has allowed it for her children and sister. None of these divorcees ever lost their position in line to the throne so why would marrying one be a reason? The other difference is that Wallis being divorced was a smokescreen. There is no law that states that a divorcee can't be the monarch or the consort but the government of the day needed a reason that the people would accept to get rid of an extremely popular King. Edward was not the most cautious of kings with official documents leaving them lying around where anybody could read them and the situation in 1936 in Europe was becoming more serious with regard to Hitler and Mussolini not to mention Franco in Spain, where they were in the midst of a civil war at the time. Over time the truth about Edward has been revealed (and I am not one that believes that he colluded with the Nazis but I do believe that he was not the most sensible of men when dealing with sensitive communications from the government) but the smokescreen persists even to the stage where some people say that it is illegal for the monarch to be married to a divorced person and I have even read that any children of such a marriage would be barred from the throne - in the same sentence mind you. This is definitely not true as the children of Prince Micheal of Kent are still in the order of succession and he lost his place not because his wife was divorced but because she was a Roman Catholic. I suppose the real point is that 69 years have nearly passed and the social acceptabity of divorce has changed. |
|
#24
03-19-2005, 12:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
thanks for that information! appreciate it
|
|
#25
03-19-2005, 06:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Edward VIII
Excellent explanation chrissy57.
It is now generally accepted that Edward VIII had a lack of a sense of "duty" which had been the exemplar of the Windsors; this was noted by many observers and government officials at the time. The convulsion of 1936 was the price to be paid to remove an unsuitable and potentially erratic Monarch. . |
|
#26
03-20-2005, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think (I hope too) that Charles will reign. I think he is sincere in his desires and earnestness to serve Great Britain and the Commonwealth well. I think much of his bumbling ways is because of uncertainty and insecurity - it would be frustrating for anyone to not know exactly when you'll take on the role you've been groomed for your entire life. And that when you do take over this role it's because your mother has died.
I think he'll be a good king too. A very different monarch than the Queen is, but that's not entirely a bad thing. The present queen does her role very well but she is a bit traditional and it's time to move the monarchy a bit more foreward, even an increment with Charles leading the way. |
|
#27
03-21-2005, 01:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it's ironic that Edward VIII was made to abdicate because he wanted to do the honourable thing and marry the woman he loved even though she was divorced. It seems as though if he'd done what Charles did originally and married a "suitable" woman to bear his children and accompany him on his duties while keeping a mistress just like Edward VII did with his various mistresses while Queen Alexandra just put up with it, there'd have been less outrage even from the likes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
These days it's much more likely that the basic dishonesty of the notion of marrying for duty while keeping a mistress and also being Supreme Governor of the Church of England would be rejected. Personally I think that's a healthier situation than the one where the king was expected to conform outwardly and his private life was tolerated by those in his own circle and not known about by anybody else. As long as Christianity is supposed to be a religion where thoughts and intentions are as important as actions, the hypocrisy of a situation where a man is married for show but really devoted to a mistress is rightly not tolerated these days. That doesn't address the other matter, though, of the general feeling that Edward VIII wasn't a suitable king for reasons other than his love life. It's interesting to speculate about what would have happened if he hadn't conveniently been so high-principled about Wallis Simpson that he was determined to marry her and set off a constitutional crisis that allowed him to be removed. The previous heir to the throne who was clearly unfit for the job was Edward VII's son the Duke of Clarence, and he rather conveniently died young. |
|
#28
03-23-2005, 11:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Every decision is right for its time." |
|
#30
04-08-2005, 12:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I was watching the news the other day and the anchor asked a royal expert they had on if he ever thought Charles would rule. He said that he doesn't think so because he thinks that Charles will be very old when the Queen dies and will pass it to William. Just thought I would share what I heard.
|
|
#31
04-08-2005, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
just my opinion: I think if William keeps himself out of scandals, just like his grand mother does, he will bring a better image and reputation to the royal family which has suffered by scandals. For this situation William position seems better as the queen next successor than Charles. Many of crownprinces(es) have crowned at quite young age such as prince Rainier; King Boudouin of Belgia or queen Elizabeth herself and they were/are a good leaders. William just needs learn more intensive about being a crownprince, especialy if the queen can reign 15-20 years more it will enough time for william to be ready.
Last edited by galuhcandrakirana; 04-08-2005 at 04:23 AM. |
|
#32
04-08-2005, 05:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wills or Charles?
Quote:
The nature of a dynasty is continuity and orderly succession; there is nothing in "the rules" about accession to the Throne based on public opinion polls. And who knows, as Queen Elizabeth ages, and performs fewer public duties and Charles takes on more official roles (with Camilla at his side), public opinion may warm to him and recognise some of his admirable qualities. People (and the media) despaired about the unsuitableness of the then Prince of Wales when Queen Victoria died, but Edward VII rose to the challenge and proved to be a very successful and popular King. . Last edited by Warren; 04-08-2005 at 05:08 AM. |
|
#33
04-08-2005, 05:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#34
04-08-2005, 08:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
William will take the Throne not Charles...
|
|
#35
04-08-2005, 02:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
mostly people in England wanted William become King not his dad because his dad who is divorcees because he would good King! Sara Boyce |
|
#36
04-08-2005, 02:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I don't think there are any surveys showing that most people in the UK don't want Charles to be king. If you know of any data, please post some links.
|
|
#37
04-08-2005, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As far as Edward VIII goes, there was more to it than an unsuitable marriage. He and Wallis had too much sympathy towards the Nazis. That could have been very bad for the UK.
__________________
*Under Construction* |
|
#38
04-08-2005, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the end I don't think it won't matter what the people think.
Charles will marry Camilla & reign probably for a short while like King Edward VII. He reigned for 10 years after Queen Victoria died. The people don't disagree or hate Charles so much as to force him to abdicate. Camilla will have the tougher role. I believe that Charles will be a good king and a stronger man once hes out from under his mothers thumb.:) |
|
#39
04-08-2005, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If he doesn't reign it will be due to him dying before his mother rather than him losing rights to the throne. And it's hard to say how long he will live, or how long the Queen will live.
Either way, he makes a lot of mistakes. Even at the Pope's funeral, he shook Mugabe's hand and then had his office make political statements about the regime in Zimbabwe. He's not supposed to discuss politics (certainly not international ones) and he can't seem to stop doing this. If he is forced out, which I doubt will happen, it will be because he can't keep quiet, not because he's married to someone the public is unlikely to welcome adoringly.
__________________
Kelly D |
|
#40
04-08-2005, 08:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
