Will Charles Ever Reign?

[branchg]

Technically Camilla is the Princess of Wales, so I don't really understand the question.
If after the coronation, Charles makes William the Prince of Wales, William's wife (as Princess of Wales) would not take precedence over Camilla, as the Queen consort.
You also asked about the difference between Wallis and Camilla, from what I have read in history books over the years, 2 of the problems not already mentioned here were that Wallis was:-
1. Twice divorced
2. She was an American.
According to my grand-mother, these things really mattered way back when.

Camilla is legally Princess of Wales, but styled as Duchess of Cornwall. Her official precedence in the UK is second after the Queen, but fourth in family terms because she has chosen to assume a lesser rank than Princess of Wales.

Once Charles becomes King, regardless of whether Camilla becomes Queen or Princess Consort, she would be the first lady in the land as the wife of the King. Her title or style has no bearing on her precedence once Charles is Sovereign.

With regard to Wallis Simpson, there wasn't any particular objection to her being American, although it probably would not have been a first choice among the British people. The main problem was she was very recently divorced under highly questionable circumstances and had already divorced once before that. Given the ban on divorce in the Church of England at the time, the King could not possibly marry a divorcee without a conflict in principle.

 

[tiaraprin]

As I understand, Diana was not a true English Aristocrat, she had American and Scottish blood lines.
Beatrixfan is quite right when she says a very small amount of scots want to be separated from the United Kingdom.

As a friend of a Scotsman living in Scotland, I hear quite the reverse. There is a strong movement within Scotland to separate from England. The objection is not so much to the Royals, but to the English Prime Minister and government. Princess Anne is admired in Scotland for the charity work she does.

Also, is it so awful Diana had some American blood? Well, William and Harry have it now too. Does that make them less royal??

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think Skydragon was saying that it was awful for Diana to have some American ancestors - the post just said that she wasn't entirely English.

 

[Mapple]

As a friend of a Scotsman living in Scotland, I hear quite the reverse. There is a strong movement within Scotland to separate from England. The objection is not so much to the Royals, but to the English Prime Minister and government. Princess Anne is admired in Scotland for the charity work she does.

I hope for the United Kingdom to stay united, as a magnificent and unique country with rich history. Will the people of Scotland be less inclined to separatism in the future, when the Prime Minister will, in all likelihood, be a Caledonian? I hope so.

Also, is it so awful Diana had some American blood? Well, William and Harry have it now too. Does that make them less royal??

I don't think it is somehow a bad thing; Churchill had some (actually, a lot of) American blood, too.

 

[Warren]

I don't think it is somehow a bad thing; Churchill had some (actually, a lot of) American blood, too.

The Queen Mother also had "American blood"; she shared common descent with George Washington from Colonel Augustine Warner II of Virginia, d 1681.

 

[Margrethe II]

I doubt if they would actually have any "American Blood" left in them by now.lol.

Oh, and one mus'nt forget their greatly watered down Canadian blood connections either

"MII"

 

[iowabelle]

Camilla and I are distant cousins, through our common French-Canadian ancestors.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Camilla and I are distant cousins, through our common French-Canadian ancestors.

How proud you must be that she's married well

 

[Warren]

very droll!

A point to you Von Schlesian.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Her official precedence in the UK is second after the Queen, but fourth in family terms because she has chosen to assume a lesser rank than Princess of Wales.

This statement is very unclear. In the order of precednace, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is 4th. (1) HM The Queen (2) HRH The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh (3) HRH The Prince of Wales (4) HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. Whether Princess of Wales, or Duchess of Cornwall (or Duchess of Rothesay for that matter), the wife of the heir is always directly after their spouse.

There is no such thing as 'first lady' in The United Kingdom, that is a convention of the United States, where it should stay please.

 

[Von Schlesian]

A point to you Von Schlesian.

Thankyou Warren. I only hope Iowabelle doesn't take our Australian humour to heart

 

[Skydragon]

As a friend of a Scotsman living in Scotland, I hear quite the reverse. There is a strong movement within Scotland to separate from England. The objection is not so much to the Royals, but to the English Prime Minister and government. Princess Anne is admired in Scotland for the charity work she does.
Also, is it so awful Diana had some American blood? Well, William and Harry have it now too. Does that make them less royal??

I'm sorry if any of you thought that it was my view that anyone with American blood would not be welcomed into the aristocracy, I was only saying what my grandmother told me, she witnessed it all.
It was not my personal view at all.

I have lived in Scotland for the past 25 years, in various parts of the country and with scots friends too many to count. In all this time I have met too few to remember, (apart from Alex Salmond), who want to be separate from the UK, we wanted our own parliament, which we have, but not complete separation.
Most scots around here think Charles and Camilla are wonderful and we were honoured that they chose to spend their honeymoon up here.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I'm sorry if any of you thought that it was my view that anyone with American blood would not be welcomed into the aristocracy, I was only saying what my grandmother told me, she witnessed it all.
It was not my personal view at all.

I have lived in Scotland for the past 25 years, in various parts of the country and with scots friends too many to count. In all this time I have met too few to remember, (apart from Alex Salmond), who want to be separate from the UK, we wanted our own parliament, which we have, but not complete separation.
Most scots around here think Charles and Camilla are wonderful and we were honoured that they chose to spend their honeymoon up here.

Hi Skydragon,

Thank you for your kind post earlier this morning. That was very gracious of you.

I have had the pleasure of viewing your beautiful country on Monarch of the Glen and think you are quite lucky to live in a country filled with such physical beauty.

Lady M

 

[Skydragon]

Hi Skydragon,
Thank you for your kind post earlier this morning. That was very gracious of you.
I have had the pleasure of viewing your beautiful country on Monarch of the Glen and think you are quite lucky to live in a country filled with such physical beauty.

Lady M

You are welcome.
We are very lucky to live where we do and it is indeed beautiful. Having lived in London for a number of years, the contrast is spectacular.
We still stay in London for a couple of months each year but it is great to get home to Scotland.

 

[ksenia]

Reconciling the Public Figure with the Private Person

I think it is hard to reconcile the private person from the public figure sometimes. Although we all have the right to choose who we love and want to marry- as the figurehead of a nation the people are entitled to some input as to who will represent them. So I think it was justified for the people to protest Wallis or today Camilla. I also think King Edward was right in choosing one over the other. I think the problems begin when we think we can always have it all- which is not the case. the tragedy in that situation was that he did not think the consequences through thoroughly and suffered because of it. As much as they bemoan their status and the limitations, it would be a shock to be "common" for them. Not for a day but a lifetime as the saying goes- look at the DOW.The path the POW and DOC are on will be a long one and if she is never accepted then that is just the price they have to pay for their history.

 

[love_cc]

If people still want a monarch, it is no good to have anything like abdication happening again. Charles should become King after his mother and then William will become King after his father. I think Charles will be a good King although he should learn to hide his opinions. Camilla will support Charles to be a better King.Time will prove that. I do think people will gradually accept Camilla if she performs well in her role as the wife of Prince of Wales.

Past is past. Too many kings had bad records and Charles is really a good Prince of Wales at his position. He is delicated to his job and always wants to do more work for the country and people. The failure of his first marriage is too complex to understand. I just he can find his peace and be a more effective Prince of Wales in the coming years.

 

[ysbel]

The path the POW and DOC are on will be a long one and if she is never accepted then that is just the price they have to pay for their history.

For Charles and Camilla to carry on their relationship with her in no official capacity was having it all and quite rightly the Queen did not allow that situation. Actually the price Camilla paid for Charles' love is that she had to marry him and face greater public scrutiny than if she had been in the background without any royal restrictions. Now their relationship and conduct is subject to public scrutiny. From the looks of things now though, I cannot say that she never will be accepted.

The success of the monarchy has to be considered. Passing over Charles carries inherent risks. Would it set another precedent for a king being passed over?

Edward VIII abdicated which is not the same thing and we have learned that while King, he leaked highly sensitive political information during the difficult pre-WWII days from Privy Council meeting to Wallis and his friends which was repeated in open conversation. In doing so, he violated the sacred trust between King and government in very dangerous times and they could not be assured that he would not continue to pose the same risk going forward. That was a wholly different situation. It was the right decision but it still rocked the British monarchy for years to come. Abdication is a move not to be taken lightly.

 

[Skydragon]

Although we all have the right to choose who we love and want to marry- as the figurehead of a nation the people are entitled to some input as to who will represent them.
The path the POW and DOC are on will be a long one and if she is never accepted then that is just the price they have to pay for their history.

What you have to remember Ksenia, is that first and foremost they are human. I don't believe anyone has the right to force someone to stay in a loveless marriage or force someone to marry someone not of their choosing.

I don't feel that I, as an English/Scottish born and bred citizen, should say to Prince Charles, who I think he should love or marry. After all, we would all have different views on who was suitable anyway.

I think Camilla is absolutely right for the Prince, I am glad to see him so happy, if you are happy in your private life, every aspect of your life benefits.

As more and more people meet and have dealings with the Duchess, they are realising that she was much maligned in the past, unjustly in a lot of peoples opinions. Publicity has been given to the vocal minority, who do phone and write to register their opinions and as someone else on here pointed out, how could a survey of 1000 people (the normal amount 'they' quote) represent the true feelings of, for instance, the 65.5 million population of the UK?

Like it or not, she is being accepted and I for one think it is about time.

 

[Warren]

Like it or not, she is being accepted and I for one think it is about time.

I think it pretty evident that Queen Elizabeth was making a big and very public statement in regards to Camilla when she allowed her to wear the Delhi Durbar Tiara the other week. If HM acknowledges Camilla as deserving of an Imperial diadem that should be good enough for the rest of us.

In regard to public opinion, at what age do we begin polling to determine the suitablility of the future Monarch? And how often do we conduct such a poll? And over how many years? And what if the results differ with each poll? And what if more people think that Harry is "cuter" or "more interesting" than William? What if the general public in their wisdom decide that William is "boring". Do we demand that William step aside for Harry? Should we have an opinion poll on the suitablility of Kate Middleton as a potential Queen? Perhaps a referendum of all people in the United Kingdom over the age of 18 to determine if William should be allowed to marry Kate? Obviously the whole concept is nonsense.

The institution of Hereditary Monarchy is just that. If it ever gets to the stage of a Popularity Poll Monarchy then it's time the throw the game away.

 

[tiaraprin]

I think the problems begin when we think we can always have it all- which is not the case. the tragedy in that situation was that he did not think the consequences through thoroughly and suffered because of it. As much as they bemoan their status and the limitations, it would be a shock to be "common" for them. Not for a day but a lifetime as the saying goes- look at the DOW.The path the POW and DOC are on will be a long one and if she is never accepted then that is just the price they have to pay for their history.

Very well stated and I entirely agree.

 

[branchg]

It is already a foregone conclusion that Camilla is a smashing success as the wife of Prince Charles and the public is rapidly coming around towards acceptance of her. As she continues to take on more duties, the natural road will be one of admiration and respect for her qualities.

I think there will no problem with Camilla becoming Queen Consort when the time comes.

 

[chunnice]

It is already a foregone conclusion that Camilla is a smashing success as the wife of Prince Charles and the public is rapidly coming around towards acceptance of her. As she continues to take on more duties, the natural road will be one of admiration and respect for her qualities.

I think there will no problem with Camilla becoming Queen Consort when the time comes.

I hope that Queen Elizabeth ll will rule for many years to come. The love and dedication to her country has been outstanding. I believe that all her devotion to the Monarchy should be ample to keep this system in place for years to come.

If Prince Charles gets the chance to rule..if only briefly due to his age..it will be advantageous in keeping this ruling tradition on going...

As an American I have found HM inspiring. She has weathered much over the years to secure the future of the Monarchy. Conforming to modern times to assure its future...Like Queen Victoria, she has ruled through great times of change and has done very well.

She has created an enduring Legacy.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The US State Visit has shown that Charles and Camilla can wow the harshest of audiences. People who disliked her have been charmed by her and people realise that they are far better matched personally and for their roles as our future King and Queen.

HM The Queen has been a brilliant monarch and she's managed to sit out 50+ very difficult years - nothing to do with her family, but more to do with the changing state of the country as a whole.

I think Charles will be a very good King and I hope his reign will be as long as it can be. But it isn't about stacking up the years, it's about actually ensuring the survival of the Monarchy which is why I'm of the opinion that the present Queen should abdicate. The country will keep changing and I wonder whether a 79 year old lady can truly carry on as Sovereign into her 80s or 90s just because she wants that Diamond Jubilee.

 

[ysbel]

Ahh, BeatrixFan, the Royal Family barely survived the last abdication. Though, they were successful, the cost to the family was very high and part of the problem of Charles' upbringing was that he was raised not to be another Edward VIII.

It works in the Netherlands but I don't think it will fly in Great Britain.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Ahh, BeatrixFan, the Royal Family barely survived the last abdication.

Didn't they? They're still here aren't they? I think that if she abdicated, Charles could go to his mother for advice - if she's in the family mausoleum, what help can she give him?

 

[Elspeth]

I think Charles will be a very good King and I hope his reign will be as long as it can be. But it isn't about stacking up the years, it's about actually ensuring the survival of the Monarchy which is why I'm of the opinion that the present Queen should abdicate. The country will keep changing and I wonder whether a 79 year old lady can truly carry on as Sovereign into her 80s or 90s just because she wants that Diamond Jubilee.

I think she can; Queen Victoria did, with the help of a high-profile Prince of Wales. If the Queen abdicates so that she can sit in the background and check up on her son's performance as King like a retired schoolmistress, it'll send the message that Charles isn't trusted to do the job without being propped up by mummy. I think it's be a lot healthier if the Queen stayed as Queen for as long as she can, with Charles and Camilla gradually taking on more and more of the royal duties and with William and Harry stepping up as well.

 

[branchg]

The country will keep changing and I wonder whether a 79 year old lady can truly carry on as Sovereign into her 80s or 90s just because she wants that Diamond Jubilee.

Given the excellent health of the Queen and the fact her mother carried on quite well to 101, there is no way we will ever see HM abdicate. As she ages and slows down, Charles, Camilla and William will assume a larger share of the spotlight and carry out duties on behalf of the Queen.

 

[Elspeth]

I think a formal regency would be a better bet than an abdication if the Queen really did get to the point where she couldn't do her duties.

 

[corazon]

Camilla can never be Britain's queen: former archbishop


AFP via Yahoo! Asia News
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/051108/afp/051108173518people.html

 

[Saragli]

Thats just an old archbishop with a grudge against charles. He still wants religion to be the center and main focus of english and british life. Were the church actually matters in the courts of laws. Charles and Camilla are legally married and all laws and traditions apply to them. The church follows the law of the land and that states that Camilla will be queen. So get the crown and oil ready cause she will become queen. Charles has one of the best views on religion in the modern world. The includes tolerence and personal experience.