Will Charles Ever Reign?

[la francaise]

In my opinion NO.

His mother does not want to give up her role just yet and until she does charles is gonna have to wait his turn. But by that time comes she may decide to give the throne title to william if only he seems fit and ready to take up on the responsibilties first. My opinion .

[Warren]

Originally Posted by la francaise

In my opinion NO.
His mother does not want to give up her role just yet and until she does charles is gonna have to wait his turn. But by that time comes she may decide to give the throne title to william.

Queen Elizabeth cannot determine who succeeds to the Throne. The rules regarding succession are laid down in the Act of Settlement. Ultimately the Parliament decides. If the Parliament wants to remove Charles from the line of succession then Parliament will have to change the Act of Settlement.
.

[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.:)

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by 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.:)

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.

[Princejohnny25]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.:)

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]

Originally Posted by 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.:)

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.

[Princejohnny25]

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]

Originally Posted by Princejonnhy25

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.

[Mippy O]

I don't see why not. I think he will probably be quite old by that time, since his mother's family is long lived, and she has said she will not adbdicate. I should think that Charles will be nearly 70 by the time he ascends the throne. I don't see any point in passing him over for his son. I think Charles would make a better king than his son, who is very young. At one time, I thouoght that Harry might succeed his father, rather than his brother. Who knows? So much could happen between now and then.

[Feberin]

Originally Posted by Mippy O

I don't see why not. I think he will probably be quite old by that time, since his mother's family is long lived, and she has said she will not adbdicate. I should think that Charles will be nearly 70 by the time he ascends the throne. I don't see any point in passing him over for his son. I think Charles would make a better king than his son, who is very young. At one time, I thouoght that Harry might succeed his father, rather than his brother. Who knows? So much could happen between now and then.

I agree that we really have no idea how the line of sucession will play out. However I think William will most likely be King at some point although he may be excited about becoming king he does seem to have a good idea about his role and I'm sure he will accept being king when the time comes. Also I doubt that he will die young because there are so many people working to keep him safe and healthy.

[BeatrixFan]

The House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg

If only it would! The British Royal Family should show their ancestry in their name and stop hiding behind this silly PC surname of Windsor. We should be living under the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg not the House of Windsor - Charles really should change the Royal House name. The sooner the Windsor chapter closes, the better in my opinion.
There's too many nasty connotations.

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg

If only it would! The British Royal Family should show their ancestry in their name and stop hiding behind this silly PC surname of Windsor. We should be living under the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg not the House of Windsor - Charles really should change the Royal House name. The sooner the Windsor chapter closes, the better in my opinion.
There's too many nasty connotations.

I wonder how the rest of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales would take to that. Scotland doesn't wish to be part of Great Britain anymore, and Wales has an anti-monarchy faction. I would love to see how many more anti-monarchists would join over a German name. I myself am part German, and I even get comments here in the states for having German blood. I wonder what the Sovereign's subjects would say.

[Genevieve]

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.

[Elspeth]

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.

[Josefine]

i think it depends how old he is at that stage
and if he is very old then it depends on his health

[marezdote]

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.

[galuhcandrakirana]

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.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by galuhcandrakirana

... if the Queen can reign 15-20 years more it will enough time for William to be ready.

Agreed, but the problem with Charles standing aside is that it creates an unwelcome precedent which could be used against an heir in the future. An "abdication" by Charles would also be an admission of failure on his behalf, to become just a footnote in history.

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.
.

[marezdote]

Originally Posted by Warren

Agreed, but the problem with Charles standing aside is that it creates an unwelcome precedent which could be used against an heir in the future. An "abdication" by Charles would also be an admission of failure on his behalf, to become just a footnote in history.

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.
.

I don't know if it would neccesarily be an addmission of failiar. The Queen is in good health and will probably lead for many more years. If at the time of her death Charles is old and not well and William is ready to take the throne I think it would make sense for him to abdicate.