Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Genevieve]

Did anybody who is advocating that William succeed his grandmother instead of his father stop and think that you are robbing William of his young life in insisiting on this?

In 10-15 years if William succeeds his grandmother he will hopefully be a young married man with a young family. You would want him to be spending tons of time away from his family carrying on royal duties within Great Britain and abroad? Not to mention the temendous pressure that will likely be bestowed upon his wife as the media wonders if she is the next Diana or not, and as she would be Queen she would be taken away from her young children just as much. Is that fair to her and William's marriage or their children?

I think about all that the present Queen's children have said about how she was away from them a lot and that they spent a lot more time with their nanny/governness than with her. And how much the children suffered as a result of this, with the Queen showing very little affection or attention to her children because she was so busy. Would we want that same fate to befall William's children?

If you truly had a vested interest in William, you would want his father to rule for a long time if only so that William could spend more time with his young family and making his marriage strong and building a foundationg of mutual support with his wife before succeeding to the throne.

 

[Nathalian]

I´m telling that she made her choise.......hummm...ok..not clear... If she would think of Wills than Charles, she should just forget about Charles and leave it....I know it´s her son and all...but, she would leave all the problems to him and just prepare Wills... I know i´m being maybe fantasious and cruel...but, that´s the truth to me.....I now that the Parlament make that decisions....hehehe...I know England´s history....

 

[Piewi]

Genieve: i think the queen will live 10 or 15 years and Wills will araund 35, and my point of view, is that a royal havent too work, only the same of a normal person or less. My father spend a little time with me, only in dinner or on the evenings and maybe the queen has troubles couse she is a mother and i think that in most of cases is the mother who spend more time with the children. I think that if he want be with his children he could do that.
I understand your point of view and i agree on some facts , but i belive that unfortely for him, he born with that responsibility.
Sorry for my bad english

 

[Alexandria]

Having read much of the debate in the Jordanian royal forum at the time (and after) of King Abdullah changing the succession and removing Hamzah as Crown Prince, as well as years before that when King Hussein changed the succession and removed his brother who had been the Crown Prince for several decades in favour of his son, I think for the Queen to choose William over Charles to succeed her is opening a can of worms. And in the end, I think that picking and choosing your heir would not save the monarchy as some would think with William taking over the throne rather than his father; it would, I think, make the monarchy more unstable.

The one thing that binds the monarchy through generations and centuries has been the consistency of who the next monarch will be and in the tradtion of a father or mother passing on his or her role to her eldest son/child. Granted the Queen's children have done much to change up tradition in the monarchy with their divorces and re-marriages (not just Charles but also Anne), but I think this is one tradition that needs to be upheld to not shake or rattle the monarchy further. If the Queen can pick and choose her next heir, who is to say that she would pick William? Why not Anne who consistently ranks as one of the top three hard working royals in the family? Or Edward who has a stable life with Sophie and a young heir in daughter Louise?

 

[sara1981]

Having read much of the debate in the Jordanian royal forum at the time (and after) of King Abdullah changing the succession and removing Hamzah as Crown Prince, as well as years before that when King Hussein changed the succession and removed his brother who had been the Crown Prince for several decades in favour of his son, I think for the Queen to choose William over Charles to succeed her is opening a can of worms. And in the end, I think that picking and choosing your heir would not save the monarchy as some would think with William taking over the throne rather than his father; it would, I think, make the monarchy more unstable.

The one thing that binds the monarchy through generations and centuries has been the consistency of who the next monarch will be and in the tradtion of a father or mother passing on his or her role to her eldest son/child. Granted the Queen's children have done much to change up tradition in the monarchy with their divorces and re-marriages (not just Charles but also Anne), but I think this is one tradition that needs to be upheld to not shake or rattle the monarchy further. If the Queen can pick and choose her next heir, who is to say that she would pick William? Why not Anne who consistently ranks as one of the top three hard working royals in the family? Or Edward who has a stable life with Sophie and a young heir in daughter Louise?

I agree with you!

I told everyone about William will next King i read in sky news articles says that than his dad the Prince of Wales i would believe me if you would read that articles i send it about that.

Sara Boyce

 

[bigheadshirmp]

if Charles renounce his right to the throne himself....then does that solve the problem about the parliament and the law thing? so that the throne will automatically transferred to William?

 

[trinny]

I hope Charles will reign, I think with all he's been through he will be an excellent King and I don't think the role should be foisted (sp?!!) on William too early.

 

[Warren]

Renunciation

If Charles renounce his right to the throne himself....then does that solve the problem about the parliament and the law thing?

An heir to the throne cannot "renounce" his or her rights as such.
The succession is governed by the Act of Settlement which is an Act of Parliament.

As the senior living representative of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (after The Queen), Charles is automatically, by this Act, the legal and rightful heir to the British Crown.

He can only "renounce" his right of succession by the approval of the Parliament, or by marrying a Roman Catholic. The latter is unlikely!

Edward VIII's "Instrument of Abdication" became law the day after he had signed it, not from when he signed it. It required the endorsement of the Parliament for the abdication to take effect.

Which of course is not to say that if an heir was determined to give up their rights to the Throne the Parliament would refuse approval. It's just that there is more involved than just saying "I renounce" or "I abdicate."
.

 

[Elspeth]

I think Charles could renounce his right to the throne without it affecting William's right to succeed, but there's no reason why he should. As Genevieve said, it would have a bad effect on William's life for him to succeed to the throne while too young to have had a life - the people who are clamouring for him to be the next heir seem to be thinking more of their own need to punish Charles for his treatment of Diana than thinking of what their suggestion would mean to William's life.

I agree with Alexandria too; once you get a situation where the succession isn't fixed and it all becomes a popularity contest, you might as well just have a republic with an elected politician as head of state, because the monarchy would have lost a lot of its meaning.

 

[galuhcandrakirana]

I disagree if there is opinion which said that the one who prefers William to be the next queen successor because of wanting to punish Charles (at least not everybody has it).

What had happened with Diana and Charles married life doesn't affect my opinion (because I belief that the divorce had happened because of the mistakes both of them have done).

Speak in general, I have learned from many monarchy histories that revolution to abolish a monarch or monarchy system often happened because of people does not satisfied with the “unpopular” reign or royal family. Then if Royal family wants to keep their present presence (popularity) they should think serious about it. I think they will take a big risk to keep unpopular member to be a successor.

For Britain monarch, I have heard in TF1 that at this moment 58% of British want William becomes next successor, but it might change depend on Charles presence in the future.



For William: I think every successor (very close rank inline of successor) should prepare him self from very early age. Everything bad can be happened in the future. Just thinking if William father suddenly passed away before the queen; or if the fact that Charles popularity will become worst and worst among his subject and it gives a lot of bad impacts in every public matter (such as Social and politic life) in the future time, then it might push the ruling system to change the next queen successor (everything can be happen in future). If it happens, William as the next successor might not have enough time to do his “normal” (married) life. (I’m not very worry about it because we have a good example such as King Carl Gustaf of Sweden, prince Rainier of Monaco, I think they have a quite happy family life even though their married life had started after they become head of state).


In my opinion, changing the successor will not affect the meaning of monarchy system as long it has very good and strong reasons or in emergency situation.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

I really agree with you. It makes me feel better to know that not everyone hates the marrige etc, because that has all I have been seeing all day.

 

[semisquare]

all i can say is that 16% of the british people like camille and think she should be queen when charles becomes king

 

[Reina]

I think things should stay as is for now and 10-15 years from now we can speculate.

 

[Feberin]

I think Charles should become King. Sure he has made mistakes during his life but hopefully he has learned from those mistakes and this will enable him to become a better King. William may seem like the royal golden boy now but give him a decade or two and I'm sure he will have his own scandals just as bad or perhaps even worse then his father's have been! Also William doesn't really seem that thrilled with his role as a future King. I bet if you were to ask William who he wanted to succeed the Queen, he would pick his father. He just isn't ready for all that pressure. His father is in good health and far more prepared for those stresses so there is no reason to create a special act of parliament to take his father out of the line of succession.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well said Feberin.

I well remember the 1960s and 1970s when Charles was the people's darling and no-one could imagine raising a question about the succession. He was the age William is now!!!



We don't know what the future will bring but the Queen certainly doesn't want a debate about the succession and that is what any renounciation would require.



Charles should be king when his mother dies and do the job until he dies. William will have the chance to have a life and be a Dad and be prepared.

 

[Britters]

I agree with those who believe Charles should follow his mother and become King after her death. I truly belive Charles will make a great King, and I think he will probably do a lot to help modernize the way the Royal family works. His personal struggles and his close relationship with his own two boys will help to stabalize what seems to be a family of scandals, if only because they seem to truly enjoy their time together, and listen to one another. There is a lot to be said for public face as well. Charles, William and Harry all stick together and that's a great representation of what a family should do.

Charles works hard at his job and has for years. He's had personal problems, and unfortunately those seem to hold more weight in peoples minds then the fact that he does great work for his country. His marriage to Camilla will certainly serve him well as I believe he now has a wife who will truly support him and is not just there because it seems like a glamorous life and title.

 

[Catharina]

I don't really care who becomes the next ruler, but somehow the thought of Charles as king doesn't seem like a good idea. What he did or didn't do with Diana has no effect on my opinion, just that I haven't really seen anything in his character that would point to him to become a good king. He has never been very charismatic or brave and seems to have a low self-esteem. It is like he is continually seeking for mommy's approval and keeps lurking about and blushing in front of the cameras (he looks more and more like Droopy ) instead of standing up straight.
If he has any bright ideas I sure haven't heard of them, instead he seems to have inherited his father's tendency to blurt out things that should be kept in.

As for William, I don't think that becoming a king would ruin his life. If he thinks so, he can always renounce his right to the throne (in which case I think there would be a need for kingly election among the family). He has had to deal with the situation all his life and he must know that since he became of age, he must always be ready for possible ascension to the throne.

Perhaps Charles could act as a sort of viceroy or something? He could become the Duke of Windsor like his great uncle and what a better title for Camilla than Wallis's...

Even if the Windsors seem to live long, we must remember that the ones that have, have mostly been women.

Here's an interesting anecdote if anyone cares to read it... I will always remember what day Elizabeth's father passed away since that was the same day that my father lost his maternal grandpa, and to the same disease. It was also my grandma's birthday. My greatgrandpa had said when he was battling with lung cancer and heard that the king had been operated that sure, the kings can be operated but a man like he couldn't be, because the doctors wouldn't. In any case, the result for the king George VI and my greatgrandpa was the same.

 

[Feberin]

I don't really care who becomes the next ruler, but somehow the thought of Charles as king doesn't seem like a good idea. What he did or didn't do with Diana has no effect on my opinion, just that I haven't really seen anything in his character that would point to him to become a good king. He has never been very charismatic or brave and seems to have a low self-esteem. It is like he is continually seeking for mommy's approval and keeps lurking about and blushing in front of the cameras (he looks more and more like Droopy ) instead of standing up straight.
If he has any bright ideas I sure haven't heard of them, instead he seems to have inherited his father's tendency to blurt out things that should be kept in.

The Queen's father King George VI wasn't very charasmatic either and many people questioned his ability to be king when he ascended the throne but during WWII he proved his ability to lead the country. I don't think we should jump to any conclusions about Prince Charles' leadership abilities before we have really gotten a chance to see what he can do.

 

[Merca]

Of course he will reign, even the Queen is planning to cut back on her responsibilities, starting with overseas tours, letting Charles and Camilla to step in, which is seen as a gradual transition.

 

[Genevieve]

all i can say is that 16% of the british people like camille and think she should be queen when charles becomes king

Where did you get this statistic from?

 

[Iluvbertie]

IIf he has any bright ideas I sure haven't heard of them, instead he seems to have inherited his father's tendency to blurt out things that should be kept in.

I take it then that you haven't heard his views on Genetically Modified food (with which some scientists are beginning to agree), his views on preserving traditional architecture, his Princes Trust, which assists 1000s of young people to get a start in life and his Poundbury village.

 

[mgrant]

I think that Charles should succeed his mother and I feel sure that this will be the case. There had been speculation a few years ago that QEII should retire and pass the throne on to Charles. She should reign as long as she wants as long as she is physically and mentally able to do so. I sure that if her situation changes, Charles will be King. He deserves as much chance to fall on his face as anyone else who inherited the throne. If he decides not to be the King, I'm also sure that Parliment will support him. It is what it is.

The issue about Camilla is moot because she will become whatever the law states is her legal position. That could be Queen, that could consort, basketball player, rock and roll singer, beauty contestant, chief cook and bottle washer....whatever the law of the land states is her rightful title.

William will become King if the above circumstances for whatever reason changes, even if he is just 22 years old. If he's not up to, his family and the those who make up the Firm will be there to prop him up until he can reign on his own.

MGrant has spoken

 

[Genevieve]

I think that Charles should succeed his mother and I feel sure that this will be the case. There had been speculation a few years ago that QEII should retire and pass the throne on to Charles. She should reign as long as she wants as long as she is physically and mentally able to do so. I sure that if her situation changes, Charles will be King. He deserves as much chance to fall on his face as anyone else who inherited the throne. If he decides not to be the King, I'm also sure that Parliment will support him. It is what it is.

The issue about Camilla is moot because she will become whatever the law states is her legal position. That could be Queen, that could consort, basketball player, rock and roll singer, beauty contestant, chief cook and bottle washer....whatever the law of the land states is her rightful title.

William will become King if the above circumstances for whatever reason changes, even if he is just 22 years old. If he's not up to, his family and the those who make up the Firm will be there to prop him up until he can reign on his own.

MGrant has spoken

I like when MGrant has spoken!

People may not like Camilla. People may not like Charles. People may not like Charles and Camilla as the future King and Queen of England or as the head of the Church of England. But as long as legislature is not enacted to not allow Charles to succeed his mother or for Camilla to not take on the title of Queen when Charles becomes King, then the law is the law.

Every country has laws that their citizens don't like. But the law is the law and you can't change the law because you don't like certain individuals, have your doubts about them, or find the law inappropriate for certain circumstances. Frankly, I don't like that the speed limit for the streets around my home as only 60 km, I would prefer them to be 80 km. But I can't change the law because some mornings when I am late for work the law is inconvenient for me.

Who is to say that if the law is changed to allow William to succeed his grandmother instead of his father, the law can't be changed again to say that William's second child, who is more handsome or prettier should succeed his father rather than the first born who is not as attractive or charismatic.

One cannot be fickle with the law. One has to live with what the law is even if you don't like the circumstances or individuals carrying out the law. Otherwise what is the point of having a "law" if it changes from year to year or decade to decade?

 

[james]

Indeed, but in a democracy the citizens of the country concerned can vote to change a law if they don't like it. Governments AND Monarchies ought to remember that.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

The law can be changed, but it would take so much time and effort that it would not be worth it.

 

[Warren]

Deposition Unlikely

The law can be changed, but it would take so much time and effort that it would not be worth it.

Yes, I think it unlikely that the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom would act to depose the Prince of Wales as Heir to the Throne because some people may be ill-disposed to the Duchess of Cornwall due to her alleged role in the breakdown of the marriage with his deceased
ex-wife.
.

 

[Binky]

Plus, how long will he reign anyway? He's close to 60 and QEII doesn't look like she's going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[mgrant]

Yes, I think it unlikely that the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom would act to depose the Prince of Wales as Heir to the Throne because some people may be ill-disposed to the Duchess of Cornwall due to her alleged role in the breakdown of the marriage with his deceased
ex-wife.
.

True. We might not like it but it's not enough to lose a throne over.
And I truly believe that in the long run, the British might warm up to Camilla.
She deserves a chance (I say that a lot ).

And Binky, Charles might be almost 60, and QEII is a little long in the tooth , but the two of them are hale and healthy. Who knows how long that situation will continue? One thing for sure, it will provide us with endless speculations

 

[Iluvbertie]

I hate to say this but I thought the Queen didn't look as healthy as she has in the past at the wedding. I know we are being told that she is healthy but the lack of time between the engagement and the wedding makes me think that something isn't as it should be.

Normally there is six months or so between engagement and wedding so why the haste this time - ruling out Camilla being pregnant - I think someone isn't as healthy as we are being led to believe. Is it the Queen, Philip or Charles himself (or possibly Camilla??)?

 

[grecka]

She's 79 years old and I think she looks pretty damn good for her age. If you think about her schedule, about her past, and about the things she deals with on a daily basis, I'm amazed she looks as good as she does now and as healthy as she is now.