Will Charles Ever Reign?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No it ain't. It's determined by the government. Much as Tony Blair might think he's God, I don't think things have gone that far.

True. It's my personal belief that its determined by God but I should have left that out of this discussion to avoid confusion. Thanks for pointing that out Elspeth

I think Beatrixfan ment that it is in Gods hand that, if you do believe in God, only he can controll who is born into the Royal Family. No one but God chooses who is in the RF and who will be the future monarch. I think thats where By The Grace of God come from.

Exactly what I meant! Thanks PrinceJohnny25!
 
in 1936 no one can think in george VI like king but happend, all can happend.
 
Re:

What? I think you're getting confused a bit here. George VI came to be because his brother abdicated. But that didn't happen because George V said so. Edward VIII became King when George V died. It was the Government who put pressure on the King to abdicate but the situation was pretty different back then. Edward VIII was King. George VI was his brother and became King because his brother abdicated without issue. And that followed succession. Nobody elected or chose George VI - he became King because thats the law.
 
Well, in this determination to try and write Charles out of history so the memory of Diana is revered, I think we're getting rather badly off topic as well as going round in circles.
 
BeatrixFan said:
What? I think you're getting confused a bit here. George VI came to be because his brother abdicated. But that didn't happen because George V said so. Edward VIII became King when George V died. It was the Government who put pressure on the King to abdicate but the situation was pretty different back then. Edward VIII was King. George VI was his brother and became King because his brother abdicated without issue. And that followed succession. Nobody elected or chose George VI - he became King because thats the law.

for taht, england have a future king and no-one thinf in who his brother can be king. I just said all can happend.
 
Let's get back on topic, please, corazon.
 
BeatrixFan said:
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?

They barely survived and that is because of HM the Queen Mother and the two charming princesses as daughters. Also having HM Queen Mary's backing was a help. However, it was a close call and Her Majesty still has horrible memories of that time I think and she just cannot or will not abdicate. For her it goes against everything she has been taught in life. She believes in duty, honor, and keeping a promise she made at the age of 21 in South Africa. Her Majesty will not let her subjects down. She should be applauded for all she has done. She has made some mistakes such as in raising her children, but all in all, Her Majesty is a model monarch.
 
corazon said:
the law is the law, I agree, but the queen is the unique person who can ask charles who abdicates if she considers that is the best thing for the crown or no. For that reason I say thatis into the hands of the queen, no us.

As much as I would not like to see Charles King, he is the next in line and Her Majesty cannot change it nor the government unless something quite horrific happened. Her Majesty feels one is born into this position by an act of God, and no earthly hand may change that unless there is something catastrophic.
This is a modified version of the "Divine Right of Kings".
 
BeatrixFan said:
Camilla is non-negotiable. Always has been and always will be. And thank God for it.

Not everyone is thanking God for it.
 
I have to disagree there. People in the 30s were a bit more repressed than we are now. My Grandmother told me that at the time of the Abdication, she was a little girl and when she mentioned it to her mother, her mother said, "That's not for us to talk about". There was very much a sense of 'knowing your place' which has really broken down alot now and so we're more willing to question. But they didn't then. The Monarchy survived because it was still revered as the highest authority in the land and people believed that the King was on a par with the divine. It has nothing to do with the Queen, Queen Mary or anything like that. They helped to sort out the Government and the few royal watchers who staged their protests against the abdication but as for the general joe (the majority of the country at that time) people didn't question and that was that.
Whether the Queen is a good monarch or not doesn't come into it. I think we're over-reacting to the general opinion on the abdication at the time and all we have to go on are the accounts of the people who were there. Speaking to them, I've long since realised it wasn't the great hoo-hah the historians make out. It may have rocked the House of Windsor but it didn't rock England.
 
corazon said:
I have a question that nobody could answer to me, as would be the official position of charles if he abdicates to the throne and william is king? THIS IS HYPOTHESIS will continue being prince of wales? , because the king's eldest son is prince of wales for tath the william's son must be prince of wales. Somebody know?
Charles will be prince of the united kingdow? or he will be like EDWARD VIII?

Charles could only abdicate once he was King, therefore, his previous titles and dignities would have merged with the Crown. The Dukedom of Cornwall would automatically pass to William as the Sovereign's eldest son and heir to the throne. If William had a son, then he would become the new Duke of Cornwall when William became King. William's son would then be created the new Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester as the new heir to the throne.

Upon abdication, Charles would automatically assume his birthright title and rank of HRH Prince Charles. William V could choose to grant him additional titles and dignities, just as Edward VIII became the Duke of Windsor via letters patent issued by George VI.
 
Last edited:
corazon said:
ok, he lost the title and will be william's decision another title.
...interesting and complicated situation
...

It would be just like what happened in 1936 with Edward VIII. When he abdicated, he was automatically HRH Prince Edward again as a son of the sovereign under George V's letters patent of 1917. George VI then created his brother HRH the Duke of Windsor with precedence before the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, but after Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.
 
Last edited:

Because Skydragon, Diana is dead and therefore everyone must suffer, the whole natural order of things has to come crashing down and traditions that have been with the Monarchy since its creation have to be changed so that a late ex-wife of a future King can be honoured forever.
 
BeatrixFan said:
Because Skydragon, Diana is dead and therefore everyone must suffer, the whole natural order of things has to come crashing down and traditions that have been with the Monarchy since its creation have to be changed so that a late ex-wife of a future King can be honoured forever.

Thats what I find hard to understand, she was his ex wife (both having commited adultery) and she died 8 years ago.:)
 
ysbel said:
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.
What troubles me personally is the position of the Monarch as the figurative head of a Christian church-and he commited adultery. I believe Charles should have shown the mother of his children more respect even if their marriage wasn't working out-I look to his brother the Duke Of York. Never once has he publicly denegrated the mother of his children. At one point I think Charles said he never loved Diana. What a thing for his children to get wind of. And Camilla should have shown Diana respect for her marriage. I cannot get past the fact that she did all she could to stay in Charles's life. From before the honeymoon on. I was brought up a street kid in Philadelphia, PA. Diana was brought up more ladylike. If some woman had given my bridegroom 'keepsake' cufflinks with their pet initials I would have re-arranged her face. And then his. Then I would have sought an annulment for his deception. But Diana was not a street kid of the world. She had a more sheltered upbringing and handled herself as best she knew how. She was no saint mind you. But she seemed to react to the cold indifference her husband, and his mistress showed to her feelings.

I am sorry. I can never ever respect Camilla. She in her late Majesties the Queen Mother's jewelry, and HM Queen Mary's tiara does not a Duchess or Princess make. To me she is no more than a [edited...]. I do wish Charles and her well. But they should not complain every time someone hoists a sign like 'Camilla your no Princess Di' and 'Not fit to be king'. They let alot of us down.I am trying to find it in my heart to forgive though. They looked so happy on their civil wedding day as much as I did not want to think positive as I watched on tv. But on the other hand I think the Archbishop and others in the church seemed to put their imprimator on an adulterous union that caused so much pain for many-and the most heartbroken of all is dead. Never an absolution there.

btw I think Elton John should have kept his opinion to himself about Charles marrying 'the wrong woman'. Some friend to Diana. Even if true he should not have said so. I am sure Diana's children can not like hearing about their father's friends trash-talking their mother.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Firstly, I'm an American, so excuse me if there's something obvious that I'm missing out on here...

It's only that I've never really understood the basis for the calls for Queen Elizabeth to "retire" and for Charles to be removed (were that possible) from the succession. It seems as though in the end, objections basically boil down to issues of people disliking Charles, preferring William, etc. But the monarchy isn't a popularity contest, is it? It's an ancient tradition, with clearly defined rules for how it should function. I can see how people would be upset by unfaithfulness in marriage, but I suppose a somewhat grim argument could be made for that being a tradition in and of itself.

If the arguments come down to moral scruples, then that would seem to reflect a changing idea about the role of the monarchy - that they should be responsive to public opinion and answerable to public judgement in much the same way that our elected officals are here in the US. If you're not liked, if you don't do what we think you ought, then you're out. And setting the monarchy up so that "voting people out" were possible would require a major overhaul of the whole institution, and indeed, a total refiguring of its purpose - for it wouldn't truly be a monarchy anymore in strict terms if one's understanding of monarchy includes ideas like divine right, etc. Admittedly, those sorts of concepts seem a bit dubious to us today, but those are the strict historical definitions as I understand them.

I'm not necessarily saying that making changes in that direction would be bad, but it does get somewhat confusing when people discuss the issue in terms of historical precedents when in fact, to me, the whole business seems distinctly contemporary.

Maybe someone can help set me straight.
 
MPs to decide if Camilla should have Queen title?

I have searched the threads and I apologize if this has already been posted-and if it is in the wrong thread-I'm a newbie and still learning!

it is from the Royal Archives webpage:
http://www.royalarchive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1597&Itemid=2

Camilla as Queen? 'Let the MPs decide'
camilla%20tiara.jpg


I live in Florida and I don't know if the 'Daily Express' is a reliable source. Please educate me! Has anyone heard any more on this?

The article is claiming that an MP called for debate on November 7 I believe regarding Camilla's title-or future title as Queen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Queen Mary I,

Morals Morals Morals. Has anyone considered that Camilla might just be the injured party in it all? In love with another man she couldn't marry, her husband having an affair? On the other side, Charles in love with a woman he couldn't be with and Diana having affairs. There must have been a time when Camilla really thought she'd never be with Charles. And she loves him. And that's stronger than any social perception on marriage laws and divorces and adultery or whatever else you want to throw at them. They loved each other and they had to be together. Camilla became this hated public figure because she was the other woman. Why didn't any of Diana's lovers become hated? Camilla's got the man she loves and that to her must mean more that titles and tiaras. I'll be honest, they don't want public forgiveness. People remarry - it happens all the time, but for Charles and Camilla, it's different. They are in unique positions.
You won't change your mind of course and that's your right - but don't buy into the public myth. Look into the personalities and not the labels. Just my tuppence worth.
 
Queen Mary I said:
What troubles me personally is the position of the Monarch as the figurative head of a Christian church-and he commited adultery. I believe Charles should have shown the mother of his children more respect even if their marriage wasn't working out-I look to his brother the Duke Of York. Never once has he publicly denegrated the mother of his children.

Hi Queen Mary I

Welcome to the conversation. Let's get some facts straight. Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denegrated Diana. Charles made one public comment that he had become unfaithful in his marriage once the marriage was irrevocably broken. That's it - no pointing fingers, no assigning blame. At the time, the statement was criticized for hurting Diana, but Diana had already out-ed his affair with Andrew Morton's book. She knew well about the affair by then. Camilla has never publically spoken about Diana and I doubt she ever will. Most of what you hear about C&C's affair comes from Diana and being hurt like she was, she was hardly an objective observer. Diana made a conscious choice to expose the inner workings of her relationship with Charles; it was a mistake IMHO, because once she got over the hurt I don't think she would have wanted constant reminders (books, Panorama interview) of how she felt during that hurtful time.

You mention how Andrew never once spoke disparagingly of his wife. That is significant because Sarah cheated on him, yet unlike Diana if she had lived, Andrew has no Panorama interview pouring out his hurt and anger, no book he secretly collaborated on to show the world how unfaithful she really was. Andrew didn't go there so he doesn't have reminders of being hurt during that troubled time. He has far the most part recovered and maintained a good relationship with his children and the woman who cheated on him. That is the reason I think Diana shouldn't have gone the route she did.

Charles even took pains to shelter his children from his relationship to Camilla. Unlike many fathers, he didn't introduce his new love until the children were adults. In fact, in public, he showed respect to his wife.

As far as the affair itself, marriages get in trouble, the couples don't know how to fix them, and they reach out to someone outside of the marriage. Both Charles and Diana did it and for the same reasons. They couldn't figure out how to fix what had been broken and they still needed love and support. Occasionally the affairs end and the marriage gets back on track but the marriage needs a strong base to grow off of. Charles and Diana didn't have that strong base to work off of. Yes, we all would have liked a fairytale ending with Charles and Diana crowned King and Queen and riding off into the sunset but our fairytale is not worth the pain and suffering that both would have had to go through to give us that fairytale.

BTW, Elton John was one of the few true friends that Diana had in the last months in her life and he was true because he was willing to tell her things that she might not be willing to hear rather than the rest of the syncophants that just told her what she wanted to hear. True friends are loving AND honest and true friends let you know when you've gone too far. I cannot see where saying that Charles married the wrong woman is trash talking Diana. Charles and Diana were wholly unsuited for each other. That's not trash talking Diana or Charles, it makes them like all the other marriages that are entered into for the wrong reasons.
 
Last edited:
ysbel said:
Hi Queen Mary I
Welcome to the conversation. Let's get some facts straight. Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denigrated Diana...
Excellent post, well said!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's only that I've never really understood the basis for the calls for Queen Elizabeth to "retire" and for Charles to be removed (were that possible) from the succession. It seems as though in the end, objections basically boil down to issues of people disliking Charles, preferring William, etc. But the monarchy isn't a popularity contest, is it? It's an ancient tradition, with clearly defined rules for how it should function. I can see how people would be upset by unfaithfulness in marriage, but I suppose a somewhat grim argument could be made for that being a tradition in and of itself.

I think you've understood the situation fairly well. Some people want to see Diana's son on the throne as a way of punishing Charles for what happened to Diana and of "resurrecting" her through her son. In the desire to sideline Charles as payback for Diana's unhappiness and early death, people are suggesting things that would be seriously damaging to the monarchy in the longer term. Once you start turning the position of monarch into a popularity contest, you might as well ditch the monarchy and have an elected president.
 
ysbel said:
Let's get some facts straight. Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denegrated Diana. Charles made one public comment that he had become unfaithful in his marriage once the marriage was irrevocably broken. That's it .

Well pointed out Ysbel, exactly what I wanted to say!:)
 
Camilla can only be denied the rank of Queen by Act of Parliament. She married Charles and shares his rank, otherwise the marriage would have to be morganatic, something the Government made clear at the time was not the case.

If she insists on being Princess Consort, Parliament will have to agree via an Act of Exclusion. Otherwise, she will be crowned Queen Consort whether she likes it or not.
 
...amusing mental picture of Camilla being dragged kicking and screaming into the Abbey, tied to the chair, and having the crown jammed on her head...
 
LOL!

Somehow I think she would put a good fight!!

Thank you for that laugh!!

I have a feeling if she and Charles ever fought she could take him two out of three rounds.

That is a compliment to her btw. :)
 
that is a very funny image. "don't make me queen, noooooo!!!!'

whether she IS queen or not doesnt matter, as long she's CALLED princess consort. i think if the court leads the way by calling her that on the website and in the court circular etc the media will follow suit in their coverage of the royal family.

undoubtedly there will be a few fanatics who will insist on calling her "Queen." just as right now there are those who like to call her "princess of wales" but they will be a small minority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom