Will Charles Ever Reign?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

grecka

Nobility
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
414
As disliked as he is now, in both Britain and abroad, will Charles ever become king or will the British send him packing?
 
This is the million dollar question. No one knows what is going to happen after the Queen's reign comes to an end. Heck, there may not be a monarchy after she dies. But let's face it, the Queen is in good health and if she lives as long as her mother she is going to reign for another 20 or more years! By that time Charles will be nearly 80 years old. My personal feelings are that Prince William will be the next King.

I am not saying that Charles would be a bad King, but it would be better to have someone younger on the throne after the Queen dies. Charles would not have time to make any changes to the monarchy before he is suceeded by Prince William.

My personal wish is that the Queen reigns forever, however, unless she is immortal she won't be around forever. When the time comes, Charles should stand aside for William.
 
I think that Charles will have a short reign, like Edward VII. I do think that we will see William as a very active Prince of Wales during that time.
 
Personally I think that at whatever age Charles is when his mother dies he will become king.

A lot of people seem to think that the Queen will live as long as her mother but I think that she will live a shorter life. I don't think she will live that long after her husband dies as she has loved him since she was 13.

I have recently seen three couples who have been together for 60 plus years and in each case one partner died and the other lasted only about a year or even less in one case. The children in each case pointed out that the surviving partner felt as if so much of them had died with their partner that they couldn't keep going. I see the Queen in this situation. Strangely however I think if the Queen died first I think that Philip could live for a much longer time (relatively considering his age now).
 
I do not think so .The Queen is in very good health now, Philip is too.No one is the same chrissy.Maybe the 3 partners u say is like that so The queen and Prince Philip is also the same?No!No one is the same, i think The Queen can live as long as her mother or more.
 
Since Charles is already pushing 60 and William is only in his early 20s, I think that if Charles is in reasonably good health when the Queen dies, he'll become king so that all his decades of training can be put to some good use and William won't be rushed into the straitjacket of kingship before he's had a life. Considering how the Queen's relationship with her children seemed to suffer - and have long-term consequences - because she was otherwise occupied when they were growing up, I don't suppose that either she or Charles would want William to shoulder that burden if he was still unmarried or had a very young family.
 
Yes, i know that we also support that Charles becomes King.We know that now he is actually becoming a good father and better than before.But we also still have our support for The Queen.It would be so great if The Queen becomes a longest Monarch ever in British history.
 
i have agree with HMQueenElizabethII

because HM QueenII still good health for long times like her mother the Queen Mother still strong health till her 101 years old but mostly people wanted Queen still strong for long times! but the 2 Queen never let down! and Prince Philips also!

Prince Charles still good health also if he would become King for while what your posts says that! but mostly people wanted William become King more best than Prince Charles!

Sara Boyce
 
chrissy57 said:
A lot of people seem to think that the Queen will live as long as her mother but I think that she will live a shorter life. I don't think she will live that long after her husband dies as she has loved him since she was 13.

I have recently seen three couples who have been together for 60 plus years and in each case one partner died and the other lasted only about a year or even less in one case.

I think the Queen will live as long as her mother if not longer. She is actually in better health than her mother was at 79. I remember reading once that the Queen once joked to a friend that she intends to live as long as her mother. But you never know.

I know that when Prince Philip passes on, the Queen will be heartbroken but we can't forget that her marriage to Prince Philip is not a typical marriage. They pretty much live very seperate lifes in private, as well the Queen has a job to keep her mind off things.

If Charles becomes king, it will be a very short reign...no more than a decade.
 
Yes, i agree with you.Maybe if Prince Philip passed on The Queen would be heartbroken.But i do not think that The Queen wil give up her duties.She is a great Queen, she is hard-working. Maybe she would be sad in the first few time but not long.We can look as Queen Beatrix, Prince Claus and her are very close and they have great lve for each other so much but Queen Beatrix still doing her duties she not give up.Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is a very strong lady she is not easy to give up like that.
 
I recently read a book about royals and their lives, before the current Windsors, and although many might seem it trivial - Britian has never had it better with their royal family. They have royals that actually care the British people and about other causes. And yes, this is long before Diana and her "common-touch" made an appearance. And do a whole lot of good whether the British people or press are willing to hear it or not.
Charles will be a good king. We know enough of his passion and drive to know that. Will the British people allow Charles to demonstrate this, it might even redeem him in their eyes. They should give him that chance, if anything. The crown might make Charles into the man were believe that he can be.

Here is something you might not know. After the abdiction, there was a lot in the press about ending the monarchy then and there. The reason, the press darling Edward VIII had gone away. The press disliked the Duke of York. They believed him dull, unable to follow the fashions and in general, stupid. (Probably due to the stuttering.) Likewise they weren't too happy with the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of York becaming Queen. Her nickname in the press was Cookie and they liked dismissing her as a royal tag along. Isn't it ironic that George VII and the Queen Mother are now held up as icons of royal standing.
 
timtonruben359 said:
I know that when Prince Philip passes on, the Queen will be heartbroken but we can't forget that her marriage to Prince Philip is not a typical marriage. They pretty much live very seperate lifes in private, as well the Queen has a job to keep her mind off things.

How do we know this??????
Yes the Queen & Prince Phillip do not spend every day & night together but that is not because they don't want too. Considering their ages they both undertake a heavy list of public duties which can see them at opposite ends of the country. Their body language indicates that they are very close.
 
grecka said:
As disliked as he is now, in both Britain and abroad, will Charles ever become king or will the British send him packing?

Those that "dislike" the Prince of Wales are a minority. Many more like or respect him. It's just that the minority are far more vociferous in expressing their views, and many of their views are driven not so much by dislike of him but by feelings for someone else who was once in his life. I've always respected him (not blindly, he has faults of course) but, like the rest of the majority, don't often feel the need to tell others about it.
 
Last edited:
We will never know now if Charles will have the chance to reign. The health of his mother, and Charles' current age would point to a short reign or never to reign.

HM the Queen would never retire from public life if the Duke of Edinburgh should pass on before her. She has her mother's example to follow and her promise on her 21st birthday to serve her people as long as life permits.

As for Charles being a good or bad king, the thought of him as king scares me. While he has had good ideas such as the Prince's trust, Charles is a very insular man who cannot stand the trap of being Prince of Wales. How will his being King help him? The scrutiny will become much worse.

He has not lead the most exemplary life either. While all make mistakes, Charles has made some big ones.

The monarchy's hopes for survival and revival lie with William. I believe William can find a better way to balance custom/ritual with a breath of fresh air his mother always believed the monarchy needed. While many may detest Diana, Diana was right about this. The monarchy has to change and adapt to stay pertinent in the lives of the people. I think William can do this. Charles is too set in his ways and desires.
 
Disregarding the current issue with Charles, I personally doubt that Charles would ever become king. Again, if his mother lasts as long as her mother did, it becomes pretty bleak for Charles. Looking at past precedence, their line tend to live long lives, barring any non-health issues or outside factors.

William will have a better shot at the throne than his father, just looking at age alone.
 
Well, aside from his age when he acceeds, I should like to know what you think about Charles's popularity factor. I was reading "The Guardian" a few weeks ago that only 30% of the British population think Charles should be king and less than half like him just as a man.
 
Well, aside from his age when he acceeds, I should like to know what you think about Charles's popularity factor.

I think it's irrelevant. Once you start being concerned about popularity, you might as well ditch the monarchy and have an elected president as head of state.
 
He's reining right now - er, on weekends, that is - when he's riding his horse. ;)
 
hrhcp said:
He's reining right now - er, on weekends, that is - when he's riding his horse. ;)

Well, he does have many responsibilities now that the Queen is older, but I don't really think that is what you mean.
 
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
 
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.
 
thanks for that information! appreciate it
 
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.
.
 
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.
 
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.
 
gaggleofcrazypeople said:
Well, he does have many responsibilities now that the Queen is older, but I don't really think that is what you mean.

You are quite right ..... I missed the "g" in reining.
 
i think it depends how old he is at that stage
and if he is very old then it depends on his health
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom