The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #381  
Old 08-12-2007, 06:53 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade View Post
I agree on the first part, of course he won't have the opportunity to prove himself until he's the monarch.
Prince Charles has proved himself on many levels, though. He has already proved to us that he is an intelligent, thinking, well-read, progressive person.

I think he will be 75-80 when he is king, and given that he is probably one of the healthiest people on the planet, he could well live past 90. I hope for 100, though, at least! Prince William could be about 50-55 by the time he is king, a good age, as he will doubtless have a family and be exceedingly mature and intelligent like his dear old dads. If he could pick up his father's healthy habits and quit the smoking and drinking, it will be nice too.
__________________

__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
  #382  
Old 08-12-2007, 07:35 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
I posted on another thread that it is quite possible for both the Queen and Prince Charles to live to 100. To live a century is not the unachievable age it once was, even for men. Prince Philip's health makes it look like he'll go to 100 and with Charles' passion for health food and keeping up with exercise there's no reason he should not have the longevity of his father. William could be in his 60s by the time he ascends the throne. But nowadays 60 is considered the new 40 so even that will not seem old.

With almost another 20 years of the Queen's reign followed by a decent length reign of 20 years for Charles, I imagine the challenges facing the monarchy will be quite different than they are today.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #383  
Old 08-13-2007, 03:43 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
It was to do with venue wasn't it? I mean, I may be wrong but surely the Church can't afford not to recognise divorce in it's current position? Again, wrong topic.
I dont think it was for venue as the church was already booked for the service of dedication the same day. I cant see why they wouldnt of had a religious wedding rather than a civil plus dedication ceremony, IF they had been allowed one.
__________________
  #384  
Old 08-13-2007, 03:52 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
I dont think it was for venue as the church was already booked for the service of dedication the same day. I cant see why they wouldnt of had a religious wedding rather than a civil plus dedication ceremony, IF they had been allowed one.
It is at the discretion of individual vicars/priests/clergy as to whether or not they perform a marriage ceremony in 'their' church. Rowan Williams was still trying to make his mark in a relatively new post and it was his decision not to conduct a religous ceremony at that time. Had Charles and Camilla decided to attend another church (Wiltshire or Gloucester perhaps) for the cermony or even gone to Scotland, there would have been no problem.
__________________
  #385  
Old 08-13-2007, 07:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Given The Queen's extraordinary constitution and the fact her mother lived to see 100, anything could happen in the future, including Charles dying before his mother or Camilla passing away before he ascended the throne.

His reign will be rather short either way, assuming fate doesn't intervene.
__________________
  #386  
Old 08-13-2007, 07:48 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
It is at the discretion of individual vicars/priests/clergy as to whether or not they perform a marriage ceremony in 'their' church. Rowan Williams was still trying to make his mark in a relatively new post and it was his decision not to conduct a religous ceremony at that time. Had Charles and Camilla decided to attend another church (Wiltshire or Gloucester perhaps) for the cermony or even gone to Scotland, there would have been no problem.
Sorry , I'm not familiar with the name... is Rowan Williams the 'new' Archbishop of Canterbury? Who is the church person incharge of the coronation? I was actually quite surprised at the time that they did not marry in the church in Scotland as did Princess Anne. Thanks for the info!
Now that you mention it...why did they not seek out a more receptive clergy-person if that would have made a difference? Was it vital that this one person perform the ceremony?
__________________
  #387  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:03 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
Given The Queen's extraordinary constitution and the fact her mother lived to see 100, anything could happen in the future, including Charles dying before his mother or Camilla passing away before he ascended the throne.

His reign will be rather short either way, assuming fate doesn't intervene.
Well that doesn't exclude the fact that Charles could also live to see 100 which means he'd have roughly a 20 year reign. Not small chicken feed.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #388  
Old 08-13-2007, 11:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Sorry , I'm not familiar with the name... is Rowan Williams the 'new' Archbishop of Canterbury?
The Rt Revd Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #389  
Old 08-14-2007, 05:52 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 8,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio View Post
Prince Charles has proved himself on many levels, though. He has already proved to us that he is an intelligent, thinking, well-read, progressive person.

I think he will be 75-80 when he is king, and given that he is probably one of the healthiest people on the planet, he could well live past 90. I hope for 100, though, at least! Prince William could be about 50-55 by the time he is king, a good age, as he will doubtless have a family and be exceedingly mature and intelligent like his dear old dads. If he could pick up his father's healthy habits and quit the smoking and drinking, it will be nice too.
Yes he has done many useful things in his position as Prince of Wales, no question. Still it is a huge difference between being PoW or the monarch, being in the driver's seat. I have already commented about this topic in the spanish threads as it was mentioned in the docu Koenigskinder in relation to Felipe, the spanish crown prince, who is even 20 years younger. It was mentioned that Felipe's future will be difficult for him because waiting and waiting until the King dies can become a heavy burden. The time will come when Felipe has already granted 10 Million Spaniards an audience and there is nothing left for him to do.

Even though the british monarchy is much stronger than the spanish one, Prince Charles was given as an example, who has been waiting for several decades now and has become "only a caricature of himself", digging deep into green issues, painting watercolours and becoming a little exzentric with time passing by (my own words from what I recall - it's a quote, not my personal opinion).

Nevertheless, I think there is some truth in that. It's only human that when preparing your whole life for a position and you won't get there for reasons you can't change, there must be a certain level of frustration and Charles himself has already confirmed in some interviews that there is frustration in his life and the constant fear of himself / his work not being taken seriously.

He is almost 60 now and still Mummy and Daddy tell him what to do to a certain degree, who would like that? Of course everybody wants HM to be healthy but for Charles it's a bit of a tragedy, not being able to reign and show what he would be capable of as a monarch at a suitable age.
__________________
  #390  
Old 08-14-2007, 09:10 AM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
The Rt Revd Rowan Williams is the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury.
And is the Archbishop of Canterbury the person who performs the Coronation ceremony for the new Monarch? Or does the Monarch get to choose a different clergy if the A of C is not receptive? Because if it HAS to be the A of C and he's the one that wouldn't perform the marriage, I think there may be a problem.
__________________
  #391  
Old 08-14-2007, 09:14 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
So it is Charles's unknown destiny and I think he has known that for years. He chooses never to discuss about this issue publicly and reveals his real feelings about it.He admires what Queen had done for the country and the commonewalth.I think on the one hand he was quite frustrated about the predicement,on the other hand he knows once he becomes king, he would not have such freedom to do things he like. I think one of the reasons he seems to have a bit self-induglence because he had to find a way to release himself from the situation but it was a negative way. Now Camilla is his legal wife and he has find his contentment finally. At last the Queen was not against him marrying Camilla and let him grasp his own happines.
__________________
  #392  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:37 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Distrito federal, Mexico
Posts: 239
If English people want, Charles will be King.
__________________
  #393  
Old 08-14-2007, 10:56 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
And is the Archbishop of Canterbury the person who performs the Coronation ceremony for the new Monarch? Or does the Monarch get to choose a different clergy if the A of C is not receptive? Because if it HAS to be the A of C and he's the one that wouldn't perform the marriage, I think there may be a problem.
As the most senior bishop of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury officiates at the coronation.

The Archbishop made the following statement after the engagement of Charles and Camilla was announced:

"I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step. I hope and pray that it will prove a source of comfort and strength to them and to those who are closest to them."

Charles and Camilla - Archbishop's statement | Church of England

Because Camilla was perceived to have been a cause of the breakup of Charles and Diana's marriage, and because she and Charles were having an affair during the marriage, it would have been difficult for Dr Williams to have allowed the remarriage in church although I think it would have been theoretically possible. It would have looked like "one rule for the rich and powerful and one rule for the rest of us." To have Charles and Camilla marry in church would also have been perceived as an insult to Diana in much the same way as it would have been perceived as an insult to her if Camilla had used the style Princess of Wales rather than Duchess of Cornwall.

However, even though those factors make a church wedding basically impossible, the Archbishop did support the wedding itself and was willing to officiate at the service of prayer and dedication afterwards. That being the case, I don't think he'll have a problem with officiating at Charles's coronation.

It might be interesting to see what would happen if, for Charles's coronation, the archbishop of the time did refuse to officiate. It just seems that it won't happen if the present guy is the archbishop in question.
__________________
  #394  
Old 08-14-2007, 11:16 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
And if that happened, I think there'd be a wider discussion on the role of the Church in state matters possibly leading to dis-establishment. I mean, Ekklesia (UK Church think tank) called for it when the engagement was announced.
__________________
  #395  
Old 08-14-2007, 12:33 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,314
Perhaps there will be a discussion about dis-establishment of C of E. Charles has certainly alluded to it by saying he wants to be defender of faith, not the faith (which from everything I've read, QEII is not happy about). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that at present, the Monarch must swear to uphold and defend the established Church of England and it's tenets. I dont know who whould be the clergy person to annoint the Monarch, or would you have a whole assortment? I think it might be dicey to try and dis establish the church right at coronation time. I would be far smoother if dis establishment took place before he became monarch (ie in QEII's reign) but I think the likelihood of that happening will be when corgis fly!
I just wanted to add, that one of the reasons the American colonies went iinto revolt was against the established Church (of course you may thing we americans are revolting in any case).This first amendment to our Constitution is regarding the separation of Church and State.
__________________
  #396  
Old 08-14-2007, 01:06 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Perhaps there will be a discussion about dis-establishment of C of E. Charles has certainly alluded to it by saying he wants to be defender of faith, not the faith (which from everything I've read, QEII is not happy about).
I'm not really surprised. If Charles doesn't want to be Defender of the established church, that brings a large part of the role of the monarch into question. While it makes a certain amount of sense for the monarch to defend the established church on historical and legal grounds, Charles's freelance comment about wanting to be defender of faith means that he's decided, on the basis of his personal preference, that some of his citizens (the theists) are more worth defending than the rest of us, and I share the Queen's distate for that particular sentiment.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that at present, the Monarch must swear to uphold and defend the established Church of England and it's tenets.
The wording of the Coronation Oath is as follows:

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?
Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

The Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II

Quote:
I dont know who whould be the clergy person to annoint the Monarch, or would you have a whole assortment? I think it might be dicey to try and dis establish the church right at coronation time.
If there wasn't an established church, there'd be no reason for the coronation to be a religious ceremony, so I assume it'd turn into something more like the enthronements which occur in the European countries now.
__________________
  #397  
Old 08-14-2007, 07:37 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,314
Which royal houses have enthronement/coronations without religious elements? The only royal house I am (relatively) conversant on is BRF. How do Spain, Monaco, etc, etc handle it. Perhaps there is a 'model' out there?
__________________
  #398  
Old 08-14-2007, 07:50 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well, Spain and Monaco have religious parts to their monarch's accession. The Scandinavian Royal Families have pretty much ditched any religious stuff AFAIK.
__________________
  #399  
Old 08-16-2007, 01:21 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,105
Queen Camilla?? should she be our next queen?

Hi i wanted to hear what you all think about the should she be our next queen situation??
i personally think she shouldn't!
i actually thing that Prince William should have the crown and Charles just stay Prince of Wales until his death?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #400  
Old 08-16-2007, 02:29 PM
acdc1's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: somewhere in, United States
Posts: 1,809
I think that Charles should be king, and Camilla titled Queen Consort. It's just the proper thing to do. It may not have been best for her to be Princess of Wales, just the whole Diana issue, but once it comes to being Queen they should put asside the foolishness and make her Queen, because, after all, even if Diana had lived another 60 years, she wouldn't have been Queen. This title is all Camilla's.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles and Camilla Current Events 4: Oct - Nov 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 248 11-18-2005 02:47 PM
Charles & Camilla Current Events 3: 4-16 October 2005 Warren Current Events Archive 185 10-15-2005 08:11 PM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 2: Sept - Oct 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 199 10-04-2005 04:45 AM
Prince Charles visits Jordan: October 2004 Safaa Batin Royal House of Jordan 28 10-29-2004 05:56 PM
Charles And Camilla news and pics 1: Oct 2002 - Oct 2003 Lorraine Current Events Archive 134 10-31-2003 10:31 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]