Will Charles Ever Reign? part 4

[Incas]

Short of Charles being proven to have caused his mother's death, there is no legal barrier to his ascension. All the polls are just fillers for a slow news gap.

[diamondBrg]

This is VERY TRUE and Diana, Princess of Wales will still be a fond memory and regarded as "Queen of Peoples hearts." So all will be well.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Incas

Short of Charles being proven to have caused his mother's death, there is no legal barrier to his ascension. All the polls are just fillers for a slow news gap.

Even then he'd still become the King. They'd find a way to get rid of him quickly though, even if he refused.

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

This is VERY TRUE and Diana, Princess of Wales will still be a fond memory and regarded as "Queen of Peoples hearts." So all will be well.

I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...

[Incas]

Originally Posted by wbenson

I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...

LOL!! I may join you in that regard.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Even then he'd still become the King. They'd find a way to get rid of him quickly though, even if he refused.



I think my heart is a republic if that's the case...

I think I will join the republic as well! wbenson, you make me laugh!

As I have stated many, many, many times, Charles will ascend the throne, Camilla will be by his side, and then WIlliam will ascend when the time arrives. It would be foolish and petty, not to mention unprecented to pass Charles over. Besides, the Queen made it quite clear that Charles will ascend upon her death. Personally, I think this whole passing Charles over thing is distasteful. Had Diana not given that perfectly awful interview where she stated that she didn't think Charles was fit to be king, well, we would never have this conversation. Why should the monarchy be based on the thoughts of a manipulative, bitter ex-wife? Makes no sense to me.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

I think I will join the republic as well! wbenson, you make me laugh!

As I have stated many, many, many times, Charles will ascend the throne, Camilla will be by his side, and then WIlliam will ascend when the time arrives. It would be foolish and petty, not to mention unprecented to pass Charles over. Besides, the Queen made it quite clear that Charles will ascend upon her death. Personally, I think this whole passing Charles over thing is distasteful. Had Diana not given that perfectly awful interview where she stated that she didn't think Charles was fit to be king, well, we would never have this conversation. Why should the monarchy be based on the thoughts of a manipulative, bitter ex-wife? Makes no sense to me.

Precisely and there is something else that has ALWAYS puzzeled me to no end.

However Diana felt about Prince Charles, however angry she might have been and right or wrongly for that matter, HER SON, let me repeat that, HER SON was right in that mix and ANYTHING that negatively affected Prince Charles would have to have a NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HER SON, as the NEXT KING??

However angry you might be at your husband/ex-husband, doesn't the welfare and best interests OF YOUR CHILD come first?

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

However angry you might be at your husband/ex-husband, doesn't the welfare and best interests OF YOUR CHILD come first?

Well said, diamondBrg! This whole War of the Waleses was completely unfair to Princes William and Harry--but they seem to have handled it well. But, in all honesty, why would Diana want to push William into being King so young? Let me live a bit, enjoy his life, but she was so upset with Charles that she was willing to put William on the line very early. It didn't make much sense to me!
I will have to take a moment and say that the Duke and Duchess of York showed everyone how parents should strive to behave when there are children involved--

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

But, in all honesty, why would Diana want to push William into being King so young? Let me live a bit, enjoy his life, but she was so upset with Charles that she was willing to put William on the line very early. It didn't make much sense to me!

Because then Charles would be humiliated, stripped of his august position while she would be "the mother of the king" aka "King's Mum", a very important person at her son's court. Does that make sense?

[momo]

Hi all as I'm new here, If the Queen signs the final treaty with Europe in July 2008, Great Britain or England will effectively not exist any more. (England will be nine regions of the state of the UK in Europe). If this does go ahead our constitution will not exist and there will be no need for a Royal family at all, so maybe Charles and William will not reign. Mo.

[BeatrixFan]

Hmm. Not quite sure about that. The Lisbon Treaty has already been signed. It's not in effect yet but it's signed and sealed, done and dusted and the UK is still here. I think you've been reading a little too much of the Daily Mail.

[wbenson]

Unless Parliament ceases to be Supreme (it won't, as I'm pretty sure it can still do whatever it wants to nullify the treaty), then the treaty wouldn't be able to effect Charles' or William's future ability to reign at all. Unless EU tanks start rolling down Whitehall, I don't think there's really much to worry about.

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

Because then Charles would be humiliated, stripped of his august position while she would be "the mother of the king" aka "King's Mum", a very important person at her son's court. Does that make sense?

Jo, I never even thought of it that way--my mind was completely on what was best for William--UNLIKE his mother who only wanted to humuliate Charles and regain some position and standing in the Royal Family. That is just cold--in a sense, because he would be so young, it would be like William was the sacrificial lamb so Diana could get even--even though that sounds pretty harsh. Do you think William would have given Diana back her HRH? I will say this--while I do think it was the proper thing to do, taking the HRH from Diana, it seems a little odd that the mother of the future King would not hold the HRH--does that make sense?

[milla Ca]

Originally Posted by momo

Hi all as I'm new here, If the Queen signs the final treaty with Europe in July 2008, Great Britain or England will effectively not exist any more. (England will be nine regions of the state of the UK in Europe). If this does go ahead our constitution will not exist and there will be no need for a Royal family at all, so maybe Charles and William will not reign. Mo.

You can support the idea of a unit Europe or not, but the EU hasn´t the target to get rid of sovereign states. Und it will not touch on any republic or monarchy.
So no fears, Charles will be the next ( great ) King!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by jcbcode99

Do you think William would have given Diana back her HRH? I will say this--while I do think it was the proper thing to do, taking the HRH from Diana, it seems a little odd that the mother of the future King would not hold the HRH--does that make sense?

The sytsem in the UK works like that: wifes don't acquire a title of their own but share that of their husband. Children inherit the title from their father. So when Diana divorced, she did not longer have a husband, thus she was again what she was before: a Lady by courtesy. While William will keep his forever because he was born a prince of the blood Royal. So, no, it's not odd at all.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Unless Parliament ceases to be Supreme (it won't, as I'm pretty sure it can still do whatever it wants to nullify the treaty), then the treaty wouldn't be able to effect Charles' or William's future ability to reign at all. Unless EU tanks start rolling down Whitehall, I don't think there's really much to worry about.

The EU is not about the way a country is represented. Thus, all EU states with monarchies (like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Spain, Monaco and the Vatican) kept their crowned head of state, of course. EU is about having common representatives in parliament (in each country the voters vote for their representatives in a common European parliament) and in administration (the governments of the EU countries decide together to appoint administrators to deal with laws and situation which concern all member countries.). Plus there is the European Court of Human Rights.

While the member states gave some of their souverainity to the EU parliament and EU administration, they haven't ceased to be independant states. It's just that the interests of the European Union are discussed and decided in political bodies where each country is represented but the decisions happen by majority. But there are veto-rights included, so there are no cases where countries are overruled by the others when it comes to their own interests. Negociations just take longer then till all are either staisfied or at least okay with a decision.

So HM Elizabeth II.will still be HM of the Uk, just as HM Beatrix is still HM of The Netherlands and HM Juan Carlos is still HM of Spain.

[lilytornado]

Monaco and the Vatican are not part of the EU.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by lilytornado

Monaco and the Vatican are not part of the EU.

They are associated as they are connected through treaties about international representation to France (Monaco) and Italy (Vatican) which are EU-members. Plus they are members of the EU-customs territority and use the EURO as their currency. Through France and Italy respectively they are included into the Schengen-treaty. Thus they may be nominally not part of the EU but in practical life they are.

BTW - in the same way Norway is not a full EU-member but through signing the EEA free-trade deal and agreeing to Schengen etc. it is in practise already a part of the EU, even if not a full member.

[jcbcode99]

It makes perfect sense that Diana would lose the HRH upon her divorce, I completely understand and totally agree with that. I guess I should have clarified my question/comment, and please remember that I am still learning about such technicalities as this, but if William had become King and she were still alive, would he have had the ability to restore the HRH to her, based on her being the mother of the King?

[momo]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Hmm. Not quite sure about that. The Lisbon Treaty has already been signed. It's not in effect yet but it's signed and sealed, done and dusted and the UK is still here. I think you've been reading a little too much of the Daily Mail.

I read the Sun, Mail and the Times ever since I became a law student, to get a balanced view of the press. Every paper has the same opinion of the latest treaty, that the people should decide whether we are subject to it. However I did not take any of their views. I took my own view of this country and the latest developments with regard to our privacy and how much we are monitored, (UK has 20% of the world's surveillance cameras), and typed into google, 'England police state'. Try it. Find out what our country is like.

[BeatrixFan]

Well I agree with you about the surveilance thing but on the Lisbon Treaty, I'd suggest that you read the Treaty itself because there's no mention whatsoever of removing individual sovereignty or dissolving monarchies. If anything, the Lisbon treaty makes the EU more democratic and gives more power to national parliamentary bodies so the threat to Charles succeeding his mother because of the EU is non-existant.