The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/)
-   -   Prince William's Suitability to be King (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f269/prince-williams-suitability-to-be-king-29918.html)

Skippy 01-20-2011 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1195269)
Not really - it wouldn't matter what education, experience etc he had. He is suitable to be King for the simple reason of his birth.

He could have failed all the way through school, never got a job, been a playboy and he still would be suitable to be king because all he needs is to be born.

IMO it depends on how you view 'suitability' - being born in a certain position or with a certain outlook doesn't automatically mean that you are suitable or capable of living up to it.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

CharlotteAmalia 01-20-2011 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1195258)
Is William suitable to be King is an irrelevant question. He has the only qualification he needs to have to take on that position - he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch.

The education of the monarch's doesn't matter at all as all they need for the job is to be born in the right position in the right family. Therefore is William suitable to be King - yes.

it came to my mind when reading the same question about Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark ( http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ing-14778.html )

Every citizen of the Commonwealth Realms could get involved in a republican movement, which might end in an change of constitution from monarchy to republic. I'm not a expert on constitutional law, so i do not know the procedure of a change of constitution.
So it is very important for most royal families if the people like them, if the people believe they are doing a good job and if the heir is suitable to be King.

But Skippy is right: We have to agree that we disagree about William's suitability.

Iluvbertie 01-20-2011 05:55 PM

William, like Charles before him, has been trained to be King by the best training possible - the incumbent.

As William already is eligible to be a Counsellor of State (like Charles, Harry and Andrew) he has a solid understanding of what it entailed.

When Charles becomes King, if not sooner, he will start getting regular briefings from the government of the day about what is happening. Charles does that now (he gets a summary of the papers sent to the Queen each day and often full copies of the stuff as well - there is even a small horse-drawn carriage that takes the documents from BP to CH - I was at the Mews one day when it returned and asked what it was for and was told 'It takes the government's documents from the Queen to the Prince of Wales and then brings them back again when they are both in London')

Skippy 01-20-2011 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1195282)
William, like Charles before him, has been trained to be King by the best training possible - the incumbent.

As William already is eligible to be a Counsellor of State (like Charles, Harry and Andrew) he has a solid understanding of what it entailed.

When Charles becomes King, if not sooner, he will start getting regular briefings from the government of the day about what is happening. Charles does that now (he gets a summary of the papers sent to the Queen each day and often full copies of the stuff as well - there is even a small horse-drawn carriage that takes the documents from BP to CH - I was at the Mews one day when it returned and asked what it was for and was told 'It takes the government's documents from the Queen to the Prince of Wales and then brings them back again when they are both in London')

Your original post stated something different to me. I leave it at that.

Esmerelda 01-20-2011 06:11 PM

How much politics and economics does the monarch need to know? They will be briefed by staff I imagine but they aren't involved in policy or diplomatic negotiation. I would argue that he needs some experience in representation and practical experience such as taking part in state visits would be valuable. Also, some training in management may be a good idea as royal courts are organizations which exist at least partly to sell themselves and their country.

Iluvbertie 01-20-2011 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy (Post 1195285)
Your original post stated something different to me. I leave it at that.

My original post states the facts - the only thing needed to be suitable is birth.

That doesn't mean that the incumbent doesn't do something to prepare their heir/s, which is what my most recent post explained.

Queen Victoria basically did none of this preparation for her son but he still was able to do the job and do it very well. His only qualification to be King was being born. He had no training and still was popular and respected both at home and abroad.

The preparation is irrelevant to the order of birth. That the Queen has given her descendents some training doesn't change the fact that the only thing they need to be suitable for the job is to be born in the right position in the right family.

rossop7 01-20-2011 06:23 PM

Personally for me I think someone (sorry I can't recall the poster's name!) pointed out that the Queen herself, an excellent monarch over the years, has had little to no "traditonal" education, or time at University, work experience abroad etc etc & yet is undoubtedly suitable to her role. I think the British RF have a different expectation & tradition with their heirs when compared to some of the other European RFs, less focused on concrete qualifications such as degrees or experience within diplomacy etc & more just general experience of Royal duties learned through actually doing them & through the experience of everyone behind the scenes at BP as to what has worked in the past & what hasn't etc. There is of course a heavy leaning towards military training of some sort but to me the British RF has never seemed to "demand" that the members of family be vastly qualified in academic means or have anything really to "prove" they are suitable, they just do their job & learn as they do it. I believe Prince Edward is quoted as saying that there is no training for what they do & they only learn what works by doing it & seeing what does or does not work & looking at other fmaily member's actions as to what has or has not worked.

I also think that they needn't necessarily have degrees & qualifications to be suitable (yes it'd be nice as I always think it's nice when someone shows they can study something to some level of difficulty & helps show they can be analytical, expressive, broadens horizons & interests & various other skills you gain through further education etc). But to me the British RF's role these days is almost entirely media related. So long as they look good, know how to act when they do their various duties, know how to talk to people & the media, know the role they have I almost think that's enough. Yes there are some aspects of the monarch's job that are more than mere PR & media roles but they must have so much backup & advise from advisors & courtiers etc that I'm fairly certain you wouldn't need a degree in politics to understand the role of the monarch or to carry out the weekly audience with the PM. One thing I do think William could do with working on, and maybe it's just me being fussy, but his public speaking I think could use some improvement. I mean actual speeches & the like that he will have to presumeably give many times over his lifetime (maybe he'll improve naturally as he does more of them) but I've watched a few speeches he's given & think he could improve there a bit.

I think all the RF need these days really is a good basis of knowledge in what is actually expected of them in their roles (how to act at state dinners & other duties, who exactly you may be meeting/talking to, how to carry out a conversation without offending anyone etc). Basic media training too in how to act & talk to media & sound good. Sure it'd be nice if everyone had degrees in history & politics & economics & could speak 3 languages & be an expert debater of any & all topics but really I don't think it's utterly necessary for them these days especially considering the fact that they will have a multitude of experienced advisors within BP, the civil service & also of course from the political world & any private acquaintances they may know who could be helpful. They won't just be left to their own devises & expected to know everything on their own.

Skippy 01-20-2011 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1195292)
My original post states the facts - the only thing needed to be suitable is birth.

That doesn't mean that the incumbent doesn't do something to prepare their heir/s, which is what my most recent post explained.

Queen Victoria basically did none of this preparation for her son but he still was able to do the job and do it very well. His only qualification to be King was being born. He had no training and still was popular and respected both at home and abroad.

The preparation is irrelevant to the order of birth. That the Queen has given her descendents some training doesn't change the fact that the only thing they need to be suitable for the job is to be born in the right position in the right family.

Never mind, we will never agree on this and that is okay.

Roslyn 01-20-2011 09:09 PM

"Fog in Channel: Europe Isolated".

Delightful as I find the idea that headline actually appeared, I understand it is a fake. I do, however, think it contains an element of truth, in that the British view things a certain way, and do things the way they do them, and that's that! I doubt the British RF gives a hoot about the fact that the heirs to other European thrones have far more formal education than they do. The way they do things has served them well for centuries, throughout the period when the sun never set on the Empire, and through two World Wars, so why should they change?

Considering the fact that the monarch has very little, if any, real power, they're probably right, and, as Bertie said, the only qualification William really needs he achieved by being born. I personally believe that having more formal education, particularly in political science and economics, would have been a good idea, as would a good, solid stint at the UN or somewhere similar.

wanderingnana 01-20-2011 09:42 PM

Quite frankly, most professional people that I know and I know quite a few have said that they learned a great deal more once they graduated from college than they ever learned in school. They received the basics in school, but learned a great deal more from practical experience. This has certainly been true in my case. As I understand it, the British Monarch advises and listens but does not rule, per se. Now, if they elected a King it's possible they would need a broader education, but this is not always the case even in countries that do elect a leader. William is very young yet. I imagine as time goes on his grandmother and father will help give him the training he will need. As for only having a military education, of course that isn't true. He has a college degree. His uncle Andrew only has a military education, yet since his retirement from the service, he has proven to be quite efficient as a representative of his country's business elements. So I don't think I'd worry right now about his suitability to be King. Let's let him get through his military service and hope that he does that safely. He has a very risky job.

doric44 01-21-2011 12:27 AM

seems to me he is qualified right now he can read prepared speeches wave shake hands cut ribbons and smile
...not to be flippant about it but honesty were talking about a powerless ceremonial figurehead here. who will have nothing to do with the running of the country and make no decisions.. that could help or hurt the kingdom or the commonwealth.
he will be surrounded by aides and staff that will assist him in protocol and tell him what he needs to know in virtually every situation he will face.

if he had real power then yeah this notion he needs more education and exp might be applicable but not for a ceremonial figurehead

Roslyn 01-21-2011 09:01 AM

:previous: If I have to have a powerless ceremonial figurehead, I want my powerless ceremonial figurehead to be as well educated as all the other powerless ceremonial figureheads.

Seriously though, I want my Head of State to be someone I can respect as much as I respect our current Governor-General: Quentin Bryce, AC, and State Governor: Professor Maria Bashir AC, CVO. These talented, high achieving, and charming women are merely our Head of State's representatives in our Country and State respectively.

A little background:

Governor-General: Quentin Bryce, AC:

Quentin Alice Louise Bryce, AC, (born 23 December 1942) is the 25th and current Governor-General of Australia (the first woman to hold the position) and a former Governor of Queensland. Born in Brisbane, Queensland, as Quentin Strachan, she spent her first years in Ilfacombe, with her family subsequently living in a number of country towns around Australia. She attended the University of Queensland, where she completed a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws, becoming one of the first women accepted to the Queensland bar.

In 1968 she became the first woman to be a faculty member of the Law school where she had studied, and in 1978 she joined the new National Women's Advisory Council. This was followed by a number of positions, including the first director of the Queensland Women's Information Service, the Queensland director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner in 1988. Her services to the community saw her appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1988, and a Companion of the Order of Australia and Dame of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in 2003.

Bryce was appointed the Governor of Queensland in 2003. Although some concerns were raised during her time in the position, her five-year term was to be extended until 2009. However, on 13 April 2008, before the completion of the initial five years, it was announced that Bryce was to become the next Governor-General of Australia. The decision was generally well received, and on 5 September 2008 Bryce was sworn in, succeeding Major General Michael Jeffery, becoming the first woman to be the Governor-General. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Bryce

Governor: Professor Marie Bashir AC, CVO:

Professor Bashir, the first woman to be appointed Governor of NSW, took up her office on 1 March 2001.

Born, of Lebanese descent, in Narrandera in the Riverina district of NSW, and educated at Narrandera Public School and Sydney Girls High School, Marie Bashir gained her bachelor degrees in medicine and surgery in 1956 from the University of Sydney.

Dr Bashir taught at the Universities of Sydney and NSW, increasingly working with children's services, psychiatry and mental health services, and indigenous health programs. At the time of her appointment as Governor of NSW, she was Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Sydney (a post she took up in 1993); Area Director of Mental Health Services Central Sydney (from 1994); and Senior Consultant to the Aboriginal Medical Service, Redfern (from 1996) and to the Aboriginal Medical Service, Kempsey.

Professor Bashir's widespread involvements and interests have included juvenile justice, research on adolescent depression, health issues in developing countries, education for health professionals and telemedicine and new technologies for health service delivery. Along with many professional medical association roles, she was, at the time of her appointment as Governor, a member of societies as diverse as Amnesty International, the National Trust, the NSW Camellia Research Society and the Tandanya National Aboriginal Cultural Centre, as well as being a patron of the Sydney Symphony and Opera Australia. She was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1988 for her services to child and adolescent health; and was invested by Her Majesty, the Queen, with the insignia of a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (CVO) in 2006.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/pro...fNewSouthWales

Is William Windsor suitable to be my head of State? When stacked up against these two outstanding human beings, young William pales into insignificance. He may be the elder son of the current Prince of Wales and therefore the future King of the UK, but I respect, and assess, people based on their demonstrated skills and achievements, not because of who their parents chanced to be.

I am glad that by the time William is the King of the UK, it will not be an issue for my country, for by then we will have one of our own numerous outstanding citizens representing us, and us alone, on the world stage.

American Dane 01-21-2011 09:39 AM

Suitable
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy (Post 1195264)
Say that also in the Denmark forum - same question asked about Prince Frederik. And I think you are looking at this in a purely (too) technical way.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1195269)
Not really - it wouldn't matter what education, experience etc he had. He is suitable to be King for the simple reason of his birth.

He could have failed all the way through school, never got a job, been a playboy and he still would be suitable to be king because all he needs is to be born.


Sorry Iluvbertie but I think you're confusing the words 'eligible', which William certainly is, and 'suitable' :previous:

To be suitable means to be RIGHT for the position one is to take up, which William may or may not be

Chimene 01-21-2011 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Dane (Post 1195578)
Sorry Iluvbertie but I think you're confusing the words 'eligible', which William certainly is, and 'suitable' :previous:

To be suitable means to be RIGHT for the position one is to take up, which William may or may not be

That's a great distinction. I hadn't thought of that.

CharlotteAmalia 01-21-2011 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1195554)
:previous: If I have to have a powerless ceremonial figurehead, I want my powerless ceremonial figurehead to be as well educated as all the other powerless ceremonial figureheads.

Seriously though, I want my Head of State to be someone I can respect as much as I respect our current Governor-General:

I have to sign this.

I would not what some kind of "empty shell" or "puppet" as a head of state. Somebody who is handsome, knows how to give a speech, which somebody else wrote, waves to his people and smiles would be not enough for me.
A head of state - even if he has no real power in the country - should instruct and controll his servants or secretaries. And he should be able to do so. It would be horrible to me, if i knew that my head of state is ruled and instructed by his servants or majordomo. That would make him to a marionette with the strings in the hand of his majordomo or private secretary. There is a way to prevent this: either you have a strong character (which the queen seems to have), or you have a education which makes you on par with your staff.

psm 01-21-2011 03:45 PM

I agree with CharlotteAmalia, actually that was a question I was asking myself too. How come Prince William is not better trained and educated for his future role as King of UK and 15 more states.

While I agree he will get assisstance and advise from helpers all his life, it does not mean him knowing what these advisors are talking about would not help. Actually at times, he may even get conflicting advise from different people and would have to make up his own mind.

We do not know what kind of challenges he will face in the future, I would expect him to be at least well trained in UK constitution. To his credit, he probably already is. He does not need a formal university education when he could have the best tutors privately.

William is going to represent UK internationally so I would expect him to speak multiple languages. I do not know whether he speaks any foreign languages.

As far as I know, QEII is fluent in French. Queen Victoria was fluent in multiple languages and again to my knowledge received excellent private education which prepared her for her future role as the Queen.

While you learn your job best doing your job, a formal education can speed up that process. International relations, political science, basic economy and law education would train PW better for his role. Philisophy is also something any head of state should study.

He will always be briefed by staff before his engagements, but even knowing the basics in these areas would help him go through his briefings more easily, ask pointed questions to his staff and understand everything better. He would also be less prone to make mistakes/gaffes when speaking to other people during his engagements. I have no idea what kind of briefing RF members get, but I have enough education to know that none of these topics are easy to comprehend for an uneducated mind. The more he knows the more he can perform his duty. His knowledge would also impress people, which is always excellent PR.

I also think having a more formal education with degrees relevant to your duties may be the way to go. Our Queen is of another generation, when people respected the monarch, thought she was appointed by God, it was her right and duty, etc... None of these are true today. Now people are questioning monarchy's relevance. Some want to abolish it and these people will only increase in numbers when Charles becomes the king. Having a future king who is formally training for the job, not passing his time working other jobs and performing a few engagements per year, waiting for his time, would at least silence some of those critics who believe having born is not enough qualification to be the head of state.

We have to look forward, not past since things have changed so much. That is why I don't think bringing up the past monarchs is a good idea. Prince Charles got a degree from one of the best universities in the world. While his studies were not the ones mentioned here, they were not completely irrelevant. Since then, I believe he carved himself a place and showed the world that he works tirelessly for his country and the world. Of course for many people his personal life shadows his achievements. Yet I see Prince Charles more of a modern day king.

Prince William on the other hand. I am not sure...

Iluvbertie 01-21-2011 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American Dane (Post 1195578)
Sorry Iluvbertie but I think you're confusing the words 'eligible', which William certainly is, and 'suitable' :previous:

To be suitable means to be RIGHT for the position one is to take up, which William may or may not be


He is right for the position simply because he was born to it. I am not confusing eligible with suitable. I don't see that there is a difference in a heriditary system as the only person suitable is the person eligible.

One of the fundamental flaws of the system and one of the reason for me becoming a republican.

Iluvbertie 01-21-2011 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psm (Post 1195721)
As far as I know, QEII is fluent in French. Queen Victoria was fluent in multiple languages and again to my knowledge received excellent private education which prepared her for her future role as the Queen.

Queen Victoria started learning her job after she became Queen - she had no training for it and was trained initially by Lord Melbourne. Had she had any training the entire BedChamber Affair wouldn't have happened. Her real training began after she allowed Albert to share her load - after she had been Queen for a number of years and had made a number of mistakes. She also refused to train her own son and heir but he did fine.

While you learn your job best doing your job, a formal education can speed up that process. International relations, political science, basic economy and law education would train PW better for his role. Philisophy is also something any head of state should study.

He will always be briefed by staff before his engagements, but even knowing the basics in these areas would help him go through his briefings more easily, ask pointed questions to his staff and understand everything better. He would also be less prone to make mistakes/gaffes when speaking to other people during his engagements. I have no idea what kind of briefing RF members get, but I have enough education to know that none of these topics are easy to comprehend for an uneducated mind. The more he knows the more he can perform his duty. His knowledge would also impress people, which is always excellent PR.

I also think having a more formal education with degrees relevant to your duties may be the way to go. Our Queen is of another generation, when people respected the monarch, thought she was appointed by God, it was her right and duty, etc... None of these are true today. Now people are questioning monarchy's relevance. Some want to abolish it and these people will only increase in numbers when Charles becomes the king. Having a future king who is formally training for the job, not passing his time working other jobs and performing a few engagements per year, waiting for his time, would at least silence some of those critics who believe having born is not enough qualification to be the head of state.

We have to look forward, not past since things have changed so much. That is why I don't think bringing up the past monarchs is a good idea. Prince Charles got a degree from one of the best universities in the world. While his studies were not the ones mentioned here, they were not completely irrelevant. Since then, I believe he carved himself a place and showed the world that he works tirelessly for his country and the world. Of course for many people his personal life shadows his achievements. Yet I see Prince Charles more of a modern day king.

Prince William on the other hand. I am not sure...[/QUOTE]

Charles degree was from a good university but from looking at his results - not all that strong which isn't a surprise seeing as his results shouldn't have allowed him to go to that university. What Charles has mastered is all the things you say he should have studied at uni - by doing these things.

William has a degree from a good university and has a large inheritance to manage so will learn about economics simply from managing that fortune. He will learn what he needs as he goes.

Book learning only goes so far. Practical learning is preferable.

For a British monarch, who has no power, having too much book learning could lead to problems when they make a comment to the PM, or other visiting dignitary, that could conflict with the government's view. The British monarch has no views on anything officially. Their views are those of the government so having ideas on things like politics or diplomatic relations could actually get in the road of them doing their job - waving, smiling, small talk, signing the legislation (their only real constitutional role and a child can do that).

Marie of The Sea 01-21-2011 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1195132)
Where have you heard that William is fluent in French and Spanish, Marie of The Sea?

Family. I was told he learned French from his mother and grandmother Windsor and Spanish from his Uncle Spencer. The Italian is from Kate and Prince Charles.

Zonk 01-21-2011 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marie of The Sea (Post 1195807)
Family. I was told he learned French from his mother and grandmother Windsor and Spanish from his Uncle Spencer. The Italian is from Kate and Prince Charles.

He learned Spanish from his Uncle Charles Spencer? I am going to go out on a limb here...since we don't know what William does 24/7. But when would he have had enough time to spend with Charles Spencer that be fluent in Spanish?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises