Prince William's Suitability to be King

[Zonk]

Any discussions regarding the Duke of Windsor should be posted here http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ndsor-1894-1972-and-1895-1986-a-10245-39.html .

 

[expat]

Well said American Dane, my point was that royal blood does not mean automatic suitability. I think the fact that secret dispatches to Fort Belvedere were sent back to the Government officials with the ring marks of cocktail glasses on them didn't go down to well either.
William might develop into a good King but it won't only be because he was born into the royal family as the first born. I think it is just as well that nowadays Kings and Queens don't actually rule but are more figureheads than anything else.
This of course means a lot of ribbon cutting and waving and saying "Howdyedo" and so he should be fine, and with a pretty fashion plate on his arm, well what more can Britain and the Commonwealth want?.

 

[Grandduchess24]

I am just wondering if William has or will visit the other European heirs to the throne since I've never seen him together with them in a picture just hanging out.
HRH crown princess Victoria of Sweden
HRH crown prince Frederick of Denmark
HRH crown prince haakon of Norway
HRH prince Felipe of Spain
Prince Phillippe of Belgium
Prince willem Alexander of the Netherlands
Crown princess margarita of Romania
Crown prince pavlos of Greece ...

 

[Zonk]

I think the point is that while royal blood is not the only requirement is it is the #1 reason on why William is suitable. Baring illness, being incapacitated (like George III) or abdicating (like Edward VIII) all the rest really doesn't matter.

People can say that he doesn't have an inkling on real England, doesn't have world experience in terms of personal relationships with foreign royals, can't speak anything other English, has no knowledge of English history, etc. but at the end of the day........unless the rules are changed, a monarch no longer rules England or the Commonwealth, Harry (or anyone else for that does a coup).....at the end of the day....being of royal blood...the direct descendant of Queen Elizabeth II, following the accession of his father the Prince of Wales....William is suitable to be King.

Everything else is just us talking.

Now if you are talking about character...well that is a different topic IMO. Henry VIII was suitable to be King because he was the eldest surviving son of the Henry VII (an anointed King...of course those who thought he was usurper might think differently). Did he have the character to be King ---- in some respects no...his dealing with the Catholic, Church, his children and wives but again that is another topic. But some would say he was a good King based on other things.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Well said American Dane, my point was that royal blood does not mean automatic suitability.

Zonk has summed it up beautifully,

but at the end of the day........unless the rules are changed, a monarch no longer rules England or the Commonwealth, Harry (or anyone else for that does a coup).....at the end of the day....being of royal blood...the direct descendant of Queen Elizabeth II, following the accession of his father the Prince of Wales....William is suitable to be King.

Your point, imo, is wrong. He will be King. For one reason, and one reason alone, his blood.

I am just wondering if William has or will visit the other European heirs to the throne since I've never seen him together with them in a picture just hanging out.
HRH crown princess Victoria of Sweden
HRH crown prince Frederick of Denmark
HRH crown prince haakon of Norway
HRH prince Felipe of Spain
Prince Phillippe of Belgium
Prince willem Alexander of the Netherlands
Crown princess margarita of Romania
Crown prince pavlos of Greece ...

I doubt you would ever see these 8 people ever hanging out with William, not publically. Pavlos and William are presumed close because of their location. As for the others, I doutb William has ever met them outside his work commitments, my opinion of course. As time goes on and he becomes the heir, we may see more interaction with foreign royals. But experience tells me that's not the British way.

but at the end of the day........unless the rules are changed, a monarch no longer rules England or the Commonwealth, Harry (or anyone else for that does a coup).....at the end of the day....being of royal blood...the direct descendant of Queen Elizabeth II, following the accession of his father the Prince of Wales....William is suitable to be King.

Lovely post, as I said, beautiful. Nothing barring death, coup or abdication, can stop him from being suitable, he was suitable the day he was born.

This topic seems to be leaning towards the personality William should have when King, IMO.

 

[Grandma828]

William has a good 20+ years before he becomes King. He will learn a lot in that time. He is already showing us that he is not afraid of hard work (RAF) and he proved he can study hard (college degree and pilot training). He has also taken step to learn about the needs of underprivileged people. I think he will keep on learning.

 

[nascarlucy]

Most of the CP listed by Grandduchess 24 are much older than Prince William. The one closest in age to him is CP Victoria whose 5 years older than he. Because most of them are much older (10 or more years), they probably don't have much in common and don't socialize in the same circles. Once they are leaders, perhaps their relationship would change due to them being monarchs but may never be close relationships.

The only heir to the throne that I can think of that is close in age is Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg Guillaume who I believe is a year older than he. They don't travel in the same social circles.

Will be interesting when these indiviudals take the throne what their relationships will be like.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually, I don't think it is imperative that he has to "mix" with other cultures/socio-economic peoples on an "Average Joe" basis. That is the job of elected government.

The duties of the monarch are governed by protocol.

Currently, I don't believe William is ready to be king; but I do believe he will be when the time comes.

William has had to be ready from the day he turned 18 because if something happened in rapid succession to his grandmother and father he would be King.

Look at the present Queen - Queen at 25 - because of the death of her father and both she and Charles are already older than he was when he died.

Why 18 - because at 18 he would be taking on all the responsibilities in his own right.

He is ready now and has been for over a decade and has had a full range of experiences since then e.g. Counsellor of State, royal tours etc.

He will be fine, when the time comes, which I hope will be in another 30+ years as I am sure that he would like to have his father around for many many more years.

 

[camelot23ca]

William has had to be ready from the day he turned 18 because if something happened in rapid succession to his grandmother and father he would be King.

Look at the present Queen - Queen at 25 - because of the death of her father and both she and Charles are already older than he was when he died.

Why 18 - because at 18 he would be taking on all the responsibilities in his own right.

He is ready now and has been for over a decade and has had a full range of experiences since then e.g. Counsellor of State, royal tours etc.

He will be fine, when the time comes, which I hope will be in another 30+ years as I am sure that he would like to have his father around for many many more years.

I think if William HAD to become king tomorrow he could and I think he'd do a decent job of it right from the start, in terms of being able to handle the nuts and bolts part of the job.

In terms of whether he'd be a good king, I think that's something that can really only be judged after an entire reign. Looking back over the 60+ years of Queen Elizabeth's rule I can say that I think she's been a good monarch. She's had some bad times and made mistakes but overall she's done very well. William doesn't have that long term record to judge - he's kind of a blank slate at this point. I think he has all the raw materials to be a successful king, and he's doing all the right things to prepare himself as best he can, but that doesn't mean that something won't happen ten, fifteen years into his time as king that will throw everything off. Someone brought up Henry VIII earlier in the thread. To me he's the perfect example of someone starting out extremely promising and then becoming tarnished because of the way he reacted to life circumstances. It's interesting to think how different things might have been had he and his first wife been able to have a healthy son, for instance.

 

[expat]

When thinking of Prince William's suitability I suppose we have to recall what Prince Andrew said about his own suitability to represent British Trade - he has the genetic qualifications.

 

[Anna Catherine]

While I the his time to be King will come somewhere between 20 - 30 years tops, I do think that having that time frame will be good for him. He has a good head on his shoulders and is very compassionate and loving and personable. I think he also understands the magnitude of his role. I don't think that he would be a bad king right now if he were to become king. In fact, I think he'd make a fanstatic king. I think he'll probably be in his 40s when he becomes King and by that time he will be more than ready to ascend to the throne. He's going to make an excellent King no matter when or how he gets thee. I think he is very qualified(by birth of course) and he is very well suited for the role and will make everyone very proud.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

He's going to be nothing more than a figure head, he's not going to be a president or prime minister. Elizabeth II was educated horribly and she seems to do the job well. On wikipedia it says Charles has his degree in anthropology and archeology and has studied the Welsh language and history. But again he was the Prince of Wales from an early age. I think all these degrees in politics and economics would be better suited for royals like Prince Alois or Prince Albert who are more than figure heads. If Frederick, Haakon, Victoria etc. have degrees in these studies then good for them, especially in economics which I hate! There is no education requirement to be King of England, so despite what William's education is he still meets the only requirement necessary for the position.

 

[American Dane]

Qualification of birth does not a good monarch make. Let's take a look at Nikolai II of Russia. He was born into a family that not only reigned but ruled, and was of royal lineage. However, the lack of preparation )among other things) caused him to fail rather miserably. I know that William will not rule, but that doesn't mean he doesn't need some sort of prep. I think he'll do a great job, because ha had the benefit of watching his grandmother on the job, and (I believe) is on the Privy Council, so there's the training in the state matters (he probably learned about the Constitution and the workings of government while at Eton/St. Andrew's [if the latter required all students, regardless of program to take classes in government/economics]). He also strikes me as someone who cares about others, and that quality is paramount for anyone who has a leadership role. When the time is right, he'll do his nation very, very proud.

William is not on the Privy Council. He is by law a Counsellor of State but how many times his grandmother has appointed him to cover her duties when she is abroad, I don't know.

William's degree at St Andrews (both Art History and Geography) does not require students to take economics or government at university level so it is unlikely that he took those subjects. As he did not take economics or government for GCSE or A-levels either, his last school study in them was around age 14-15 or so. British posters may correct me on that. However, as you stated, he has watched his grandmother and thus has an appropriate teacher for years to come.

 

[Daria_S]

William is not on the Privy Council. He is by law a Counsellor of State but how many times his grandmother has appointed him to cover her duties when she is abroad, I don't know.

William's degree at St Andrews (both Art History and Geography) does not require students to take economics or government at university level so it is unlikely that he took those subjects. As he did not take economics or government for GCSE or A-levels either, his last school study in them was around age 14-15 or so. British posters may correct me on that. However, as you stated, he has watched his grandmother and thus has an appropriate teacher for years to come.

Thank you for the corrections. I have no clue as to why I thought he was on the Privy Council.

 

[Grandduchess24]

Well William is the eldest son of the Queen's heir,his father prince Charles.
Grandma is Queen of Great Britain
Dad is the next king of England
He of course has had some sort of princely training and as second in line to the throne has had a talk with his grandmother and father what responsibility he will have as king in case(god forbid) the Queen dies or his dad died. Of course he is suitable he will be a liked king and Kate will be as well

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

There is a HUGE difference between an autocracy and a constitutional monarchy. NICHOLAS II was badly prepared for his role by both his parents, he was also raised to not have his opinions and ideas questioned by his teachers. He also did not have the benefit of watching his father work and reign and rule. To be an autocrat I assume you need a good education as well as the time to learn from your predecessor, Alexander just wrote his son off and didn't bother to teach him what being a Tsar was about.
Going back to England, William and Charles are probably better "educated" than the Queen at least when it comes to formal education. Elizabeth was trained as best as she could be by her father and from what I have heard she has not only been preparing Charles but William as well.
There have been monarchs with great education who have failed miserably, and there have been others who had abysmal education who ended up doing a good job (crazy thing is that its the same with Presidents as well). With a constitutional monarchy, I believe the best thing a future monarch can do is watch and learn; again its not like William is going to be the one making the important decisions.

 

[Anna Catherine]

Well, I don't think being King as a walk-in-the-park. It does take some work and there are things they do outside of the public eye that are of importance. The Queen doesn't just meet with the Prime Minister, for example, just to talk about the weather. They do have certain roles and duties. Besides people write to her all the time. The are very important things they do even with their patronages and sometimes they are the voice of reason or the comfort people need. We can't just write them off as useless because the royals are not useless.

 

[Princess of Durham]

I think we need to make the distinction between "suitability" and "eligiblity". William is certainly eligible by virtue of his birth. I happen to also believe, given what we have seen of his behavior, that he is also suitable to be King.

 

[Osipi]

I think we need to make the distinction between "suitability" and "eligiblity". William is certainly eligible by virtue of his birth. I happen to also believe, given what we have seen of his behavior, that he is also suitable to be King.

Given what we've seen of his behavior when he has done royal duties, in his travels representing his grandmother (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and observing his demeanor no matter where he goes (even out with the boys for an evening), he will not only be a suitable king, but a very hands on one I think too.

 

[Anna Catherine]

I wholeheartedly agree!

 

[Charlotte1976]

I've always questioned this myself when it comes to William. But I chalked it up to the British royals not having as strong a stanch on education as the others.

Diana, may she rest in peace was no genius book wise. Barely squeaking out of high school and being a preschool teacher? But she had the right bloodlines. Her lack of education wasn't an issue because they could prep her on talking points. All she needed was a Throughbred blood lines and a smile and nod disposition fitting of a "queen" and she was set. Thus, William may not having the textbook education but that doesn't matter because in blood, he has it in spades.

I've always likened his his educational path as a being like a socialite getting a degree in psychology or whatever other liberal arts was the easiest at the time then just fluctuating through adulthood when you know life is set. You have money, you have your position. You need a degree just to say you have it but you're set.

Sure he still has time but regardless of Charles being first he should have been doing more in the past 10 years. Most heirs get whatever BA, MA, LLM, etc between 18 and 30 then get married and put what they learned to good use now that they have their partner and future queen on their arm.

Kate didn't do anything stimulation education wise either. She had her parents business to fall back on if she ever needed a job and that money and she knew eventually if she didn't get a pressing job she could stay available and around for William to propose eventually and it worked out.

 

[expat]

Now if you are talking about character...well that is a different topic IMO. Henry VIII was suitable to be King because he was the eldest surviving son of the Henry VII (an anointed King...of course those who thought he was usurper might think differently). Did he have the character to be King ---- in some respects no...his dealing with the Catholic, Church, his children and wives but again that is another topic. But some would say he was a good King based on other things.

King Henry VIII was definitely not a good husband but as a ruler he was a very good ruler indeed. His reign was one of the most prosperous in British History.
William is a young man who has done nothing. Now, his supporters will talk about his military training etc etc .Many young men have taken this training but it doesn't make them suitable to be Kings, they were born to the wrong parents. The only thing he seems to have done is to marry the person he wanted to, but then so did Edward VIII.
I only hope it is a long long time before this young man ever steps near the throne.

 

[Charlotte1976]

King Henry VIII was definitely not a good husband but as a ruler he was a very good ruler indeed. His reign was one of the most prosperous in British History.
William is a young man who has done nothing. Now, his supporters will talk about his military training etc etc .Many young men have taken this training but it doesn't make them suitable to be Kings, they were born to the wrong parents. The only thing he seems to have done is to marry the person he wanted to, but then so did Edward VIII.
I only hope it is a long long time before this young man ever steps near the throne.

Exactly. Not completely "nothing" but in light of his stature it's really like nothing for this point in his life. But then again, he doesn't have to think about it or take it seriously because he won't be king for a long long time. Considering the family history in longevity, William won't be king until he's at least in his mid 60s.

That's a crappy way of thinking about it though but it's the one I think he's following. "I still have time to do whatever and nothing. Don't have to get serious until at least 45"

 

[Kataryn]

William is a young man who has done nothing. Now, his supporters will talk about his military training etc etc .Many young men have taken this training but it doesn't make them suitable to be Kings, they were born to the wrong parents. The only thing he seems to have done is to marry the person he wanted to, but then so did Edward VIII.
I only hope it is a long long time before this young man ever steps near the throne.

Expat, I think you are a bit unfair here. Following your argumentation, it seems William can only prove he is a good king on being the king for quite some time.

because: William has always finished what he began: school, university, military profession. In his time off work he supports others instead of living the fine life with his wife. This more than most young men can claim. Otherwise the football stadiums would be empty and the charities have enough helping hands...

Plus: being happy in a military profession means that you are able to obey commands and cope with that situation. Not bad for a future souverain who only represents his people but does not rule over them.

 

[expat]

Finishing what he has begun does not make him good king material. How does he support others, by turning up at events?
I really can't imagine him obeying commands, I can more easily see all his fellow officers making his life as easy as possible. You have at least made me a little less worried by pointing out that he is only going to represent his people and not rule over them. In fact come to think of it, appearing at events, waving his hand with Catherine very decorative on his arm is well within his capabilities. He looks good in uniform too, especially when he wears his cap.

 

[Zonk]

Frankly, I think its a bit earlier to predict if William will be a good or bad King. He has the potential to be both though I would say the power favors the good at this point. He hasn't shown too many examples of potential bad behavior.

People didn't think much of Edward VII and George VI before they ruled and they turned out okay. People had high hopes for Edward VIII and look how he turned out.

In regards to suitablity...William is the heir's heir...so that about sums it up.

 

[expat]

He is, like it or not. Edward VII is said to have been a good king but he reigned for so little time it is hard really to tell. George VI's biographer said that he was very interesting when he was a young naval cadet but he spent the rest of his life killing animals. As they are now reduced to being figure heads I suppose it is enough to appear in a nice uniform and smile and cut ribbons and we really can't expect more.

 

[Zonk]

He is, like it or not. Edward VII is said to have been a good king but he reigned for so little time it is hard really to tell. George VI's biographer said that he was very interesting when he was a young naval cadet but he spent the rest of his life killing animals. As they are now reduced to being figure heads I suppose it is enough to appear in a nice uniform and smile and cut ribbons and we really can't expect more.

Exactly! As figureheads who have no political power IMO the only suitability that matters is their direct placement/succession to the throne.

Now say that William had lived during a much earlier time (anything before Victoria), when the monarch had limited power or Charles I when the monarch had absolute power...than thats a totally different discussion IMO.

 

[Mermaid1962]

The only thing that I think could make an heir an unsuitable monarch is if s/he were a traitor or desperately ill in mind or body. If the second were the case, I'd think that a regent would be appointed.

People didn't think much of Edward VII and George VI before they ruled and they turned out okay. People had high hopes for Edward VIII and look how he turned out.

In regards to suitablity...William is the heir's heir...so that about sums it up.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Exactly! As figureheads who have no political power IMO the only suitability that matters is their direct placement/succession to the throne.

Now say that William had lived during a much earlier time (anything before Victoria), when the monarch had limited power or Charles I when the monarch had absolute power...than thats a totally different discussion IMO.

You're right in that strictly speaking, they're just figurehead. However they do, in a way, represent their country and can provide useful behind-the-scene advice, especially to politicians. After all they're more removed from the politics stuff and can see the bigger picture and provide informal advice to their prime ministers based on that. That is what the Queen has done so well over her nearly 60 years of reign. I worry a bit about the PoW being able to continue that kind of insight that the Queen has done. However I think that the Duke of Cambridge has a good shot of being such a valuable adviser to his prime ministers when he ascend the Throne.