The Monarchy under Charles

[muriel]

I agree the public mood for a wedding between C&C was uncertain at the time of the announcement of the engagement. The idea of "Princess Consort" was really a bit of a sop to the situation (and I suspect, probably required), but I think the public mood has since softened considerably towards Camilla, and in time, she should be Queen. Whether the recent comments by both C & C were specifically orchestrated or not to get us adjusted to the concept of Queen Camilla, we will not know - but I do think the longer it is before HM passes on, the more likely it is that the publicly will happily accept her as queen.

 

[Madame Royale]

I like them both, particularly the Duchess. I just don't much admire the situation.

The concept of buttering up the masses to get what they want does not appeal to me in the slightest and I can't help but believe that's exactly what's happened here.

And yet, if the Queen should live another 10 years, then why even bother trying to change her title. Even I, someone who has always been in favour of Camilla holding a lesser style (and my reasons for holding this view are well documented and not in the slightest mean spirited or contemptable) will I'm sure not even care by that time.

I just think if it's truly their intention then just say it will happen and if it's not, then scrap it.

How hard could it be to renounce an intention that was never really likely to ever happen anyway?! It was easy enough to put it out there and it would be just as easy to formulate a credible response detailing the reasons why it's not likely to occur. That any confirmation would be backed by government, and it would be I'm sure, then who's going to question it really...

 

[muriel]

The issue is out there, and unlikley to dissappear in a hurry. It would be odd if they delibrately brought it up now with a view to retracting the "intention", as the timing of Charles' accession is unknown. IMO, they are better off leaving the issue unesolved, and based on p[opular opinion at the time of Charles' accession, address it accordingly.

 

[scooter]

I could not agree more Mme Royal in regard to post 433.

 

[Carmen Jones]

I think Prince Charles would make a good king - we should give him a chance to prove himself - who knows he may turn out to be loved by all

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think Prince Charles would make a good king - we should give him a chance to prove himself - who knows he may turn out to be loved by all

110 years ago, when Edward VII inherited the throne, there were editorials about his life and whether he was up to the job. Within a very short period of time he proved not only that he was up to the job but that he was as popular as his mother - and he had a number of well-known and reported faults as well.

I think that anti-Charles people are very vocal but the majority of people will come out in support when the time comes.

 

[muriel]

I think that is an interesting analogy.

 

[Saragli]

The Duchess of Cornwall deserves her proper title - Telegraph

 

[Roslyn]

Interesting. I think I love Charles Kidd.

 

[muriel]

Prince of Wales 'more popular choice for king than Prince William' - Telegraph

Prince of Wales 'more popular choice for king than Prince William'

The Prince of Wales is the most popular choice to be the next King for the first time in six years, a poll shows, while support for the monarchy is swelling

 

[Osipi]

Prince of Wales 'more popular choice for king than Prince William' - Telegraph

Prince of Wales 'more popular choice for king than Prince William'

The Prince of Wales is the most popular choice to be the next King for the first time in six years, a poll shows, while support for the monarchy is swelling

This is a heartening thing to see. I think both Charles and Camilla are going to do great as King and Queen and this will also be a good period for William to step up and learn the ropes so to speak as Charles did under his mother's reign. This is a very positive thing for the monarchy.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Prince of Wales 'more popular choice for king than Prince William' - Telegraph

Prince of Wales 'more popular choice for king than Prince William'

The Prince of Wales is the most popular choice to be the next King for the first time in six years, a poll shows, while support for the monarchy is swelling

Interesting reading, although I should point out (perhaps unnecessarily) that who ascend to the Throne is not a matter of election (although very indirectly the people do have a say via the Parliament, who can modify the Act of Settlement in 1701).

Still it's good to hear that people are more accepting of PoW.

 

[Al_bina]

The premise for the poll is silly. The succession line should never be questioned.

 

[melissaadrian]

The premise for the poll is silly. The succession line should never be questioned.

People have the right to their opinions. They have the right to question whether the heir to the throne will make a good king or not. They are not an absolute monarchy.

I think the poll shows that Diana's memory is finally being laid to rest. I think for way too many years Charles was villianized by people, for how his marriage ended. And the fact he married Camilla never helped, the woman he cheated on 'the princess of hearts' with. Charles is not his affair, and both he and Diana made mistakes in that marriage. Charles is a good man, who has proven he is a good Prince, with the best interests of his people in mind. With his work for organic farming and other activities, he has proven he will be a progressive king. Though I hope the queen lives for another 10-15 years, a nice long life like her mother, I don't doubt Charles will do his mother proud as King, for how ever long his reign may be.

Besides William is not ready. The time for his dad to be King will help. He will get to be Prince of Wales (well when his dad appoints him) and will get to learn the ropes like his dad did.

 

[muriel]

The premise for the poll is silly. The succession line should never be questioned.

I agree with the sentiment put forward by Melissaadrian - whilst it is not for the people to choose who the next monarch might be, they are justified in setting out their views.

That said, there are lies, damn lies and opinion polls!

 

[Royal_Eagle]

People have the right to their opinions. They have the right to question whether the heir to the throne will make a good king or not. They are not an absolute monarchy.

I think the poll shows that Diana's memory is finally being laid to rest. I think for way too many years Charles was villianized by people, for how his marriage ended. And the fact he married Camilla never helped, the woman he cheated on 'the princess of hearts' with. Charles is not his affair, and both he and Diana made mistakes in that marriage. Charles is a good man, who has proven he is a good Prince, with the best interests of his people in mind. With his work for organic farming and other activities, he has proven he will be a progressive king. Though I hope the queen lives for another 10-15 years, a nice long life like her mother, I don't doubt Charles will do his mother proud as King, for how ever long his reign may be.

Besides William is not ready. The time for his dad to be King will help. He will get to be Prince of Wales (well when his dad appoints him) and will get to learn the ropes like his dad did.

I do agree with the sentiment too regarding opinion polls, etc. However I think in the case that something horrible even happen (and I hope not!!) and both the Queen and PoW passed away far sooner than anyone expect, the new King William will adapt quickly and be a successful monarch like his grandmother. After all, the Queen ascended to the Throne at the age of 25 and she has done marvelous job.

Granted things were quite different back then compared to today, but I have the feeling that Prince William will step up if necessary. However let's hope we never have to find out how well he can step up on on such a short notice though.

 

[Al_bina]

In my personal opinion ...

Prince Charles' inability to deal with a private life has no bearing on his place in the succession line. The succession line is rooted in the orthodox traditions that should not be altered without really really good reasons.
Well ... perhaps my viewed are outdated ... Next I would take my wild guess ... people should choose the best among a monarch's children to succeed.

 

[muriel]

Prince Charles' inability to deal with a private life has no bearing on his place in the succession line. The succession line is rooted in the orthodox traditions that should not be altered without really really good reasons.
Well ... perhaps my viewed are outdated ... Next I would take my wild guess ... people should choose the best among a monarch's children to succeed.

Al-bina, pehaps you are missing the point here. Nobody is suggesting that people be given the right to choose future monarchs, or alter the line of succession in any way. All that is being suggested is that the public has views on who should succeed, not that those views can be accomodated without an act of parliament that is not being contemplated.

 

[Al_bina]

I am not missing the point. So what if the public wishes King Henry instead King Charles? Is the UK parliament going to accommodate the public? All these polls remind me of dirty presidential campaigns. Perhaps there are some reasons for the polls I am unaware of.

 

[muriel]

I am not missing the point. So what if the public wishes King Henry instead King Charles? Is the UK parliament going to accommodate the public? All those polls reminds me of dirty presidential campaigns. Perhaps there are some reasons for the polls I am unaware of.

No, no succession laws are going to be changed, and the line of succession will remain as it is, Too bad if people want a King other than Charles. All the polls are doing is giving us an indication of where popular support lies. This is only relevant because the relative popularity of Charles has been in question since his marriage broke down (The War of the Wales'), despite all the good work he continues to do.

 

[jdcharlie]

These polls sure are fickle (or inaccurate). LOL. A few months ago it was a different story. I wonder if this abrupt change has been because of the focus of late on Prince Charles as a father, where he has excelled, versus Prince Charles, the philandering spouse.

 

[MARG]

These polls sure are fickle (or inaccurate). LOL. A few months ago it was a different story. I wonder if this abrupt change has been because of the focus of late on Prince Charles as a father, where he has excelled, versus Prince Charles, the philandering spouse.

Married to the equally philandering spouse!

Perhaps Prince William's forthcoming marriage has brought the monarchy to the "general public" attention for the first time in years and the response reflects the reality of what the monarchy is and does as opposed to a pro and anti minority squabbling for years in equally small, partisan "polls".

At the moment the Monarchy, in it's entirety, is on show and under the microscope and it's place is being recognised. The subject poll may well reflect that.

 

[Esmerelda]

The only way to accurately assess the public's opinion of Charles is to ask every single person in the country. Polls will vary according to location, age of respondents, method of polling, even the time of day they conducted it. There hasn't been a major revolt about Charles or a huge outcry for William to replace him or to abolish the monarchy so most people don't seem to object to his becoming king.

 

[lucien]

The Monarchy under King Charles III?Who knew there were so many clairvoyant kiddo's around that already know it all.

The Monarchy will remain what it is,a Monarchy intact.Unless one is a witch giving her broom a day off,or if you work for the "Sun" and other daily rags,no-one knows how that will develop.But looking back in history,it always continued perfectly but just with another head on the penny & pound.

 

[Madame Royale]

Who knew there were so many clairvoyant kiddo's around that already know it all.

Then you yourself, are amongst the "clairvoyant kiddo's" as you too cannot factually state that it will remain as is.

Whether probable or not, it is all conjecture at the present time

 

[Duchess of Darwin]

Alleged Plans to downsize the Monarchy

Hi

This is my first thread opening

I have heard alot on this forum, about Prince Charles planning to downsize the British Monarchy, when he is King. Some people have claimed that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be stripped of their HRHs upon marraige, and that Prince Harry's children will not enjoy Princely status I did some reasearch, but I couldn't find anything that went into this much detail.

Has anyone come across anything that says exactly how Charles will downsize the Monarchy? If so, it would be greatly appreciated if you could post a link.

Despite the lack of detail, I have heard it in several places that The Royal Family will be downsized somehow, and given all the rumours going around this very forum, its a worthwhile discussion to have.
Would downsizing the Monarchy a good idea?
If so, what would be the best way to do it?

I have my own view, but I don't want to elabourate on it until the discussion is in full swing, as I don't want to make anyone with differing views feel uncomfortable by starting the thread off with a particular opinion.

I'm glad to be posting on here

 

[jemagre]

I am not quite sure what you meant by St. Diana but...I was referring to the idea that some people think that Harry might loose his status as HRH. I was saying that I don't agree with that. I will say that I agree with Muriel who said that the HRH status will be decided in the future generations. I do think that Harry will be safe. I think the idea originally started with the notion that only William, his wife, and all of their children should carry the HRH status. Under the current system only his first born would get it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have never heard any suggestion that Harry would lose the HRH but whether his children should ever get it is another thing.

Currently all of William and Harry's children will become HRH when Charles becomes King but if they are going to remove the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie then it would only be right that Harry's children would also lose it - afterall he will be the second son and they are currently the children of the second son.

Currently only William's eldest son will automatically become HRH but that can change - like George VI did in 1948 when he issued new LPs to allow all of Elizabeth's children to be born with the HRH.

 

[jemagre]

It was an idea floating around on the boards at one point. I guess the problem with losing the HRH title is where do you draw the line. For example: one day William's third child (or even his second) could be deemed unimportant. Do they lose the HRH status? Should it only be the first-born son/daughter of the first-born? Should it be saved for those children's children? This is all assuming that this children will be given titles. After all both William and Harry could pull a Princess Anne and say no thanks. If one of those children ever ascended to the throne they would still be a King/Queen, right? One could say that is the only title that really matters.

I am trying to draw a line somewhere in the family. I guess the second-born children are where the line is getting drawn. Then again the family will probably get smaller so this is a way to do it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the children of the monarch shouldn't be HRH but why should all the grandchildren have it?

Although under the 1917 LPs (the ones currently in force) Louise and James are HRH Prince/Princess they aren't using it. Anne's children were never entitled to it as they are the children of a girl. If it can work for some grandchildren of the monarch why not all except the children of the heir so William's children yes - when Charles becomes King but not Harry's.

Of course if something happens and Harry becomes King then his children would automatically get it.

I would draw the line at the children of the monarch only - and then have children gain it when their parent becomes monarch but others would object to that so the children of the heir perhaps.

If it was the children of the monarch and the children of the heir then Beatrice/Eugenie/Duke of Gloucester/Duke of Kent/Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra wouldn't have it.