The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1341  
Old 04-22-2021, 06:53 AM
Claire's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,616
Several reasons
1. Charles knows he is unpopular and yes the British are fickle. He know that he is old and out of touch with the young generation of people in the UK and Commonwealth, or that he is seen to be. He also knows that he can never outrun or change the opinion people have of him regarding Diana.
2. I think Charles has always admired the Dutch way of reign changeover. I do to - so you never have to wait for a death to have a coronation. There is a more sympathetic handover and indeed the former king will be there to guide and advise the newer one. It is also a less turbulent handover all round.
3. It is overall better for the survival of the monarchy and its sustainability.
4. it will be seen as progressive and been able to read the pulse of the nation.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1342  
Old 04-22-2021, 07:02 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
No i can't imagine why anyone would think it. Probably when William is king he'll abdicate at a certain age but for him too I doubt if he'll have a "co monarchy" with his son.. or announce a time for his abdication. That just isn't something a British monarch is likely to do. Will may decide when he becomes king that he will give up at 80 but he is Not going to announce that and have people talking and speculating about it for all his reign...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1343  
Old 04-22-2021, 07:04 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Several reasons
1. Charles knows he is unpopular and yes the British are fickle. He know that he is old and out of touch with the young generation of people in the UK and Commonwealth, or that he is seen to be. He also knows that he can never outrun or change the opinion people have of him regarding Diana.
2. I think Charles has always admired the Dutch way of reign changeover. I do to - so you never have to wait for a death to have a coronation. There is a more sympathetic handover and indeed the former king will be there to guide and advise the newer one. It is also a less turbulent handover all round.
3. It is overall better for the survival of the monarchy and its sustainability.
4. it will be seen as progressive and been able to read the pulse of the nation.

Even assuming that Charles would go along with it, which I doubt, abdication is a very complicated legal process because of the Commonwealth realms. In the best case scenario, it would be as complicated as the enactment of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which took two years. In the worst case scenario, it may be even more complicated as some scholars claim abdication, as opposed to a simple change in the succession rules, would face a higher constitutional hurdle in some realms as it affects the fundamental principle of hereditary transmission of the Crown, but this is not the place to discuss that.


If abdication were made easier, as it is in the Netherlands, then I think it could become more common in the UK in the future (not in the near future though).
Reply With Quote
  #1344  
Old 04-22-2021, 07:05 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I think that when Charles is crowned - an announcement will be made the William, prince of Wales will be given more power and will function as a joint monarchy in come capacity. Also I expect that an announcement will also be made that Charles will abdicate at a specific date or time.- Say when Charles turns 80.
Charles isn't going to abdicate. He may not even be King by the time he turns 80. He was raised to the idea that a monarch is monarch from accession to death.

He will be 80 in 7 years time. William's children will still be at school. Why do you want another heir apparent to be forced to give up any chance of a normal time in their lives like Charles had. William had freedom in his 20s. Both he and Charles recognise how important that time was for him and want the same for George.
Reply With Quote
  #1345  
Old 04-22-2021, 07:06 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
Several reasons
1. Charles knows he is unpopular and yes the British are fickle. He know that he is old and out of touch with the young generation of people in the UK and Commonwealth, or that he is seen to be. He also knows that he can never outrun or change the opinion people have of him regarding Diana.
2. I think Charles has always admired the Dutch way of reign changeover. I do to - so you never have to wait for a death to have a coronation. There is a more sympathetic handover and indeed the former king will be there to guide and advise the newer one. It is also a less turbulent handover all round.
3. It is overall better for the survival of the monarchy and its sustainability.
4. it will be seen as progressive and been able to read the pulse of the nation.
Chalres is not a "progressive" person... and he wants to be king. He does not care that he's old or feel that he is out of touch.. He probably feels that if he IS seen as out of touch, it is the people who don't like him who are foolish and wrong and he will IMO be determined to have his time as King and to make the most of it.
And he's a traditionalist, just as his mother is, so I dont see that he's thinking "Oh its better to have a handover rather than a death".. It has alwasy been after a death that a new king comes along except for one instance... and that was so traumatic for the British monarchy that they have not wanted to go for abdication.
Reply With Quote
  #1346  
Old 04-22-2021, 07:11 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Charles has done a lot for young people, so I don’t get this idea that he’s out of touch. Maybe many youth feel that way, but they’re wrong. He shouldn’t cave just because people can’t get over their Diana obsession. The UK isn’t the Netherlands and shouldn’t try to be.

Charles will be a good King for his people whether they want him or not.
Reply With Quote
  #1347  
Old 04-22-2021, 07:15 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
He's not going to, I think that he's pretty determined to do his job to the end, just as his mother has been doing. He showed that determination over Camilla, when he wanted ot marry her. That he was absolultey unwilling to give her up but was also determined to hold onto his position and to become King in the course fo time.
Reply With Quote
  #1348  
Old 04-22-2021, 08:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
He's not going to, I think that he's pretty determined to do his job to the end, just as his mother has been doing. He showed that determination over Camilla, when he wanted ot marry her. That he was absolultey unwilling to give her up but was also determined to hold onto his position and to become King in the course fo time.



Nonetheless, going forward (this is the "The Future of the British Monarchy" forum), I think the UK should start considering abdication as a viable alternative to succession. Some people still die young for multiple reasons, but that is increasingly less common. I don't think the idea of frequently having kings and queens ascending the throne when they are 60 or 70 and reigning until they are 90 will be very appealing in the long run.


As I said, however, in order to be viable, abdication has to be made easier. Perhaps, if all the Commonwealth realms become republics in the next 50 or 60 years, which is possible, but by no means guaranteed, then it will be straightforward to effect an abdication with a simple act of the UK Parliament that can be passed in the Commons and the Lords in less than a week.
Reply With Quote
  #1349  
Old 04-22-2021, 01:17 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 7,645
I do not believe that Charles should have to have a time limit on how long he will be the sovereign. His grandfather Prince Albert did not even expect to succeed to the throne. Charles has known about the succession from a young age.
Reply With Quote
  #1350  
Old 04-22-2021, 02:06 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
I do not believe that Charles should have to have a time limit on how long he will be the sovereign. His grandfather Prince Albert did not even expect to succeed to the throne. Charles has known about the succession from a young age.
I agree completely. Why all of a sudden is this an issue ? Because Charles is unpopular ? He’s used to that. He’ll go about his duties as he was taught to and he believes he should, no different than his mother or any other monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #1351  
Old 04-22-2021, 02:40 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 9
While I don't believe Charles will abdicate on his own, I do wonder IF he's met with overwhelming public dislike the palace officials (the people who actually run the British monarchy) will pressure him to give up his place in favour of a younger king.


Although the situations are quite different, I'm sure King Juan Carlos from Spain didn't plan to abdicate in favour of Felipe the way he did, but in the end it was for the good of the crown. Maybe if things turn as badly for the British monarchy Charles will be pressured to do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #1352  
Old 04-22-2021, 03:30 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Tudor View Post
While I don't believe Charles will abdicate on his own, I do wonder IF he's met with overwhelming public dislike the palace officials (the people who actually run the British monarchy) will pressure him to give up his place in favour of a younger king.


Although the situations are quite different, I'm sure King Juan Carlos from Spain didn't plan to abdicate in favour of Felipe the way he did, but in the end it was for the good of the crown. Maybe if things turn as badly for the British monarchy Charles will be pressured to do the same.

King Juan Carlos' situation was exceptional. He was involved in a major corruption scandal which he knew would become public eventually. The Spanish monarchy, for multiple reasons, is already shaky. If Juan Carlos had not abdicated, the survival of the monarchy itself would have been in doubt.

Belgium may be a better example. Albert was also caught in Delphine's paternity imbroglio, but, embarassing though as that was, it is ultimately a private matter that, in my opionion, would not have posed an existential threat to the Belgian monarchy. Nonetheless, Albert chose to abdicate enabling the accession of a younger, more energetic royal family (Philippe, his glamorous wife, and his lovely children), who are far more attractive to the media than old Albert and Paola.
Reply With Quote
  #1353  
Old 04-22-2021, 03:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
I really think it would have to fall to a government/PM to tell King Charles to abdicate, the Palace officials are all appointed by the Sovereign and Charles will likely bring a team with him. The days of appointing Courtiers for life or from the same families is not as much in play as it was - remember Charles and Andrew engineered the departure of the Queen's last Private Secretary Christopher Gedit because they didn't like him and thought he had too much power.
Reply With Quote
  #1354  
Old 04-22-2021, 03:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,471
Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!
Reply With Quote
  #1355  
Old 04-22-2021, 04:09 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: -, Netherlands
Posts: 1,672
I would not even want Charles to even consider abdicating or passing the throne in favour of William.
I like Charles - I find him interesting, he knows what he talks about and he's in a good place since his marriage to Camilla.
I am curious to how he would fill in his being King.

So, barring a terrible accident with far-reaching consequences or a disease, the talk of Charles abdicating/passing is, IMO, moot and non-existant.
He's lived for it and is better prepared than anyone, so go for it when the time comes!
Reply With Quote
  #1356  
Old 04-22-2021, 04:12 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!

It is not just a matter of glamor though. The King is the Head of State. Although I have no doubt Queen Elizabeth II is still perfectly capable of fulfilling her constitutional obligations at the age of 95, we normally expect people in ordinary jobs to have retired by that age. Some public officials like judges for example and, in some countries, even university professors, are subject to a compulsory retirement age, normally 75.

Again, I agree it is not fair to call on Charles to renounce his succession rights or abdicate when he is King after diligently preparing himself for that role for 73+ years. I am not questioning either his ability to do the job. I am just pointing out that a system where the CEO of the Firm will frequently take over only when he or she is over 60 and won't step down until he or she is 90 may become increasingly less appealing over time.

Furthermore, other countries have shown that it doesn't necessarily have to be like that. We had recent examples in Europe of successful transitions to monarchs in their 40s (Willem-Alexander and Felipe) or early 50s (Philippe) via abdication. All of the above can reign for 30 years or so (counting from their accession) and step down when their respective heirs are still relatively young.

I don't see how that would hurt the monarchy or somehow diminish the status of the institution, unless you hold on to a vey old-fashioned idea that the monarch has a divine obligation to reign until his/her last breath. Even in the latter case, monarchs who derive their traditional mandate largely from religion such as the Pope or the Emperor of Japan have also abdicated.
Reply With Quote
  #1357  
Old 04-22-2021, 05:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!
I fully agree. Persons who are elderly or "unglamorous", which is to say not conventionally attractive, already experience formidable inequities. It would be a step backwards to institutionalize these in the laws surrounding the nation's representative head of state.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Again, I agree it is not fair to call on Charles to renounce his succession rights or abdicate when he is King after diligently preparing himself for that role for 73+ years. I am not questioning either his ability to do the job. I am just pointing out that a system where the CEO of the Firm will frequently take over only when he or she is over 60 and won't step down until he or she is 90 may become increasingly less appealing over time.
Perhaps, perhaps not. As modern medicine improves and life expectancies increase, the average age of the population will continue to rise (and more of the elderly will be healthy enough to be active in society). That might be one reason to expect ageism to decrease at least slightly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Tudor View Post
While I don't believe Charles will abdicate on his own, I do wonder IF he's met with overwhelming public dislike the palace officials (the people who actually run the British monarchy) will pressure him to give up his place in favour of a younger king.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Belgium may be a better example. Albert was also caught in Delphine's paternity imbroglio, but, embarassing though as that was, it is ultimately a private matter that, in my opionion, would not have posed an existential threat to the Belgian monarchy. Nonetheless, Albert chose to abdicate enabling the accession of a younger, more energetic royal family (Philippe, his glamorous wife, and his lovely children), who are far more attractive to the media than old Albert and Paola.
Felipe VI and Philippe succeeded their respective fathers because they were next in line under the rule of primogeniture and representation, not because they were younger or more physically attractive.
Reply With Quote
  #1358  
Old 04-22-2021, 05:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 2,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
Unless something unforeseen happens, there's no reason why Charles should abdicate. If he were to become ill, then that would be different, but I don't really see why age makes someone any less entitled to be the monarch. People have great respect for the Queen in her 90s, as they did for the Queen Mother - older people don't just have to be shoved in the corner so that more glamorous people can take over!
Yes, and Charles is extremely vital and strong...
Reply With Quote
  #1359  
Old 04-22-2021, 05:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Felipe VI and Philippe succeeded their respective fathers because they were next in line under the rule of primogeniture and representation, not because they were younger or more physically attractive.

They succeeded because their respective fathers abdicated the throne. Under the normal order of primogeniture and representation, both Albert and Juan Carlos would still be kings. Abdication, at least in Spain, is a separate constitutional provision, which has to be handled separately by a special organic law, as it was in JC's case. Other constitutions (in the Netherlands for example?) make it simpler by equating the (voluntary) abdication of the monarch to the demise of the Crown.


Obviously I didn't say that their right to succeed originated from their being young. However, a practical consequence of the abdication, among many others, is that the country is left with a younger king and, whether you consider that ageism or not,it is a consideration in the rationale for abdications. Several recent abdication speeches for example explicitly mentioned something along the lines of "it is time for a new generation to take over".
Reply With Quote
  #1360  
Old 04-22-2021, 07:20 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,102
I think there is a lot to be said for abdication. The monarch is just the country's figurehead; the real business of running the country rests with the elected government and that remains unchanged. Abdication gives the monarch the chance to enjoy his or her latter years in relative peace and comfort doing what they really want to do like other retired people can after a long working life, and gives the heir and his/her spouse a chance to get out there and do the ceremonial duties and royal visits while they are young enough to be able to enjoy them wholeheartedly. The public gets to see a more active and more attractive royal couple and the country has a more vibrant and youthful face on the world stage.

It might take quite a while to achieve this sort of change in Britain though because the British royals do think they are rather more special than they actually are, especially with the religious connection to the monarchy there. It would require a substantial change of mindset. I imagine it would be harder for the monarch to step down when he or she believes they have the approval of their deity to stay in the job for life.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
camilla parker bowles, camilla parker-bowles, camilla's family


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
Future and Popularity of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 1678 08-15-2021 08:22 AM
The Future of the Danish Monarchy Empress Royal House of Denmark 797 05-31-2021 02:27 PM
Future of the Belgian monarchy Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 122 09-27-2020 08:03 AM
Future of the Dutch Monarchy Marengo Dutch Royals 42 09-25-2020 03:53 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia nara period pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida thai royal family tradition united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×