The Monarchy under Charles

[Dman]

I know some would think my opinion don't matter because I'm an American and Charles's future reign have nothing to do with me but Charles will make a great king. His reign may be much shorter than his mother's but I think he will be an active king. He cares about the people, environment and country life. He's learned a lot from his mother, The Queen, but he will be his own king and I think over time people will not only get used to it but appreciate it as well.

 

[Rudolph]

I think Charles will be a good king as well. I don't like to speak out against the Queen and her long and glorious reign is to be celebrated but there is no doubt in my mind that the Queen's long reign has hurt those under her, including Charles and William.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

BBC News - Prince Charles as king: What type of monarch will he be?

When I read this I thought, this is written by Peter Hunt, and I was right.

I think Charles will be a good king as well. I don't like to speak out against the Queen and her long and glorious reign is to be celebrated but there is no doubt in my mind that the Queen's long reign has hurt those under her, including Charles and William.

I don't agree, The Queen's long and glorious reign has saved the monarchy. Charles and William are just fine, they are not being hurt by Her Majesty's long reign.

 

[Osipi]

I think Charles will be a good king as well. I don't like to speak out against the Queen and her long and glorious reign is to be celebrated but there is no doubt in my mind that the Queen's long reign has hurt those under her, including Charles and William.

I would beg to differ on the Queen's long reign hurting Charles. Actually, when I think of all that he has done and accomplished and continues to strive for, Charles has done some pretty amazing things while being Prince of Wales. I would bet my last ham sandwich that he's never once regretted the long wait he has had and continues to have. In fact, he probably has more freedom to act and make a difference now than when he becomes king.

 

[Mbruno]

I think Charles will be a good king as well. I don't like to speak out against the Queen and her long and glorious reign is to be celebrated but there is no doubt in my mind that the Queen's long reign has hurt those under her, including Charles and William.

I am among those who think it would be reasonable for the Queen to step down following the precedent recently set by some of her Continental cousins. Having said that, I don't see though how her long reign may have hurt prince William. On the contrary, it seems to me that calls for the sucession to skip one generation will only get stronger the longer it takes for Charles to ascend the throne. In that sense, William is indirectly benefiting from his grandmother's longevity.

The Queen herself behaves in a way that, with all due respect to Her Majesty, looks ambiguous to me. On one hand, she acknowledges Charles' constitutional position as heir apparent, e.g. having him sit by her side at the State Opening of Parliament or sending him as her representative to the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. On the other hand though, she seems to be raising William's official profile, making him take part in investiture ceremonies and sending him e.g. to Belgium for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I (a "Heads-of-State" event).

It may be wild and reckless speculation on my part, but I can't help having this personal feeling that the Queen would prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla on the throne and, although she has no control over that matter (which is regulated by law and, hence, by Parliament), she is preparing for an eventual "Plan B" nonetheless.

 

[Bine221]

I am among those who think it would be reasonable for the Queen to step down following the precedent recently set by some of her Continental cousins. Having said that, I don't see though how her long reign may have hurt prince William. On the contrary, it seems to me that calls for the sucession to skip one generation will only get stronger the longer it takes for Charles to ascend the throne. In that sense, William is indirectly benefiting from his grandmother's longevity.

The Queen herself behaves in a way that, with all due respect to Her Majesty, looks ambiguous to me. On one hand, she acknowledges Charles' constitutional position as heir apparent, e.g. having him sit by her side at the State Opening of Parliament or sending him as her representative to the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. On the other hand though, she seems to be raising William's official profile, making him take part in investiture ceremonies and sending him e.g. to Belgium for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War I (a "Heads-of-State" event).

It may be wild and reckless speculation on my part, but I can't help having this personal feeling that the Queen would prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla on the throne and, although she has no control over that matter (which is regulated by law and, hence, by Parliament), she is preparing for an eventual "Plan B" nonetheless.

She is preparing for a Plan B, but this is to prepare the second in line for the throne as well....
PLUS: this is a well planned sharing of workload
PLUS: the Queen know, that Wills and Kate are much more popular in the Media as well as with the People than Charles. So she uses them for positive press towards the RF
BYe Bine

 

[miss whirley]

She is preparing for a Plan B, but this is to prepare the second in line for the throne as well....
PLUS: this is a well planned sharing of workload
PLUS: the Queen know, that Wills and Kate are much more popular in the Media as well as with the People than Charles. So she uses them for positive press towards the RF
BYe Bine

I agree. There is no guarantee that Charles will outlive his mother, so she needs to give William some minimum preparation, just in case.

I do think she would prefer that William and Harry live rather private lives at present. I believe she wants the spotlight on her children and cousins, with her grandchildren staying backstage. But she knows the media is obsessed with youth so she throws William/Catherine/Harry scraps to the media wolves every now and then.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

It may be wild and reckless speculation on my part, but I can't help having this personal feeling that the Queen would prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla on the throne and, although she has no control over that matter (which is regulated by law and, hence, by Parliament), she is preparing for an eventual "Plan B" nonetheless.

Yes, this is wild speculation from your part.

I would beg to differ on the Queen's long reign hurting Charles. Actually, when I think of all that he has done and accomplished and continues to strive for, Charles has done some pretty amazing things while being Prince of Wales. I would bet my last ham sandwich that he's never once regretted the long wait he has had and continues to have. In fact, he probably has more freedom to act and make a difference now than when he becomes king.

I agree with you in this.

 

[Dman]

There is no proof that The Queen prefers William to take the throne instead of Charles. The Queen has prepared her son, Charles, for the throne and she has publically stated that she's very confident about the future of the Monarchy.

The Queen knows that William is second in-line and he too needs the training to support his father and for the "top job" he will take on afterwards. Both Charles and William and their spouses have major roles to play within the "Firm."

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am always surprised that when people raise the issue of the succession skipping a generation that forget William's feelings towards his father in all this as if somehow hurting his father like that is something William would want to do. Maybe he would but personally I doubt it.

 

[Dman]

I am always surprised that when people raise the issue of the succession skipping a generation that forget William's feelings towards his father in all this as if somehow hurting his father like that is something William would want to do. Maybe he would but personally I doubt it.

People can talk about William leapfrogging his father for the throne all they want but it's not going to happen and I really don't think William or Charles give it much thought. It can only happen if Charles is terribly ill or passes away before his succession.

Charles and William both represents the future of the British Monarchy and they both have very important parts to play in the "Firm" in the meantime.

 

[Ish]

People can talk about William leapfrogging his father for the throne all they want but it's not going to happen and I really don't think William or Charles give it much thought. It can only happen if Charles is terribly ill or passes away before his succession.



Charles and William both represents the future of the British Monarchy and they both have very important parts to play in the "Firm" in the meantime.

No, it can only happen if Charles dies before his mother. He could be on his death bed, but if his mother predeceased him he would still be monarch. William might be a regent, but Charles would still be the king.

 

[cepe]

I am always surprised that when people raise the issue of the succession skipping a generation that forget William's feelings towards his father in all this as if somehow hurting his father like that is something William would want to do. Maybe he would but personally I doubt it.

I agree with this. Personal feelings always seem to be ignored.

As for the Peter Hunt piece "What sort of king ......." This is an off-shoot of the Guardian piece (mentioned and link within the BBC article).

Since 2007, The Guardian (left-wing, intellectual paper, anti-monarchy) has been trying to get Prince Charles' letters to various ministers to be published. So far every court has thrown it out.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will announce its decision as to whether they will be published. The Guardian article is a precursor to that decision.

 

[scooter]

She is preparing for a Plan B, but this is to prepare the second in line for the throne as well....
PLUS: this is a well planned sharing of workload
PLUS: the Queen know, that Wills and Kate are much more popular in the Media as well as with the People than Charles. So she uses them for positive press towards the RF
BYe Bine

Pretty much, Bine!

 

[hernameispekka]

I haven't read the thread, but I got a thought about a small thing that might change when Charles is in charge. Flybys and fireworks might disappear/decrease since he is very keen on environmental issues.

 

[Osipi]

I haven't read the thread, but I got a thought about a small thing that might change when Charles is in charge. Flybys and fireworks might disappear/decrease since he is very keen on environmental issues.

That's quite possible although those flybys are are pretty much a mainstay for festive occasions I think.

TBH, I think by the time Charles does become King, most changes will be adapted and put in place gradually rather than having it seem like Charles moves in drastically cleans house.

 

[hernameispekka]

That is true, I also think he and William might take more decisions together so that there is a continuity between their two reigns.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Queen Elizabeth II's actual birthday is April 21st.
The Queen's Official Birthday is celebrated in June.
Prince Charles' birthday is November 14th.
Once he becomes King, do you think Charles will have the date of the King's Official Birthday changed?
​

 

[Skippyboo]

No because the reason it was moved so the weather would be better in June in the reign of Edward VII who also had a November birthday. When William is King, his birthday is June 21 so it will be the same month but they would still do it on a Saturday because of you wouldn't want to do it on a work day with all the traffic in London.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles birthday is actually the 14th November.


I don't think he will move it as the idea of having Trooping etc in November - cold, short days etc isn't one that would attract that many tourists and Trooping is a tourist attraction as much as a celebration of the monarch's birthday.


William's birthday and also George's will be in June and July so moving Trooping to November for the 10 or so years of Charles' reign and then moving it back again wouldn't make sense.


George VI's birthday was 14th December but he left the official birthday in June - which was George V's birthday and I think it is now too set in the calendar to move it around with each new monarch.


I am not even convinced that George would move it into July but leave it where it is in June - so that the public can plan for the long weekend at the appropriate time and be consistent.


It isn't simply about the monarch and their birthday but when it suits the nation to celebrate that birthday and mid-June makes sense to the nation.

 

[Skippyboo]

You still get the flag flown and the gun salutes on the actual birthday. The trooping and then garter day and then Ascot makes a nice trio of royal events.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[cepe]

I always thought that the official birthday was linked to the Coronation, hence June.
ah well!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Victoria celebrated her birthday in May (what is now Commonwealth Day) but George V moved it to June - when his birthday was. Edward VIII, for his one year, didn't move it because he had a similar date to his father (George V - 3rd June; Edward VIII - 23rd June).


George VI didn't move his date because he was determined to keep things as they had been under his father - to emphasise the continuity of the monarchy - so it wasn't moved to December. The Queen argued that having been in June for over 40 year she saw no reason to move it.


It has now been in June for over a century and the only person to move it from summer in the next century would be Charles so it won't be moving.


The Coronation was in June but that didn't have anything to do with the date of the birthday - George VI hadn't had his birthday in May and his coronation had been in May.

 

[Skippyboo]

Edward VII moved it to warmer weather since he had a November birthday. George V had a June 3 birthday.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/TheQueensbirthdays.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

I don't believe the Trooping of the Colour will be moved under Charles, William or George.

 

[wbenson]

I am not even convinced that George would move it into July but leave it where it is in June - so that the public can plan for the long weekend at the appropriate time and be consistent.

It isn't simply about the monarch and their birthday but when it suits the nation to celebrate that birthday and mid-June makes sense to the nation.

There isn't a long weekend. It's always a Saturday, and the Friday and Monday are regular working days. I think it will be kept in June, but it's not really a national celebration like some countries have, or even a public holiday like the official birthday is in some other realms and territories.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.

The questioning about the monarchy comes from those who want Republic.
There is no evidence that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy, It's going to happen by itself.

Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.

It's not going to happen. Williams children is going to have royals duties, but I agree that Harrys upcoming children should not have titles, or be members of the monarchy.

This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.

The cousin problem will resolve itself. Anne and the Wessex will continue with their good work as long as they want, and so will Harry. Beatrice and Eugenie should never have become princesses, and in my opinion should not represent the royal family, although I like both.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with Andrews role in the monarchy, it depends on how he behaves, but he will not be removed from the line of succession, except if what he is accused of should prove to be true.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If Beatrice and Eugenie weren't to become Princesses then the 1917 LPs should have been that only the children of the eldest son becomes HRH and that would have meant NO children of George V being HRH in his lifetime - with two gaining that styling in December, 1936.

 

[USAPolitics]

The questioning about the monarchy comes from those who want Republic.

There is no evidence that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy, It's going to happen by itself.









It's not going to happen. Williams children is going to have royals duties, but I agree that Harrys upcoming children should not have titles, or be members of the monarchy.







The cousin problem will resolve itself. Anne and the Wessex will continue with their good work as long as they want, and so will Harry. Beatrice and Eugenie should never have become princesses, and in my opinion should not represent the royal family, although I like both.

I'm not sure what's going to happen with Andrews role in the monarchy, it depends on how he behaves, but he will not be removed from the line of succession, except if what he is accused of should prove to be true.

Beatrice and Eugenie becoming princesses has not context to a slimmed down monarchy. They are already not working royals with no expected plans, per Buckingham Palace. That's ALL we as the public need to be worried about.

As far as them being princesses, that's simply a matter of fact and a family matter, too. They ARE princesses. Bottom line. No if ands or buts about it. They are granddaughters of a monarch, and daughters of a Duke. It's their birthright. It's not a case of they shouldn't have been made princesses. They were born princesses.

Let's be clear that there is a BIG difference between the York girls being princesses (which they are, it is their identity and who they are based on customs of the country, their family, etc.) and being working royals (which Buckingham Palace has stated they are not and don't have any expected plans to be).

With all that being said, I think it's important to note that while many are searching for reasons to slim down the monarchy, the country isn't getting any smaller.

And already we hear cries from many that the RF doesn't do enough, William and Kate don't work enough, etc etc. With a smaller royal family, just means more of the work we do value them for will diminish.

 

[Bine221]

Beatrice and Eugenie becoming princesses has not context to a slimmed down monarchy. They are already not working royals with no expected plans, per Buckingham Palace. That's ALL we as the public need to be worried about.

As far as them being princesses, that's simply a matter of fact and a family matter, too. They ARE princesses. Bottom line. No if ands or buts about it. They are granddaughters of a monarch, and daughters of a Duke. It's their birthright. It's not a case of they shouldn't have been made princesses. They were born princesses.

Let's be clear that there is a BIG difference between the York girls being princesses (which they are, it is their identity and who they are based on customs of the country, their family, etc.) and being working royals (which Buckingham Palace has stated they are not and don't have any expected plans to be).

Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward aren´t?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine