The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
How do you know that is not actually true ? I am not saying it is, but I don't see why you should rule it out as completely implausible.


Because the Queen knows the succession follows the same path it always has - the throne will be inherited by the eldest child.

That's what monarchy is about - at least in the UK. Start bringing popularity and choice into it and you might just as well have an elected head of state.
 
How do you know that is not actually true ? I am not saying it is, but I don't see why you should rule it out as completely implausible.

I think most people realize that this is not true. Have you seen the crazy stories that people like these American authors/magazines come up with?
 
How do you know that is not actually true ? I am not saying it is, but I don't see why you should rule it out as completely implausible.

Maybe because, from literally everything we've seen and heard of the Queen across very nearly 90 years, she's not a cruel, vindictive, un-forgiving person? Maybe?
 
How do you know that is not actually true ? I am not saying it is, but I don't see why you should rule it out as completely implausible.


The line of succession can only be changed by the various parliaments. We saw how it works to change it equal primogeniture.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
The line of succession can only be changed by the various parliaments. We saw how it works to change it equal primogeniture.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It could change by Charles stepping aside. I don't think that will happen, just saying
 
Christopher is one of those members of the media that like to create these rivalry stories about members of the royal family. It's true, The Queen had a difficult relationship with Camilla back in the day. That was expected of course. I think they get along just fine.

Books, articles, headlines and reports about the royals getting along don't sell and get people excited. Now, tales of rivalries and scandals do sell.
 
Per this article, Charles can't give up his right by just signing it away. He would have to convert to Catholicism or had his marriage not approved to lose place prior to succeeding to the throne.

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/ins...ine-of-succession-to-the-british-throne-13287

However, the point of it is the Queen herself can't remove Charles and give it to William.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Did you watch the video? They said the Queen had a plan to get William on the throne instead of Charles and that there was rivalry between Camilla and Kate. As I said: It was like reading The Globe. Isn't NBC/MSNBC supposed to be a serious Channel/News Channel?

I suppose no less reliable than the British press. I personally don't take much said in the media as gospel, regardless of their nationality. It's hard to say whether the Queen likes Camilla...or anything else for that matter. However, I don't think she'd do anything to throw the monarchy off balance or create controversy.
 
Last edited:
Did you watch the video? They said the Queen had a plan to get William on the throne instead of Charles and that there was rivalry between Camilla and Kate. As I said: It was like reading The Globe. Isn't NBC/MSNBC supposed to be a serious Channel/News Channel?
The Today Show is all about gossip.

Of course she "tolerates" her, she's been married to her son for 11 years ! Camilla is not a pariah anymore, and some people seem to be still disappointed by this simple fact.
And according to some other "sources", the Queen does like her daughter in law : shock and horror !

Queen Elizabeth impressed with Camilla

Camilla was never a pariah.

When did the Queen give an interview in which she called Camilla wicked.

That is just pure fiction created by the media and booksellers. His book is complete fiction.

If Queen only tolerates Camilla then why has she been invited to join the Queen at major events.

These are some of the events where the Queen had invited Camilla where I found photographic evidence. I am sure there is probably more with or without photographs.

2002
April 9, 2002 Camilla and her sister Annabel were invited to the funeral of The Queen Mother.
April 19, 2002 Camilla was invited to Princess Margaret's memorial service
June 1, 2002 Camilla was invited to Buckingham Palace for the Prom at the Palace classical concert to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee
June 3, 2002 Camilla and her daughter were invited to Buckingham Palace for the Golden Jubilee Pop concert.
July 2, 2002 Camilla invited to a private dinner at the Ritz with the Queen.
August 1, 2002 Camilla invited to Norfolk for The Queen Mother's memorial service at St. Andrew's church

2003
June 2, 2003 Camilla and her father were invited to Westminister Abbey to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Queen's Coronation.
June 21, 2003 Camilla is at Buckingham Palace, it might be a Prince of Wales event.

1992
May 1992 Camilla was invited by the Queen to Windsor
June 1992 Camilla was invited by the Queen to Windsor

Now about the 'story' that Camilla indirectly broke up William and Catherine in 2007.
May 2006 Catherine Middleton attended the wedding of Camilla's daughter with Camilla's niece. Camilla's niece Catherine Elliot listed on William and Catherine's wedding list as a friend of Catherine Middleton..:lol:
November 2007 Catherine Middleton and her mother, Carole, are photographed laughing with a very pregnant Laura. Three and half years later the child that Laura was carrying was a bridesmaid at William and Catherine's wedding.

I believe photographic evidence tops an unnamed source any old day.:lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
The line of succession can only be changed by the various parliaments. We saw how it works to change it equal primogeniture.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

I was not referring to part that Queen is "conspiring" to get William on the throne, but rather that the Queen may barely "tolerate" Camilla, or that the Queen might personally prefer William to Charles on the throne.
 
I was not referring to part that Queen is "conspiring" to get William on the throne, but rather that the Queen may barely "tolerate" Camilla, or that the Queen might personally prefer William to Charles on the throne.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/20/00/335189B700000578-3548712-image-m-2_1461107456776.jpg

What shall be made of this picture?

Prince Charles is sitting next to his mother on the same chair.
George is standing next to the Queen.
William is sitting on a separate chair farthest away from the Queen.

What interpretations should be made of this engagement?
The Queen will celebrate her 90th birthday with a joint engagement with Prince Charles and Camilla.
 

OK. I'll bite. Remember its early morning here and I've not yet fully completed my intake of wake-up juice yet.

The Photo:

Charles is seated to the right of the Queen. He is her right hand man
George is standing between Gan-Gan and Daddy with daddy holding his hand. No chance of escape should the mood hit.

Kids do the darndest things. My youngest was totally so fascinated by the Polaroid camera that as soon as the picture was set to go, he'd run up to the person taking the picture to grab the out coming photo so he could see people "appear". More often than not, he turned out to be a blur.

I don't really think there is any intention behind the photo or subliminal idea or conspiracy plot other than a family photo.
 
OK. I'll bite. Remember its early morning here and I've not yet fully completed my intake of wake-up juice yet.



The Photo:



Charles is seated to the right of the Queen. He is her right hand man

George is standing between Gan-Gan and Daddy with daddy holding his hand. No chance of escape should the mood hit.



Kids do the darndest things. My youngest was totally so fascinated by the Polaroid camera that as soon as the picture was set to go, he'd run up to the person taking the picture to grab the out coming photo so he could see people "appear". More often than not, he turned out to be a blur.



I don't really think there is any intention behind the photo or subliminal idea or conspiracy plot other than a family photo.


But you didn't mention that George was turned away from the Queen or was it Charles he was giving the cold shoulder ???? ?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Republicans to call for monarchy referendum when Queen dies | UK news | The Guardian
Britain’s republican movement has revealed it plans to mount a campaign for a referendum on the future of the monarchy when the Queen dies.

Republic has been nervous of appearing callous over the Queen’s mortality, because it sees the popularity of the Queen as crucial to public support for the institution.

But on the eve of the Queen’s 90th birthday, Republic’s chief executive, Graham Smith, suggested that, when it happens, the Queen’s death will mark a turning point in public attitudes.

“The Queen’s birthday reminds us that support for the monarchy is bound up with support for the Queen,” he said.
The Queen’s death will not mark a turning point in public attitudes and as I've said several times before:

I actually thinks the British Monarchy is the safest Monarchy in the world, along with the Japanese.

Republicanism in the UK remains among the lowest in the world, with figures rarely exceeding 20% in support of a British republic, some polls have it as low 13%, and consistent 70% support for the Monarchy. Some polls have the support for the monarchy as high as 82%, others at around 70 to 76%, another poll has the support for the monarchy from 66 to 70%.

To abolish the British monarchy will be very difficult.
1: Most polls must show a majority for a republic, this is very very unlikely.
2: Majority in the house of commons for a referendum, this is not going to happen.
3: Majority in the referendum for a republic, this is not going to happen.
4: Changing the country's name, changing the pound, remove the royal name from all state institutions. These are just some of the things that must be changed.
5: All of this is going to cost so much money that even many Republicans will start doubting it, and the vast majority of the population will never vote to replace a constitutional monarchy with a divisive politician or a celebrity etc.

The only thing that can destroy the British Monarchy in the coming years is some very, very, very serious scandals or if the Queen had done something so crazy as to abdicate, because that would have been disastrous for the British monarchy and this is why:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ession-to-the-throne-5254-10.html#post1851254

Smith said there were plenty of reasons for the European republican movement to be optimistic even if opinion polls showed that only about 20% of the UK population backed the idea. “We are going to get to that point where there are no monarchies left in Europe and that’s a dream I want to make happen in my lifetime,” he told delegates.

“Some people think we’ve got the toughest job [in Europe] – the monarchy that is least likely to fall – but I think that we’ve shown over the last few years that there’s is a lot of reason for optimism.”
Graham Smith was born in 1974, so I have to disappoint him because it's not going to happen in his lifetime.

And there will not be a domino effect if the Spanish monarchy falls. It will not have anything to say for the UK, Denmark or Norway. If we were to held referendums in these Countries? The monarchies will likely win with 70 to 80%, and the politicians know this very well.

I'm not too familiar with how things are in the Netherlands, but I doubt that an abolition of the Spanish monarchy would have anything to say for their attitude to the monarchy.

And I don't think the Swedish/Belgian monarchies will be affected either.

Graham Smith know this very well, but it is his job to say something else.
 
The accession of Charles will take place immediately on the death of the Queen by common law. There is no grace period between the Queen passing and Charles becoming king.

There will be no referendum. Graham Smith is not thinking straight. To think he is the leader of the republican 'movement' gives me great comfort

(and by movement I mean a Twitter account and website :lol:)
 
Last edited:
The Bridge

Here's an article from last summer describing what might happen:

What Happens When the Queen Dies—Inside ‘The Bridge’ - The Daily Beast

When the Queen dies, it is expected that Charles will be formally crowned within three months. For one thing, everybody knows this is coming, almost certainly at some point in the next decade, so there is a sense of readiness in the palace.
...

But there is a political motivation to get the coronation done and dusted as quickly as possible. Charles still remains a deeply controversial King for many in the United Kingdom, given his admitted adultery and choice of a divorcee for his intended Queen, so there is a desire to minimize the vacuum period, for fear it will be filled by Republican voices.

Part of the greatest perceived threat to the Monarchy lies in the overseas dominions, or ‘realms’, many of which are becoming increasingly vocal about the sense of having the Queen as their head of state. Many of these countries are happy to go along with the Queen out of a sense of personal affection for her; however, they don’t ‘like’ Charles in the same way.
 
Well, as a person from one of those 'realms' I can say any referendum held here is by no means going to be a foregone conclusion no matter who's on the throne. Even if the realms do go the Commonwealth still remains (and Royal tours and visits will continue.) Since when did the British public take a cue for retaining the monarchy from other countries anyway.

What's more, the idea that Republic and like organisations are going to be able to amass hundreds of thousands of supporters before Charles's Coronation in order to force a debate in the Commons is frankly ridiculous, IMO.
 
No way is the coronation held in 3 months after the Queen's death. There is no need to rush it. As pointed out Charles is King as soon the Queen dies. There is the Accession council and the proclamation of the new monarch from St James's Palace. What politician is going to stand up in the Commons with Elizabeth II lying in state in Westminster Hall to demand a republic? Few if any.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Here's an article from last summer describing what might happen:

What Happens When the Queen Dies—Inside ‘The Bridge’ - The Daily Beast

When the Queen dies, it is expected that Charles will be formally crowned within three months. For one thing, everybody knows this is coming, almost certainly at some point in the next decade, so there is a sense of readiness in the palace.
...

But there is a political motivation to get the coronation done and dusted as quickly as possible. Charles still remains a deeply controversial King for many in the United Kingdom, given his admitted adultery and choice of a divorcee for his intended Queen, so there is a desire to minimize the vacuum period, for fear it will be filled by Republican voices.

Part of the greatest perceived threat to the Monarchy lies in the overseas dominions, or ‘realms’, many of which are becoming increasingly vocal about the sense of having the Queen as their head of state. Many of these countries are happy to go along with the Queen out of a sense of personal affection for her; however, they don’t ‘like’ Charles in the same way.

The timing of the coronation will depend on the timing of The Queen's death.

If she were to die from January to say April I could see the coronation taking place by say the end of September or into October.

If she were to die during the summer or autumn does anyone really think they will have a coronation in winter????
 
Is there a written specification that from the first day he is the new sovereign, how soon does King Charles have to announce his Coronation date?
 
Not as far as I know. Dates of Coronations after the death of the previous sovereign have varied greatly. Edward VII's health caused his first one to be postponed. After the Abdication of Edward VIII all the plans were in place, just a different King and so the Coronation occurred in the May of the following year, quick smart really in order to banish any doubts about continuity. Charles's will take place in the warmer months for various reasons, including bringing crowds out.
 
Does it have to be exactly the same as the Queens. Is there any scope to change it if Charles wanted some parts different. I'm not saying he would just wondering if parts could be changed


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Is there a written specification that from the first day he is the new sovereign, how soon does King Charles have to announce his Coronation date?

Since the definite inheritance - as opposed to first in best dressed possibility - it has been at least a year (full mourning is six months and half mourning is a year).

It took so long for the Queen as her father died in February.

When her grandfather died in January the next coronation was set for May over a year later.

Edward VII went from January to June 12 months (ended up August due to his appendicitis)

George V was the shortest because his father died in May so he was crowned the following June.
 
Does it have to be exactly the same as the Queens. Is there any scope to change it if Charles wanted some parts different. I'm not saying he would just wondering if parts could be changed


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The ritual of anointing and crowning is unlikely to be different but I would say there will be differences in the ceremony and that Charles has discussed them already. Different music perhaps for portions of the ceremony, other religions being invited to take part, maybe not all peers and peeresses being invited to acclaim him. We shall see.
 
England without a monarchy? Well crazier things have happened I suppose, but I can't very well see it. If anything, after the Queen dies I think England will cling even closer to their traditions and exalt the good that the monarchy has done. After that settles, maybe there's a slim hope for republicans, but I doubt it would succeed. I am very curious as to what Scotland will do in the coming years though.
 
The Daily Mail recently repeated this coronation within three months to dampen republicanism line.

A coronation doesn't make a king. Proclamations don't make a king. The Accession Council doesn't make a king. All of that is ceremony and theatre.

Under common law the accession happens immediately. Some republicans seem to think that after the Queen passes there will then be this national discussion as to whether or not Charles should become king, when in fact he will already be king.
 
Last edited:
England without a monarchy? Well crazier things have happened I suppose, but I can't very well see it. If anything, after the Queen dies I think England will cling even closer to their traditions and exalt the good that the monarchy has done. After that settles, maybe there's a slim hope for republicans, but I doubt it would succeed. I am very curious as to what Scotland will do in the coming years though.
I believe that Charles will ascend to the throne, though like you I do wonder if Scotland will choose to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom