The Monarchy under Charles

[Lumutqueen]

I've never heard anyone other than "diana fans" says that Camilla should not be crowned. Have you heard these statements first hand or read them? I am genuinely interested in who's said something like that as it's quite obivous that I am very pro- Queen Camilla.

 

[Daisiesforever]

Let the spirits of fate decide... If Camilla TRUELY deserves to be Queen, I am sure she will be.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Correct me if I'm wrong - the wife of Charles will be crowned Queen when he becomes King. Has there ever been a situation where the 'mood' of the public - and a fraction of the public - has determined the succession? If the 'mood' of a part of the general public were to impact something as personal (marriage) and fundamental as crowning, would that not then be a fundamental change in the monarchy? Is that the way changes are made - by 'mood' of a part of the general public? Is the statement that she will never be crowned Queen realistic?

The 'mood' of the public managed to get Camilla off the invitation list for the official Diana memorial what I found quite astonishing.
I have nothing against Camilla, I guess she will become Queen consort and the BRF have made their peace with her and this whole situation.

All I am saying is that the public mood is not to be underestimated and can only be influenced by the BRF to a certain degree. It will pretty much depend on the circumstances at the time and the interest of powers that are in the UK at the time when HM passes. I wouldnt expect any problems then but who knows, sometimes the devil is in the detail.

 

[Charlotte1]

I think I do agree with you Renata. It is not a case of who Camilla is but RATHER how she came to the present position she holds. From a bankrupt mistress to a Dutchess is quite a leap for any individual. I often wonder if she would still be with Charles if he had not "bailed" her out of her financial disaster.

Lilly Langtry never became Queen so why should Camilla? Charles may insist that she be crowned but I doubt if she will ever be truely accepted by the people as Queen. The support of the monarchy does after all lie in the hands of the people. This has nothing to do with Diana but rather our proud British heritage.

Camilla was NEVER bankrupt (where do these factoids come from!?) In the 1990s, Camilla, along with thousands of others such as the Princess Alexandra and the Duke and Duchess of Kent, lost a great deal of money through Lloyds of London. But she was never bankrupt and she never lost ALL her money, the money she did loose was from her inheritance from wealthy grandparents and great-grandparents. Charles didn't have to bail her out, Camilla had her own money and money from her divorce and she bought Raymill House for herself and to leave to her children.

Charles can insist all he likes, but it's not his decision whether or not Camilla gets the title Queen. It's the government of the day, which is the standard line from him. It's the government who decide, just like it was the government of the day who removed Edward VIII as king, he abdicated but it was an Act of Parliament the following day that actually removed him as king. For Camilla not to be crowned Queen will need an Act of Parliament.

Your proud British heritage has had a number of less than virtuous monarchs. Edward VII had multiple mistresses and was crowned king, and was a very good king at that. George I was divorced, George IV hated his wife so much he tried to have her barred from his coronation, it didn't work she still became Queen. People's memories are short, younger people are around who have no real living memory of the "war of the Wales" let alone the infidelities by all involved. Charles and Camilla are just 2 old people who are married, he gets to be King when his mother dies, she's married to a king so gets to be queen.

 

[muriel]

Camilla was NEVER bankrupt (where do these factoids come from!?) In the 1990s, Camilla, along with thousands of others such as the Princess Alexandra and the Duke and Duchess of Kent, lost a great deal of money through Lloyds of London. But she was never bankrupt and she never lost ALL her money, the money she did loose was from her inheritance from wealthy grandparents and great-grandparents. Charles didn't have to bail her out, Camilla had her own money and money from her divorce and she bought Raymill House for herself and to leave to her children.

Charles can insist all he likes, but it's not his decision whether or not Camilla gets the title Queen. It's the government of the day, which is the standard line from him. It's the government who decide, just like it was the government of the day who removed Edward VIII as king, he abdicated but it was an Act of Parliament the following day that actually removed him as king. For Camilla not to be crowned Queen will need an Act of Parliament.

Your proud British heritage has had a number of less than virtuous monarchs. Edward VII had multiple mistresses and was crowned king, and was a very good king at that. George I was divorced, George IV hated his wife so much he tried to have her barred from his coronation, it didn't work she still became Queen. People's memories are short, younger people are around who have no real living memory of the "war of the Wales" let alone the infidelities by all involved. Charles and Camilla are just 2 old people who are married, he gets to be King when his mother dies, she's married to a king so gets to be queen.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Iluvbertie]

George IV hated his wife so much he tried to have her barred from his coronation, it didn't work she still became Queen.

Becoming Queen and being crowned are two different things.

Yes George IV's wife became Queen but he most certainly was able to deny her entry to the Coronation. She was NOT crowned at the coronation but she had been Queen since the instant George IV became King.

 

[sweet_peach]

wonder if he will be Charles III or George VII

ahhhh.....very good..........that is a very good question.....!!!

 

[Renata4711]

Definitely not Charles III, because of the fate of the first Charles. I heard it on the BBC some time ago.

 

[Royal Fan]

well thats really just speculation isnt it

 

[sirhon11234]

In my mind, she will be crowned Queen, Diana lovers and general moaners will natter away for a few weeks then disappear. Just like at the engagement and wedding.

Have you met every single Diana lover and asked them if he or she has a problem with Camilla being queen. I certainly don't mind in fact I could care less. There are far more important issues going on in this world than worrying about a woman receiving a crown on her head.

 

[Tyger]

wonder if he will be Charles III or George VII

I think King Charles sounds very nice - why wouldn't he use his own name?

I guess this is the part I don't understand - why would he choose the name 'George'? Seems like an out-of-the-blue name to me.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

I think King Charles sounds very nice - why wouldn't he use his own name?

I guess this is the part I don't understand - why would he choose the name 'George'? Seems like an out-of-the-blue name to me.

There is no requirement for a monarch to use the name he or she was given at birth. It is rare for a king or queen to do so but it has happened in the past. For example, Prince Albert (Victoria's son) chose to be known as Edward VII and Bertie, his grandson, chose to be known as George VI, probably in honor of his father, George V. I believe Queen Victoria's name at birth was Alexandrina Victoria and she chose Victoria as her name.

In my opinion, Charles will not shy away from any bad connotation surrounding the name Charles and will probably be styled Charles III.

 

[Zonk]

I am on the fence with the name thing.

As Charles usually tries to do things his way, I can see him going by Charles III...and not worrying about the legacies of Charles I (beheaded) and II (not being known for much other than having affairs and all those illegitimate kids).

On the other hand, I can also see him trying to continue the legacy of his mother and as a tribute to her (maybe) going by the name of her beloved father, George VII. I also don't think that the BRF is superstitious by nature, but it appears (no real proof) that there are certain names that aren't repeated (i.e. John, Clarence, Windsor, etc.) ...so maybe he might not want to use the name of Charles.

But at the end of the day, he will be called is Sir, His Majesty, Papa, Charles (by his family), etc. So it might not matter at all.

Also, Bertie chose George VI to for continuity ---- a comfortable name for the British as his father, George V was a respected name and monarch, and to show some stability after the Abdication of Edward VIII.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Definitely not Charles III, because of the fate of the first Charles. I heard it on the BBC some time ago.

What you heard was some speculation that has been repeated continually since the mid-70s but until the Accession Council is held and he announces his regnal name we simply don't know.

I believe he discussed this option with some 'friends' and one or more of them reported the George VII comment but it has not come directly from Charles as it isn't yet the appropriate time for him to announce that decision.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There is no requirement for a monarch to use the name he or she was given at birth. It is rare for a king or queen to do so but it has happened in the past. For example, Prince Albert (Victoria's son) chose to be known as Edward VII and Bertie, his grandson, chose to be known as George VI, probably in honor of his father, George V. I believe Queen Victoria's name at birth was Alexandrina Victoria and she chose Victoria as her name.

In my opinion, Charles will not shy away from any bad connotation surrounding the name Charles and will probably be styled Charles III.

Edward VII was never actually known as Prince Albert but as Prince Albert Edward - to distinguish him from his father.

It was his mother's wish that he would reign as Prince Albert Edward and throughout her reign that was the name that was expected and there was some criticism of him that the first decision he made was to go against his mother's wishes with his regnal name.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I'd prefer that he go by Charles III, personally. However, George is one of his given names. Remember Diana stumbling over "Charles Philip Arthur George"?

I think King Charles sounds very nice - why wouldn't he use his own name?

 

[COUNTESS]

Edward VII was never actually known as Prince Albert but as Prince Albert Edward - to distinguish him from his father.

It was his mother's wish that he would reign as Prince Albert Edward and throughout her reign that was the name that was expected and there was some criticism of him that the first decision he made was to go against his mother's wishes with his regnal name.

I don't think he much like the name Albert and in George VI's, defense, there was never a King Albert and he had enough problems without using a strange name. Charles is Charles, why he would call himself anything else is? Also, strange. But......As for Camilla, say what you want, but she will be queen. I am no fan, but it is true.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Hopefully he'll go by George VII; as for Camilla, I expect she will be crowned, there is no reason to prevent her from it. The only thing I think could prevent it is if Camilla herself would prefer to be Queen in name only.

 

[nascarlucy]

When I think of the other Charles I & II, I think of centuries ago and I don't associate Prince Charles with them or their activities. Charles is not a common name for a monarch. George, Edward are. If he wanted to be different, he would keep his name. Will be interesting in the future what name he picks. When is this actually done? Right before he is coronated?

 

[camelot23ca]

It would seem strange to me if Charles chose another name as king, especially given how old he's going to be when he's crowned. He's been known, in his official life and privately, as Charles all his life; I think expecting the public and press to start calling him a completely different name when he's close to 70 years old is probably unrealistic.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When I think of the other Charles I & II, I think of centuries ago and I don't associate Prince Charles with them or their activities. Charles is not a common name for a monarch. George, Edward are. If he wanted to be different, he would keep his name. Will be interesting in the future what name he picks. When is this actually done? Right before he is coronated?

It is done the day his mother dies at his Accession Council.

His coronation, when he will be actually crowned, won't take place for about a year after his accession but he will already have been King xxxx for some time by then.

On the day the Queen dies (or early the next day if she dies late in the day) an Accession Council will be held at which he will take the oath, announce his regal name and confirm the PM in his office. The present reign began with two of these as the first was done by proxy and the second was done with the Queen actually present.

After that will be the formal proclamation of the new monarch and then about a year later - after the emotions of the death of the parent have disappated - the coronation will occur with the formal crowning of the new monarch by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[MRSJ]

I believe Queen Victoria's name at birth was Alexandrina Victoria and she chose Victoria as her name..

It was her name but she was called Victoria from birth, that name was not choosen just when she became Queen....

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

George is closer in association with Charles than Charles I*II. The Charles' were the Stuarts and the George's were the Hanovers which I think Charles and his mother are closer to. Plus it seems that the George's have had better luck than the Charles'. He has probably already gone over this and has known what his regnal name is going to be for some time.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

It was her name but she was called Victoria from birth, that name was not choosen just when she became Queen....

I think I read that some people called her "Drina" as a nickname but my point was the King or Queen chooses the name he or she wishes to be known as and it can be completely different from the way he or she had formally been known. In fact, I believe the first proclamation or some such document used Queen Alexandrina Victoria and Queen Victoria made it clear that it was incorrect to address her as such or to sign her name that way. It was never repeated.

 

[camelot23ca]

I think I read that some people called her "Drina" as a nickname but my point was the King or Queen chooses the name he or she wishes to be known as and it can be completely different from the way he or she had formally been known. In fact, I believe the first proclamation or some such document used Queen Alexandrina Victoria and Queen Victoria made it clear that it was incorrect to address her as such or to sign her name that way. It was never repeated.

I've read the same regarding the nickname. Was there a particular reason she chose to go with Victoria, (other than personal preference)?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Victoria was known by her second name for most of her life, but I recall reading that when it became clear that she would be Queen some higher ups tried to get her to change her name somehow so it would sound more English and she refused. It's not like either of her names was English sounding to begin with and she could only go by Alexandrina or Victoria.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I've read the same regarding the nickname. Was there a particular reason she chose to go with Victoria, (other than personal preference)?

I suppose beccause that had always been the name she had used.

She had had 'drina' as a very little girl but from about 4 or 5 onwards was known only as Victoria so it made sense to stick with that name.

 

[nascarlucy]

Since people have known Charles as Prince Charles for all of his life, it would be hard to get used to another name if he decided to use another name which he's crowned King.

 

[Aliza]

I just hope HM Queen Elizabeth II has an even longer life than her much-loved mother.
Charles has too many (IMO) strange ideas about his Coronation and supposedly wants it to be partly at Westminster Hall and partly at Westminster Abbey as he wants to be "defender of faith" and recognise the UK as more multicultural. And the Camilla issue won't go away, either. How can a woman with a living husband be anointed Queen by the head of a Church which would not marry them, although it did bless the marriage. It seems to me there will be many questions raised by the Anglican Establishment if Camilla is anointed Queen. If she just takes the title, I don't think there would be as much concern.

From my personal point of view, I'd have loathed seeing Camilla as Charles' Queen Consort if Diana were still alive. Since the Princess rests in peace and can not be hurt anymore, it really doesn't matter to me, although I'd be curious to know the viewpoint of Princes William and Harry. I won't deny that I will never become a Camilla supporter, but neither do I wish her ill and I do recognise the assets she has brought to the BRF and particularly to Charles. (On a side note, I find the Diana admirers who post here to be much more kind about Camilla than the Camilla brigade is about Diana.)

My guess is he will be crowned as King Charles III, but it's just possible he will honour his beloved Granny, QEQM, by taking his Grandfather's name. The PoW is a sentimental man in some ways and it would not surprise me overmuch to see him as George VII.

Many of the Commonwealth countries, particularly Canada and Australia, have said they will take Charles' accession to the Throne as the time they will remove the Sovereign of the UK and Head of the Commonwealth (Head of the Commonwealth is not automatically Charles' after the Queen's death.) as their head of state. In Australia, some politicians directly connect this with the Charles/Diana debacle. I have heard similar stories about Canada, but not directly from Canadian politicians. I do believe William would have a greater chance of remaining as Head of State of both Australia and Canada. Nevertheless, I realise this is a hereditary monarchy and one can't remove Charles from his birthright and nor should he be removed unless it is 100% of his own free will (reasons such as gravely failing health, mental incompetence due to age, etc). The day the BRF allows popularity to outweigh the hereditary principle will be the day it would strike a deep blow to the entire institution of the monarchy. I can't believe it is or has ever been even under consideration, nor should it be.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Very interesting post, Aliza. I hadn't thought about the church entanglements of the "Camilla issue." King Charles III may well have to use some kingly power to get what he wants here - and he may not feel it's useful to try and do that.

Wait and see, in 15-20 years, we hope?