Prince William's Suitability to be King


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I do actually get this, but described this way it sounds a bit as though the monarch is not much more than the pampered pet of the government of the day. I think it's a bit sad, actually.

The Monarch is merely a symbol of the unbroken continuity of the state, and their only qualification is accident of birth. If the role of head of state really is merely symbolic and ceremonial, I think that the office is more appropriately held by someone who has had a long and distinguished career doing something constructive other than merely opening fetes and making small talk. Our Governors and Governors-General have opinions and have expressed them in the past and they can be known to anyone who cares to do the research, and I'm sure the same is true of, for example, Presidents of the United States. Why is it that members of the British Royal Family cannot have opinions and express them before they become monarch? Charles has done things with the intention of benefiting his country and future generations, and he has been criticised heavily for it. HM didn't have a chance to let us know what she thought before becoming Queen.

I suppose I'm just questioning the relevance of the whole system of monarchy as it affects me as an Australian. Why on earth should we bow to these people? William hasn't done anything to make me think he should ever be my Head of State. The fact he can read and write his own name and wave and shake hands and makes all the right noises and doesn't offend anyone just doesn't impress me.


You sound like you are starting to realise why many Australians are now republicans - because the royals have no relevance to us and can't say or do anything without the government's approval.


When I joined this board 2 and a half years ago I was as big a monarchist as you could find and now - bring on the republic!!!!
 
:previous: I, too, was a Monarchist until quite recently and it's only since I started to think of William being our King that I decided it was time for us to have one of our own who would represent our interests above all others on the world stage.

I was born a British Subject and grew up with HM as my Queen and with Charles as a piece of the furniture and God Save the Queen as our National Anthem, and even as late as the early 1980s we still had appeals to the Privy Council. But times have changed dramatically over the last 30 years and not only have the judicial and political ties between our countries been weakened by legislation, I feel no connection to William and have no trouble objectively thinking about his relevance to us.
 
I don't think William will be a good King. He reminds me too much of the Duke of Windsor; he wants his cake, and eat it, too. He and Kate are always know for going on vacations here and there, and seen WAY too often partying at questionable nightclubs, yet, where are the causes? What charitable organizations does he even quietly support and work for? All I see and read, are party, party, party. And oh, they want their "privacy". They still want their tax-payer funded fun, though.
I know it's not politically correct to say it, but I hope he and Kate recede into the background. How come regular English people are not hyped up about his wedding? :whistling:

I would imagine that the people that have found out that it was William that flew the helicopter when they needed emergency medical assistance would strongly disagree with you. Right now William's first and foremost responsibility is to his SAR duties and knowing how the rules work here for being "on duty", it would really put a severe limitation on Will's wild and crazy partying. (Here in WV the rule is no alcohol 12 hours before either a volunteer or professional run).
 
I find the idea that he will be told everything he needs to know a little unsettling. Who is going to be telling him all he needs to know, and how can he be sure that it is in fact all he needs to know? If others are telling him everything he needs to know, why aren't they doing the job? Rhetorical question, of course.

The fact that William successfully attended university and left with an academic degree means that he has learned to cover a subject in an academical way. He learned all the necessary techniques and the ways to analyse and think about a topic which of course is skills he will use when his time has come to agther more information and knowledge about Britain's political system and his place in it.
 
The fact that William successfully attended university and left with an academic degree means that he has learned to cover a subject in an academical way. He learned all the necessary techniques and the ways to analyse and think about a topic which of course is skills he will use when his time has come to agther more information and knowledge about Britain's political system and his place in it.


His place in Britain's politica system is simply - sign the legislation, give the speeches the government writes for him to give, listen the to PM and maybe advise him/her if relevant and possible - basically be an apolitical ear who will listen but can't overrule. The monarch is a rubber stamp.

The monarch in Britain has no real power - the old saying - if Parliament voted for the monarch's death warrant the monarch would have to sign it gives a very good understanding of the power of the monarch - none.
 
Last edited:
The monarch in Britain has no real power - the old saying - if Parliament voted for the monarch's death warrant the monarch would have to sign it gives a very good understanding of the power of the monarch - none.

Okay, so you don't seem to understand what Human Rights are. Of course noone can be forced to sign his own death warrant - a king could always abdicate or call the European Court for Human Rights.... Or do both.

A degree in geopgraphy will certainly help William when he has to receive ambassadours and Catherine will be helped by her history of Arts degree when it comes to research cultural topics to talk about with the ambassadours' wifes....
 
It's fun for me to imagine William's wedding but almost impossible to imagine him as my king... hum... maybe the links to the British monarch are going thinner and thinner... As for his geography degree improving his ability to be king, I'm afraid that the role of our king is oh so limited even when hosting heads of state and anything needing to be said or done is already prepared by knowledgeable politic staff. Not sure I want my Head of State to go as a loose cannon on a subject he likes if his opinion can harm bilateral relationships.
 
One thing his geography degree will help with is being able to have lively discussions with other heads of state about where they all went on their holidays.:lol:

There will be lots and lots of topics it is safe to discuss and the more he knows, whether it is about history or economics or political science or art or psychology or philosophy, the more he will be able to understand and talk about. As Kataryn said, the degree he already has will have taught him to analyse and process information, and I have a feeling he is intelligent enough to not go off like a loose canon on controversial subjects. His advisors will point out the taboo issues before an event anyway, but I think it is always useful - and just makes life more interesting - to understand the "why" and "how" of issues.

And Kate's knowledge of art history will help her when researching cultural topics to discuss with ambassadors' husbands, too, and the husbands of visiting heads of state. :cool:
 
Okay, so you don't seem to understand what Human Rights are. Of course noone can be forced to sign his own death warrant - a king could always abdicate or call the European Court for Human Rights.... Or do both.

A degree in geopgraphy will certainly help William when he has to receive ambassadours and Catherine will be helped by her history of Arts degree when it comes to research cultural topics to talk about with the ambassadours' wifes....


You misunderstood - it was a 'saying' not something that would happen in fact. It was an expression to explain how little power the monarch has - they have to sign all legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament.

It was said before the Human Rights courts came into being because the monarch had to sign ALL death warrants in Britain when they had the death penalty. They don't have the death penalty anymore so that 'saying' isn't used anymore - but it was in the 1960s when I was growing up - hence my use of the phrase 'old saying'.
 
I think that while William has a degree and may speak some French and Swahilli he could still be learning more things. However I also understand the argument that as a figurehead all he really needs to do is wave to the cameras and he is capable of doing that.

Ultimately it depends on what you want in a monarch. I don't really see him though breaking the mold of his predecessors. In fact I don't see him bringing anything really new to the table. If you like continuity this can be a great thing but if you want something different he will probably not be your man. By the way I am mostly basing my theory on the idea that he has so far stuck to a very traditional way of doing things.
 
William is already doing things differently in his personal life, such as never having a valet thus far and not having the usual staff to run his household in Wales. William has a lot of interests that may be useful as king.
 
William is already doing things differently in his personal life, such as never having a valet thus far and not having the usual staff to run his household in Wales. William has a lot of interests that may be useful as king.

While I think the "idea" of not having a valet is nice...I was referring to the possibilty of him changing the monarchy itself. Ideas that directly effect the country(s) that he is representing. His personal life isn't changing that much. Marrying a commoner is not that big of a deal to really alter things.

I do acknowledge that for some people there is no need for change. They feel he is good the way he is. I believe that William will be just another monarch in the line and not someone that really stands out. This could turn out to be a fantastic thing. Who knows for certain.


 
Last edited:
While I think the "idea" of not having a valet is nice...I was referring to the possibilty of him changing the monarchy itself. Ideas that directly effect the country(s) that he is representing. His personal life isn't changing that much. Marrying a commoner is not that big of a deal to really alter things.

I do acknowledge that for some people there is no need for change. They feel he is good the way he is. I believe that William will be just another monarch in the line and not someone that really stands out. This could turn out to be a fantastic thing. Who knows for certain.




In what ways would you like to see the monarchy change?

Of course the monarchy today is a very different beast to what it was when the Queen acceded to the throne and she has kept up to date in many ways but what would you like to see William do differently when he becomes King, in hopefully 30+ years time.
 
I think that William has a fine head on his shoulders, and it's not essential that he is considered an intellect. While it would be nice if he did further he learning, I think that he as well as the British people are happy with his current career path, and he has proven him self to be very good at what he is currently doing. I don't think that speaking other languages is as important to native English speaks as it is to other Europeans. While it is a blessing that English is so widely spoken, it has also led to a lack of interest in other languages by anglophones ( why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free mentality). The only that William needs to improve on is his vocal delivery, he tends to speak very fast and mumble and it is sometimes hard to complete understand what he is saying. I am sure as he gets more involved with his duties they might seek to remedy this.
 
One thing his geography degree will help with is being able to have lively discussions with other heads of state about where they all went on their holidays.:lol:

That's one point. But much more important seems to be that a degree in geography includes a lot of knowledge about how the weather works, I was told.... :whistling:
 
Lol:lol::lol::lol::ROFLMAO:
I don't even know what to say about this pic!

I do and it is that I don't find it appealing at all.

That's one point. But much more important seems to be that a degree in geography includes a lot of knowledge about how the weather works, I was told.... :whistling:

Is that so? I would think that the main course for that would be meteorology :D
 
In what ways would you like to see the monarchy change?

Of course the monarchy today is a very different beast to what it was when the Queen acceded to the throne and she has kept up to date in many ways but what would you like to see William do differently when he becomes King, in hopefully 30+ years time.

Hmmmm. So much of what I would like to see will probably be done during Charles' reign. Certainly the family could stand to be smaller. Though I suspect most of the junior members will leave through "natural selection." I would also hope that there is going to be more information about the financial situation for the royals. There are aspects of the new monetary agreement set to be handed down in a few years that is questionable. Is a billionaire King really necessary?

Then again what can he change? He is a figure-head. For example: Inheritance rights and even his religious beliefs were decided for him at birth by the elected government and the monarchies role as defender of the faith. I would say they could be more accepting of Catholics (or any other religion) but is he responsible for that? I don't believe he is. He could go on the record about it but he doesn't seem the type.

I think the biggest problem for the royals is relevance. I don't think that is something that is easy to change. Certainly one person is not going to change how people feel about the concept of a monarchy. How could the royals make themselves relevant if you could get over the issue of birth-right? They already do charity work but anyone could do that.

I wish I could answer you question more specifically but I am not a monarchist. I comment on this forum because I like studying governments and I am familiar with the royals through that and entertainment magazines. So it is hard for me to imagine how the royals could change in ways that would make me say I believe in a royal family as my head of government.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm. So much of what I would like to see will probably be done during Charles' reign. Certainly the family could stand to be smaller. Though I suspect most of the junior members will leave through "natural selection."

The question could be asked who is actually a member of the family? Is it only those with HRH or is it the relationship to the monarch and then how far do you take that relationship.

If only HRH - then currently there are 12 plus spouses and Philip. Of those 12 only three who can give the HRH to their spouses aren't married and one is engaged. I don't count Louise and James as to me the Queen's consent and the parents' desire not to have them have HRH says that they won't be taking on that designation or any royal duties.

The next question is why should it be smaller? How do you tell someone that they can't have children e.g. do we say that the monarch can only have two children who are royal - so what happens if William and Kate decide on a large family and have 8 kids - are they not going to be royal?
 
I had a hard time imagining William in the role of King until recently. But he's matured a lot in the past year or so and has become quite impressive. I think with his marriage and a lot of happiness in his personal life, he is more content with the future and what it inevitably holds.

He's personable, well-spoken, intelligent, caring, thoughtful and has a good head on his shoulders. Even, as bizarre as it sounds, the balding has helped him a bit. It gives him a bit more gravity, and less the image of a playboy. IMO, he represents the UK well and is a great public face.

I was reading back through articles I missed recently and came across this (fairly amusing) account of the day of the engagement. This reporter seems to feel somewhat similar to me:
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Express Yourself :: Royal wedding: Caught in the whirlwind of an historic day
 
I would imagine that the people that have found out that it was William that flew the helicopter when they needed emergency medical assistance would strongly disagree with you. Right now William's first and foremost responsibility is to his SAR duties and knowing how the rules work here for being "on duty", it would really put a severe limitation on Will's wild and crazy partying. (Here in WV the rule is no alcohol 12 hours before either a volunteer or professional run).

How come we never hear about Will's alleged work, but always about his and Kate's many vacations? How many service people can take several vacations a year?
 
How come we never hear about Will's alleged work, but always about his and Kate's many vacations? How many service people can take several vacations a year?

I would imagine that William would rather be "one of the crew" and not have attention drawn to what he and many others in SAR do in the line of duty. I think if you do check through these forums here for William, there are stories and links to reported stories that have come out about Will's rescues. With following these threads here for over 2 years now, I really don't see all that much about vacations. We all know Kate and William went to Kenya in October as that's when they got engaged and other than that, the only other vacation I really remember from 2010 is they did go skiing in the spring I think. Did you read too where William spent Christmas Day on duty? Its kind of a traditional thing to do so that married crew members could spend the day with their families.

One thing I'd almost bet my life on is that as far as time on duty, William works as many hours as any other SAR crew member.

You can read discussions about his work in SAR here: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f34/prince-williams-service-in-the-royal-air-force-18482-8.html
 
Last edited:
Maybe they could do something like the Dutch royals do where there is a royal family and then a royal house. Those in the royal house have titles but no real roles in terms of the monarchy.

I suspect that maybe Beatrice and Eugenie might go out and get "normal" jobs while still doing charity work. As you pointed out Edward's children are kind-of out of it and Anne's children are as well. The Queen's children, on the other hand, will still have roles in the family probably until they pass on. Same for the Dukes/Duchess of Kent and Gloucester. As for the Dukes/Duchess' children I don't believe that they have given any indication of carrying on their parents role. I could be wrong though.

This could leave William and Harry their spouses and maybe 8 children. :lol: How do you slim it down from there? I don't know. You would still need a "heir" and a "spare" and their children would not be old enough to fulfill that role for a while. So thats where Beatrice and Eugenie would come in. They could have normal jobs unless the "top job" called.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How come we never hear about Will's alleged work, but always about his and Kate's many vacations? How many service people can take several vacations a year?

When was the last time we heard about his vacation?
 
He must be in Kenia last Oct-Nov. with Kate and friends. Was that not a vacation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry but EVERYONE is entitled to vacation time each year, regardless of whether you are royalty or not. I've no idea what the terms are for an RAF SAR pilot's holiday time but most jobs in UK have 4-5 weeks available as holiday that can be booked & taken anytime in the year, some jobs may have more holiday time, some may be more stringent on when exactly holiday can & cannot be taken & the max number of consecutive weeks that can be taken off at any one time, but everyone gets holiday time. I've always suspected - note this is pure speculation on my part, nothing to back me up - that William is allowed a little more leeway than other RAF pilots, simply coz of who he is & the events he has to carry out whilst also doing his RAF duties, I'm sure he is given extra days off here & there to attend charity events etc , trooping of the colour etc. At the same time I think that's sensible, he'll never be "normal" but they seem to be doing as best they can to make his time with the RAF as normal as possible while also obviously allowing him time to do his other duties with his family.

I've never really seen why people get so up in arms about supposedly being on holiday all the time, I think in the last few year they merely have the normal amount of holiday as most other people in the UK but luckily for them have the luxury to be able to afford going to more exotic or far flung locations. From the holidays we know about - of course they could take many more holidays we've never been aware of - I would say I've had a similar amount of holiday time over the years, the difference with me is that I can't always afford to go somewhere skiing or an island somewhere & instead opt to stay at home for a few weeks off. I think the fretting over the number of holidays is just people looking for anything to attack them/him/her with.
 
Back
Top Bottom