Prince William's Suitability to be King

[Iluvbertie]

William did both Spanish and Latin for his GCSE's but he didn't continue with any language (including English) for his A-levels.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The one thing ALL British monarchs have to learn is how NOT to be political figures!

So true. The last monarch who tried to be political was forced to abdicate (and yes I know that marrying a divorced American was the excuse given but if not Wallis some other excuse would have been found as the government were determined he had to go - as he was 'too political').

The one before that, who became 'too political' for the politicians of the day lost his head.

The English/British do NOT want a monarch who is involved in politics. They are a figurehead only and not a politician or diplomat but a symbol.

 

[victoriaalix]

The one thing ALL British monarchs have to learn is how NOT to be political figures!

After all, British monarchs are expected to be neutral. The same applies to members of the Royal Family. It's for this reason why Princess Margaret's grandson failed to win a seat in the House of Lords after one got vacated and elections were held for that seat to be filled.

 

[victor1319]

The one before that, who became 'too political' for the politicians of the day lost his head.

The English/British do NOT want a monarch who is involved in politics. They are a figurehead only and not a politician or diplomat but a symbol.

True, but I wonder, since when - since after the Tudors?

In Germany we don't have a freedom loving society, still not... but we have the "consensus society", calm and order are the first civil duties... and this since the "30 years war", in which the Germanics almost exterminated themselves; the remnants became the Germans. And this german desire for civil peace can easily be abused: Promise us calm and we will follow You...

So, since when does the modern, freedom and an "apolitical monarchy" loving "English/British" nation exist? And I wonder, if this could change...!

I once did read a book called "The Aachen Memorandum"... it was a prophetic vision of the UK leaving the EU - and the Mountbatten-Windsors as then royals of only New Zeeland returned in the end, triumphantly, if I remember it right...

 

[Denville]

True, but I wonder, since when - since after the Tudors?

In Germany we don't have a freedom loving society, still not... but we have the "consensus society", calm and order are the first civil duties... and this since the "30 years war", in which the Germanics almost exterminated themselves; the remnants became the Germans. And this german desire for civil peace can easily be abused: Promise us calm and we will follow You...

So, since when does the modern, freedom and an "apolitical monarchy" loving "English/British" nation exist? And I wonder, if this could change...!

I once did read a book called "The Aachen Memorandum"... it was a prophetic vision of the UK leaving the EU - and the Mountbatten-Windsors as then royals of only New Zeeland returned in the end, triumphantly, if I remember it right...

The British monarchy has been "non political" for a long time. George III was the last monarch to be acitve in politics. Gradually, from then on as party politics developed, the Monarch became a neutral figure who is not supposed to intervene, not supposed to allow his political views to be known, and to stand above party politics, allowing the democratic process to work. He or she is the king or queen of ALL the people, and so cannot favour one party over another.

 

[Mbruno]

The British monarchy has been "non political" for a long time. George III was the last monarch to be acitve in politics. Gradually, from then on as party politics developed, the Monarch became a neutral figure who is not supposed to intervene, not supposed to allow his political views to be known, and to stand above party politics, allowing the democratic process to work. He or she is the king or queen of ALL the people, and so cannot favour one party over another.

George III was probably the last overly political monarch in the UK , but the transition from an executive monarch to a ceremonial one was actually a gradual process.

William IV , if I am not mistaken, was the last monarch to dismiss a prime minister ( in 1834) and try to install a minority government. The new government was forced to call an election , which it lost, and the King had to call back the previous PM whom he had dismissed.

The young Queen Victoria also considered the possibility of refusing ministerial advice, which would have led to a resignation of the PM, during the so-called “ bedchamber crisis”, but ultimately didn’t do it. Nevertheless, throughout her reign, Queen Victoria was probably far more iactively engaged with government policy and foreign policy in particular than Queen Elizabeth II is today .

I suppose the game changers that really triggered the monarch’s gradual withdrawal from politics in the UK were , first, Parliament taking control of government finances and legislation, which meant that a government could not function in practice without a working majority in the House of Commons, and, second, the expansion of franchise and parliamentary reform, which led to competitive elections where the government of the day was no longer guaranteed to keep its majority in the event of a dissolution .The British monarch then, unlike other sovereigns like Pedro II of Brazil, could not pick a party of his/her choice to form the government with the expectation that a fresh election would automatically return a majority to support it.

 

[Denville]

Yes I agree it was a gradual process but it would be too detailed to go into all the ins and outs. But the fact is that for the past 100 years, the monarch has been expected to stay out of politics.. the government is formed by the people elected by the public and the monarch cannot intervene in that process.. and he or she is the monarch for all his people, Labour or conservative, poor or rich.. etc.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Conclusion: Prince William is very suitable. His duty is essentially to keep his mouth shut and to wave. Which he does in a terrific way. And he was already "suitable" when he was in his mother's womb because even being born after his father's death would have made him an heir anyway. Mind you, a better illustration that there is no any requirement for this "job", is hard to find.

 

[Blog Real]

Conclusion: Prince William is very suitable. His duty is essentially to keep his mouth shut and to wave. Which he does in a terrific way. And he was already "suitable" when he was in his mother's womb because even being born after his father's death would have made him an heir anyway. Mind you, a better illustration that there is no any requirement for this "job", is hard to find.

You know a king's job is more than waving and being shut.
A King has to advise the government and be aware of the whole political situation, besides that he has many other duties.
It is a symbolic function but of great responsibility.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

You know a king's job is more than waving and being shut.
A King has to advise the government and be aware of the whole political situation, besides that he has many other duties.
It is a symbolic function but of great responsibility.

Come on. As if the Queen had any influence on Cameron, May and Johnson.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. The only thing the Queen could do is to walk to a room where a table was, with a cloth and two candles. The Honourable Jacob Rees Mogg Esq. read the Prorogation of Parliament - wilfully abusing the monarch- and the only thing the Queen could do was to nod her head and pronounce the word: "approved". Anything other than this was a constitutional crisis. Let us be honest about who is the puppet and the puppetmaster

 

[Blog Real]

Come on. As if the Queen had any influence on Cameron, May and Johnson.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. The only thing the Queen could do is to walk to a room where a table was, with a cloth and two candles. The Honourable Jacob Rees Mogg Esq. read the Prorogation of Parliament - wilfully abusing the monarch- and the only thing the Queen could do was to nod her head and pronounce the word: "approved". Anything other than this was a constitutional crisis. Let us be honest about who is the puppet and the puppetmaster

But the same goes for the heads of state of the republics.
The role of a head of state is to represent a country and this requires preparation. Prince William is being prepared, obviously.

 

[Eskimo]

Come on. As if the Queen had any influence on Cameron, May and Johnson.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. The only thing the Queen could do is to walk to a room where a table was, with a cloth and two candles. The Honourable Jacob Rees Mogg Esq. read the Prorogation of Parliament - wilfully abusing the monarch- and the only thing the Queen could do was to nod her head and pronounce the word: "approved". Anything other than this was a constitutional crisis. Let us be honest about who is the puppet and the puppetmaster

Very well said. At the end of the day, the monarch is essentially a rubber stamp for the government. Their main duty is smile and wave, smile and wave.

 

[Blog Real]

Very well said. At the end of the day, the monarch is essentially a rubber stamp for the government. Their main duty is smile and wave, smile and wave.

It depends, King Juan Carlos, for example, made decisions during his reign and used his influence and his contacts to bring business to Spain. She did a lot more than smile and wave...
King Felipe VI is not as influential as his father, but in this pandemic situation he also used his contacts to raise protective materials and fans for Spain.

 

[victor1319]

But the same goes for the heads of state of the republics.
The role of a head of state is to represent a country and this requires preparation. Prince William is being prepared, obviously.

Since before his birth, if one takes in to account, how his parents met.

And this is much more, than one can say about all these political adventurers, which had childhood dreams of being an astronaut, a cowboy or a fireman... and ended up by accident as head of state...

And if one thinks, the Monarch should have more power: A) Beware what you ask for... and B) We are not living at the end of history... The Monarch is there as potential political leader in times of societal turmoil, always!

 

[Somebody]

Conclusion: Prince William is very suitable. His duty is essentially to keep his mouth shut and to wave. Which he does in a terrific way. And he was already "suitable" when he was in his mother's womb because even being born after his father's death would have made him an heir anyway. Mind you, a better illustration that there is no any requirement for this "job", is hard to find.

History has taught us that eligibility is not necessarily the same as suitability - as William will surely be aware of based on the history with his grandmother's uncle... The Belgians might also add their own story with king Leopold to show that some are more suitable than others to fulfil the role of Sovereign.

 

[Durham]

I have no idea what William's political views are so in that regard he's eminently suitable to be king. We don't need or want to know & he doesn't share his views publicly that I'm aware of. So everyone's happy.

 

[Denville]

You know a king's job is more than waving and being shut.
A King has to advise the government and be aware of the whole political situation, besides that he has many other duties.
It is a symbolic function but of great responsibility.

Kings do not have to advise the government.. it is the other way around. The government advises the king on what they require him to do...

 

[winifred]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...onstitution-part-5-the-monarchy-10313818.html

A quick summary of the position at the link above.

Of course constitutional monarchy is undemocratic , no argument, but no one's yet come up with a reason that's convinced the public or Parliament that it's worth taking time to prioritise a debate on alternatives, a referendum, parliamentary
sessions, legal instruments etc, when there are so many other demands on government.

 

[Eskimo]

It depends, King Juan Carlos, for example, made decisions during his reign and used his influence and his contacts to bring business to Spain. She did a lot more than smile and wave...
King Felipe VI is not as influential as his father, but in this pandemic situation he also used his contacts to raise protective materials and fans for Spain.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The UK is a well established democracy whilst when Juan Carlos took the throne, Spain emerged from a dictatorship and was again taking baby steps towards a democracy.

Even with Spain, Juan Carlos was forced to abdicate to keep Spain a Monarchy.

 

[Eskimo]

I have no idea what William's political views are so in that regard he's eminently suitable to be king. We don't need or want to know & he doesn't share his views publicly that I'm aware of. So everyone's happy.

Yes, that is good but I would not be surprised if William does not have any political views (or religious views) like most of our generation. Plus, being interested in politics requires a certain level of intellectual curiosity that William seemingly does not possess.

 

[Blog Real]

Yes, that is good but I would not be surprised if William does not have any political views (or religious views) like most of our generation. Plus, being interested in politics requires a certain level of intellectual curiosity that William seemingly does not possess.

I think he should have his political opinions, but he will never make them public and good.
Even Prince Harry has his political views, even it was said that he disliked Donald Trump for example.
As for William he will never say what his political convictions are, because he is called to one day be king and so has to be neutral in that respect, but I think he has this intellectual curiosity, he seems to me to be an intelligent and even cultured person.

 

[Eskimo]

I think he should have his political opinions, but he will never make them public and good.
Even Prince Harry has his political views, even it was said that he disliked Donald Trump for example.
As for William he will never say what his political convictions are, because he is called to one day be king and so has to be neutral in that respect, but I think he has this intellectual curiosity, he seems to me to be an intelligent and even cultured person.

Harry's dislike for Donald Trump is probably because he was 1) close to the Obama's and 2) Meghan's political views.

Let's agree to disagree about William's intelligence and intellectual curiosity

 

[Lumutqueen]

Plus, being interested in politics requires a certain level of intellectual curiosity that William seemingly does not possess.

Frankly, William is doing his job as a member of the royal family absolutely perfectly, if we believe that he has no interest in politics. That is after all the point of being apolitical. What opinions William has at home, we will never know.

 

[Alison H]

I'm sure he has plenty of opinions on politics, but he knows not to voice them publicly.


Not voicing your political opinions doesn't show a lack of intellectual curiosity: it just shows an awareness of what is and isn't appropriate in certain circumstances. I wish more people would do that - some people seemed determined to turn discussions about books, music, sport, TV programmes and anything else into a political debate! There's a time and a place. In the case of Royalty, that's in private only.

 

[Winnie]

Alison H...I agree 100% Royalty is to head the entire country consisting of all political views, religions and races. To make their favorite publicly known would be disrespecting many of their citizens and taxpayers. William's private opinions should be kept exactly that, private. Bravo to him for following that rule. JMO

 

[Heavs]

Of course he has political, social and religious opinions, he can't hold phone meetings with the PM and not have opinions on what's going on. We just aren't aware of what they are, which is important in a future apolitical monarch.

We do know that the Queen and Prince Charles are religious and that William at least is continuing to publicly accept positions that begin to prepare him for being Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Some social issues close to his and Kate's hearts can be seen in the work of their foundation - especially mental health and speaking at Davos etc.

No one accuses most of the Windsors of being particularly academic but all of them have opinions.

 

[yukari]

Just because one head of state has peculiar proclivity to voice his thought to the whole world via social media, it doesn't mean other (even a head of state to-be) have to do the same.

Just because someone doesn't say much or show much, we can't judge that he doesn't have much either. Take Rowan Atkinson for example, we know him as Mr Bean and laugh at his antic and his cute car. But behind that facade, in reality he has MSc degree in electrical engineering from Oxford and know a lot car not to mention a very good driver himself (just watch his time in Brits' Top Gear).

Same with William. Just because he never show off much, doesn't he have nothing in his head. He met so many politician and head of state, attended several state dinner and banquets, I don't think he only talked about weather the whole time.
And yes, he said he had no clue of what Stephen Fry said when he spoke French in the last sketch but did he say the truth or only joking? Is there any proof that he really doesn't understand French or any other non-English language (understanding a language doesn't always come with speaking it well)?

In my opinion, for a second in line to the throne he did a good job so far.

When the time comes, he'll be king and time will tell whether he'll be a good king or not (so far, I think he will. I learnt that we tend to underestimate the quiet one which he is).

 

[SLV]

The sketch with Stephan Fry was an act, I think. William really isn't that clueless.

 

[Denville]

Of course he has political, social and religious opinions, he can't hold phone meetings with the PM and not have opinions on what's going on. We just aren't aware of what they are, which is important in a future apolitical monarch.

We do know that the Queen and Prince Charles are religious and that William at least is continuing to publicly accept positions that begin to prepare him for being Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Some social issues close to his and Kate's hearts can be seen in the work of their foundation - especially mental health and speaking at Davos etc.

No one accuses most of the Windsors of being particularly academic but all of them have opinions.

Its quite possible that he doesn't have opinions. He may feel that politics and politicans are all very much of a muchness and leave the politics to tehm. But I agree that its a good thing that he does keep his opinions if he has any to himself. im sure he has ideas about varous things, but I suspect William is inclined to keep to the practical side of life and confine his ideas and opinions to subjects he has some practical experience of. Such as mental health issues, farming etc. But in public he is wise to keep his mouth shut

 

[Muhler]

Its quite possible that he doesn't have opinions. He may feel that politics and politicans are all very much of a muchness and leave the politics to tehm. But I agree that its a good thing that he does keep his opinions if he has any to himself. im sure he has ideas about varous things, but I suspect William is inclined to keep to the practical side of life and confine his ideas and opinions to subjects he has some practical experience of. Such as mental health issues, farming etc. But in public he is wise to keep his mouth shut

You can argue that that is the sign of true wisdom. ?