Prince William's Suitability to be King

[NGalitzine]

IMHO I think they can. Maybe it needs legislation but I don't think this would be a problem. As there is always the European Court for Human Rights...

If you read my entire post I did in fact say that it was legislation that was required to give effect to a persons private wish not to be monarch.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I think its mainly an invention of the pink press (William being Diana's son) that the british people supposedly want him as the next King instead of the Charles.

Having lived for many years in the UK myself, I think the opposite is true. Charles may be viewed as "odd" from time to time but people do recognize his gravitas and engagement with many (now) popular or important topics like the environment for a long time, back when those topics werent considered popular or important at all.

William, on the opposite, doesnt have much to his credit apart from being Diana's son (to be fair: he is still very young) and people dont see much dedication to something meaningful, his army job rather a welcome escape from duty.

He will be a great King if he picks up his grandmothers sense of duty and his fathers determination to change things or get involved, since people will listen to him even more so as he has inherited his mothers way with people and the media (that his father has been lacking), but if not, he will be exposed as stubborn freeloader lightweight pretty quick.

 

[Tyger]

IMHO I think they can. Maybe it needs legislation but I don't think this would be a problem. As there is always the European Court for Human Rights...

Right you are! Imagine the spectacle that would be! Ha!

 

[agami.pearl]

I think its mainly an invention of the pink press (William being Diana's son) that the british people supposedly want him as the next King instead of the Charles.

Having lived for many years in the UK myself, I think the opposite is true. Charles may be viewed as "odd" from time to time but people do recognize his gravitas and engagement with many (now) popular or important topics like the environment for a long time, back when those topics werent considered popular or important at all.

William, on the opposite, doesnt have much to his credit apart from being Diana's son (to be fair: he is still very young) and people dont see much dedication to something meaningful, his army job rather a welcome escape from duty.

He will be a great King if he picks up his grandmothers sense of duty and his fathers determination to change things or get involved, since people will listen to him even more so as he has inherited his mothers way with people and the media (that his father has been lacking), but if not, he will be exposed as stubborn freeloader lightweight pretty quick.

For me Harry has more Diana's features, he's easygoing, devoted to charity make people smile. William is more reserved, like Windsors. He can be good king but IMO he should already be more into royal engagements. QEII and his father can live long years but can also die suddenly and then court will have a problem with unprepared young man. Now he has the best advisors by his side, he should use them, in the future it can give him many benefits.

 

[EIIR]

The whole wanting William to take over before Charles thing is ageism pure and simple. Most western societies now value youth over experience. Good luck winning a British general election at 60+. You basically wouldn't have a hope.

The British public is very, very fond of William on the whole. It's partly because he's young and handsome, he has a beautiful young wife, he likes football and rugby and motorbikes like most young men. But he's also chosen a demanding, active military career. He could've put his hours in on a Royal Navy patrol vessel in the English Channel and fulfilled the military requirement on his CV.

Instead he deliberately chose probably the one bit of the armed forces where he could actively serve like any other other serviceman and make a tangible contribution. He does a difficult, dangerous job when he could just as easily be cutting ribbons and unveiling plaques a few days a week.

The British public get that and it's a large part of the reason they respect him. And Harry too.

 

[cepe]

William has been in training for his future role for a good many years and has already got access to advisors. He has been a Counsellor of State since he was 21; he's done solo tours abroad on behalf of the Queen; he's Patron of numerous charities and organisations. But it's not currently full time because of his military commitments.

When the Queen wanted Charles to take on full-time role (at the time of the Silver Jubilee I think) he resigned his commission.

William has also become a KG very early which I think is a sign that the Queen was (and is) happy with the way things are working.

It will change if she thinks it should.

 

[Muhler]

Interesting topic.

Let's for the sake of argument say that William for whatever reason refuse to become king.
I can hardly imagine the courtiers will drag him screaming and kicking to the coronation. Even though I can well imagine he will subjected to some heavy pressure.
Okay, Harry steps in and become king.

What about William in this hypothetical situation?
Will he remain a royal? Or will the public (and politicians as well as the rest of the BRF) say: "Hey, Hey, you can't cause all that trouble and still remain a royal with all that entails."?
Will he even have a future role anywhere, say becoming governor general somewhere? Or would he simply be demoted to noble and told to preferably stay in his shire?

Then there would another problem. In the present future there will be king William with his brother Harry as his wingman, so to speak. A very important role.
But in the alternative future with William out of the picture, who would step in as "Harry's wingman"?

How much would it rock the boat in regards to the monarchy in Britain but also in regards to William's image, if he should step aside because he really, honestly, heartily don't want to be king?
Wouldn't the public sympathy be somewhat lukewarm?
I can imagine a king Harry would get even more sympathy in return.

 

[Erin9]

William has been in training for his future role for a good many years and has already got access to advisors. He has been a Counsellor of State since he was 21; he's done solo tours abroad on behalf of the Queen; he's Patron of numerous charities and organisations. But it's not currently full time because of his military commitments.

When the Queen wanted Charles to take on full-time role (at the time of the Silver Jubilee I think) he resigned his commission.

William has also become a KG very early which I think is a sign that the Queen was (and is) happy with the way things are working.

It will change if she thinks it should.

That sums up my feelings on the situation. There's obviously a plan in place--and said plan is obviously (imo) not unilaterally William's.

Personally, I think William understands his duty and will fullfill it--when the time comes. He and Harry seem to be following a similar plan: fulltime military and part-time royals. In the future, when needed, they will transition into fulltime working royals for the rest of their lives. I think both are well-aware that they are fortunate to be in a position where they can pursue "other interests" for a time--unlike their father and grandmother.

 

[Grandduchess24]

I have a feeling that when William becomes king he will be a popular one as he is admired now as duke of Cambridge and patron of various charities including the one started by his mother.

 

[EIIR]

In my opinion there's more chance of the UK becoming a republic than William refusing to become King (i.e. not much of one).

I think, so long as William hadn't already acceded the throne in his own right, he would keep the title and style which he has now (is there even a mechanism to remove oneself from the line of succession?). He's independently wealthy in his own right (via inheritance of Diana's divorce settlement) and could work as a helicopter pilot in SAR, or in the RAF while doing some personal engagements for charities that he's attached to. I think the public would resent him if he were to make this decision - he would be seen to be interested more in himself that the nation.

I don't know if Harry really is William's 'wingman'. He's obviously more of a joker than his brother, while William is more serious and dutiful - because he's been raised as the future king. I actually think that a King Henry IX may well blossom with William out of the public picture. Harry's been carefully pigeon holed as the 'joker, party prince spare' to William's heir, and I think he sometimes plays up to that a little. In much the same way, Princess Margaret was portrayed that way opposite her more serious, proper big sister Princess Elizabeth. Getting out of the shadow of the golden boy big brother may well be the making of him.

This is all entirely hypothetical. As I posted elsewhere, William has been adamant when interviewed that rumours of his not wanting to be King are wide of the mark. He doesn't want to be King a day sooner than he absolutely has to be. But, he's stated that he knows it's his duty, he knows how important it is and I have no doubt that he will one day reign as William V.

 

[Artemisia]

Interesting topic.
Let's for the sake of argument say that William for whatever reason refuse to become king. I can hardly imagine the courtiers will drag him screaming and kicking to the coronation. Even though I can well imagine he will subjected to some heavy pressure. Okay, Harry steps in and become king.

William will become King the moment King Charles (or, if Charles predeceases his mother, Queen Elizabeth) dies. If he believes Kingship isn't for him, he can abdicate. The abdication will need to be reinforced by all Commonwealth Realms; otherwise, it will have no legal effect.
If he makes up his mind to refuse the Throne before the previous Monarch's death, he can renounce his place in the Line of Succession; the renunciation will not, however, have legal effect until it is ratified by the Parliaments of all Commonwealth Realms.

What about William in this hypothetical situation? Will he remain a royal? Or will the public (and politicians as well as the rest of the BRF) say: "Hey, Hey, you can't cause all that trouble and still remain a royal with all that entails."? Will he even have a future role anywhere, say becoming governor general somewhere? Or would he simply be demoted to noble and told to preferably stay in his shire?

Unless an Act of Parliament (again, of all Commonwealth Realms) is passed stripping William of all his royal titles, he will continue enjoying all the titles he had by birthright.
- If he abdicates (after becoming a Monarch) and the previous Monarch was Prince Charles, he will be His Royal Highness The Prince William. He will not be the Duke of Cambridge since upon his accession to the Throne the title would merge with the Crown.
- If he abdicates (after becoming a Monarch) and the previous Monarch was Prince Charles, he will be His Royal Highness Prince William. He will not be the Duke of Cambridge since upon his accession to the Throne the title would merge with the Crown. The difference between this scenario and the previous one is basically THE - only the children (and not grandchildren) of the Sovereign are called The Prince/Princess Name.
- If he renounces all his succession rights (reinforced by Acts of Parliaments), he will retain the titles he had from birth - His Royal Highness Prince William of Wales - but might lose his peerage title.

Either way, he will remain a royal. Even Edward VIII didn't lose any of the styles and titles that were his by birthright following the abdication. Obviously, all his titles as Heir Apparent to the Throne (such as Duke of Cornwall, Prince of Wales) were no longer his, and his peerage title merged with the Crown; thus, he was The Prince Edward from the moment of his abdication and until he was created Duke of Windsor by the new King.
As for an official role - I doubt it. Certainly not that of a Governor General of any of the realms.

Then there would another problem. In the present future there will be king William with his brother Harry as his wingman, so to speak. A very important role. But in the alternative future with William out of the picture, who would step in as "Harry's wingman"?

Harry's "wingman" will be next in the line of succession. If Harry isn't married by the point, the next senior royal would be Prince Andrew, followed by Princess Beatrice. In this hypothetical scenario, the role of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie would grow immensely since only one person - Harry - would be between them and the Throne. They would likely fulfil far more official engagements on behalf of their cousin.

How much would it rock the boat in regards to the monarchy in Britain but also in regards to William's image, if he should step aside because he really, honestly, heartily don't want to be king? Wouldn't the public sympathy be somewhat lukewarm? I can imagine a king Harry would get even more sympathy in return.

Edward VIII was the nation's darling, but his abdication was viewed as a cowardly act, and abandonment of duty in times the country needed its monarch most. I believe William's image would suffer similar fate; in essence, he would be a traitor of his duty, country and people.
British Monarchs don't abdicate; they serve till the end.

 

[Warren]

Let's for the sake of argument say that William for whatever reason refuse to become king.
I can hardly imagine the courtiers will drag him screaming and kicking to the coronation. Even though I can well imagine he will subjected to some heavy pressure.
Okay, Harry steps in and become king.

It doesn't matter if William refuses point blank to be King when the time comes, he will be King by law. Parliament determined succession to the throne by the Act of Settlement and only an Act of Parliament can 'unking' him, as was required to 'unking' Edward VIII.

 

[Muhler]

Thanks for your replies.

My hypothetical scenario implied that the Parliament approved, albeit grudgingly, that William would renounce the throne.

I'm actually surprised to learn that almost no matter what William would retain his royal status.
Could the monarch, i.e. king Harry/Henry, strip him of his status as a royal? That may be too much to ask of king Harry.
But let's say there was put pressure on king Harry for doing so. - As case of: "So you don't wan't to be king? Okay, then you can forget about your royal status as well"! Could he strip William of his royal status?

What I meant by "wingman" is that in the future William and Harry will be the primary royals and they will probably take on most and the most important roles and divide them between themselves.
Also: That Harry is different from William as a big advantage IMO. They will each appeal to different segments of the population.

I must confess I have problems visualizing Beatrice and Eugenie in that role but I guess they would grow with the task.

 

[Artemisia]

Thanks for your replies.

My hypothetical scenario implied that the Parliament approved, albeit grudgingly, that William would renounce the throne.

I'm actually surprised to learn that almost no matter what William would retain his royal status. Could the monarch, i.e. king Harry/Henry, strip him of his status as a royal? That may be too much to ask of king Harry.
But let's say there was put pressure on king Harry for doing so. - As case of: "So you don't wan't to be king? Okay, then you can forget about your royal status as well"! Could he strip William of his royal status?

Theoretically, yes.
Granting and revoking the title and style of Royal Highness is entirely upon the will of the Sovereign of the time, albeit with Parliament's consent.
One example of that would be the Titles Deprivation Act 1917; the Act issued by George V deprived "enemies of the United Kingdom" (those who fought against Britain in World War I) their British royal and peerage styles and titles. The Act affected, among others, Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha - Queen Victoria's grandson. However, usually a very serious crime such as treason would be required for such an Act to be passed; an abdication would hardly warrant it.

On the other hand, William could be deprived of his title more civilly, so to speak. Among other options, King Henry could issue Letters Patent limiting the style of Royal Highness and the title of a Prince/Princess to, for example, children and male-line grandchildren of the present Monarch. In that case, William - as a mere brother of the current monarch and son/grandson of the previous one - would automatically lose the style of Royal Highness and title of a British Prince.
An precedent for this could be Letters Patent of 1917 issued by George V, whereby he limited the aforementioned styles and titles to children and male-line grandchildren of the Monarch (previously, male-line descendants of the Monarch, however far the descent, enjoyed those as well). Among those affected was Princess Frederica of Hanover (future Queen Frederica of Greece) - a great-great-great granddaughter of George III who had been a British Princess by birth but lost the title after the Act.

What I meant by "wingman" is that in the future William and Harry will be the primary royals and they will probably take on most and the most important roles and divide them between themselves. Also: That Harry is different from William as a big advantage IMO. They will each appeal to different segments of the population. I must confess I have problems visualizing Beatrice and Eugenie in that role but I guess they would grow with the task.

If William were to abdicate and Harry was childless or with minor children at the time, it would fall upon Beatrice and Eugenie, and possibly Lady Louise and Viscount Severn (depending on their age at the time) to support the King and carry on official engagements. The older generation, such as Princess Anne, Earl and Countess of Wessex, Prince Andrew, would all continue fulfilling their duties, if age and health permitted.

 

[Baroness of Books]

Would the public accept another abdication, because in essence that's what this is if William declined to be king. I had thought that when Edward VIII abdicated, this shook the very foundation of the monarchy and the Royal Family never wanted another repeat of this situation. I firmly believe that William knows his place in the line of succession, has been brought up and trained for this responsibility, and wouldn't put the monarchy or the people through a similar situation. He knows what he has to do; it's what he is. However, on the other hand, times have changed and his stepping down might be more acceptable in current times.

 

[Artemisia]

However, on the other hand, times have changed and his stepping down might be more acceptable in current times.

It might be more acceptable. Then again, it might open the debate why Monarchy is needed in the first place. After all, Monarchy is about continuity.
Countries of the realm might also use the chance (Acts reinforcing the abdication would need to be passed) to have referendums on the future of monarchy.
In short, another abdication may well be the end of the British Monarchy, unless it is for extreme health reasons, and even then a Regent would be preferable.

 

[camelot23ca]

IMO we, as non royal members of the public, probably have a very different frame of reference regarding William's wanting or not wanting to be King than William himself. I'm only guessing here, but I expect asking William if he wants to be King would be a bit like asking me if I want to be female. I can give you an intellectual answer about the various benefits and downsides of being female vs being male but on an emotional level I can't imagine being anything other than what I am. Likewise, William has never expected anything other than that he'll be the monarch one day. It's probably not a matter of what he wants or doesn't want - it's just how things are.

 

[NGalitzine]

Asking him if he wants to be king is also akin to asking him if he wants his grandmother and his father to die. He knows that he will one day be king but he also knows that for it to happen 2 people he loves have to die. Not exactly something to look forward to.

 

[Tyger]

William has been adamant when interviewed that rumours of his not wanting to be King are wide of the mark. He doesn't want to be King a day sooner than he absolutely has to be. But, he's stated that he knows it's his duty, he knows how important it is and I have no doubt that he will one day reign as William V.

That the issue even comes up is remarkable, don't you think? Did it ever come up with Charles? No. With Elizabeth? No. But it does with William.

This great desire to be 'normal' - to live a 'normal' life - which seems to mean being far from royal duties and the royal family seems unique. Am I wrong? Might be the reason the rumors are flying.

A big thing is made that he is not yet the heir so that - of course - he isn't imbedded in the royal lifestyle. Is there any precedent for such absolution from royal duties?

Anne's children have been raised to a 'norma'l life in view that that is exactly what their future lives will be. William is not in the same boat. More than anything William's insistence on having a 'normal' life speaks to some sort of ambivalence about who he is and what his life is destined to be. Its a conundrum.

 

[Baroness of Books]

It's the dichotomy of having a foot in two diverse worlds and most likely the requisite ambivalence that accompanies such a situation.

 

[Madame Royale]

The whole wanting William to take over before Charles thing is ageism pure and simple. Most western societies now value youth over experience. Good luck winning a British general election at 60+. You basically wouldn't have a hope.

Well said.

And so true is it that youthfulness and it's possibilities are often considered the attractive option over age and experience. The handsome prince with the attractive wife is always going to outshine the ageing senior and his not so attractive spouse. The social psyche is so sexualised that the younger, more attractive and personable option will generally always appeal to government, industry and community as a whole.

In other words, there's nothing sexy in having a 70/80+ year old couple lead a nation. No matter how prepared and dare I suggest, well adjusted to the prospect, they may be.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The easiest way for William to refuse the throne is to convert to Roman Catholicism - he would immediately cease to be in the line of succession and no need for parliament to do anything.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I can just imagine what people will be saying in another 20years when William is 50 and his child is in their late teens: "William should abdicate for the younger better looking child".

 

[Iluvbertie]

It happened in the 70s with Charles and The Queen - she should abdicate for the youthful Charles etc and will happen when William is older and has a younger heir.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Excatly as I see it: for the general public having a youthfull monarch is just more attractive; we like to look at youthfull, good looking people. Youth holds so many promises and opportunities - we all like to dream .

But the reality of being a monarch nowadays is not soooo very attractive - all this greeting, handshaking, grinning, ceremonies and stuff and always in the public eye - every step being ogled.

I want to see those big critics doing it just one week - or even a day (with grace and smiles and nice things to say ).

one of the good thing about monarchy is holding up tradition and giving people a focuspoint for a feeling of belonging.

 

[EIIR]

That the issue even comes up is remarkable, don't you think? Did it ever come up with Charles? No. With Elizabeth? No. But it does with William.

This great desire to be 'normal' - to live a 'normal' life - which seems to mean being far from royal duties and the royal family seems unique. Am I wrong? Might be the reason the rumors are flying.

A big thing is made that he is not yet the heir so that - of course - he isn't imbedded in the royal lifestyle. Is there any precedent for such absolution from royal duties?

Anne's children have been raised to a 'norma'l life in view that that is exactly what their future lives will be. William is not in the same boat. More than anything William's insistence on having a 'normal' life speaks to some sort of ambivalence about who he is and what his life is destined to be. Its a conundrum.

Prince William grew up just as the media was exploding. Deference had gone, 24hr news was starting, paparazzi felt they were entitled to pictures of the royals no matter what they happened to be doing. He watched the media make his parents' lives a total misery and, in his view, essentially kill his mother. The Queen and Charles didn't face that kind of atmosphere when they were growing up.

Prince William doesn't like the fact that as soon as he becomes a full time working royal any residual press restraint will vanish. He and Kate are mostly left alone in Angelsey, particularly by the British press. His life ceases entirely to be his own as soon as he stops being a member of the armed forces and becomes a full time royal.

I don't blame William for not relishing that. He has remarked himself that he likes to be in control. When King his life will be dictated by his role and his responsibilities. He'll know exactly what he'll be doing on any given day 12 months in advance. I think William will find that difficult, but everything he's said suggests that he knows it's his duty to get on with it.

 

[Tyger]

...The Queen and Charles didn't face that kind of atmosphere when they were growing up....

You make excellent points - and no doubt he was profoundly impacted by all the media attention his mother chose to subject him to. Recall that she had him greeting crowds when he was quite young - and put the two boys in front of the cameras for family outings and what not. The experience must have been defining for him - clearly a sensitive sort.

You write: "The Queen and Charles didn't face that kind of atmosphere when they were growing up." Mainly that was the case because of the choices of their parents - though even the Queen began to change that with the late 60's documentary on the lives of the royals.

Diana chose a lot of her press coverage we now know. She it was who called them up to let them know where she'd be for a photo-op. Does William really blame the press for his mother's death? Has he ever said that? Or is that your surmise because it was the widely bandied about 'truth' at the time of her death - before we knew how complicit Diana was with the press photographers? How much she fomented the press frenzy by her own choice.

William has it in his power to lead a very circumscribed life outside of the glare of the media and still be a royal. The family owns plenty of estates where privacy can be had. He can travel under-the-radar, as does his father and other royals. I don't think its black-or-white. This excuse that William's admirers give for William's absence from his royal family and duties doesn't really hold up for me.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I know I'm going to be castigated, but he also has influences from Kate. I often wonder if SHE wants him to be king and, I must say, I have my doubts about whether she does or not. We don't know her and cannot know what she would like. It will make a difference.

 

[Madame Royale]

I'm more bemused by the thought that a woman who willingly marries into a ruling dynasty, all too well aware of what the future is expected to bring, would do so with the hopeful expectation that her husband may not want to be King. Furthermore, that she would use whatever influence she possessed to encourage her husband's resolve either way on the matter.

To me, the mere conception of it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[muriel]

Very well put!