Will Charles Ever Reign?

[corazon]

ok, he lost the title and will be william's decision another title.
...interesting and complicated situation
...

 

[Saragli]

The whole point and survival of the monarchy is hereditary right and successive tradition. Charles and Camilla will be come King and Queen Consort when the present Queen passes. Changing the rules for one person will weaken the monarchy substansiably. It is well known that Camilla will be Queen. But, Clarence house has said that it is "intended" that she be known as HRH The Princess Consort. That inteded means that if the people are still hostile, which most people arent anymore, than she will be PC.

 

[corazon]

The whole point and survival of the monarchy is hereditary right and successive tradition.

THANKS GOD FOR THAT

 

[BeatrixFan]

But, Clarence house has said that it is "intended" that she be known as HRH The Princess Consort.

I for one don't believe thats ever been the intention - I believe it was said to appease the public who were against the idea at the time. As far as I can see it, the UK and the US have accepted her. That was a hurdle they needed to get over and they have done so brilliantly. Europe won't be a problem at all and so it rests with the British People. And there's no problem there either. We're used to her already and she's part of the furniture. And thats within a few months. They've got a fair few years to make sure the transitions secure and I'm sure it will be. She'll be Queen - I've got no doubts about that. Charles won't let her be anything else. He compromised on the Princess of Wales thing but he wants her as his Queen. And so do I.

 

[Saragli]

I dont think Charles has long before he is King. If you havent noticed, they are speeding up Camillas transition. The Queen is personally trying to make her accepted into the family. They have taken a high profile trip for their first trip. Maybe the queen is sick or weakening and they are worrying about the future. Not to sound morbid or depressing but it is a thought.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Camilla is non-negotiable. Always has been and always will be. And thank God for it.

 

[Skydragon]

look, is very simple look back in the history. the monarchy have 1203 years old from EGBERT, from him there was no king without being married according to church. I do not say this, is in history.

If you look up Egbert, you will find that he was preceded by other Princes and Kings, he was descended from King Cynowulf of Wessex.
He was far from being the first King.

 

[corazon]

he was the first king recognized like sovereign of all England. Look in the web page of the monarchy, the first king Anglo-Saxon was him.

http://www.britannia.com/history/h6f.html
here are the completa list but the sure is in the web pago official.

 

[Skydragon]

he was the first king recognized like sovereign of all England. Look in the web page of the monarchy, the first king Anglo-Saxon was him.

Any reference back to AD836 is immaterial, as Henry VIII founded his own church!

 

[corazon]

I not understand your point

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think what SkyDragon means is that whatever the previous monarchs did, everything changed with Henry VIII when he created his own church. The Church of England was created to allow Henry to re-marry. But really, all this is by the by because C and C are married already. And so all the rest comes naturally.

 

[Skydragon]

I not understand your point

You said "the monarchy have 1203 years old from EGBERT, from him there was no king without being married according to church."

As Henry changed the church, your statement can not apply.

 

[corazon]

yes, said King Cynowulf of Wessex was the fisrt king (was the first king of wessex) but Egbert (king of wessex) was the first king of engand. I notsay nothing abuot the church.
Henry change the church for marry to bolena, but i posted abuot the kings of wessex

 

[Skydragon]

I think what SkyDragon means is that whatever the previous monarchs did, everything changed with Henry VIII when he created his own church. The Church of England was created to allow Henry to re-marry. But really, all this is by the by because C and C are married already. And so all the rest comes naturally.

Exactly, Thank You. They will make wonderful monarchs.

 

[corazon]

no, I said that monarchy has 1203 years and any the kings married according to civilian and not by church. All married for the church, the Christian and the protestant when Henry changed it.

 

[BeatrixFan]

They will make wonderful monarchs.

Here Here! To be honest, I can't believe we're going over this 'Will she be Queen' buisness when we all know the answer. Whatever we feel, whatever we would like her to be or not to be for that matter - she will be Queen. And he will be King. And thats it. There's no chance of William coming first, Anne taking over, the Archbishop refusing the Crown, the Government passing a law to stop her becoming Queen etc etc.

It's time to stop clutching at straws and accept it.

 

[Skydragon]

look, is very simple look back in the history. the monarchy have 1203 years old from EGBERT, from him there was no king without being married according to church. I do not say this, is in history.

I must have misunderstood the post. I read it as saying that without being married according to the church, Egbert and subsequent Kings could not be Kings

 

[corazon]

There's no chance of William coming first.

Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.

 

[Skydragon]

Here Here! To be honest, I can't believe we're going over this 'Will she be Queen' buisness when we all know the answer. Whatever we feel, whatever we would like her to be or not to be for that matter - she will be Queen. And he will be King. And thats it. There's no chance of William coming first, Anne taking over, the Archbishop refusing the Crown, the Government passing a law to stop her becoming Queen etc etc.

It's time to stop clutching at straws and accept it.

Beautifully put as usual!

 

[btsnyder]

What is everyone's thought on this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051108/en_afp/britainroyalreligioncamilla_051108134040

Do you think it's time to seperate the Crown from the Church of England? Even Charles has said that he wants to be "Defender of Faith," not "Defender of the Faith"...

 

[btsnyder]

I'm sorry! I didn't read the thread back far enough!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.

No it isn't. Unless Charles dies, William will not become King before him. Succession doesn't skip anyone. When the Queen dies, Charles will automatically become King. If after an hour, he abdicates in favour of William, he will still have been the King if only for an hour.

Thats the facts. The Queen cannot cut her son out of the succession. Its determined by God - not by man.

 

[corazon]

I must have misunderstood the post. I read it as saying that without being married according to the church, Egbert and subsequent Kings could not be Kings

the lineis successory, if the father is king, the son at some moment will be king

 

[Saragli]

Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.

The Queen has absolutly no say or controll what so ever over succesion. If that is not clear enough than I do not know what is. The LAW of the land says that Charles and Camilla will be King and Queen Consort when the present Queen Regent dies. The Queen has no say whatsovere. The law is law.

 

[Elspeth]

Why he no have chance?
the final decision is in queen's hand, not us.

It isn't the Queen's choice, it's a matter of the law.

 

[corazon]

the law is the law, I agree, but the queen is the unique person who can ask charles who abdicates if she considers that is the best thing for the crown or no. For that reason I say thatis into the hands of the queen, no us.

 

[Elspeth]

No it isn't. Unless Charles dies, William will not become King before him. Succession doesn't skip anyone. When the Queen dies, Charles will automatically become King. If after an hour, he abdicates in favour of William, he will still have been the King if only for an hour.

Thats the facts. The Queen cannot cut her son out of the succession. Its determined by God - not by man.

No it ain't. It's determined by the government. Much as Tony Blair might think he's God, I don't think things have gone that far.

 

[Saragli]

It is still not in the Queens hand. The Queen will be dead when Charles is King. She will not be there to tell him to abdicate. And the Queen has shown herslef to be trying to help Charles and Camilla be accepted as future King and Queen. She is working hard to present them in a good picture. She supports her son completly. The Queen has no say.

 

[Elspeth]

the law is the law, I agree, but the queen is the unique person who can ask charles who abdicates if she considers that is the best thing for the crown or no. For that reason I say thatis into the hands of the queen, no us.

Well, if that sort of wishful thinking is important to you, you can carry on fantasising if you really want to. But the Queen, unlike some other people, will be looking at a broader view than just the fact that some people still have a need to punish Charles for what happened to Diana. And, let's face it, that's what this is all about when it's being promoted by people who are die-hard Diana fans. It isn't about the good of the country, it's simply a desire for payback.

 

[Saragli]

No it isn't. Unless Charles dies, William will not become King before him. Succession doesn't skip anyone. When the Queen dies, Charles will automatically become King. If after an hour, he abdicates in favour of William, he will still have been the King if only for an hour.

Thats the facts. The Queen cannot cut her son out of the succession. Its determined by God - not by man.

I think Beatrixfan ment that it is in Gods hand that, if you do believe in God, only he can controll who is born into the Royal Family. No one but God chooses who is in the RF and who will be the future monarch. I think thats where By The Grace of God come from.