Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Saragli]

Charles and Camilla have never bashed Diana or mention her in public. They respect her and respect the peoples opinions and that is why they went with the Duchess of Cornwall title. William and Harry would not be offended at all by what Elton John said. They probably agree with him 110%. They know that there mom and married the wrong man and charles the wrong women. They know this and accept this and have moved on. Diana had her life and a privaledged wealthy one. She died and the world has moved on. Diana and Charles started their affairs at the same time. Marriage means nothing if the people in it are miserable and lonely. Diana and Charles both were and went outside the marraige looking for comfort. Why wait till a divorce to find love and happiness when the marriage is already over but in name. That is nonsense. Elton John was a real friend in that he told Diana the truth. As for him defending Camilla, doesnt that give you a hint. First, William and Harry accept her and show it in public. They also state that they have been close to her for years and love her to bits. Then the Queen and Royal Family show their acceptence in Public. Now one of Dianas friends has defended the Duchess. It is saying that Diana moved on after the divorce and accpeted Camilla. It is saying that Diana was at Peace with charles and Camilla. It is saying that Diana would not want all this crazy "have charles step down" and damn the royal couple to hell nonsense. Diana moved on and now everyone else should too. Also, the monarchy may end tomorrow. It is on very shaky grounds and a change in the succession would mean disaster. It would open up debate in the parliment and the labour party could easily just vote to abolish the monarchy instead.

 

[ysbel]

In reality, they are not, but given the marriages between royals and commoners in the other European royal houses, the Queen and her descendants are far more royal by today's standards.

Yes, I think Sonja of Norway was the first queen from a totally common background. At the time, King Olav was disappointed but the general opinion was that it wouldn't be a bad thing to get some Norwegian blood in the royal household. They probably didn't predict that royal marriages with commoners would become so widespread.

Carl Gustaf's marriage to Sylvia was more controversial. He had to wait until he was King. That, I think was the waterfall event.

Now, how does this relate to will Charles ever reign? Well now Camilla's family background shouldn't be a concern and with Mette-Marit and her past in line for becoming Queen Consort of Norway, its becoming harder to justify passing over Charles.

 

[branchg]

Well, Camilla is not going to have any children with Charles, so the issue of her background is of less importance. William and Harry certainly are of aristocratic and royal blood, so the issue is who they will eventually marry.

 

[Oppie]

Carl Gustaf's marriage to Sylvia was more controversial. He had to wait until he was King. That, I think was the waterfall event.

Not only that when Prince Betril finally married Lillian I think people began to realize that there was no point and Princes(esses) should be able to marry who they loved. What happened with Charles and Diana seemed to cement that and now we have Princesses with controversial pasts that are accepted and they are given a chance to prove themselves (which I think is the case with Mette-Merit, Letizia and Maxima)

 

[Elspeth]

And I don't believe btw that the monarchy would be damaged if the succession were changed. On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king.

Speaking as one of "all the people," I hope you'll count me out of that statement. If Charles is alive and in reasonable health when the Queen dies, he should become the next monarch. Otherwise you might just as well give up the whole idea of monarchy and go with an elected president if you want to have the head of state chosen based on popularity.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, I think Sonja of Norway was the first queen from a totally common background. At the time, King Olav was disappointed but the general opinion was that it wouldn't be a bad thing to get some Norwegian blood in the royal household. They probably didn't predict that royal marriages with commoners would become so widespread.

Carl Gustaf's marriage to Sylvia was more controversial. He had to wait until he was King. That, I think was the waterfall event.

Now, how does this relate to will Charles ever reign? Well now Camilla's family background shouldn't be a concern and with Mette-Marit and her past in line for becoming Queen Consort of Norway, its becoming harder to justify passing over Charles.

Sonja was the first European one as far as I know, but Empress Michiko is also from a commoner background, and that would have been a much greater leap than for most of the European royals because senior Japanese royals tended to marry only other Japanese royals, not royals or aristocrats from other countries.

 

[Skydragon]

On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king. .

Count me and all my friends and family out of that statement!

 

[BeatrixFan]

On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king

And count me out too! If Charles isn't my next King for any reason other than his death, the British Monarchy shall lose my allegiance totally.

 

[Saragli]

Count me out too. Charles will make a great King. If william is king before him than the monarchy is in trouble. I will feel absolutly sorry for william because he would have to give up his life to the nation just because some people want his father to suffer cause his mother manipulated the world into beileving she was a saint and goddess. Diana is long gone. The circle of life goes on and charles is next in line to be king. Get over it.

 

[corazon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
On the contrary-I believe 'all the people would rejoice' at the news that William not Charles would be their next king. .
I totally totally agree with you. MANY people in the world want william as king.

 

[BeatrixFan]

MANY people in the world want william as king

And he will be. But when the time is right.

 

[Oppie]

I totally totally agree with you. MANY people in the world want william as king

Many of those people do because he is hot.

Seriously I don't understand why people want William to be King so bad. Giving him that burden at the moment would be like punishing him. Give him a few years (or decades) before his is King. He had a lot better childhood then his father because his dad wasn't the monarch. Other royal kids have said that there childhoods suffer when there parent is the monarch. Let him settle down raise some kids before he becomes king. I think those who want him to be King after Elizabeth aren't thinking of anyones best interests.

 

[Saragli]

Those who want William to be King after the Queen are selfish and vindictive. Their is absolutly no reason for anyone to adore william or judge what type of man he is now. We dont know anything about William and have barely seen him in royal duties. He has done nothing, contrary to the decades of work the Prince of Wales did, so their no reason to think William will be a good king. The only reason people like him is that he is Dianas son or because of his good looks. They only want William to be King so they can punish Charles for his "torment" of Diana and try to ressurect Diana. Diana is long gone and will never come back. NEVER. Why would you want to be so selfish and ruin Williams life at such an early age. Charles is lucky to become King at such a late age. He had the chance to live a normal life and raise a normal family. Do you want to take that away from William. I hope the Queen and Charles live for a long time so that William is old when he becomes King. William would have by then married and raised a family without the burden of the monarchy. Stop all this nonsense. Let William be a royal and Prince of Wales first. Trust me, people will enjoy him as Prince of Wales much more then King.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well said Prince Johnny. It is a selfish mindset. William needs a life (and a chance to develop a personality). At the moment, he is just a pretty boy, the son of Diana and in all other respects is pretty boring. Charles has been in training for the top job for years and he knows how to handle things. He has the nessecary experience. William doesn't - yet. But he'll learn just as Charles did.

 

[Elspeth]

It seems that people who want William to be King and leapfrog his father are thinking of the personal aspects - Diana's son used as the instrument for Diana fans to get back at Charles - and ignoring the constitutional ones. For the next few years, William, as a young man who doesn't have a stable home life because he's still dating and still training in various jobs, would be no match at all for a confident and experienced Prime Minister who's been sending all sorts of signals that he thinks the monarchy is a boring irrelevance. If people really want to see the British monarchy reduced to the status of decorative figurehead like the Swedish one, I suppose that might not be a problem. But I think a majority of people in the UK aren't thrilled by the prospect of "President" Blair.

 

[Oppie]

Is there a chance that the PM that comes after Blair is going to be a supportive of the monarchy ? I was wondering if any of the front-runners to take over his job are monarchists ?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Gordon Brown is a republican but he isn't exactly popular and Blair seems to think he can simply hand over to Brown without an election. Between Gordon Brown and the new Conservative Leader, it'll probably be the Tory who of course, will be a Monarchist.

 

[Saragli]

I try not to involve the monarchy when it comes to politics. I treat the monarchy as above politics and like to think it will be unaffected by politics. But, I know that is not true. I do like the Labour party but I just cant stand what they are doing to the monarchy. I like how Tony Blair moved the party more to the centre but it seems the party is breaking up and the ultra left is trying to take over. Hopefully the Labour party can get its act together and stay more in the centre and help Britian like it promised.

 

[ysbel]

It seems that people who want William to be King and leapfrog his father are thinking of the personal aspects - Diana's son used as the instrument for Diana fans to get back at Charles - and ignoring the constitutional ones. For the next few years, William, as a young man who doesn't have a stable home life because he's still dating and still training in various jobs, would be no match at all for a confident and experienced Prime Minister who's been sending all sorts of signals that he thinks the monarchy is a boring irrelevance. If people really want to see the British monarchy reduced to the status of decorative figurehead like the Swedish one, I suppose that might not be a problem. But I think a majority of people in the UK aren't thrilled by the prospect of "President" Blair.

Good point, Elspeth. In fact, those who so badly want William to take his father's place would be well advised to study how the Swedish government gutted its monarchy when the crown skipped a generation and Carl Adolf was succeeded by his grandson Carl Gustaf. It was unpreventable at the time; the former Crown Prince had been killed in an airplane crash in 1945 but still it is not an option that a monarchy chooses to exercise if they have other options.

Furthermore, I believe William did not have as stable a childhood as Charles did. His parents' very public and nasty breakup was far worse than anything Charles had had to go through. He's doing pretty well so far but don't underestimate the time it will take for him to pick up the pieces and find his role.

 

[branchg]

William is far too young and unprepared to have the burden of the throne thrust on him. Today's world is a complicated one and he must have the time to develop his skills, learn about different things, date girls, etc. He is barely an adult and needs to grow more.

Charles has served the UK with great distinction as Prince of Wales and is ready and able to be King. To punish him forever for getting a divorce is contrary to a modern, diverse society and would irrevocably diminish the monarchy to the point of no return. He is happily married now and, so far, it seems Camilla will be a great asset not only to him, but to the rest of the nation.

It's time to move on from the past and live in the present.

 

[love_cc]

There is no reason to skip a generation because of the opinion poll. Charles is such a dutiful heir to the throne. He is probably too passionate and ambitious to define his role as Prince of Wales and serve his country. Charles is well prepared as the future King and he has years of practice and experience.

William is far too young to be the King before he knows how to be a monarch and let him establish his own family first. One thing I felt sorry for Prince Charles and princess Anne was their lonely childhood. Charles always show his pains about his childhood just because his parents were too busy to perform their duties especailly for the Queen. Personally I don't want that happen again.

Charles seems to be really happy and contented with Camilla after their wedding. There is no reason to step him aside because of his past marriage record. It was unfortunate because Diana and Charles were wrongly matched under conventionsand people's expectations but Charles and Camilla are soulmates though. Let Charles be King and guide William in his preparation to be a monarch.

 

[Aussie Princess]

I think(and hope) the Queen will live for a long long time, and probably by then William might be ready for the throne, who knows....but it seems people want to skip CHrles and go straight to William because of the fact he was the guy who broke Dianas heart.That's all it is.

 

[Skydragon]

Quote:
MANY people in the world want william as king.

Many people in the world couldn't care less about the British monarchy.

Those that do care include India, Jordan and UAE who supported Charles and Camilla getting married, according to their papers so our friends tell us. We also have friends from the Nordic Countries who feel that Charles should remain as next in line.
What the Diana fans should realise, is that not everyone was caught up in the worship of this disturbed woman.
I don't think many people in the UK would support such a break with tradition.

 

[james]

What do we have to look forward to?. Prince Charles who in my opinion represents a spolit brat who just happens to be 57 years old and Mrs. Parker-Bowles, an ex-mistress (and this bit's not my opinion but actual fact) who was his long term, married, mistress who's now referred to as "Highness". Well pardon me if I my enthusiasm may be ever so slightly lacking for the Monarchy when the Queen dies.

 

[Saragli]

Prince Charles has never shown himself to be a spoilt brat. He is very generous and does so many good things for the world. The "selfish" things he asks for a normal things we have that we take for granted. Happiness is not a sympton of a spoiled child. He is a royal and has to sacrifice his life to the nation. A little happiness is not selfish.

 

[love_cc]

Prince Charles may not have strong leadership characteristic, but he is very dutiful as Prince of Wales.

 

[ysbel]

Prince Charles has never shown himself to be a spoilt brat. He is very generous and does so many good things for the world. The "selfish" things he asks for a normal things we have that we take for granted. Happiness is not a sympton of a spoiled child. He is a royal and has to sacrifice his life to the nation. A little happiness is not selfish.

Have to agree with you there, princejohnny. If Charles is selfish for wanting out of his first marriage, he's in good company with about 50% of the married population.

 

[Queen Mary I]

There is no reason to skip a generation because of the opinion poll. Charles is such a dutiful heir to the throne. He is probably too passionate and ambitious to define his role as Prince of Wales and serve his country. Charles is well prepared as the future King and he has years of practice and experience.

William is far too young to be the King before he knows how to be a monarch and let him establish his own family first. One thing I felt sorry for Prince Charles and princess Anne was their lonely childhood. Charles always show his pains about his childhood just because his parents were too busy to perform their duties especailly for the Queen. Personally I don't want that happen again.

Charles seems to be really happy and contented with Camilla after their wedding. There is no reason to step him aside because of his past marriage record. It was unfortunate because Diana and Charles were wrongly matched under conventionsand people's expectations but Charles and Camilla are soulmates though. Let Charles be King and guide William in his preparation to be a monarch.

William is far too young to be King? There have been Kings and Queens through the centuries who came to the Throne much younger than William. Edward V, Edward VI, and Queen Victoria just to name a few. Age has nothing to do with it. If an heir is too young or unprepared to reign (or rule in the case of the Plantagenet/Tudor monarchs) there was or is always a Regent or Protector in place in case the heir ascends the throne before coming of age. I think I read somewhere Prince Andrew would have fulfilled this role for William before the age of 18. William would have advisors, and he has the advantage that an uncle or other relative isn't likely to 'knock him off' like the unfortunate Prince of the Tower-King Edward V. Also I hardly think his Royal Duties would be on a par with say coal mining or factory work.

I have no problem with Charles as King. I will never personally accept Camilla as Queen. Never.

I'm posting within this thread to avoid multiple posts Corazon.

I just cannot agree with some of the posters who state that the duties expected of Royalty is such a 'burden'. Cutting ribbons? Christening Ships? Parades on fancy horses? Meeting dignitaries? Wearing ancient and priceless jewelry? (My ENVY is showing LOL!), taking what appears to be a Holiday (we call them Vacations in States) seemingly at least one week per month Globe-trotting all over the World?? I should be so 'burdened' LOL!

I know every life is different and the life the Royals lead has it's pressures I am sure-to be born a Royal is an accident of Birth and they did not ask to be followed by Paparazzi from Birth to Death. But what I cannot see is how it could possibly be any more burdensome to William than all the Monarchs that preceded him-and especially those who were barely more than children when they ascended to the Throne.

 

[corazon]

I totally agree with you!

 

[Elspeth]

William would have advisors, and he has the advantage that an uncle or other relative isn't likely to 'knock him off' like the unfortunate Prince of the Tower-King Edward V.

These days, you don't have to kill a person to take away his power; you just take away his power while leaving him to be an ineffectual ornament. Tony Blair is nibbling away at the monarchy as it is. The Queen was very lucky when she took the throne that she had a Prime Minister who understood the advantages of monarchy and didn't try to undercut the position of monarch; Prince William will be a sitting duck for Tony Blair if the Queen died during Tony Blair's Prime Ministership and William rather than Charles took over. It'd be partly because of William's inexperience but also because the fact of leapfrogging Charles, who's been Prince of Wales since forever, would point up a weakness in the royal family, and that weakness would be exploited to whatever extent the politicians thought they could get away with.

Most of the time when there's been a young monarch, either the monarch has suffered or the country has suffered or both. I'd like to see a much better reason for it this time than that people want to punish Charles for what happened to Diana.