Will Charles Ever Reign?

[branchg]

I read in the past, in a forum about King Edward VIII that the main reason the parliament made him abdicate was because he was unfit to be King, and they used the Simpson affair as an excuse. Apparently, it was before WWII and top secret documents were being read by Wallis, it was discovered by a minister, who spoke to wallis at a dinner and he understood it from her conversation. I also think that it was due to the fact that he was pro German!

This is untrue. Edward abdicated because Parliament and the Dominions refused to pass legislation allowing Wallis to assume a style and title other than Queen upon marriage to the King. He did not need anyone's approval to marry because he was the Sovereign. However, given the opposition of the Government, the Church and the majority of his subjects, Edward recognized abdication was the only way out.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, but I think what auntie is saying is that the government was intrasigent over the Wallis question because they (and senior members of the Household and Church) wanted rid of him anyway.

 

[Saragli]

I dont believe Edward wanted to be King and neither did the Church and Goverment. It was a different time back then. Europe was on the path to war and Edward was a German sympothiser and didnt care much for the state documents. Also, the church at the time would not have sactioned their marriage and the church had big time power back then. I didnt know Edward stole the Prince George, Prince of Wales crown when he was exiled to France. It was only returened after his death. It is illegal to take the crown jewels out of the country but they didnt charge him because he was a prince. They say William might use that crown when Charles invests him as Prince of Wales.

 

[branchg]

The Prince of Wales crown is not a "crown jewel" and never has been. It is a personal item commissioned by the Sovereign for the ceremony.

The only Crown Jewels are the Imperial State Crown, the Crowns of the Queen Consorts, the Orb and Sceptor, and other coronation items. These are not allowed to be removed from the UK as symbols of the State.

 

[branchg]

I dont believe Edward wanted to be King and neither did the Church and Goverment. It was a different time back then. Europe was on the path to war and Edward was a German sympothiser and didnt care much for the state documents. Also, the church at the time would not have sactioned their marriage and the church had big time power back then.

The Abdication had nothing to do with the coming war or the Duke's German heritage. It was a moral question of a King marrying a twice-divorced commoner with a highly questionable reputation, something that was incredibly shocking to people at that time. There was no acceptance of divorce and Wallis would have a hard time marrying a member of the royal family even today.

The King knew from day one he would never be allowed to marry Wallis and was happy to reliniquish the throne for life ever after. He just didn't want to be the Sovereign and was very selfish.

 

[Queen Mary I]

The Abdication had nothing to do with the coming war or the Duke's German heritage. It was a moral question of a King marrying a twice-divorced commoner with a highly questionable reputation, something that was incredibly shocking to people at that time. There was no acceptance of divorce and Wallis would have a hard time marrying a member of the royal family even today.

The King knew from day one he would never be allowed to marry Wallis and was happy to reliniquish the throne for life ever after. He just didn't want to be the Sovereign and was very selfish.

I don't think Wallis would have any problem marrying Edward today. The baggage of divorce is not as hard to overcome as adultery-which was not a problem in their relationship I don't think?? Or was Wallis still married when she and Edward began their relationship? Anyway I think Edward did the right thing by stepping aside when he was asked to. His brother George VI was a great King imo and I am happy he got a shot at the throne. Elizabeth would not have been Queen until the 1970's if Edward had stayed on (and not had children)-and what a great Queen she has been!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Wallis did indeed commit adultery - many many times. Not only with Edward whilst she was married to Ernest Simpson, but also with a young gay chap - I forget his name, when she was married to Edward. And she was twice divorced which wasn't exactly acceptable then - nor today I believe.

 

[maryshawn]

A bit of interesting--I think--history from Wisconsin. Wallis, before her marriage, spent the summer in a lovely place called Door County in a home on the water. She was known for being lots of fun and my ex husband, whose great-grandfather went to a few of her parties said they were lots of fun, very relaxed, and Wallis was a real pleasure to be around with impeccable manners; there is still one from her posted/framed on the wall of their house "thanking him for such a lovely, thoughtful gift for the party!" It was merely a bottle of wine. She was a bit hit up here!

Back to the subject, I definitely see Charles--god willing, he remains in good health--becoming King. For all the things he didn't do "right" and are criticized--namely, his marriage to Diana--he's done so much good. He's been an excellent father, he risked his life to save another's during that avalanche years ago, he seems responsible and happy and content now, and I think he's a genuinely very kind, caring man. I like him and think he deserves to be King.

Wallis did indeed commit adultery - many many times. Not only with Edward whilst she was married to Ernest Simpson, but also with a young gay chap - I forget his name, when she was married to Edward. And she was twice divorced which wasn't exactly acceptable then - nor today I believe.

 

[Skydragon]

Back to the subject, I definitely see Charles--god willing, he remains in good health--becoming King. For all the things he didn't do "right" and are criticized--namely, his marriage to Diana--he's done so much good. He's been an excellent father, he risked his life to save another's during that avalanche years ago, he seems responsible and happy and content now, and I think he's a genuinely very kind, caring man. I like him and think he deserves to be King.

Yes he is a warm caring man and has done a great deal of good for many people. He is patron to many charities and really takes an interest.
Now that he is married to the woman he loves, he is so happy and that is reflected in his dealings with everyone he meets or has dealings with.
I strongly believe that his marriage to Camilla has been the making of him and as a result will be a marvelous, beloved King.

 

[Queen Mary I]

A bit of interesting--I think--history from Wisconsin. Wallis, before her marriage, spent the summer in a lovely place called Door County in a home on the water. She was known for being lots of fun and my ex husband, whose great-grandfather went to a few of her parties said they were lots of fun, very relaxed, and Wallis was a real pleasure to be around with impeccable manners; there is still one from her posted/framed on the wall of their house "thanking him for such a lovely, thoughtful gift for the party!" It was merely a bottle of wine. She was a bit hit up here!

Back to the subject, I definitely see Charles--god willing, he remains in good health--becoming King. For all the things he didn't do "right" and are criticized--namely, his marriage to Diana--he's done so much good. He's been an excellent father, he risked his life to save another's during that avalanche years ago, he seems responsible and happy and content now, and I think he's a genuinely very kind, caring man. I like him and think he deserves to be King.

Thank you for sharing that story about the late Duchess Of Windsor. That's an enchanting story! I've always liked her-I don't know why exactly. I have read that her husbands cheated on her. I don't remember anything about her having an affair while married to either of them but it's been years.

I like how Prince Charles called her Aunt Wallis. And just to clarify for anyone who reads this-I happen to like Prince Charles very much. I've always wanted him to be King. When I was little the Queen looked ancient to me so I assumed he'd be King by about now. Anyway, he seems a very nice man, though largely misunderstood and I have to say I feel for sorry for him. Will he ever Reign? I hope so but if he does it will be a very short Reign if her Majesty's ongoing good health is any indication. I get the feeling she will outlive at least one of her children and that one will be Charles imo. It's just that he seems to be aging everyday and his parents-are not! I think Anne will outlive her mother, and all of her siblings.

 

[Skydragon]

Anyway, he seems a very nice man, though largely misunderstood and I have to say I feel for sorry for him. Will he ever Reign? I hope so but if he does it will be a very short Reign if her Majesty's ongoing good health is any indication. .

Charles and Camilla are already taking over some of the Queens duties, so she is perhaps not feeling as strong as she would like us to believe.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well they have said that 2006 will be Charles's year as 'King-in-Waiting' taking over more and more of the Queen's duties. I really hope Camilla is made a Colonel-in-Chief of a regiment this year. If she wanted she could don a uniform and ride at Trooping the Colour.

 

[Queen Mary I]

Charles and Camilla are already taking over some of the Queens duties, so she is perhaps not feeling as strong as she would like us to believe.

She may be cutting down on duties-after all she's coming on eighty and has earned her rest-but just judging from her appearance in her Christmas speech-Her Majesty seems in as good health as ever. She certainly looks better than I feel at the moment!

 

[Elspeth]

Well, even if she is, she's very nearly 80, which is an age when most people aren't in full-time work any more. By 80, her mother had been a perennial granny for at least a couple of decades, yet somehow we sort of expect the Queen to never really age.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think that they've said that although she's in the best of health, she is 80, 20 years past legal retirement age. And Philip is 85. They deserve a good rest and I think thats why Charles and Camilla are taking over more of the Queen's duties.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I don't think the Royal Family get a pension do they?

 

[Skydragon]

I don't think the Royal Family get a pension do they?

I should think they can live off of their investments. Somehow I don't see the Queen and Prince Philip managing on the state pension (isn't it around £100, for a married couple).
I'm sure Charles will see them right!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, Philip would get a war pension. So would Charles I imagine. Camilla would only get her state pension which I think is about £100. Charles might get £150.

 

[Skydragon]

Well, Philip would get a war pension. So would Charles I imagine. Camilla would only get her state pension which I think is about £100. Charles might get £150.

It would depend if it was means tested

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well they'll both automatically get a free bus pass. Everyone gets that regardless.

 

[Crown Jewel]

Sometime ago C and C attendented a function with the royal family of Norway. Camilla wore a tiara which I did not like. It looked like iron scaffolding, I expected to see little workmen climbing about. Could somebody please tell me the history of this tiara it's real color etc. Any tid bit would be welcome. Please don't send me to Danjel 2,3 or 4, there simply are no pictures to be seen on any of those sites. When will Danjel have an operative web site? I sorely miss the wonderful pictures he has posted.

 

[Warren]

Sometime ago C and C attendented a function with the royal family of Norway. Camilla wore a tiara which I did not like. It looked like iron scaffolding, I expected to see little workmen climbing about. Could somebody please tell me the history of this tiara it's real color etc. Any tid bit would be welcome. Please don't send me to Danjel 2,3 or 4, there simply are no pictures to be seen on any of those sites. When will Danjel have an operative web site? I sorely miss the wonderful pictures he has posted.

You are referring to the Delhi Durbar Tiara, one of the grandest and most historic diadems in the British Royal collection. There is endless discussion of it in the Duchess of Cornwall Jewellery Thread. Pick any page, but here's a pic. It's real colour is the colour of massed diamonds. Danjel's site is no more.

 

[Elspeth]

Danjel's site fell afoul of the copyright law, didn't it?

 

[Warren]

Danjel's site fell afoul of the copyright law, didn't it?

Yes. Danjel made a brief statement some months ago that the Agencies in effect closed his site down because of copyright issues regarding his tiara pics. The same happened with the former 'Royal Jewels of the World' site (not to be confused with the Royal Jewels of the World Message Board). We don't know exactly why these sites were targeted - I mean how many people are into tiaras? - but they were, and part of the reason was the use of non-credited images.

 

[Vita]

All I'm saying is whether people like it or not (and I certainly don't, but my British family came to America hundreds of years ago so my opinon doesn't really count) Camilla by law is and will be Queen when POW becomes king. And as she is POW, I think it was mighty dignified of her not use that title considering who had it before her and all that history that goes along with it. And for that I think when she becomes Queen she should use the title. It's only fair and right, and I don't think it would be in Parliament's best interest for them to deny her that right. And I don't think they will, especially since it seems people are more accepting and open to the DOC.

We can debate all day about whether we think DOC deserves to call herself Queen or no, but the more important thing to remember is that legally she can.

 

[redfox6]

All I'm saying is whether people like it or not (and I certainly don't, but my British family came to America hundreds of years ago so my opinon doesn't really count) Camilla by law is and will be Queen when POW becomes king. And as she is POW, I think it was mighty dignified of her not use that title considering who had it before her and all that history that goes along with it. And for that I think when she becomes Queen she should use the title. It's only fair and right, and I don't think it would be in Parliament's best interest for them to deny her that right. And I don't think they will, especially since it seems people are more accepting and open to the DOC.

We can debate all day about whether we think DOC deserves to call herself Queen or no, but the more important thing to remember is that legally she can.

I don't think she chose not to use the title POW because of dignity sake, I believe, it was decided that it would stir up untold animosity. Ergo, she should use the DOC title. That she is the POW goes without saying and when he reigns what she chooses to call herself or what the British people will tolerate are truly up to them. It will be most interesting to see if an Archbisop of Canterbury will place any crown on her head. Most embarassing for the church, but then again so was the blessing of their marriage.

 

[Vita]

I don't think she chose not to use the title POW because of dignity sake, I believe, it was decided that it would stir up untold animosity. Ergo, she should use the DOC title. That she is the POW goes without saying and when he reigns what she chooses to call herself or what the British people will tolerate are truly up to them. It will be most interesting to see if an Archbisop of Canterbury will place any crown on her head. Most embarassing for the church, but then again so was the blessing of their marriage.

Oh I'm quite sure dignity had nothing to do with on their part but I was saying that I felt was a dignified thing to do.

I personally hope Her Magesty will continue to reign down to the last minutes of her life, because she is truly a wonderful person and leader; a role model, I think for any female-maybe not as a mother-who becomes a leader. I would hope that she doesn't abdicate, but would continue to be the wonderful Queen she is and naturally as she can no longer continue with her duties due to whatever reasons, she would give them to POW, DOC, et al. to carry them out.

I'm not ready to see POW or DOC on the golden throne and I kind of hope it never happens, though I know it will.

 

[ysbel]

I don't think she chose not to use the title POW because of dignity sake, I believe, it was decided that it would stir up untold animosity. Ergo, she should use the DOC title. That she is the POW goes without saying and when he reigns what she chooses to call herself or what the British people will tolerate are truly up to them. It will be most interesting to see if an Archbisop of Canterbury will place any crown on her head. Most embarassing for the church, but then again so was the blessing of their marriage.

I'm American Episcopalian so our church does keep up ties with the Church of England and all the Anglican churches monitor each other's changes and sometimes they adopt what the other churches are doing.

My understanding was that before the wedding, there were already some CoE bishops who wanted the church statutes changed to allow marrying divorced people in the Church. The American Episcopal church has allowed it for some time. However, my understanding was that the bishops didn't press it for the marriage because there was already a more controversial movement for allowing gay priests and churches don't generally make too many controversial changes at once.

The fact that the marriage was blessed was interpreted in my Church to mean that by the time Charles is crowned, the CofE will probably by that time have changed the church statutes about allowing divorced people to remarry. If they had serious doubts that the statutes would not be changed, they wouldn't have blessed the marriage.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, it's been standard practice in England for many years to have a church blessing after a civil ceremony when one of the couple is divorced, so it wasn't something done especially for Charles. However, his position as the future Supreme Governor of the church does make things a bit more difficult - the idea of having this service of prayer and dedication after a ceremony that the church refuses to perform because it doesn't consider the pair free to marry has always been a rather uncomfortable compromise, and it's made all the more awkward by Charles's future position in the church.

Recently the church has been somewhat more consistent in its approach and has begun to allow the remarriage of divorcees under certain conditions. However, one of those conditions is that the second spouse not be instrumental in the breakup of the first marriage, which obviously wasn't the case here. The service of prayer and dedication (commonly known as blessing) continues to be available for remarried divorcees who have to have civil ceremonies because they don't fulfill the criteria for a second marriage in the church.

This whole business of the church blessing of a civil ceremony because of church refusal to conduct the ceremony has always struck me as hypocritical, but it's by no means unusual and it's been going on for a long time.

 

[Skydragon]

The church does allow remarriage in church even if one of the parties was involved in the breakup of the former marriage.

I have attended four such weddings over the last 10 years and one 16 years ago, it is at the sole discretion of the minister in charge. One cynic said it depended how much they put on the collection plate!