Will Charles Ever Reign?

[MARG]

Yes, it is very strange that there is a problem within the Church about divorce, in view of why it was founded!

Charles was a widower the moment his former wife died and therefore free to be married in a church.

But Camilla was a divorcee. Was hers a Roman Catholic marriage, and if so, does it not count in view of the above?

 

[Little_star]

I think when Charles eventually becomes King he'll do a good job. I do imagine him to be quite different to his mother. For example, I think he is already alot more outspoken than the Queen in the sense that he is more prepared and willing to comment on issues. The Queen usually does not. I think she's always made a conscious decision to keep quiet. In that respect I think it will be good because it may make him seem more relevant.
However, I do think his outspoken nature could work against him. While I personally agree with some of the comments he has made on issues in the past, I think the minute he says something deemed unpopular the tide will turn against him. He will face quite a difficuly job balancing the two aspects.

 

[MARG]

In regards to the sex of a monarch it seems irrelevent since the basic job description only seems to require a human being with low-to-middle intelligence who has the ability to perform pre-determined tasks without causing controversy.

Wow. I expect a lot more than that from my future King. The Queen is intimately involved with representing her country on the diplomatic front, and in this arena alone she has proved herself a confident, knowledgeable, indespensible asset! Threading her way through the political changes in Britain alone with aplomb, not to mention the wide range of political and religeous Heads of State and Ambassadors. She is more able to conduct herself in this area than any elected official and leads her country with intelligence, wisdom and not a little wit.

The Diplomatic ramifications of the seating plan at a Banquet are enough to put noses out of joint. She gets it consistantly right. Her son has been well trained in the fine art of diplomacy.

As POW, he has used his limited influence to advance a lot of worthy causes and try to put it a plug for the average man. As King he will be denied the pleasure of speaking his mind, except, perhaps, in a christmas message. Until then he knows he has to make hay while the sun shines.

He could have been a polo-playing yahoo henry. He chose to put himself on the line. Lets face it. Organic everything is the current thing! He took the knocks and laughed about talking to cabbages. He is certainly having the last laugh.

 

[AgnesK]

Organic everything is the current thing! He took the knocks and laughed about talking to cabbages. He is certainly having the last laugh.

His critics should eat their words

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think it was Zsa Zsa Gabor who once said, "My husbands were swines. But I had the last laugh. They're all dead".

 

[Elspeth]

But Camilla was a divorcee. Was hers a Roman Catholic marriage, and if so, does it not count in view of the above?

Camilla married Andrew Parker-Bowles in the Guards Chapel, which I think is nondenominational, although reports have said that the wedding was conducted by a Roman Catholic priest according to the rites of the Catholic Church. She did not convert to Catholicism, however, and her ex-husband has remarried; regardless of what the church may or may not feel, she was legally free to remarry and that's really what counts.

 

[PreDoc]

I think something that Charles may fret over is that he may not be King long enough to have made the difference's he would have wanted to have made, and, I can empathise with that.

I can't disagree with you Margrethe, in fact it almost seems unfortunate that Charles will become King instead of a successful entrepreneur or statesman because becoming king seems like a waste of his intellectual curiousites and interests. Hopefully he'll be able to make very real contributions despite the built-in obstacles attached to the position of being Britain's highest ceremonial figure.

 

[BeatrixFan]

As far as the Church is concerned;

Roman Catholic : Until Andrew Parker-Bowles dies, Camilla is not married in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church because divorce is not recognised. Charles however, is a widower and is free to marry. He was not whilst Diana was alive and they were divorced.

Protestant : Camilla is divorced, Charles is divorced and have legally married.

 

[MARG]

As far as the Church is concerned;

Protestant : Camilla is divorced, Charles is divorced and have legally married.

If that was the case, then why did they have to get married in the Guild Hall?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Because the Protestant Church, whilst it recognises divorce, won't remarry divorcees.

 

[Vanesa]

I can't disagree with you Margrethe, in fact it almost seems unfortunate that Charles will become King instead of a successful entrepreneur or statesman because becoming king seems like a waste of his intellectual curiousites and interests. Hopefully he'll be able to make very real contributions despite the built-in obstacles attached to the position of being Britain's highest ceremonial figure.

I do not see the reason for a King not being intellectually curious. I think that its better that they should be like this...Unfortunately, kings and queens nowadays seems too interested in sports or bussiness affairs than in intellectual issues. There is, of course, some exceptions. I shouldn't point them out, for I don't want to appear as a sour person. Of course, I have my favos among the royals, but I'll not said which ones I don't like awfully too much.

I think that Charles, could become a really good King. I bet it!

Vanesa.

 

[Aussie Princess]

Because the Protestant Church, whilst it recognises divorce, won't remarry divorcees.

Really? where did Henry the eigth get remarried? did he have civil ceremonies as well or was it different back then?

 

[BeatrixFan]

He married in his church. He could do pretty much as he liked. But now, things are different and everyone follows one set of rules.

 

[Elspeth]

Because the Protestant Church, whilst it recognises divorce, won't remarry divorcees.

The Church of England does remarry divorcees these days, but it frowns on the notion of marrying a divorcee to a person who was part of the reason the first marriage failed. I gather some clergy will perform a marriage service under those conditions, but this particular case would have caused some serious problems for the church.

 

[PreDoc]

The Church of England does remarry divorcees these days, but it frowns on the notion of marrying a divorcee to a person who was part of the reason the first marriage failed.

Although your explanation was serious the way you phrased it made me laugh

 

[Smartie2091]

Yeah, I think Charles will rule. It may be long or may be short but he'll rule. I can see William (or harry depending on how things go in the future)
getting the throne at a good age, maybe in there early 40's.

 

[Royal Fan]

How soon does everyone expect Charles will become King 5 years,10,15 im not being morbid just curious I Wish the Queen more Happy years

 

[branchg]

How soon does everyone expect Charles will become King 5 years,10,15 im not being morbid just curious I Wish the Queen more Happy years

No one knows what tomorrow holds. But assuming The Queen's health holds out like her mother's did, she could be on the throne another 10-15 years and Charles' reign would be short. This is why The Queen will continue to closely oversee William's future and duties.

 

[Margrethe II]

How soon does everyone expect Charles will become King 5 years,10,15 im not being morbid just curious I Wish the Queen more Happy years

Absolutely not I want the Queen as my Head of State for many years to come hoping she lives as long as her beloved mother.

"MII"

 

[Toledo]

Some of the early deaths among the men were also at least partly due to their being heavy smokers, which isn't one of Charles's habits. The relatively peaceful society and his drive for healthy living may well mean that he'll live to a greater age than most of his predecessors.

I recall reading many years ago an article on how cancer took the lives of all the British kings between Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth because of their addiction to tobacco. Charles seems to be the healthiest crown prince ever in the House of Windsor.
But, to answer the main question on the thread, I think he has a 50-50 chance of reigning. If he does I have the feeling it will be a short period and Camilla will survive him.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

If the Queen lives as long as her mother, then as far as she and Prince Charles go, there will be certain parallels between Victoria and Edward VII. Long reign, short reign, long reign?

 

[Cynthia Victoria]

Charles may reign, but with his Muslim sympathies and title Defender of the Faith, one can only hope that ERII lives a long time. That would be a major muddle for the BRF to deal with.

 

[Margrethe II]

Charles may reign, but with his Muslim sympathies and title Defender of the Faith, one can only hope that ERII lives a long time. That would be a major muddle for the BRF to deal with.

HRH the Prince of Wales has noted that he would like the title Defender of the Faith changed to Defender of all Faith's, which I imagine may not go down too well with the Protestant Church of England.

there will be certain parallels between Victoria and Edward VII

I have always thought this to be a very likely scenario. Of course no one knows, but the longer Her Most Gracious Majesty continues to reign (long may that be) there's an increasing likeliness that Charles' reign as King will be most short lived, in comparison.

I, personally, cant see Charles having a Silver Jubilee.

"MII"

 

[Warren]

Charles may reign, but with his Muslim sympathies.. That would be a major muddle for the BRF to deal with.

Deal with what? I fail to see a problem with a Prince of Wales or a King of England having an understanding and appreciation of the Islamic world.
Surely his broadness of mind and experience should be applauded.

 

[Margrethe II]

Surely his broadness of mind and experience should be applauded.

I agree. Charles III (or George VII) could be a uniting force in this respect.

"MII"

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Deal with what? I fail to see a problem with a Prince of Wales or a King of England having an understanding and appreciation of the Islamic world.
Surely his broadness of mind and experience should be applauded.

You're right, Warren!It is a fact that the idea of "cuius regio [SIZE=-1], eius religio" (meaning the ruler determinates the religion of his subjects) is quite outdated nowadays. Democratic countries all over the world recognize the right of the individual to choose his own belief. Religion and faith are not longer political but private issues when it comes to peaceful cooperation. As there are many British and Commonwealth citizens who practise their personal choice of faith individually and in private, it is a very correct and warm gesture of their future king to respect them and their right of their own belief. [/SIZE]

Plus I think it's the right political sign in a world that is more and more endangered by religious fanatism - to show that respect and defense is possible even though the defender has a different faith himself. It's the example that counts and I have deep respect for the prince for asking the government to make this position of tolerance and protection a public one.

 

[Skydragon]

Charles may reign, but with his Muslim sympathies and title Defender of the Faith, one can only hope that ERII lives a long time. That would be a major muddle for the BRF to deal with.

What a really strange thing to say. There are many, many faiths and non faiths that are celebrated in the UK and Commonwealth Countries, contrary to what is show on the news, we are not all out killing one another over it.

Because he is willing to reach out to all people, regardless of their faith (religion is in decline in the UK, apparently), he will be a much celebrated King.

 

[Avalon]

I can only be thankful that Prince Charles is such a thoughtful person. I am not a British citizen, however I think that the Head of the state (a King/Queen, President...) must be head of the state for every single citizen of his country, regardless of Religion.
With all respect to British traditions, I do think that Prince Charles's intention to be Defender of Faiths, rather then Defender of the Faith, is the right thing to do.
That's my private opinion.

 

[Toledo]

What a really strange thing to say. There are many, many faiths and non faiths that are celebrated in the UK and Commonwealth Countries, contrary to what is show on the news, we are not all out killing one another over it.

Because he is willing to reach out to all people, regardless of their faith (religion is in decline in the UK, apparently), he will be a much celebrated King.

Maybe the Defender of the Faith title needs to be actualized a bit? That will open the door for the Monarch to get the same freedom to choose (incluiding choosing a spouse) or be just private about it just like everyone else. Religion and Royalty, be it in Britain, Japan, Jordan, Uganda or India go hand in hand. But the monarch has a flexibility to expand his defense to all faiths and religions, to include everyone a priest does not have that freedom since he, or she, made that choice already .
Then maybe we can move on to get rid of that thing of having the first male have priority to rule over an older sister.

 

[Rebafan81]

I think Charles should rule because I would hate to see him spend his whole entire life waiting and then never getting to. I realize that as an American I don't understand everything about the monarchy but isn't he going to be just a figurehead? He is really good at this and I think since he married Camilla his is more relaxed and sure of himself. I loved Princess Diana but anyone could see that they were totally wrong for each other. I think it would bring the monarchy down, if they were to by-pass Charles because I dont feel William is ready to handle this kind of pressure, I am not sure he will ever be.