Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Al_bina]

Of course he will reign !!!

Prince of Wales will definetely become a king. At this point in time, it is irrelevant to guess reasons why he may or will not accede to the throne.
I srongly believe that people should let Princess Diana rest in peace finally. If Prince of Wales ever bears responsibliity for ruining his first marriage, it will take place in the next world.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

Of course I don't know you and I don't claim to. I did not intend to state that that is they way you infact think though given your statement, I thought it a possibility. You have since made it clear that is not the case, and so I have no reason to doubt you. I appreciate your reply



But..this is 'the' Forums

Sorry, didn't mean to get ruffled.

 

[branchg]

Charles is likely to become King in due course, but we don't know what tomorrow will bring. It certainly is possible The Queen could outlive her son and William would succeed as The Sovereign instead.

In any case, his reign will be relatively short, given The Queen's good health and the likelihood of her reign lasting another 10 years at least.

 

[BMC]

I agree that Charles' reign is likely to be short, like that of King Edward VII.

Queen Elizabeth II is in excellent health and her mother lived to be 101. It is entirely possible that she will reign another 15-20 years. By that time Charles will be in his 80s or close to it, he's almost 60 now.

 

[Royal Fan]

That could still give him 25 Years on the Throne

 

[Royal Fan]

Give me a Play by Play of what will Happen btween the Queens Death and Charles Being Crowned who Contacts who and when? Thank You in Advance

 

[Iluvbertie]

On the death of the Queen Charles instantly becomes King and William instantly becomes Duke of Cornwall.

Who contacts whom would depend on who was with the Queen when she died e.g. if she died quietly in her sleep like her father did then the first person to be told would be the Duke of Edinburgh who would arrange for Charles to be contacted - either directly or through a member of staff. Not knowing how Philip would react to the death of his wife is why I say that - some people simply can't make that contact. The same with the other members of the family. If the Queen had been ill for awhile, and therefore the family were there when she died then arrangements would be made to contact the PM and make the appropriate public announcements.

Within a day or so an Accession Council would be held for the new King to accept the government (in days passed this would be a signal for a new election so the handing over of the officials seals of office had real meaning but now it is symbolic). Various people will also swear allegiance to the new king e.g. the new heir, the PM, the Archbiship of Canterbury etc.

There will a ceremony in various parts of the UK (London and Edinburgh) to proclaim the new king.

At some time after that (in the more recent past at least 12 months after the death of the previous monarch) the coronation will take place. The time frame relates to the official end of court mourning, which lasts 12 months and the timing of the death. e.g. Queen Victoria died in January 1901 and Edward VII crowned in August 1902 (was supposed to be June but due to his appendicitis it was delayed), Edward VII died in May 1910 and George V crowned in June 1911, George V died in January 1935 and George VI crowned in May 1937 (date originally scheduled for Edward VII) and George VI died in January 1952 and Elizabeth crowned in June 1953. The coronations appear to take place during the warmer months with the longer days - a consideration for the crowds that gather.

There have been reports that the powers that be want a shorter time between the death of the present Queen and the coronation of Charles but appropriate times do have to be observed so the coronation shouldn't take place less than 6 months after the death but also has to consider the climate in London. If the Queen died today for instance I wouldn't expect the coronation before this time next year but if she died in November this year I could still see a coronation next summer rather than wait until the following summer.

From what I have said you can see that there are no simple direct answers because a lot would depend on the circumstances of the Queen's death.

 

[Royal Fan]

I Understand now What name do you think he will pick George VII or Charles III

 

[Lady Bluffton]

I think Charles will opt for George. We all know what happened to Charles I, and Charles II? Well, he's got my vote for the most lascivious monarch in British history. Will Charles want to follow in those footsteps. I think not.

So why George? Having eliminated Charles, Arthur is too, well, storybook. And Phillip? I'm not sure that Charles will want to follow in the footsteps of the fellow who launched the Spanish Armada...

As far as this Defender of the Faith title, wasn't it the Pope who gave it to Henry VIII before the whole divorce business? Talk about irony...

If Charles could figure out some way to do so, I think he would convert to something else. He has been quite interested in Orthodoxy in recent years; after all, his grandmother became an Orthodox nun.

I'm not sure though that the British establishment (whoever you want to define that as being) will allow Charles or anyone to tweak the coronation ceremony too much, if at all, including and most especially any part that sets the Monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

 

[Avalon]

A couple of Georges were not too beloved or too great Kings as well.
I believe Prince Charles will reign under his own name, that is he will be King Charles III. The 'unfortunate' previous Kings with that name are not that much of an issue, imo. When Princess Elizabeth was naming her eldest son 'Charles', she surely knew all about the history of her ancectors and being an Heir Presumpative, she knew her son would one day become King (by the time it was obvious the King and Queen would not have any more children).

 

[Lady Bluffton]

A couple of Georges were not too beloved or too great Kings as well.
I believe Prince Charles will reign under his own name, that is he will be King Charles III. The 'unfortunate' previous Kings with that name are not that much of an issue, imo. When Princess Elizabeth was naming her eldest son 'Charles', she surely knew all about the history of her ancectors and being an Heir Presumpative, she knew her son would one day become King (by the time it was obvious the King and Queen would not have any more children).

So, I guess it's up to Charles to reform the image of his name as far as preceding monarchs go. Wow, what a responsibility in and of itself!

 

[HRH Kerry]

Don't forget about the future. So I guess there will never be another King Henry.

 

[Elspeth]

Charles II was the monarch who presided over the restoration of the monarchy after Oliver Cromwell's little interlude, remember. I don't think he deserves to be remembered simply as the out-of-wedlock father of half the current aristocracy.

It's possible that Charles would have opted for George VII if he'd become king in his younger days. But now he's nearly a senior citizen and has been called Charles for so long, it seems to me to be less likely that he'd change his name to George at this stage in his life.

 

[Lady Bluffton]

I don't think [Charles II] deserves to be remembered simply as the out-of-wedlock father of half the current aristocracy.

Oh, but it's so easy to remember, and so hard to forget! Cheers, Elspeth!

 

[Royal Fan]

O So true How Many Illegitimate Children did he have

 

[sirhon11234]

Both the Princess of Wales,Countess of Wessex, and even the Duchess of Cornwall are descended from Charles II's illegetimate children.

 

[Sister Morphine]

O So true How Many Illegitimate Children did he have

Charles II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HRH Kimetha]

O So true How Many Illegitimate Children did he have

Counting my own family in that mess! And, probably many many more!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles II was the monarch who presided over the restoration of the monarchy after Oliver Cromwell's little interlude, remember. I don't think he deserves to be remembered simply as the out-of-wedlock father of half the current aristocracy.

It's possible that Charles would have opted for George VII if he'd become king in his younger days. But now he's nearly a senior citizen and has been called Charles for so long, it seems to me to be less likely that he'd change his name to George at this stage in his life.

Yet there is the precedent of Edward VII who was known as Prince Albert Edward throughout his time as Prince of Wales. He chose to be known as King Edward, which surprised many people at the time.

Who knows what Charles will choose. I suspect at this stage he isn't even sure himself.

 

[kpusa1981]

I think he would chose either his first name Charles and be Charles III, however, I think he might also chose to use George which is one his middle names and becoming George VII. It would not entirely suprise me he chose George in honor of his Grandfather. However, Charles will most likely use first of Charles since he has been HRH The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales for so long.

 

[Elspeth]

Yet there is the precedent of Edward VII who was known as Prince Albert Edward throughout his time as Prince of Wales. He chose to be known as King Edward, which surprised many people at the time.

I wonder if he was trying to differentiate himself from his father, although since his father had been dead for so long, that shouldn't have been necessary.

I remember having to explain to one of my American friends about why Edward VII and George VI were both known as Bertie before they became King - she seemed to think it was a term of endearment for the eldest son or something (and yes, I know one of them wasn't an eldest son, but she didn't!).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wonder if he was trying to differentiate himself from his father, although since his father had been dead for so long, that shouldn't have been necessary.

I believe there may be something in that - the reported reason that I have seen when researching his life is that he wanted to have his father's name stand alone. That was the official reason but I suspect there might also have been an element of also showing that he was finally out from his mother's shadow as she had said that she wanted him to reign as Albert Edward.

I remember having to explain to one of my American friends about why Edward VII and George VI were both known as Bertie before they became King - she seemed to think it was a term of endearment for the eldest son or something (and yes, I know one of them wasn't an eldest son, but she didn't!).

I have had some similar discussion with people as well. In fact, in the last 6 British monarchs 3 have chosen a different name to their first birth name and another used his first birth name but that wasn't the name by which he was called in the family (Edward VIII was called David remember). Only George V and Elizabeth II have used their first given names since 1837 and also the name by which they were known within the family even if the family used a diminutive form (Georgie and Lillibet respectively).

 

[love_cc]

I wonder if he was trying to differentiate himself from his father, although since his father had been dead for so long, that shouldn't have been necessary.

I remember having to explain to one of my American friends about why Edward VII and George VI were both known as Bertie before they became King - she seemed to think it was a term of endearment for the eldest son or something (and yes, I know one of them wasn't an eldest son, but she didn't!).

From what I have read, it is said that Bertie was unwilling to stay in either of his parent's shadow any more after Queen Victoria's death, so he chose Edward VII instead of Albert I. Queen Victoria wanted that but certainly Bertie did not choose to do so. Sorry I forgot my source for this information.

 

[Warren]

Posts discussing the Queens's abdication or retirement have been moved to the Abdication or Retirement? thread.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Surely Charles will reign if QE dies before him - that's the way it is supposed to be. But as he does not have the acceptance and the respect that his mother earned during her long reign, things will be difficult for him. Plus, some strange ideas he's already expressing now such as the green issue, title for Camilla or the details of his coronation do not help. I think he will have to work very hard to become accepted, especially within the younger generation, and not only within the UK but the whole Commonwealth. Some critisism or desire for a change may not be mentioned as long as QEII is there due to her long time period as monarch. As soon as Charles will be king, he will have to deal with a lot of issues that have not been brought up but people are waiting to put them on the agenda. In the meantime I would suggest he should help to improve the public image of the royal family in Britain - especially the one of the younger generation of the royal family. I would make sure they get involved into charities and regular events much more than now because one could get the impression that all they do is stumbling out of night clubs at 3am in the morning, in case of William and Harry. They should get a reality bite and follow the good example of their grandparents!

 

[sashajones]

When Charles becomes king, what will be Camilla's title?

 

[branchg]

When Charles becomes king, what will be Camilla's title?

Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Anything else would require an Act of Parliament, which isn't likely to happen.

 

[Elspeth]

Hi sashajones,

You might want to have a look at this thread, where the question of Camilla's title is discussed.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f44/title-camilla-part-2-a-3994.html

 

[HRH Kerry]

Surely Charles will reign if QE dies before him - that's the way it is supposed to be. But as he does not have the acceptance and the respect that his mother earned during her long reign, things will be difficult for him. Plus, some strange ideas he's already expressing now such as the green issue, title for Camilla or the details of his coronation do not help. I think he will have to work very hard to become accepted, especially within the younger generation, and not only within the UK but the whole Commonwealth. Some critisism or desire for a change may not be mentioned as long as QEII is there due to her long time period as monarch. As soon as Charles will be king, he will have to deal with a lot of issues that have not been brought up but people are waiting to put them on the agenda. In the meantime I would suggest he should help to improve the public image of the royal family in Britain - especially the one of the younger generation of the royal family. I would make sure they get involved into charities and regular events much more than now because one could get the impression that all they do is stumbling out of night clubs at 3am in the morning, in case of William and Harry. They should get a reality bite and follow the good example of their grandparents!

He may not have the respect of the people as the Queen but how could he? That's an impossible task at the moment and it may be even when/if he's King since he will not reign for over 50 years. He has to deal with issues not brought up in the present? Why wait to another is the face of the monarchy to bring up the issues? I don't get that.

 

[RubyPrincess168]

Deep down, my response to "Will Charles ever reign?" is 'I hope not.". Charles' granmother lived to be over 100 years old. The Queen is already in her 80s. Women generally outlive men. I would guess that QEII didn't do as much smoking & drinking as her mother did, meaning she'd be in better health. I can't see QEII abdicating or retiring. I can see QEII still reigning at 100 yrs old, at which point Charles would be in his 70's(?). Maybe he'd be too old to want to be King at that point and so he'd abdicate in favor of William.