Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Mapple]

thank you Mapple, Queen Camilla (no HM?)sounds much better to me. it's a bit strange to call somebody without his/her name, also HRH doesn't quite match with HM King Charles..

HM goes with the title of Queen, I've omitted the prefix.

 

[branchg]

There is no official monarch named Charles III. The man you refer to was a "pretender" to the English throne, due to his dubious birth (which I do acknowledge now is ridiculous) and more importantly his religion. Catholics were excluded from the line of succession since The Glorious Revolution of 1688. It made the point crystal clear after James II attempted to bring Catholicism back.

It will be interesting to see what name the Prince of Wales assumes upon ascending the throne. While there is no bar to using his own (Charles III), because this particular Sovereign name is associated one of the darkest periods of the British monarchy, it might be better for Charles to become George VII as King.

 

[branchg]

Her Royal Highness The Princess Consort, without a name... Or she'll be a simple Queen Camilla.

In my opinion, unless the Queen dies suddenly in the next five years, I think it is highly unlikely that Camilla will be permitted by Parliament to assume any title other than Queen Consort. They will not want to set a precedent that diminishes the monarchy.

 

[Mapple]

In my opinion, unless the Queen dies suddenly in the next five years, I think it is highly unlikely that Camilla will be permitted by Parliament to assume any title other than Queen Consort. They will not want to set a precedent that diminishes the monarchy.

Yes... the present situation with Camilla reminds me of Michael Ancram, a Tory politician. He inherited the Marquessate of Lothian not long ago, but he chose to be known under his old name. So, presently he is Lord Lothian, known as Michael Ancram... just like Camilla is the Princess of Wales, known as the Duchess of Cornwall.

But were Mr Ancram to become, say, Lord Chancellor (that's highly unlikely), he would have to use his peerage title.

 

[ysbel]

Yes... the present situation with Camilla reminds me of Michael Ancram, a Tory politician. He inherited the Marquessate of Lothian not long ago, but he chose to be known under his old name. So, presently he is Lord Lothian, known as Michael Ancram... just like Camilla is the Princess of Wales, known as the Duchess of Cornwall.

But were Mr Ancram to become, say, Lord Chancellor (that's highly unlikely), he would have to use his peerage title.

I thought the peers couldn't run for a seat in the House of Commons. Winston Churchill's father did but being the second son of the Duke of Marlborough, he wasn't a peer. In fact, Winston turned down an earldom and a dukedom to stay in the House of Commons.

This sounds strange; have the laws changed since then?

 

[Mapple]

I thought the peers couldn't run for a seat in the House of Commons. Winston Churchill's father did but being the second son of the Duke of Marlborough, he wasn't a peer. In fact, Winston turned down an earldom and a dukedom to stay in the House of Commons.

This sounds strange; have the laws changed since then?

Yes. The Peerage Act 1963 made it possible to disclaim a peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 excluded the majority of hereditary peers from the Upper House, allowing them to stand for election in the House of Commons instead. But that's off-topic here, I presume.

 

[Fashionista100]

I think Charles will get the throne eventually. It is his birthright. And who knows, he may turn out to be a good king. Anything is possible. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Plus William should not have such responsibility put on his shoulders at such an early age. He should be allowed to enjoy life and be out of the public eye as much as possible. I think Charles is aware of how things have been for him and wants William not to make the same mistakes or have the same restrictions he did.

Plus, the Queen will not give up the throne until she dies. And seeing how long her mother lived, that could be awhile!! What will most likely happen to Charles is what happened in Germany to the last couple of Kaiser's. One died after a long reign, the son died after a very short reign, then the grandson inherited. So we shall see.

 

[ysbel]

Yes. The Peerage Act 1963 made it possible to disclaim a peerage. The House of Lords Act 1999 excluded the majority of hereditary peers from the Upper House, allowing them to stand for election in the House of Commons instead. But that's off-topic here, I presume.

Ah thanks, Mapple.

 

[sara1981]

thank you Mapple, Queen Camilla (no HM?)sounds much better to me. it's a bit strange to call somebody without his/her name, also HRH doesn't quite match with HM King Charles..

you know many people in London,England wanted to low-profiles of their favourite Princess Diana very much! not as Camilla! but i dont wanted Camilla become HM Queen i dont think so!

Sara Boyce

 

[sara1981]

Her Royal Highness The Princess Consort, without a name... Or she'll be a simple Queen Camilla.

when HM Queen dies Camilla will known as Princess Consort but i dont wanted her as HM Queen you know many people in London,England wanted to still low-profiles of their favourite Princess Diana very much! but i do very much but i dont wanted Camilla become Queen!

Sara Boyce

 

[sara1981]

I think Charles will get the throne eventually. It is his birthright. And who knows, he may turn out to be a good king. Anything is possible. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Plus William should not have such responsibility put on his shoulders at such an early age. He should be allowed to enjoy life and be out of the public eye as much as possible. I think Charles is aware of how things have been for him and wants William not to make the same mistakes or have the same restrictions he did.

Plus, the Queen will not give up the throne until she dies. And seeing how long her mother lived, that could be awhile!! What will most likely happen to Charles is what happened in Germany to the last couple of Kaiser's. One died after a long reign, the son died after a very short reign, then the grandson inherited. So we shall see.

its rough answer!

HM Queen wanted William become King of England because Prince Charles cant become King of England because many people vote for William become King of England but i would agree it! but i think Prince Charles is divorcees to his mother the Princess Diana we have to wait and see what happened!

I would think Prince Charles would become King of England but he really old to become King of England i dont think so! we have to wait and see!

Sara Boyce

 

[mirsada]

I think that if Prince William is married when Queen Elizabeth dies,that he will become king.

 

[branchg]

Charles will be King when his mother dies, unless he is completely incapacitated by a health issue. It is his duty under the law, unless Parliament removes him or grants the throne directly to William, which is highly unlikely. The Camilla issue has already been settled by approval of the marriage. He will not be denied the throne.

 

[tiaraprin]

I have said it before, and I will say it again with much fervor:

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!
MAY THE QUEEN LIVE FOREVER!!

SEND HER VICTORIOUS
HAPPY AND GLORIOUS
LONG TO REIGN OVER US
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!

(love the second verse of God Save the Queen! has the most important line!!)

 

[Elspeth]

May the Queen live forever? Isn't that overdoing it a bit?

 

[tiaraprin]

May the Queen live forever? Isn't that overdoing it a bit?

I know she can't Elspeth, but I wish she would live long enough so that William becomes King upon her death.

 

[Elspeth]

You're asking an awful lot of that poor lad.

 

[tiaraprin]

You're asking an awful lot of that poor lad.

I know that I am. I think Her Majesty could live another 15 years, putting William into his late 30's. I think William can do it. He is intelligent and has the compassion of his late Mum (God Rest Her Soul).

 

[Alexandria]

I know that I am. I think Her Majesty could live another 15 years, putting William into his late 30's. I think William can do it. He is intelligent and has the compassion of his late Mum (God Rest Her Soul).

But is that really fair to William? To be in his late thirties and ruling?

It has been well-documented the negative consequences and effects of a young Queen Elizabeth II's rule -- how her frequent trips abroad put a strain on her young family's life as well as her marriage, how Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward barely saw their parents. (This is also the case for other young monarchs, such as Queen Margrethe II of Denmark with her family. Crown Prince Frederik has said that he spent more time with his nannies than with his own parents.)

Just because some people dislike Charles because he is who he is, because of how he treated Diana, or because they dislike Camilla, doesn't mean that succession should be skipped in favour of William. In a way, that is a slap to both Charles and William: You are robbing Charles of a role that he has been preparing himself for his entire life -- and personal life aside, Charles has been doing a good job professionally in representing Great Britain. And you are also robbing William of a chance to live his own life, to prepare for his role as King as his father did with trips abroad and visitis within Great Britain, and to spend time with his young family.

Just because William is intelligent or has his mom's compassionate doesn't mean that he is ready to rule in his late-thirties. Not only would it be a great strain within the family for William to have succeeded his own father while Charles was still alive, but then the one thing about monarchy that is consistent -- it's bloodline and the passing of the throne from the monarch to his or her eldest child or eldest son -- goes out the window if you allow the picking and choosing of who should rule. Somebody could come along and make the argument that Edward is also intelligent and compassionate, so why not let the Wessexes rule and bypass the Wales' altogether? It's opening up a can of worms that throws caution to the wind with monarchy.

 

[iowabelle]

Put another way. I saw an interview where a prime minister, I think Blair, said that the queen was the one person he could talk to, who didn't have an agenda. He found her personal knowledge and insights of all the world's leaders invaluable. Of course, she's been doing her job 50+ years.

Charles has been building that storage of information for 30+ years.

William is just a newbie, no matter how popular he is.

 

[tiaraprin]

But is that really fair to William? To be in his late thirties and ruling?

It has been well-documented the negative consequences and effects of a young Queen Elizabeth II's rule -- how her frequent trips abroad put a strain on her young family's life as well as her marriage, how Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward barely saw their parents. (This is also the case for other young monarchs, such as Queen Margrethe II of Denmark with her family. Crown Prince Frederik has said that he spent more time with his nannies than with his own parents.)

Just because some people dislike Charles because he is who he is, because of how he treated Diana, or because they dislike Camilla, doesn't mean that succession should be skipped in favour of William. In a way, that is a slap to both Charles and William: You are robbing Charles of a role that he has been preparing himself for his entire life -- and personal life aside, Charles has been doing a good job professionally in representing Great Britain. And you are also robbing William of a chance to live his own life, to prepare for his role as King as his father did with trips abroad and visitis within Great Britain, and to spend time with his young family.

Just because William is intelligent or has his mom's compassionate doesn't mean that he is ready to rule in his late-thirties. Not only would it be a great strain within the family for William to have succeeded his own father while Charles was still alive, but then the one thing about monarchy that is consistent -- it's bloodline and the passing of the throne from the monarch to his or her eldest child or eldest son -- goes out the window if you allow the picking and choosing of who should rule. Somebody could come along and make the argument that Edward is also intelligent and compassionate, so why not let the Wessexes rule and bypass the Wales' altogether? It's opening up a can of worms that throws caution to the wind with monarchy.

I do understand what you are saying iowabelle. I will be really honest here. I don't care if Charles gets "smacked in the face" but I do care about William. I see your point of letting him have a normal life for as long as possible and I do advocate for that on the threads. I lost sight for my concern for William due to my antipathy for Charles.

I fear what will happen when and if Charles becomes King and what he is going to do, what title Camilla is going to get that she doesn't deserve. It could destroy the monarchy. I want to know that the monarchy is going into the 21st century stronger with a good heir to the throne.

I am trying to express what I truly feel here without using base, common language. I am trying to explain in the most proper way possible my feelings on this subject.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What many people don't remember is that the positive press William gets now is the same that his father got at the same age. Then he married the wrong woman and the rest you know.

What would happen if, Charles has been passed over, and then William does something to make him unpopular?

Charles has done a great job as Prince of Wales and is the best prepared Prince of Wales in history to succeed. He will be better prepared now that he is happy in his marriage and has two fine sons.

When Edward VII eventually became king at age 59 I believe he considered for a fleeting moment, and I don't remember who it was he reported that opinion but it may have been Lord Carrington (one of his oldest and truest friends) but Edward decided that his son, with his young family should have a longer time to be a father and even if he could only do the job for a years or so (turned into 9) he should do it as much because it was his birthright and duty but also because it was only fair on his son.

Personally I think Charles will be a wonderful king. I hope that he has a reign of about 20 years and that William doesn't succeed until his 50s. That would only have Charles dying in his late 80s (a few years older than his father is now).

 

[Mapple]

...

I fear what will happen when and if Charles becomes King and what he is going to do, what title Camilla is going to get that she doesn't deserve. It could destroy the monarchy. I want to know that the monarchy is going into the 21st century stronger with a good heir to the throne.

...

Bypassing Charles can have a deleterious effect, too, because it will undermine the principle of hereditary succession. Not to mention the constitutional problems...

I am not a fan of the Prince of Wales, but he has to have his short reign. Maybe he is going to exceed expectations? Edward VII was an execrable Prince of Wales, but he changed into a capable and outstanding King.

The Queen may outlive him, after all.

 

[Mapple]

chrissy57, my post almost mirrors yours...

 

[Warren]

William the Usurper?

I've asked this before without a response so will raise it again...

Why would anyone think that William would have any desire or intention, or would allow himself to be manipulated into usurping his father's right to the Throne?

It's a ridiculous notion.
.

 

[Mapple]

I've asked this before without a response so will raise it again...

Why would anyone think that William would have any desire or intention, or would allow himself to be manipulated into usurping his father's right to the Throne?

It's a ridiculous notion.
.

I think that the 'Williamists' count upon Charles's repudiation of his hereditary rights and the 'aye' votes of sixteen (?) Parliaments of the Commonwealth in response to his wish.

 

[Charlotte1]

Realistically the only way Charles won’t become King is if he dies before his mother. That’s the way a monarchy works the next in line inherits the throne, you don’t get to vote out the ones you don’t like.

For Charles to be passed over it would need an Act of Parliament, and Charles has the support of all 3 major political parties in the UK. The leaders of all three parties congratulated him on his engagement to Camilla and all attended his wedding.

Edward VIII abdicated but it was an actual Act of Parliament passed 2 days after he signed the abdication papers that removed him as king. The person who gave Edward the ultimatum “The throne or the woman you love” was the Prime Minister at the time Stanley Baldwin. Edward was seen as an unsuitable king by the political parties, not because of his relationship with a twice divorced woman but because he openingly admired Adolf Hitler, he tried to interfere with the running of the government ( a big, no-no for a constitutional monarch) and he left papers with State Secrets lying around for anyone to see. Wallis Simpson was a way to remove him.

Charles has done a good job as Prince of Wales. Yes he did have a disastrous first marriage but history is littered with monarchs with messy personal lives, not to mention elected officials ( John F. Kennedy springs to mind!) As Prince of Wales, Charles created The Princes Trust which is the second largest creator of employment opportunities for young unemployed in the UK, he carries out over 500 royal engagements, as the Queen ages he’s gradually taking over some of her duties. Last year working as a charitable entrepreneur he helped raised 109 million pounds, his company Duchy originals which sells organic foods also gave 1 million pounds to charity.

William acknowledges that one day he will be king but he wants try different things first. Why condemn him at an early age ( and yes 30’s is early when you consider there is no retirement from royal duties, the Queen Mother was still doing them in her 90’s.!) to a life of official duties which he himself has said he doesn’t want. In last year’s interview William said that he didn’t want to start doing official duties too early as he will be doing them the rest of his life. In comparison with his father at the same age William has performed very few royal duties.

Charles will make a good king and in time William will too, let him have a life first!

 

[Idriel]

The Prince of Gaffes

Put another way. I saw an interview where a prime minister, I think Blair, said that the queen was the one person he could talk to, who didn't have an agenda. He found her personal knowledge and insights of all the world's leaders invaluable. Of course, she's been doing her job 50+ years.

Charles has been building that storage of information for 30+ years.

William is just a newbie, no matter how popular he is.

I agree with several posters that the Prince Trust is a wonderful institution, Charles' greatest achievement.
But I have to disagree with those who say he is a good Prince of Wales.
Iowabelle, you mention how Blair find in the Queen a person to Mastermind, etc. I highly doubt Charles will ever be that kind of person. He has spent great deal of his life interfering with British political life, expressing all kind of opinions and using his position to spread them. He is a strong opined man (which is good as long as he keep them private, but he doesn't) and has the habit of rubbishing the views that don't go on his way. How can you mastermind with this kind of individual?
The Queen has always been great in keeping her opinions to herself, and there's no doubt she has strong views on a lot of subjects. Head of states which had been granted private interviews with her praise her intelligence and general knowledge, but have you heard her publicly doing a comment? (well apart the one the the J.O., her only gaffe in a long reign).
Charles at his advance age, seems to have no clue how to behave as a Prince of Wales, nor how to handle the press.

But anyway, I totally agree with Mapple that the succession line must be respected, otherwise the monarchy loose all its sense.
And Kudos to Tiaraprin: 'GOD SAVE THE QUEEN'

PS: Charlotte1, despite our desagreement on Charles, I find your post excellent.

 

[Valuk]

Well... I think that Charles is absolutely a fine "candidate" to replace the Queen. He is waiting for the job more than 50 years, and is well trained for being the Head of State. It is true, that his political views are well known to the public, but a lot of his opinions, propolsals and correspondences with goverment ministers were a private matter. It is not his foult, that they were made public. Nevertheless, it is his duty and right that he has such contacts with the goverment. In my opinion the Queen is too much passive in concerns over the monarchy position (against Tony Blair, who would like, from my point of view, debolish the monarchy some day, and would like to be the first president). So, prince Charles in doing a great job as prince of Walles. He will be tough, but good king.

 

[Alicky]

What are the "political views" that everyone keeps mentioning? I know about his stance on architecture, on organic farming and the like lol, but what are his political views?