The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1561  
Old 10-02-2007, 08:21 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Except for the fact that Charles married before his accession with the full approval of the Queen, Church, and government and has met no legal opposition and would see no reason to abdicate due to Camilla. Yes, very similar.
I have to disagree. They did NOT have the approval of the church. They were NOT allowed to marry in the church. They had a civil service (I believe the 1st British royal ever to do so) and a service of dedication in the church. I think the jury is still out regarding the coronation and the Church of England. We shall see.
__________________

  #1562  
Old 10-02-2007, 08:56 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 9
of course, he will. why he shouldn't reign? he only won't reign when he dies before his mother
__________________

  #1563  
Old 10-02-2007, 09:55 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,979
Why in the world are we even discussing the topic of abdication? Does anyone really believe that after Edward VIII;s abdication that any member of the Royal Family would ever consider that? Charles is not going to abdicate--he has important ideas and beliefs and he will be a true asset to Great Britain when he ascends to the crown and thusly, the role he was born to fulfill. He and Camilla will be the King and Queen Consort, not the next Duke and Duchess of Windsor. To even entertain such discussion is rather silly.
Why the discussion about Charles becoming King? Why is it such an issue for some? Is it really because of Camilla? That is illogical and unreasonable. Charles is distinguished, has done his job as PoW, married a lovely girl and produced two heirs, dealt with harsh criticism in the media (who really don't count as far as I'm concerned--I can't stand yellow type journalism), and married the love of his life, who is a stepmother to his children and he to hers. Honestly--in many ways, they mirror the lives of the citizens they represent. Why the uproar? I just don't see any real reason for Charles to not ascend.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #1564  
Old 10-02-2007, 11:15 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
Why in the world are we even discussing the topic of abdication? Does anyone really believe that after Edward VIII;s abdication that any member of the Royal Family would ever consider that? Charles is not going to abdicate--he has important ideas and beliefs and he will be a true asset to Great Britain when he ascends to the crown and thusly, the role he was born to fulfill. He and Camilla will be the King and Queen Consort, not the next Duke and Duchess of Windsor. To even entertain such discussion is rather silly.
Why the discussion about Charles becoming King? Why is it such an issue for some? Is it really because of Camilla? That is illogical and unreasonable. Charles is distinguished, has done his job as PoW, married a lovely girl and produced two heirs, dealt with harsh criticism in the media (who really don't count as far as I'm concerned--I can't stand yellow type journalism), and married the love of his life, who is a stepmother to his children and he to hers. Honestly--in many ways, they mirror the lives of the citizens they represent. Why the uproar? I just don't see any real reason for Charles to not ascend.
I truly enjoy reading your witty and apt posts. However, I do not understand your outburst in regard to possibility that Prince Charles might abdicate. Not all members would like to see him as a King. Although I do agree that Prince Charles is to become the next King, the course of life may surprise us.
I would say that Prince Charles used a lovely girl and produced heirs, as well as dealt with harsh criticism in the media because he was unable to keep his family life private and orderly. Right you are stating that personal life of Prince of Wales “… mirror[s] the lives of the citizens [he] represent[s]” (jcbcode99, 2007). However, it is detrimental to the royals and nobility to mirror the lives of their subjects too much.
  #1565  
Old 10-02-2007, 02:00 PM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: N/A, Germany
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
I truly enjoy reading your witty and apt posts. However, I do not understand your outburst in regard to possibility that Prince Charles might abdicate. Not all members would like to see him as a King. Although I do agree that Prince Charles is to become the next King, the course of life may surprise us.
I would say that Prince Charles used a lovely girl and produced heirs, as well as dealt with harsh criticism in the media because he was unable to keep his family life private and orderly. Right you are stating that personal life of Prince of Wales “… mirror[s] the lives of the citizens [he] represent[s]” (jcbcode99, 2007). However, it is detrimental to the royals and nobility to mirror the lives of their subjects too much.
The British monarchy is built of succession. Charles is the heir to the throne and he will be the next King. Why should he abdicate? He had learned his whole life to fulfil this ´role´ one day. Nobody else could do this better than he can do in the near future. Everyone who follwed his life and his ´job´ as Prince of Wales know that.
The critizism of his private life is your opinion, my is that his life is a very human one, with good and bad times, with many great things and some mistakes too.
But it is not really important wheater some poeple here wants to see see him as a King or not: He is the future King and he will reign!
__________________
´We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we don´t get this right, how will they ever forgive us?´
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
  #1566  
Old 10-02-2007, 03:17 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by milla Ca View Post
The British monarchy is built of succession. Charles is the heir to the throne and he will be the next King. Why should he abdicate? He had learned his whole life to fulfil this ´role´ one day. Nobody else could do this better than he can do in the near future. Everyone who follwed his life and his ´job´ as Prince of Wales know that.
The critizism of his private life is your opinion, my is that his life is a very human one, with good and bad times, with many great things and some mistakes too.
But it is not really important wheater some poeple here wants to see see him as a King or not: He is the future King and he will reign!
Dear milla Ca,
I did state that Prince Charles, whether you love or hate him, is to become the next King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, I am glad that his learning to fulfil this role still continues.
  #1567  
Old 10-02-2007, 05:23 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
He couldn't "abdicate" until he became king. Has any one ever heard of abdicating the throne before having the throne? It's impossible. I suspect people sometimes use the word abdicate when a different word is actually meant.
__________________
aka Janet on some other forums
  #1568  
Old 10-02-2007, 05:36 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Distrito federal, Mexico
Posts: 239
I don´t want to be pessimistic, but Charles has a lot of problems. Iam not sure, but I think is more less popular than his sons.
  #1569  
Old 10-02-2007, 08:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4 View Post
He couldn't "abdicate" until he became king. Has any one ever heard of abdicating the throne before having the throne? It's impossible. I suspect people sometimes use the word abdicate when a different word is actually meant.
He took the calculated bet that he would be able to marry Camilla in the face of the constitutional/coronation issues. Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time. By no means do I assume that it will be the present one. Whomever is the A of C will be in the position of saying yea or nay to the coronation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it must be the A of C as the highest churchman in the land to perform the actual coronation ceremony. Charles must also, as part of the oath, vow to uphold the established Church of England...the same one that would not marry Charles and Camilla. The EXACT same situation caused Uncle 'David' to relinquish the throne to marry Wallis. Can someone explain to me how it's different? In some ways it's a more toublesome situation as the extramarital affair between Camilla and Charles was the cause (at least partly) of the demise of both the Parker-Bowles and also the Wales marriages.

I dont begrudge happiness to any of the parties, but I am very concerned about the constitutional issues, and from what I have read, so is QEII.
  #1570  
Old 10-02-2007, 08:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
He took the calculated bet that he would be able to marry Camilla in the face of the constitutional/coronation issues. Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time. By no means do I assume that it will be the present one. Whomever is the A of C will be in the position of saying yea or nay to the coronation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it must be the A of C as the highest churchman in the land to perform the actual coronation ceremony. Charles must also, as part of the oath, vow to uphold the established Church of England...the same one that would not marry Charles and Camilla. The EXACT same situation caused Uncle 'David' to relinquish the throne to marry Wallis. Can someone explain to me how it's different? In some ways it's a more toublesome situation as the extramarital affair between Camilla and Charles was the cause (at least partly) of the demise of both the Parker-Bowles and also the Wales marriages.

I dont begrudge happiness to any of the parties, but I am very concerned about the constitutional issues, and from what I have read, so is QEII.
When the time comes , the constitution and legality of the actions will be attuned to fit the circumstances of Prince Charles.
  #1571  
Old 10-02-2007, 08:49 PM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4 View Post
He couldn't "abdicate" until he became king. Has any one ever heard of abdicating the throne before having the throne? It's impossible. I suspect people sometimes use the word abdicate when a different word is actually meant.
You're right selrahc4, I shouldn't have used 'abdicate'. "Steps down" is the better phrasing for a heir
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
  #1572  
Old 10-02-2007, 09:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
He took the calculated bet that he would be able to marry Camilla in the face of the constitutional/coronation issues. Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time. By no means do I assume that it will be the present one. Whomever is the A of C will be in the position of saying yea or nay to the coronation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that it must be the A of C as the highest churchman in the land to perform the actual coronation ceremony. Charles must also, as part of the oath, vow to uphold the established Church of England...the same one that would not marry Charles and Camilla. The EXACT same situation caused Uncle 'David' to relinquish the throne to marry Wallis. Can someone explain to me how it's different? In some ways it's a more toublesome situation as the extramarital affair between Camilla and Charles was the cause (at least partly) of the demise of both the Parker-Bowles and also the Wales marriages.
I dont begrudge happiness to any of the parties, but I am very concerned about the constitutional issues, and from what I have read, so is QEII.
I am impressed with your insights. I never considered the the chuurch could still object. I assumed it was a foregone conclusion.
  #1573  
Old 10-02-2007, 09:35 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
It is highly unlikely the Government and the Church could take a stand similar to 1936 with Edward VIII with regard to Charles being married to Camilla. For one thing, he already married her with the consent of the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury and she shares his rank and titles as his lawful wife. However, if there is a public outcry when he becomes King at the prospect of Queen Camilla, the situation becomes very tricky indeed.

Legally, there is no way to deny her the rights and precedence of being Queen unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth consent to a change in the title of the consort by passing legislation. If they choose not to do it, Charles would have no choice but to abdicate in favor of William. There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.
  #1574  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
It is highly unlikely the Government and the Church could take a stand similar to 1936 with Edward VIII with regard to Charles being married to Camilla. For one thing, he already married her with the consent of the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury and she shares his rank and titles as his lawful wife. However, if there is a public outcry when he becomes King at the prospect of Queen Camilla, the situation becomes very tricky indeed.

Legally, there is no way to deny her the rights and precedence of being Queen unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth consent to a change in the title of the consort by passing legislation. If they choose not to do it, Charles would have no choice but to abdicate in favor of William. There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.
You are so right. But I hope that this will not happen. I believe that Prince Charles will be an excellent king when the time comes.For me, it will be a huge waste and a pity that he would be forced to choose abdication because of his marriage circumstances.
  #1575  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:39 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,873
One of the main objections to Edward VIII, even as Prince of Wales before Mrs Simpson came on the scene, was the increasing concern of people around him that he wasn't suitable to be King for a variety of reasons and even that he wasn't particularly interested in the role. Because of that, I don't think the government had a lot of incentive to find a way round the Mrs Simpson problem as long as they could use it as an excuse to force an abdication. I don't think Charles has quite the same baggage in terms of being uninterested in or unfit for the position.

The Archbishop will be in an awkward position if he tries to deny Charles a coronation on the basis of his second marriage since the current Archbishop gave his consent to the marriage and officiated at the blessing. I suppose a more hard-line future Archbishop might take a different line, but it isn't as though Charles married in the teeth of united opposition from the Church, so it'd be unlikely.

And to be honest, if an Archbishop did try to pull a stunt like that, I think it might backfire rather badly. If Charles outlives the Queen, he'll be King from the moment the Queen dies, coronation or no coronation. I presume it'd be legal for him to continue to be King till his death even if he's never crowned. It just means that he couldn't wear the crown at state occasions, but he'd still be King. I think if an Archbishop tried to force the issue by refusing to crown him King or refusing to crown Camilla Queen Consort, questions might be asked about why the Church is all of a sudden overruling the law and deciding who's suitable to be King and who isn't, especially given some of the questionable characters who've been crowned in the past. I think it'd be every bit as likely to result in disestablishment of the CofE as in abdication by Charles.
  #1576  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
It is highly unlikely the Government and the Church could take a stand similar to 1936 with Edward VIII with regard to Charles being married to Camilla. For one thing, he already married her with the consent of the Government and the Archbishop of Canterbury and she shares his rank and titles as his lawful wife. However, if there is a public outcry when he becomes King at the prospect of Queen Camilla, the situation becomes very tricky indeed.

Legally, there is no way to deny her the rights and precedence of being Queen unless Parliament and the Crown Commonwealth consent to a change in the title of the consort by passing legislation. If they choose not to do it, Charles would have no choice but to abdicate in favor of William. There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.
Who is going to organize the public outcry against Queen Camilla? Are there any serious groups that do not wish to have Queen Camilla? As far as I can judge from various posts of the members and article links provided by the above members, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has appreciated better sides of Duchess of Cornwall and can accept the situation of having her as a Queen or Princess Consort (whatever title she may prefer to have).
  #1577  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:59 PM
pinkie40's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
Charles does face public ridicule due to his quirks and personal issues...talking to plants, Defender of Faiths, admitted adultery of Diana and, sadly, his big ears...and such ridicule and mirth was exactly what the Queen Mum did not have in mind when her favourite grandson would have to face when it was his turn to reign...but she was well aware of all of this and knew it was part of the "landscape" so to speak...

Yet what Prince Charles has, due to a lot of credit to Camilla's influence behind the scenes, are deep and powerful friendships, sponsors and support from some very good and very important people aorund the globe.

Prince Charles will face some twittering, some deep ridicule and unflattering comparisions but his reign will be surpirisingly strong.
  #1578  
Old 10-02-2007, 11:03 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Maybe he will be allowed to ascend and maybe he wont. It mostly rests IMO, on who is the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time.
The Archbishop has absolutely no say whatsoever in who the next monarch is, except for his one vote in the House of Lords. Succession is set forth by Act of Parliament, and only Parliament can change it.

I think that if the Archbishop were to go that overboard anyways, he would be "resigning" fairly quickly under pressure from multiple sources.
  #1579  
Old 10-03-2007, 08:24 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,587
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage. The fact that it does not recognise divorce and remarriage was the reason that Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a service of dedication in the church, rather than marrying in the church. If he is 'not in good standing' as it were, how can he swear to uphold the church? As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla. When they were getting engaged, there was a site where about 90% of the posters were saying if Charles and Camilla waned to get married, he should step down from the line of succession. I am personally not in one faction or another. I just think the remarriage has created a consititutional mess re: the coronation. Technically Charles is a widower in the eyes of the church, it's Camilla who is still regarded as a divorcee, unless APB dies before the coronation. Now, if APB dies, start the conspiracy theories!!
  #1580  
Old 10-03-2007, 09:12 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
I There is no way the Government will accept a King and consort without the support of the public.
Forget it! Who is the public anyway? A lot of people believe only because there was such a public outcry after Diana's death that there will be enough emotion from the public against a king Charles? why should that happen? The public is so used to the idea that Charles is the next king that close to nobody sprang on Diana's bandwagon when she tried to push her own son forward. And today is 10 years later! people will mourn some day the then late QEII and look to her grieving son with a lot of sympathy and hope for a reign that preserves all they held dear in the current reign. They will see a mourning new monarch with his supporting and loving wife and good-looking sons doing their duty for their people. Where should the revolutionary emotion come from that is needed to actually change the form of organisation of the demoracies of the Commonwealth states?

It's not that Charles in any way threatens anyone! And come on, his private life is rather boring compared to the lifes of quite a lot of his younger future subjects. So why should they bother?

As for the Church of England: Charles will be king of Scotland as well and the Church of Scotland would have no problem at all to see him crowned along with his wife. That some of the Scots don't want to see him as their new king is something else entirely....

As for the government: believe me, the Prime Minister knows exactly how important it is to have a seperation between head of the state and head of the government. You can see it in mayn countries where the leader is one and the same that this causes problems other countries don't know. Because the head of the state is there for anybody while the head of the government may be as partial or biased as he well pleases, being the leader of the leading party and not of the state. Has to do with PR, I guess.

So where should be the political interest in removing Charles - for no reasons other than that he married the wrong first wife and choose the second more wisely? Germany at one time had a chancellor and foreign minister who all in all had married eight times - each one of them has had four wifes! Did it matter for their political success? Of course not! So why should such a private episode matter to a politician?
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reign of Felipe VI: How Will Things Be Different? muriel King Felipe VI, Queen Letizia and Family 90 01-03-2017 06:30 PM
“The Lady Queen: the Notorious Reign of Joanna I, Queen of Naples, Jerusalem, and Sic An Ard Ri Royal Library 0 07-06-2014 07:27 PM
Is Victoria Ready to Reign? NotAPretender Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 20 06-19-2011 07:05 AM
Elizabeth II: Oldest British Monarch (Dec 20 2007); 2nd Longest Reign (May 12 2011) WindsorIII Queen Elizabeth II 33 05-30-2011 07:40 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names birth britain britannia british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation customs daisy duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten nara period pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family suthida taiwan thai royal family tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×