The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1701  
Old 12-17-2007, 06:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
He reigned 10 years. What is your point? Of course, Charles wil reign, if he is alive and well. No reason he shouldn't.
__________________

  #1702  
Old 12-18-2007, 01:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Distrito federal, Mexico
Posts: 239
It´s possible that Charles will be King of England. However, is not sure.
__________________

  #1703  
Old 12-23-2007, 10:29 AM
zembla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Camden, United States
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
It´s possible that Charles will be King of England. However, is not sure.
This is true...
  #1704  
Old 12-23-2007, 10:56 AM
WindsorIII's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tucson, United States
Posts: 406
I think Charles should reign. He is more than ready and it will give young William a chance to shadow his father (even though its not totally necessary since he has been doing this with his grandmother already)

But it will allow Charles to take the position he's had to wait so long for and also give William a chance to have somewhat of a young life without this great responsibility falling on him so early.

In 10 years or so, a more mature and ready William will be much better suited to take over at that point, even 20 years later.

This seems like a win-win for everyone JMO
  #1705  
Old 12-24-2007, 01:51 AM
madeleine victoria's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: cavite, Philippines
Posts: 783
I think Charles will reign plus it will give more time for William to prepare himself as the next king.
  #1706  
Old 12-24-2007, 02:09 PM
misselle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Altos, United States
Posts: 225
I think Charles will reign,but his reign was always expected to be a short one.I remember at the time of the marriage of Charles and Diana, that expectations were that Charles would be in his late sixites or seventies,perhaps,because his mother had good longevity prospects. Charles was expected to pave the way for his son, William,perhaps starting some changes that his sone wold continue.
  #1707  
Old 12-24-2007, 05:34 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
He reigned 10 years. What is your point? Of course, Charles wil reign, if he is alive and well. No reason he shouldn't.
I think the point was that during his long stint as Prince of Wales under the reign of Queen Victoria, Edward VII was seen as lightweight and not worthy of the throne but once he became King, his reputation made a marvelous recovery.

There's no guarantee that will happen to Charles though.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #1708  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:08 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
I believe HM Queen Elizabeth when she gathered the leadership of the Church of England back a few years ago made it abundantly clear that HRH Prince Charles will most certainly reign when she passes, if he outlives her.

I think the love story or Camilla and Charles is the greatest love story of the previous century. I think we should each WISH that someone would PERMANENTLY love us in that way, no matter what.

It is just pure silliness to think that ALL this work has been done over the past 12 years or so to make Camilla acceptable to the public at large for nothing? She MARRIED Charles, she is a ROYAL, she is TITLED with HRH, hello? When he becomes King, what else would she be? IF there was any real doubt as to whether or not that would be the case, do you really think both the British government and the Church of England would have agreed to the wedding?

What has changed, really? To be blunt, it is NO LONGER REQUIRED that a future Queen be a virgin or never married to anyone other than the King. That's all.
  #1709  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:57 AM
sinulord's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Labasa, Fiji
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha View Post
It´s possible that Charles will be King of England. However, is not sure.
Exactly, and only time will tell. So all we can do is just wait and live to see that day...
  #1710  
Old 12-30-2007, 06:32 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Who can stop Charles from reigning? Getting down to the legalities involved here? It is my understanding that he has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to take the throne? Have I misunderstood something here? This is still a Monarchy, correct, not a democracy?

What options do the British public have and their elected representatives, short of abolishing the Monarchy? Does anyone seriously think that is going to happen in the foreseeable future?

If Charles wished and really didn't care about his place in history, what would be to stop him from simply chucking all but the VERY FEW required duties he has and those are precious few, sitting around being waited on hand and foot and spending a ton of money for the rest of his life? Who would there be to stop him from doing that, both as the Prince of Wales and the King?

I know it may make people feel "empowered" to talk otherwise, but there really is no real choices here, is there?

What did Diana say "I want to be the Queen of People's hearts" YES, but then again she was just about to be divorced and sat right outside the Constitutional Monarchy, wasn't she? She didn't have any choice in the matter, including her HRH as I recall?

The FIRM is well established, very powerful, very wealthy and like it or not, the British public ARE AND CONTINUE TO BE VERY DEFERENTIAL.
  #1711  
Old 12-30-2007, 11:45 AM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I think the love story or Camilla and Charles is the greatest love story of the previous century. I think we should each WISH that someone would PERMANENTLY love us in that way, no matter what.
Exactly, it's a fairytale of the grown up, even Cinderella kind. It is for that reason that those who loved Diana wish to punish the Prince of Wales for ruining their dreams.

Charles will reign if he lives long enough. Otherwise, what would be the point of the monarchy?
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
  #1712  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:17 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Who can stop Charles from reigning? Getting down to the legalities involved here? It is my understanding that he has an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to take the throne? Have I misunderstood something here? This is still a Monarchy, correct, not a democracy?
He can be stopped by Act of Parliament (Parliament is the one with the absolute right to choose a monarch), but that's not going to happen. He doesn't have an absolute right, but only the right granted to him by the law.

Not to stray too much, but democracy can take many forms.
  #1713  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
He can be stopped by Act of Parliament (Parliament is the one with the absolute right to choose a monarch), but that's not going to happen. He doesn't have an absolute right, but only the right granted to him by the law.

Not to stray too much, but democracy can take many forms.
Which would entail abolishing the monarchy, no? Are you suggesting that Parliament can say skip him and give the throne directly to Prince William? If so, please CITE THE LAW that you are basing your opinion on.
  #1714  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:51 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Which would entail abolishing the monarchy, no? Are you suggesting that Parliament can say skip him and give the throne directly to Prince William? If so, please CITE THE LAW that you are basing your opinion on.
Would it abolish the monarchy? No. "Monarchy" isn't even incumbent on being hereditary. The pope is a monarch, as were the elected Kings of Poland.

The current succession is based on Acts of Parliament, and they can be changed, so yes, Parliament can do whatever they want with the succession. They've done it before and they can do it again. See the Act of Settlement 1701 for a reference. Parliament overruled the succession rights of the descendants of James II and gave them to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

They removed Edward VIII from office (on his request, but they still did it), which was the only way he could be removed. See His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 for a reference here.

The British Parliament is completely supreme. Any Act of it is the supreme law and cannot be invalidated by any authority (well, now the EU is involved some, but that's by Act of Parliament as well). If all three parts of Parliament (2 houses and the Queen) pass a law invalidating Charles' succession rights, he will not be the monarch upon the Queen's death. That's probably not going to happen, though.
  #1715  
Old 12-30-2007, 03:59 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
Would it abolish the monarchy? No. "Monarchy" isn't even incumbent on being hereditary. The pope is a monarch, as were the elected Kings of Poland.

The current succession is based on Acts of Parliament, and they can be changed, so yes, Parliament can do whatever they want with the succession. They've done it before and they can do it again. See the Act of Settlement 1701 for a reference. Parliament overruled the succession rights of the descendants of James II and gave them to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover.

They removed Edward VIII from office (on his request, but they still did it), which was the only way he could be removed. See His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 for a reference here.

The British Parliament is completely supreme. Any Act of it is the supreme law and cannot be invalidated by any authority (well, now the EU is involved some, but that's by Act of Parliament as well). If all three parts of Parliament (2 houses and the Queen) pass a law invalidating Charles' succession rights, he will not be the monarch upon the Queen's death. That's probably not going to happen, though.
I have just reviewed the Act of Settlement 1701, in fact BEFORE seeing this post, nowhere within it does it state that Parliament can jump around within a Royal family and pick and choose? It clearly definies a line that is to be followed.

Yes, King Edward VIII did sign a ABDICATION, if he would have refused to do so and married Wallis anyway, his "government" ministers would have resigned? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Once again, Parliament could CHOOSE to abolish the Monarchy, but really nothing else would have been available.

Here is my bottom line point in all of this, YES, the British people through their elected government can throw the Monarchy out on it's ears, that goes without saying. It also goes without saying that is NOT going to happen, the British public are way too enamored with both the pomp and ceremony and as a whole that they too may someday, somewhere in their lineage be aristocratic and somebodies and we both know that.
  #1716  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:13 PM
Chimene's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 591
What purpose would it serve if Charles were to be skipped in the line of succession?
__________________
The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind. ~ Albert Camus
  #1717  
Old 12-30-2007, 04:49 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
I have just reviewed the Act of Settlement 1701, in fact BEFORE seeing this post, nowhere within it does it state that Parliament can jump around within a Royal family and pick and choose? It clearly definies a line that is to be followed.
And as it is an Act of Parliament, it can be amended, as no Parliament can bind a successor Parliament from changing the law. I was using it as an example of Parliament changing its mind about succession, anyways. If Parliament wanted, it could amend the Act of Settlement with a new Act removing Charles from succession. That won't happen, however.

Parliament doesn't need a legal authorization to pass an Act. It's authorization is its complete and total supremacy over the law.

My point is that "can," "will," and "should" are all different things. Can Parliament remove Charles? Yes. Will they? Most likely not. Should they? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Yes, King Edward VIII did sign a ABDICATION, if he would have refused to do so and married Wallis anyway, his "government" ministers would have resigned? I seem to recall reading that somewhere. Once again, Parliament could CHOOSE to abolish the Monarchy, but really nothing else would have been available.
Edward VIII didn't have the power to stop being the monarch. Only Parliament had that power. Parliament could have said no had they been in a cruel mood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Here is my bottom line point in all of this, YES, the British people through their elected government can throw the Monarchy out on it's ears, that goes without saying. It also goes without saying that is NOT going to happen, the British public are way too enamored with both the pomp and ceremony and as a whole that they too may someday, somewhere in their lineage be aristocratic and somebodies and we both know that.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimene View Post
What purpose would it serve if Charles were to be skipped in the line of succession?
It wouldn't serve a purpose.
  #1718  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:06 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Dear wbenson,
You have put valid arguments in defending your point of view. I have learnt the things about the succession rules I have never expected to exist. If the parties concerned do not approve Prince Charles due to some valid reason, who will be considered as the next in line (i.e., Prince William or Prince Andrew)?

Although highly unlikely
, hard core traditional monarchists, if such people exist, may play the morganatic marriage card.
  #1719  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:31 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Dear wbenson,
You have put valid arguments in defending your point of view. I have learnt the things about the succession rules I have never expected to exist. If the parties concerned do not approve Prince Charles due to some valid reason, who will be considered as the next in line (i.e., Prince William or Prince Andrew)?

Although highly unlikely
, hard core traditional monarchists, if such people exist, may play the morganatic marriage card.
If they did such a thing and merely invalidated Charles, it would go to William. I'd imagine that if they were ever so petty, they may just pretend Charles never existed and strike all of his heirs, too, but they don't have to.

I'd like to see them try to play a Morganatic Marriage card, considering there's no such thing in UK law. It would be fun to disprove them!
  #1720  
Old 12-30-2007, 05:51 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 8,012
Thanks for explaining about the morgnatic marriage situation in the United Kingdom. Well ... Now I understand why Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Charles exert every effort to appease the society at large and, thus, gain a wide acceptance of people. This slightly resembles presidential campaigns.
__________________

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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