That’s what The King’s Speech is largely about. The Duchess of York remarks at one point that she only spurned Bertie’s first proposals because she did not want the royal life, and finally accepted on reasoning that a second-son stammerer like Bertie would be left out of it. Bertie, for his part, can barely bear being a prince (understandably, given his problem), and has less-than-zero enthusiasm for the crown. (How true-to-life that is I don’t know.)
Calm down, guvnor. 'Ere, 'ave a Princess Kate foot-scrubber! 
What if a young royal got interested in journalism, and eventually became a highly regarded commentator with an internationally-syndicated column?
My thinking is, not only would he have to drop that on accession – a king cannot comment on politics – but no royal nearer than tenth in line for the throne would even be allowed to start down that path.
Gee, I thought she was the daughter of the Earl of Spencer (didn’t that make her an Honorable?) and the descendent of Charles II and James II, albeit from the wrong side of the blanket. Not very common, I don’t think.
Roddy
At the rate the royals age William might be pretty old himself.
Charles will turn 63 this year. His father, Prince Philip, is turning 90 soon and is still clipping along. If Charles can lastas long as his Dad, and there’s no reasonwe know of that he can’t, William might not earn the crown until he’s inhis fifties. At least.
Let’s be honest; millions want Chuck to just step aside, but he’ll never do it in part because if he did, Elizabeth would rise from the grave to strangle him with her own bare, rotting hands. She is openly contemptuous of the concept of a monarch abdicating; she is absolutely, totally dedicated to the commitment of a sovereign to their country for their entire life, and she’s been teaching Charles that his whole life.
Her legal status up until her marriage was identical with that of the ordinary woman on the Clapham omnibus: that of a commoner. Which is exactly the same legal status that Kate had up until her marriage yesterday.
Diana’s titles before her marriage were courtesy titles, nothing more.
There is an alternative POV which is also popular: that she’s hanging on as long as possible so Charles doesn’t become King.
Not in the UK they don’t. Very few people want to see tradition thrown away like that. Why on Earth should Charles “step aside”? It’s a ridiculous notion.
Yes in the UK they do. That’s my experience - and I happen to be of that opinion too.
What’s the criticism of Charles? Granted that he’s not the most charismatic guy, but the job is largely ceremonial, and one he’s been doing all his life anyway. All of the scandals surrounding him that I’m aware of have to do with his personal life, not his statecraft.
Well, his coronation will be about 15 years from now, so I assume futuristicky lasers and jumpsuits will be involved.
Please refer to the following article, from a month ago:
If 37 percent of Britons want Williams to be the next monarch, how is that not millions of people in the UK? Charles has a slim lead, but it sure looks to me like millions of people in the UK - 37 percent of 65 million is many millions - would prefer Williams. And that’s down from a few years ago.
Why would Charles be such a disaster on the throne?
Believe it or not, there was actually some controversy of similar nature around the 1953 coronation of Elizabeth II. Here’s a fascinating documentary I found on YouTube, “The Queen’s Coronation: Behind Palace Walls.” It’s mainly about head-butting between the traditionalist Queen Mother and the jet-age modernizer Prince Philip. Philip failed to get the name of the royal house changed from “Windsor” to “Mountbatten.” His wife compensated him by making him head of the Coronation Commission, but even there the Duke of Norfolk and the Queen Mother were the real powers. (It’s like reading about royal intrigue in a Renaissance drama – except there are no actual knives out, and nobody is fighting over actual political power, but only about matters of status and protocol and symbolism.)
Philip did finally prevail in his desire to have the Coronation televised. That was really controversial – George VI’s had been the first coronation even to be filmed for the newsreels (and that was subject to editing). Some protested letting live TV cameras into Westminster Abbey for the Coronation would be “letting in light on the magic” of the monarchy. PM Winston Churchill even said, “A religious ceremony should never be turned into a theatrical performance.” – perhaps the only time in his long public career Churchill ever succeeded in sounding like an idiot.
Compare that with this bit of dialogue from the BBC drama Bertie & Elizabeth: In 1920, the Royal Family is discussing plans for Prince Berties’ (later George VI) wedding to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.
ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My feeling, Sir, is that the wedding of these two young people, the Duke and Duchess of York, should be filmed, if that is thought appropriate, but not allowed to be recorded over the wireless. The people might listen to it in inappropriate places.
PRINCE OF WALES: Ha-ha! What exactly do you mean by that?
ARCHBISHOP: Public houses, for example! They might also not remove their hats at solemn moments!
The Queen Mother was also a commoner before her marriage. Simply having a title does not make you Royal.
He will be expected to give the PM advice, that’s probably the most important part of the job, alongside diplomacy. Several ex-PMs have said that the Queen’s experience has been useful, and she has been remarkably non-partisan.
Because no-one expects him to be good at the above, and because he looks like an idiot. Basically, George W. Bush. I suspect this is a PR problem, rather than actual fact, but I’ve never heard anyone say they look forward to his reign.
Look, would William be an improvement in that regard? Charles has some issues he cares about, regarding which he could be expected to fill the ear of every PM. These include architecture, urban planning, organic farming and alternative medicine. You might regard some of his views in some of these areas as a bit crackpot, but they’re all informed opinions of a kind which the prince has at least taken the trouble to form and have. (And all of them fall under the Mostly Harmless category regardless of whether HRH’s opinions in these fields are right or wrong.) William is . . . a good lad and a dutiful soldier. He and Harry both are men of action, really, to the extent royals are allowed to be (William is an RAF rescue chopper pilot, and we all remember how much Harry wanted to get to the front in Afghanistan) – not men of goode rede and conseyl, or however Chaucer might have put it. No intellectual interests at all, that I ever heard of.
One of the problems with Charles is his, uh, interesting choice of issues to care about - he would hardly be unbiased or non-partisan in some situations. He’s clearly not as much of an idiot as he sometimes comes across though, that’s why I mentioned bad PR.
As for William, I really know very little about his views. I suspect that he will become more involved in the diplomatic side of royal activities in the near future, and through that learn about the realities of politics.
You mean, that these apparently esthetic issues – architecture, etc. – are perhaps just a little bit too, well, political? I.e., at least touching on matters where HM Government will have to form some actual policies that involve spending tax pounds, and they need to seen to be forming their own policies independently of any royal nudzhing, nagging or kibitzing. Is that what you mean, and could it actually be a constitutional or political problem? Like in To Play the King? (Please do not respond to this post to inform me that you couldn’t possibly comment.)
Well, the rules on alternative medicine are being changed, and as you say Charles is interested in that. As King, it would be completely inappropriate for him to comment publicly on these changes. It’s unlikely to be a constitutional issue, but the monarch does not have the right to speak against the government.