The US President doesn’t move without a gigantic military operation, every day, every location. Understandable, like, because it’s a dangerous job. William and Kate rode around London in an open topped carriage, and later in an open topped car.
Since you put it that way . . . come to think of it . . . I guess there is really no one person in the UK whom it is really worth an enemy’s trouble to assassinate. Not the PM, not even the Queen. (Of course they still need security, or nutcases will try for their own reasons.)
Of course there will be public protest. The questions are whether it will be more or less than the nominal level present, and how the authorities will deal with it.
For example, will the leading anarchists be whisked away for a day the way they were for last week’s wedding, or will free speech zones be better delineated, or will the authorities find other ways of keeping the event clear of nuisances who wish to loudly advertise their opinions?
http://www.cveitch.org/?cat=1
There’s been a few scares: the Queen, and the Queen’s horse thought they were getting shot at in 1981 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5FD3-CsMbc . That’s a good horse, that.
Charles seemed unconcerned here in (I think) New Zealand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9kbOTJGkT8&feature=related
Princess Anne was the intended victim of a kidnapping Anne, Princess Royal - Wikipedia
And sounding like a drunk, hateful, class focused idiot is another thing altogether. But one Churchill was rather good at.
I read Churchill’s *The Second World War * (the whole lot). Impressive, eh? Well, the man could write, but…no, read Field Marshall Alan Brooke’s Letters. Churchill was a stone cold nutter, and the General Staff seem to have spent a big chunk of WWII talking him down.
Also a reminder that the guys in the pretty red uniforms with the big furry hats aren’t just for show - they’re real guards and went into the crowd after the guy.
From what? Did he want to parachute into Berlin and strangle Hitler himself, or something?
Toy soldiers with real ammo! 
Diana was a member of the nobility–true, she was not royal, but she was hardly a commoner. She was an Earl’s daughter–a Lady.
It may be a “courtesy” title, but her background was not near the same as Kate’s or any other commoner’s.
I really don’t get the Charles hate. I get the Camilla hate and share it a bit. Not that I’m a huge fan of Diana–all I think of when people talk of her is a lamb to slaughter and then a media diva. But who among us could live the fish-bowl that she did and not become odd?
I hope that that doesn’t happen for Wills and Kate, but it probably will.
Charles would be a perfectly adequate King. Having strong opinions about something as a Prince does not mean he would still air them as King. I think he’s probably learned a thing or two about dealing with the PM etc from his mum. There is no good reason for him to abdicate. Nor is there good reason for Elizabeth to step down. It is what it is, the British monarchy. It survived Edward’s abdication and other, truly BAD kings prior to this; I think it can withstand a few years of Charles.
I cannot speak for others, but I don’t hate Charles; I just don’t think he’s up to the job.
“Commoner” is a specific term in British law. From Wiki:
Under the strictest definition of commoner, even William was one until Friday at 8:00 AM UK time (when he became a Duke).
There’s commoner and then there’s commoner. I’d like to be a Diana like commoner, rather than a run of the mill one… 
Eh? Wouldn’t “HRH Prince William of Wales” already have fallen outside the commoner category? Wouldn’t any HRH?
No, at least not legally. Anyone not a peer or the Sovereign is a commoner.
In everyday use, the word’s used much more as you’d imagine though, and it’s only usually the Daily Mail that gets snotty about using it correctly.
I believe the heir can marry a widow, so technically, he or she doesn’t have to be a virgin, in the strictest sense. It’s happened previously.
People said the same thing about his great-great grandfather, Edward VII. Their fears were pretty much unfounded – and that was when the monarch had a great deal more power than he/she does now.
(Interestingly, one of Edward’s mistresses was Camilla’s great-grandmother. Unlike Charles, he had quite a number, not just one)
It’s seems you’re impossible to satisfy. On the one hand, you don’t want the king to be a fool – that is, you don’t want him to be an actor/soldier/host and nothing more, with no knowledge or ideas in his head relevant to public policy. OTOH, you don’t want the king to be a meddler – but what is the good of his having any ideas in his head, if he does not even meddle?
It’s the public pronouncements that would be the issue, not the fact that he has opinions. Look at what the Queen does, and doesn’t, say in public, that is how I would hope Charles would behave as well. I imagine he will, I don’t think he’s stupid.
I do think Charles will be a lesser monarch that his mother, but almost anyone would struggle to follow her.