I certainly hope Prince Charles doesn’t become King: I don’t think him fit for the job. He reminds me of Edward VIII. Prince William may or may not be any good - I don’t know - but he’s too young. I would like to see Her Majesty live until William and Harry are seasoned and proven and then pass the crown directly to the better.
I’m no expert but in the UK the monarchy provides an important constitutional bulwark against an elected dictatorship. The Royal Veto has only been used once in the past 150-odd years (Queen Victoria about lesbianism - but that’s a discussion for elsewhere) but it exists.
But, in the time that he was King, he was known as the Peacemaker. He was a damned good King. And everyone thought he would be a terrible King-especially his mother.
Charles is NOTHING like the Duke of Windsor. Edward, or David, as he was called because of the many Edwards in the family, was frivolous, immature, fickle, and he especially did NOT want to be King at all. If it hadn’t been for Wallis, it would have been something else that would have prompted him to abdicate.
Charles, on the other hand, DOES want to be King, and while his relationship with Camilla DOES parallel that of David’s with Wallis Simpson, Charles is smarter than the Duke of Windsor, and I think he will end up being a decent King.
In fact, he’s even LESS of a playboy than Edward VII. Edward (or “Bertie”), was a notorious womanizer. Charles may have cheated on Diana, but he and Camilla ARE a steady item nowadays, and he’s not out drinking and caroussing and partying constantly, like Edward.
I think it’s more interesting to speculate on what name Charles will take-he might just decide to become King George VII. His grandfather, George VI was NEVER known as George until he became King-his first name was Albert, and he was called Bertie like his grandfather, or Prince Albert, like his great-grandfather. He had a younger brother whose first name was George (the Duke of Kent).
I have a question regarding the idea of Charles “passing” the throne to his son when Elizabeth dies.
IIRC, when Edward wanted to abdicate, the second article of the Abdication Act he signed in essence said that both he and his descendants would be ineligible to occupy the throne (and they would also be exempt from the Royal Marriages Act). As such, should Charles issue a similar decree, wouldn’t that also affect his children as well, thus handing the throne to Prince Andrew?
Zev, that’s right as far as it goes. However, I see no reason why they couldn’t draw up another Act - and, IMHO, any government in office at the time could count on massive support for an Act that allowed the son of Saint Diana to inherit ahead of time (and, by the same token, would be committing political suicide if they did the opposite).
We could however start a whole new thread on the relative merits of elected versus hereditary leaders. My own view is that in a democracy, you get the leaders best able to persuade people to vote for them - not necessarily the most able or honest leaders. The reader has a pencil and paper…
Are you maybe thinking of Edward VIII? The one who married Wallis Simpson and abdicated the throne?
At any rate, my comparison of Edward VII to Charles was merely in the span of time he may reign, and that Queen Victoria certainly didn’t seem prone to leaving the throne early for his sake.
Well, genetics and longevity are the main problems Charles faces. Women of the royal family, from Victoria to Elizabeth II (not to mention the recently deceased queen mother) tend to live a looooong time. Charles is likely to be a rather old fellow before he gets a chance (assuming his mum doesn’t outlive him!).
Um, the reason Edward VIII’s children would have been ineligible to inherit was because his marriage to Wallis Simpson was unequal-it was technically morganatic, and thus, his children wouldn’t be able to inherit.
However, if Charles abdicated, it would NOT cause William and Harry to lose their rights.
Oh, sorry, lolagranola. No, I’m thinking of Edward VII. My point is, even if Charles only does reign for say, 10 years, it could still be a good one. And yes, Edward VII was a major playa.
They give it all to the Government, so I suppose you could say they do pay tax at a rate of 100%. I think the Queen also pays tax on the money she receives from the civil list, this was a fairly recent development.
I tend to agree with Guinastasia. Actually, I think that, when the time comes, there will be a strong sense that Charles should be given a fair chance to give it a go. Having said that, no informed observers think that the Queen is going to abdicate. Although she has never said so in as many words, she has dropped some very heavy hints that she intends to keep going. Moreover, Charles is not necessarily in any real hurry to become King as he has rather more freedom to air his views as Prince of Wales than he would ever have as King. Nor is there any evidence that William wants the job while his grandmother and father are still around.
The main reason why Edward VIII’s abdication included the provision about his descendants is because, at the time, he had no children (yes, I know that he didn’t have any later either), so any descendants he did have might otherwise have argued that they had a claim to the throne, even although George VI (or his heirs) had already succeeded. The precedents on whether an abdication must extend to the descendants can be argued either way and, had Edward had children by a previous marriage, the arrangements made in 1936 might have been different. There seems little doubt that a future Act of Abdication could allow a monarch to abdicate without excluding their existing children.
[nitpick - for the benefit of Sunspace]
Er, not quite. What you’re thinking of is the old story that the government felt unable to introduce legislation against lesbianism because her ministers could not persuade Victoria that lesbians existed. That is not the same as using the Royal Veto, which was in fact last used as long ago as 1707.
In any case, the whole story is a myth. The assumption underlying it is that the government intended to outlaw lesbianism as part of a broader change to the laws against homosexuality. However, the only change made to the laws on homosexuality in that period was introduced as an initiative from the backbenches.
I can’t believe the “Royals” ever having a problem with homosexuality, sodomy or any sexually “deviant” behavior. (allright guys…I’m not gay bashing here, deviant as defined by many US laws)
sorry 'bout the hijack…kinda got offtrack there
Does anyone really care whether Prince Charley gets his shot or not?
It appears to me, the Brits are grooming his son and kinda blowing him off.
Doesn’t make a difference. Assuming he doesn’t do something like become or marry a Catholic, there is nothing that anyone (outside of Parliament) can do to prevent Charles from becoming king upon Elizabeth’s demise.
Parliament could act, but I highly doubt that they’ll officially act to oust him simply because he may not be likeable enough.
zev - Marriage or conversion to Catholicism would be a bar to the throne? I didn’t know that. Seems sort of close-minded. I know the monarch is the head of the Church of England, but couldn’t someone else hold that title? What about conversion to another faith? Let’s say he bacame Jewish - would he likewise be barred?
OK, someone is going to have to explain to me the cult of William. A great number of people are fond of voicing this opinion and I really don’t understand it.
What exactly is it that it that makes William “charismatic”? I’ve never heard him utter more than a couple of sentences, and he come over as no better or worse than any other highly privileged youngster. I see no evidense of great charisma or leadership qualities.
What exactly do you see in this deeply oridinary young man that his father lacks? He may grow into a highly respected man, but can you really say that this youth already has more of the right qualities than his father?
Can we not be honest here and admit that his popularity with many is based on his looks alone? Is this what it takes to be royalty in the 21st century? I mean, that’s fine by me, they’re nothing but figure heads anyway, but I get suspicious of people bestowing great personal qualities on the nondescript purely based on their physical appearance.
