Why? Charles was pressured nto marrying a wacko because she was the only eligible virgin left at the time. The problems with the marriage were hers, his and the system’s. It was probably doomed from the start.
Finally he’s with the lady he always wanted to be with; but when he was 20 he was not allowed to marry for reasons that appear royally stupid in this day and age.
Diana, meanwhile, coincidentally found the love of her life with one of the few men in Britain who could afford to keep her in the style she was accustomed to. (After he’d unceremoniously and hurriedly dumped his inconvenient paid companions) She died because Dodi’s household arrangements were (if it’s possible) more lax than the Palace. If anything, her poor choice made it easier for Charles to be king. Plus, the failures of royal marriages probably are a reflection of the state of marriage in the whole of the western world - no better, no worse.
So what? We don’t have election for King, which is a good thing. You take what you get. Otherwise, Canada would have elections for head of state, and it would be recycling all the used politicians that we’ve been glad to get rid of; or like Italy and Israel, we’d be enjoying the specacle of a president under indictment.
William is a breath of fresh air precisely because he’s been mainly out of the limelight. Give him 30 years of spouting personal opinions like Charles, and he’ll be just as annoying. Or, he could be like his grandmother, smile and wave and say absolutely nothing of substance. At least we know Charles has opinions, even if we disagree. (and they are not SO controversial that we could not accept the guy as king, I hope.)
So everyone takes their turn; and if in 50 years Will and Kate are still fresh, then they’ll have another state funeral and we’ll have a King Bill.
Why on earth should he do that? Apart from a few weeks of stirring by Daily Express readers after the death of Her Holiness the People’s Princess of Tarts, and similar grumblings when he married Camilla, nobody in Britain thinks he should pass the buck to William.
Not to derail this thread by getting back to the original topic or anything, but the royal funeral of Her Majesty the Queen wouldn’t necessarily have to be held in London, would it? Suppose she wanted to be buried in Scotland (or for that matter, Barbados.) Couldn’t they just transport the royal coffin there, find a suitably large cathedral for the funeral service and leave London alone?
Half staff and half mast are synonyms in 2012. If there ever was a difference (I can find plenty of references to flags being at half mast on land from every decade of the 20th century), there isn’t one now.
Yeah, I think so too. They’d rush the body down to London as by ceremony Her Majesty will lay in state for three days in Westminster Hall so that the public can pay their respects, followed by a service in Westminster Abbey and then burial in the family crypt in Windsor Castle.
Coronation has nothing to do with accession of the throne. (They’re basically a formality – some monarchies don’t even have them) He’d be king the very second his mother died. Coronations are typically held a year after one’s accessions, after a period of morning anyways.
As for abdication, I don’t think that’ll happen and it’d be a bad idea for the sake of the monarchy. It was a mess when his uncle did it, why would anyone want a repeat?