I don’t care what he gets up to in private but when he starts flaunting his homeopathy in public, it takes a bit of swallowing.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you saying I hate Prince Charles, and therefore hate architecture, because it’s an interest of his?
I think you’re confusing Camilla with one of Charles’ other young ladies. There’s nothing in either Camilla’s wiki page or Charles’ which suggests she was Roman Catholic.
Her ex-husband, Parker-Bowles, is Roman Catholic.
What I’ve read suggests Camilla was the one who didn’t want to marry Charles. He was going off into the navy and didn’t intend to marry for several years, and she didn’t want to wait. Then she met Andrew Parker-Bowles and fell for him, and they married. Later, she resumed her affair with Charles.
Reportedly, the Queen wasn’t keen on her as a match for Charles, and she wasn’t a virgin. That was still a big deal in the day, apparently.
No, I’m plain out wrong. I reread that article too, but through the filter of misconception. But I got that detail from somewhere in the news that was about at the time, but can’t find where.
So, ignorance fought.
I was trying to say that transference like that is not uncommon. You voiced, as I read it, a very strong dislike for architecture, or his interest in it.
Reference to “The Simpsons”, animated TV show in which the “human” characters are for some reason yellow? 
ETA: As noted by at least one other poster.
I’m not sure how you could read my post that way. And I find the idea of someone having “a very strong dislike for architecture” quite amusing.
Anyway, no. I dislike Prince Charles because he interferes with things. As an example, he has strong opinions on architecture and will use his position to affect architectural decisions. If he feels strongly one way or another he seems to have no problem with using influence to push things in the direction he wants. He has even called for the replacement of fairly chosen architects because he didn’t like their designs.
Of course he’s going to have opinions, but expressing them in public or using his influence to lobby our elected government is not part of the deal we have with the monarchy.
He’d be the the third, but he’ll probably be George VII, as has been said – Charles One and Two didn’t do so well. Bit of a stigma, there. Of course, the majority of Edwards have had bad ends, so maybe it’s not so bad.
All the Princes of Wales have five or so first names so they came pick one when they become king (at least, I assume they can’t just make up an entirely new name like the Pope does; then again, who’s going to argue if they do? As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king”); Charles’ full name is Charles Philip Arthur George (I may have got the order wrong, but those are his names). I’m hoping for Arthur, because that would be badass. I don’t see Charles doing it, but William (Wm. Arthur Philip Louis) could probably pull it off. Pretty much has to be Arthur or William V, because his other two names are too French/Catholic.
I think Camilla’s ex is still alive, and that may be problematic. Which is ironic, considering that the entire reason for the founding of the CoE was so the King could get a divorce.
For something that hasn’t been mentioned yet (I’m leaving the previous in, because it’s a concise summary even if all those points have come up): Is there precedent for a monarch just retiring? Edward VIII was a Nixon sort of situation, resigning before his misdeeds got him fired. But could Elizabeth just decide she was tired of being Queen? Or Charles just say “Nah, Liam would be better than I,” even if the public accepted his marital hijinx?
Somewhat related, it never ceases to amuse me that Charles and his sons (and grandson, now) don’t technically have a surname, due to an oversight on Liz2’s part when changing her name upon marriage – she decreed that all her descendents not bearing the title “prince(ss)” should use “Mountbatten-Windsor” as a surname; those in line for the throne never had the issue clarified. When William and Harry joined the Army and needed a last name, they went by “Wales” presumably with the middle name “of”.
I kinda want to see what name the new baby takes upon joining the Army. Based on his dad’s precedent, it’ll be either “Cambridge” (dad’s duchy) or “Wales”, depending on whether granny’s still alive.
That’s a relatively recent tradition, though. George V was the first king with more than three names.
Picking something totally new isn’t common either. Of the three monarchs to not use their first given name, really only George VI did it. He’d never been George in public or private. Victoria was Victoria before her accession, and Edward VII was (AFAIK) usually double-barreled when the public used his names.
He could use Windsor too. I think that’s what Charles used. (It’s quite possible, statistically, that George will be the heir apparent by that time. Of course Charles isn’t in an average demographic.)
Whether Grandad’s still alive. When Charles becomes King, William will become Prince Of Wales, and George will presumably remain Prince Of Cambridge.
Based on previous precedent, George would switch along with his dad. Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge initially, then Prince George of Wales.
Yeah, you’re right - I mistakenly thought Prince Of Cambridge was a title granted to George, not derived from his father. If he doesn’t get a title of his own before William becomes Prince Of Wales, he’ll become George Of Wales.
Not automatically. When Charles ascends the throne, William will automatically become the Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (in addition to the Duke of Cambridge). The title of Prince of Wales, OTOH, is not automatic. Charles will have to create him as Prince of Wales. Granted, there’s little chane of that not happening, but it’s not automatic.
Zev Steinhardt
Not so. Edward II and Edward V were both deposed and killed (details mysterious), but Edward I, III, IV, VI and VII all died in their beds. Edward VIII abdicated, but did so in an appropriate constitutional manner.
Edward I and III were two of the best respected Kings of the Medieval period; Edward IV was the victor in the intermediate stage of the Wars of the Roses and established the Yorkists on the throne; Edward VII leant his name to the Edwardian era and was considered to have contributed greatly to the establishment of the Cordial Entente with France, helping to line up a key ally for World War I. (Edward VI was in his minority and died young, so didn’t have much chance to do anything).
That’s correct; that’s why she and Charles were married in a civil ceremony, rather than a church ceremony.
An annulment, on the grounds that he should not have been allowed to marry his brother’s widow. Both the Roman Catholic and the Anglican church have always recognised annulments, but not divorces.
There’s no precedent for a clear, voluntary retirement in the British monarchy. But if the Queen wanted to retire, it would be possible, just cumbersome, since a change to the Royal Succession requires the agreement of all the Commonwealth realms. A more likely option might eventually be a Regency, on the grounds that she is no longer capable of carrying out her duties due to her advanced age. Incapacity is a ground for a regency under the Regency Acts.
Not so. Her Majesty made it clear in a declaration:
[QUOTE=Elizabeth II]
Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor
…
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.
[/QUOTE]