I don’t know who you heard that from, but I’d recommend that if you need somebody knowledgeable about Australian affairs then you need somebody else.
My understanding was that Australian voters weren’t enamoured of the idea of a President emerging from the same sort of consultation behind closed doors as with the GG at present…?
me too my aunt who has no interest in any of this and barely knew it was going on saw a picture of him watching Charles sign the papers and asked who the fat mop-looking guy ?
Apologies for the hijack continuation but the last poll I saw showed the number of Australians who wanted any sort of a republic was about 23% and the directly elected faction barely half that.
Back to the OP; the thing I find rather amusing is that, after nearly 20 years being active on SDMB and in that time reading or contributing to quite a large number of threads periodically appearing about the succession: on how QEII should abdicate because she was too old, or was only staying on the throne to deny her son, or that Charles should immediately abdicate or simply stand aside for somebody more photogenic, or Kardashian or summat as if the UK monarchy was nothing more than some sort of vox pop talent quest. And there were a group of posters, who continually rebutted those fanciful propositions and lo and behold the reality has turned out precisely as set out in the Acts of Succession. Funny thing that.
If there was any political support for avoiding Charles or an abdication, it would have happened far far in advance of his actual accession.
Look at the abolition of male preferences primogenitor. It has been suggested for years but it was only when the prospect of a new potential future monarch came after Wills and Kates marriage, did the Succession of the Crown Act 2013 come into being.
Then we’d need to change Camilla’s name to Guinevere, put the corgis in a round doghouse and name one of them Lancelot.
Did the new British monarch choose his regnal name solely on his on accord or did he do so, by convention, on the advice of his ministers?
The former. Though I cannot imagine if advice was given he would go against it.
Deleted; forgot that I posted it last night; sorry.
I suppose there is still time to switch the name, if he really wanted to troll everybody.
He can’t, unless some watery tart throws a sword at him.
in the tasteless but somewhat true someone posted a video with the the fact that Camilla is now the world’s most successful " side chick" and now all the “homewreckers now have hope”
Jon-Erik Hexum too
From some points of view, it was Diana who was the “other woman.”
Obi Wan on his worst day wouldn’t try and put that forward.
Charles met Diana after Camilla was already married.
The Privy Council. Despite the ceremonial aspects of that, pretty much all of it had actual legal purpose relating to the transition of power and needed to be done.
it seems the most difficult transition is remembering to say king charles instead of prince charles, 73 years makes it a tough habit to break.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, as I’m on my way to an appointment and not researching directly (this is from memory). Charles and Camilla met before either was married. I’m not sure if they “fell in love,” but there was definitely a strong connection. Camilla wanted to get married, but Charles was a young Royal and wanted to “sow his wild oats” (if that phrase is out of date-- I’m sure it is-- it was very appropriate at the time). He probably figured she would wait around for him. But Camilla got married. She and Charles stayed in touch. He and Diana were never suited to each other at any time and that soon became apparent (after they became parents). And the rest is sad and sordid history.
yep, that basically is it.
they met he really liked her. family didn’t think she would be a good choice as she “had a romantic past”. family pressures a break up. charles went into the navy. camilla got married. charles finished his time in the navy and was pressured to marry. charles maintained a friendship with camilla, possible adultery. family not amused, more pressure to marry. charles marries diana. marriage starts to breakdown charles turns to camilla.
and here we are, king charles, queen camilla.
Yes, it was very important to The Firm that Charles marry a virgin, so as to avoid possible scandals about the princess/queen’s past, or possibly even paternity issues. Well, that worked out okay, didn’t it?