What’s the likelyhood that they’ll skip Chuckie altogether and ascend William to throne?
The Master speaks on Prince Philip’s title:
I get the impression that Charles realy isn’t up to the job. And Queen is waiting till Wiliam can take over. The reason for this feeling is the very small number of official and important activities that Charles is given. He rarely seems to get the Embasadorial role, just left to argue about architecture and play with his organic farming and Prince’s trust.
Other than looks, doesn’t William take after his father more than his mother? I thought he’s more like Charles in personality than Diana. Am I wrong about that?
Dear Lord, what’s with all of the Charles hate? Yes, he’s been involved in some embarrassing scandals but he has been the dutiful son, served in the Royal Navy, and has been tirelessly campaigning for conservation, pandas, good architecture… and he raised two sons after the tragic death of his ex-wife (and no, I don’t want to hear how he was involved in Di’s death). I was going to say “two fine sons,” but that’s up for debate.
I think he’d be a fine king once Lizzie 2 leaves this mortal coil, but he probably won’t have long. For some reason I see him more likely abdicating for William.
William does look like his mum but he has that same Mountbatten-ness about him… the hands behind the back, the mannerisms…
Couldn’t he pardon himself?
When the Crown Prince in Nepal wiped out his entire family a few years back, he was king for the two days he lived in hospital. I remember wondering who could do anything about the crime had he survived to reign.
Zero I’d say. Charles has been waiting all his life to become King. I can’t see him giving up that right. And he’d have to agree to being passed over in the succession in favour of his son.
Well if the Queen survived the murder attempt Charles wouldn’t be able to do anything. Parliament would very quicky pass an act removing him from the succesion. If she died then Charles would be deposed just like Charles II was. All parliament need do is pass an act declaring that Charles is no longet king and that the throne devolves to William. Charles doesn’t even need to sign the bill. Three or five Lords Commision will assent in his name (Victoria was the last monarch to sign a bill in person.).
What about the Canada Act, 1982?
Honestly, it blows my mind that Britain retains its royal system. I know we Americans are probably doing worse in terms of actual freedom nowadays, but the symbolism of the monarchy seems so glaringly anti-democratic that it really just amazes me that it’s allowed to stick around.
Okay no British monarch has signed a bill in person, but Canadian monarchs have.
She could retire, but no female monarch of Britain ever has, so why should she be the first?
Who in the world would want Charles as king? (Not quite as bad as his racist old man, but he still comes across as petulant and vindictive in the stories I’ve read on him.)
Unless Charles himself steps down and abdicates, absolutely none.
People used to say the same thing about Queen Victoria-that she should have stepped aside and let her son be king, that Prince Albert Edward would make a terrible king. But Edward VII was a very popular and capable monarch. You never know-Charles might surprise us.
Lama Pacos-you are aware that Britain is not the only monarchy, right? Off the top of my head, there’s Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
William may look like his mother, but he sure has a good dose of Prince Philip’s genes too. This photo of a young Philip could almost be mistaken for his grandson.
And in Spain there’s similar conversations now and then. The bets basically go two ways:
A - Queen Sofia will tell her husband to be a good ol’ boy and abdicate once she’s got Leti all trained up, but not before.
B - Like hell she will.
For some reason, it didn’t really come up until we got the Crown Prince married off…
(Yes, the King is Juan Carlos and the Consort is Sofia, but anybody who’s wondered about who’s got the brains there says it’s her).
The Queen of England is her government’s most experienced advisor, who’s had an entire lifetime to practice the art of statesmanship. (Stateswomanship? Is there a gender-neutral term?)
The existence of at least one permanent advisor, experienced, knowledgeable and apolitical, is a very good idea that should be emulated elsewhere.
I think there’s a misconception in this thread about the nature of royalty. Elizabeth isn’t the Queen because she earned the job or because she won a contest. She didn’t make herself a monarch, God did. Nothing she does can interfere with His will. Charles can sit back and enjoy the ride. If he ever ascends the throne, it will only be because God wills it.
It’s not a meritocracy and it doesn’t go to the person who most deserves it. The process of succession is as removed from such notions as is possible. It’s that way on purpose. Royals don’t have impressive personal qualities, they have bloodlines to other royals in antiquity.
If the subjects got to pick the new monarch, the job would probably go to someone like David Beckham or Eric Clapton. The ruled aren’t wise enough to choose properly, so they’re not part of the process. I’m not saying this is a good thing, just that that’s how it is.
She can’t retire, any more than your mother or father could retire from being your parent. She’s Queen till she dies. She just IS.
Great, another King William… :rolleyes:
No doubt you know more about her than I do, so perhaps she has an unpleasant personality, but I see nothing wrong with her appearance. Plus which, Diana really wasn’t all that. Do I recall correctly that she applied to a modeling agency, before she met Chuck, and was turned down? At any rate, it was her charm (not to mention the best stylists and so forth) that made her so revered, not her intrinsic looks. Does Camilla look that much worse than the average female Briton her age? I’d wager she looks better than some, at least.
krokodil: So you don’t vote for kings, is that it? 