I know it’s not because of the current Duchess of Cornwall (even though it didn’t help) but I’ve been hearing of Charles, Prince of Wales should give up the throne for as long as I can remember. Here in the colonies, I don’t remember any really idiotic things he’s done so why are so many Brits against him being King?
It’s a monarchy, they don’t get to choose.
Actually, that is not true, the could in theory vote to stop supporting the Royal Family altogether. That would still leave “King Charles” King but it is a lot of pressure to bring against him to step aside.
There are problems though with him stepping aside too as others might be in line ahead of Prince William from what little I understand. I will let someone that actually knows about this explain it all.
I’m British (though not a Brit unless self-referencing) and I don’t want any of the worthless parasitical scum to hold any position. Unless it is barista at the local Starbucks when they are forced to actually work for a living.
No, the only person ahead of Prince William is Prince Charles. For Prince Charles to step aside one of two things must happen (& both are without precedent in British history). He needs convert to Roman Catholicism (or divorce Camilla to marry a Catholic). Or he needs to convince the British Parliament (& the Parliaments of the 16 other Commonwealth Realms) to pass a special act excluding him from the succession and excluding any future children he might have. Constitutionally it would be like he died, William and Harry would remain in line for the throne (actually everyone would one step up).
Charles would have to lose all the special titles he has as the Queen’s eldest son and heir apparent; Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall (& with it the income from the Duchy of Cornwall), Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. He’d keep his knighthoods and military ranks. His formal style would be “HRH the Prince Charles” like a younger son of a monarch. Camilla would become “HRH the Princess Charles”. He’d still become Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies. Prince William would become the new heir apparent and the Queen could make him Prince of Wales, but all the other titles would stay in abeyance until William ascended the throne and his eldest son get’s them automatically.
None of this will ever happen in real life.
Was that a typo or do the wives of some princes use the title Princess {husband’s name}?
Things like talking to plants, an air of unworldliness, having a servant squeeze his toothpaste, the whole Diana thing…
Basically, he’s a flawed character.
I’ll also note that recently the good monarchs have started young - Victoria, Elizabeth, George VI. Edward VII is a good example of a bad old monarch. I’ll admit that Edward VIII was rather a disaster too, but he did the Right Thing by abdicating.
I think what the OP is asking, is why some allegedly don’t wish the current Prince of Wales to be king one day.
That is, what has he done that has folks pissed off at him, or think him unworthy of the throne.
Edit: posted before seeing Quartz’s post, not as a respose to it …
Not a typo - that was “Princess Diana’s” official styling. Princess Diana wasn’t her title, though she was commonly called that.
See section 8, Titles, styles, honours, and arms
How could that be possible? Googling reveals that there’s talk of removing the ban on Catholic spouses, but how would that affect Princes William’s and Harry’s places in the line of succession? And with regard to gender, even if they removed the specification of a male heir, Charles is still the oldest child of the present monarch.
Centuries ago a Peer could be broken down to commoner for treason, or for not having sufficient wealth to maintain the expected lifestyle. While that obviously prevented his descendants from inheriting a title, that was more because the title ceased to exist.
As an American (albeit of distant English ancestry) I can’t speak with any authority, but I suspect the British attitude toward the royals is kind of like our own toward the president and congress…We love to hate 'em, we cuss at them, we delight in exposing their shortcomings, but we’d be lesser people without them.
Personally, I think Charles is an admirable man. I became something of a fan years ago when I began reading about his work in the field of sustainable agriculture and especially the fine things he’s done with the Duchy of Cornwall. He has helped to educate people everywhere in the very basic essential matter of feeding and clothing themselves. He has made the Duchy a model of good management and sustainable agriculture that people come from everywhere to study. It is likely that his contribution to land management and to British agriculture will not be fully realized during his lifetime.
Charles may never be king, but he’s already made his mark where it counts. Speaking as one who himself has spent a lifetime in forestry and agriculture, wrestling with the eternal problem of how to get what we need from the earth without doing damage, I have the greatest respect for what Charles has accomplished and for the man himself.
SS
Commoners who marry royalty or peers of the realm are officially referred to as <Female honorific> <Husband’s first name>. So for example Princess Michael of Kent.
Diana was the daughter of the Earl of Spencer. Before he inherited the title, he, as the heir to the Earldom, used a lesser title, Viscount Althorpe. Viscounts aren’t really peers and their children are styled as “the Honorable”. So Diana as a child was called The Honorable Diana Spencer. A Vicountess uses a title like <Female Honorific> <Title name>. So Diana’s mother at the time was called Lady Althorpe.
After her father inherited the Earldom, he stopped using the Viscount title since it’s a lesser title. Eventually, it went to his heir, Diana’s brother. Earl’s are peers, but their children are not. Their children are called Lord and Lady <First Name> but that’s is mostly just courtesy and tradition. So Diana was known as Lady Diana Spencer, but it was courtesy honorific. She didn’t hold an actual landed title in her own right and she wasn’t a peer. Technically, that made her a commoner, hence the title Princess Charles Phillip etc etc, although no one would have called her a commoner to her face and she had royal ancestors.
I’m not a particular royal watcher. I’m just a huge fan of the Lord Peter Wimsey series. (Peter was second son of a Duke, hence the courtesy honorific Lord Peter, and married a straight up commoner, Harriet, who was called Lady Peter, formally. Eventually, the young heir to the Dukedom, Viscount St. George, was killed in WW2 and Peter became the heir and eventually 14th Duke. That last bit mostly happened after the original stories ended though.)
[Hijack]Where did the bit about Gerry dying and Peter becoming the 14th Duke come from? I don’t remember that from any of the post-DLS books. Not doubting - just wondering![/Hijack]
Can you explain how I would be a lesser person without the existence of a bunch of wankers who feel that an accident of birth grants them privileges?
And I have fewer problems with Charles Windsor than the rest of the bunch.
Because he is just a huge dork. I don’t know the British equivalent of ‘dork’, but that is the deal.
They are waiting for William, the Cool King.
To answer the OP, we have short attention spans and are overstimulated by the media, and have got the monarchy confused with an interactive television talent show.
Exactly. I personally feel on the strength of our SDMB acquaintance that no such circumstance could make you a lesser person - nor indeed could any other.
I don’t think it was ever stated outright in any written canon (including the so-called “Wimsey Papers”), but I believe Ms. Sayers at one point expressed the opinion that St. George did not survive the war.
I thought there was no “of” in this title.
There’s definitely no “of” here. It’s the Earl Spencer, not the Earl of Spencer.
Viscounts are peers. You might be confusing them with baronets, who aren’t peers, but are more like hereditary knights.
Not you personally. Should have said a lesser people. It’s difficult to put in quantifiable terms, but I think England wouldn’t be…well,…England without the iconic Royals to define them as a nation. And yes, that includes all their foibles follies and personal failings. Just as the USA would be something different if we had devolved into a loose confederation of city-states and fiefdoms instead of a unified nation with a national congress and president at the helm. I know, some would prefer that model. I don’t think it would be a very good thing.
SS