# Why don't Brits want King Charles III (or will it be King George VII?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326 "2010-11-29T21:25:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/81 "2010-12-01T18:37:00Z")
While the Queen has no power, the monarchy does. Unfortunately it is exercised in undemocratic manners by the Prime Minister (such as the use of Orders-in-Council) or the military (such as the near mutiny by the military during the Northern Irish power workers’s strike). ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/82 "2010-12-01T19:25:46Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Younger sons of Earls are just “the Hon. \ \”. I noticed this in the P.G. Wodehouse Blandings stories. All the sisters of Lord Emsworth, like him the children of an Earl, are Lady \ Threepwood from birth, then when they marry business tycoon commoners, they became Lady \ \. But the younger sons like Freddie and Galahad are only Honorables. It seems like the ladies get a head start in the Lord/Lady thing. Once you get above the rank of Earl, though, then all the younger children are Lord or Lady–for example Lord Randolph Churchill, son of the Duke of Marlborough. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/83 "2010-12-01T20:05:20Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > You know, I wanted to ask **Quartz** for a cite here, because for one, it makes no sense to me that Charles would need a servant to squeeze his toothpaste You’re never going to get a definitive cite for this sort of thing but try > **[Prince stands by unpopular aide](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/nov/08/pressandpublishing)** > > Michael Fawcett, the former top aide to Prince Charles and now his freelance party planner, is a man who has made many enemies in a backstairs palace world of bitchiness, jealousy and sycophancy. But his boss is said to rate him highly. and > **[The Sun](https://www.thesun.co.uk/)** > > The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/84 "2010-12-01T22:47:27Z")
FWIW, William denies that he wants to leapfrog dear ol’ Dad to reach the throne: [AOL - News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com](http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/prince-william-has-no-desire-to-leapfrog-prince-charles-to-throne/19735366) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/85 "2010-12-02T00:36:21Z")
No particular reason for him to want to. He’s got plenty of money and minimal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/86 "2010-12-02T01:37:48Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > The idea of a poll like this makes chuckle with delicious irony since the most basic characteristic of a monarchy is that the people don’t get to choose the monarch. Well, someone has to do this: Arthur: We are all Britons…and I am your King. Old lady: Well, I didn’t vote for you. Arthur: You don’t vote for kings. Old lady: 'Ow’d you become king then? Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the waters signifying by divine right that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur…THAT is why I’m your king! Dennis: Listen, strange women lying on their backs in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony… Etcetera excetera etcetera… ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/87 "2010-12-02T04:21:46Z")
> [@villa](#): > > While the Queen has no power, the monarchy does. Unfortunately it is exercised in undemocratic manners by the Prime Minister (such as the use of Orders-in-Council) or the military (such as the near mutiny by the military during the Northern Irish power workers’s strike). There’s no reason at all that they couldn’t have the same powers in a republic, and in all probability if they abolished the monarchy tomorrow those powers would continue until further notice. For that matter, there’s no reason those powers couldn’t be curtailed or eliminated without abolishing the monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/88 "2010-12-02T05:06:31Z")
What excessive powers, exactly, does the PM exercise via these Orders-in-Council or the royal prerogative? Are they greater than the powers of, say, the POTUS? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/89 "2010-12-02T06:32:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What excessive powers, exactly, does the PM exercise via these Orders-in-Council or the royal prerogative? Are they greater than the powers of, say, the POTUS? Well, the declaration of war is a prerogative power; the monarch does it on the advice of the PM. The consent of parliament is not needed. Entering into a treaty is also a prerogative power (though if the treaty needs legislation to implement it, the legislation has to go through parliament). The queen appoints judges on the advice of the PM; there is no parliamenatry ratification/advice and consent procedure. Issuing (or not issuing) passports. Granting honours. Organising and regulating the civil service. Dissolving parliament and calling a general election. Recognising foreign governments. Appointing ambassadors. Receiving foreign ambassadors. Appointing the bishops of the Church of England. Organising and regulating the army (though military discipline is contolled by parliament). I think these are all powers which either have no parallel in the US, or which in the US would be subject to some degree of congressional oversight or control. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/90 "2010-12-02T09:30:02Z")
As much as I am leery of broad powers in the PM’s hands, I have lost affection for the rigmarole that is Senatorial advice & consent. Perhaps better to split power between monarch & PM than to have that dog and pony show. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/91 "2010-12-02T10:17:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, no. Too sane. Her Imperial Majesty Dame Gaga ? She’s already a Lady you know. Hook her up with Queen Amidala’s couturier and you’ve got yourself a more regal royal than the actual Royals. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/92 "2010-12-02T10:47:32Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Well, the declaration of war is a prerogative power; the monarch does it on the advice of the PM. The consent of parliament is not needed. > > Entering into a treaty is also a prerogative power (though if the treaty needs legislation to implement it, the legislation has to go through parliament). > > The queen appoints judges on the advice of the PM; there is no parliamenatry ratification/advice and consent procedure. I’m glad these procedures (especially the latter) are kept away from Parliament. One only needs to look to America regarding the politicisation of treaties (START) and appointments (never ending hearings in front of Congress) to see the mess you can easily get yourself in. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/93 "2010-12-02T11:33:12Z")
The Queen doesn’t have to make policy or laws. Sometimes she just has to [have lunch](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article5970954.ece). > [@villa](#): > > The idea that our government cannot find better sources of advice than uneducate inbreds who have no concept of life outside their bastions of privilege is terrifying. We had eight years of one running the US. And pretty much every Prime Minister has come from the moneyed elite with no concept of life outside their bastion of privilege. It’s not like Arthur Scargill is running the place. > [@](#): > > When was the last time she nipped down the road to buy a loaf of sliced white and twenty Benson & Hedges? She wouldn’t even know the price of them. She has no concept of the problems facing everyday people, and no valuable input on them. Seriously? That’s your benchmark? Knowing the price of a pack of fags? The current queen is both highly educated and extremely knowledgable about affairs of state, not just in the UK but throughout the Commonwealth. You may recall the the famous incident with Pierre Brassard, the Canadian DJ who prank called the Queen pretending to be then-PM Jean Chretien. He too expected to encounter an ignorant inbred; instead he found her well-versed in Canadian politics and able to talk through it in fluent French. He later admitted he’d come out the worse. Sure, the monarchy is undemocratic. So, to some extent, is the House of Lords. Watching what’s gone on during the Blair and Brown years, frankly it seems like the unelected House of Lords has done more to safeguard democracy and freedom than the elected Commons - consider the “detention without charge” issue that was rebuffed by the Lords three times. On paper it shouldn’t work, but it does. Governments often forget that they govern at the pleasure of the electorate; it’s not such a bad thing to regularly remind them that they are directly accountable to someone, even in a symbolic way. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/94 "2010-12-02T15:31:00Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > There’s no reason at all that they couldn’t have the same powers in a republic, and in all probability if they abolished the monarchy tomorrow those powers would continue until further notice. For that matter, there’s no reason those powers couldn’t be curtailed or eliminated without abolishing the monarchy. Absolutely they could. But then it would be more open at least. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/95 "2010-12-02T15:50:12Z")
To my mind, having a monarchy, or the trappings of one in the form of an unelected mostly-symbolic-but-not-always head of state (in Canada, we have a Governor-General, who is the monarch’s representative) acts as a potential “check and balance” on the democratic process - as someone who can, as it were, be above partisan politics. This is a basically small-c conservative political force, which is not necessarily a bad thing. There has to be some sort of continuity, even if the electorate engages in polarized swings. Take the US for example - assume that the Tea Partiers actually sweep the elections for the various offices, and Palin becomes President. It would be a good thing to have someone, as it were, to act as a restraint on them. The US has the judiciary, as do other nations; but in those with an unelected head of state, there is yet another potential check. That being said, obvioiusly giving someone that position simply for being born isn’t the best method - the only thing to recommend it is that it provides the office with lots of historical legitimacy, of the sort an office gets simply by being very traditional. As long as it is the office that is important, rather than the qualities of the specific person who holds it, that’s good enough … In Canada, the GG is an appointed position, in which as I understand it the PM “advises” the Queen and the Queen gratiously accepts that advice - oddly enough, the PMs are usually pretty good at appointing GGs for non-partisan reasons. Somehow, it works. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/96 "2010-12-02T15:55:37Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > We had eight years of one running the US. And pretty much every Prime Minister has come from the moneyed elite with no concept of life outside their bastion of privilege. It’s not like Arthur Scargill is running the place. And you know what - eight years of it was bad. But at least he was an elected privileged tosser. As for your comment on Prime Ministers - absolute bollocks. Let’s look at every PM in my lifetime. That goes back 41 years, which should give a pretty good view of the modern situation. Harold Wilson - son of a works chemist and a school teacher; attended grammar school on a scholarship and university on a scholarship. Ted Heath - son of a carpenter (who later became a successful businessman) and a maid; again educated at grammar school before a scholarship to Oxford. Jim Callaghan - son of a Royal Navy CPO, could not afford university so took the Civil Service exams, and went to work for the Inland Revenue at 17. Margarter Thatcher (aka the Witch) - daughter of a grocery store owner; admittedly she ‘married well.’ John Major - son of a music hall performer who then ran a garden ornaments business. Educated at grammar school, did not go to university and instead became an insurance clerk. Tony Blair - son of a junior tax inspector who then became a law lecturer. Father did well enough to send him to private school, though I don’t know if he was a scholarship kid. Gordon Brown - son of a Church of Scotland Minister. Was a university lecturer himself. David Cameron - born into privilege, never lived outside it. So, in my 41 years, one PM is indisputably born into privilege and never lived outside it. And he only just arrived. Some of the others have had privileged times of their lives, but they at least have a clue about what life is like outside it. Elizabeth Windsor has no such clue. > [@Gyrate](#): > > Seriously? That’s your benchmark? Knowing the price of a pack of fags? Well, that and a loaf of bread cover the necessities of life. But no, as you well know, it’s an example. She wouldn’t have a clue of the cost of ANYTHING - whether it is the average price of a weeks groceries for a family of four, to how much it costs to heat a 3 bedroom semi in the winter, to a packet of Benson & Hedges. It’s an example of how completely out of touch she is with the lives of the people she is meant to reign over. > [@Gyrate](#): > > The current queen is both highly educated and extremely knowledgable about affairs of state, not just in the UK but throughout the Commonwealth. You may recall the the famous incident with Pierre Brassard, the Canadian DJ who prank called the Queen pretending to be then-PM Jean Chretien. He too expected to encounter an ignorant inbred; instead he found her well-versed in Canadian politics and able to talk through it in fluent French. He later admitted he’d come out the worse. Highly educated? She has no education. She may or may not be knowledgeable about affairs of state - I’m not going to take the word of a Canadian DJ on it. But even if she is very educated on them, I think it is highly likely an elected official can find someone MORE knowledgeable on them than her to have discussions with. > [@Gyrate](#): > > Sure, the monarchy is undemocratic. So, to some extent, is the House of Lords. Watching what’s gone on during the Blair and Brown years, frankly it seems like the unelected House of Lords has done more to safeguard democracy and freedom than the elected Commons - consider the “detention without charge” issue that was rebuffed by the Lords three times. On paper it shouldn’t work, but it does. That problem arises largely from the absence of an effective Bill of Rights, the reason for which can be largely traced back to the existence of a monarchy. Yes, the House of Lords has done some good things recently, but over its history it has been a bastion of power for the privileged elite and has acted as such. Were there no monarchy, were there an effective Bill of Rights, we could have an elected Upper Chamber that served the same role. > [@Gyrate](#): > > Governments often forget that they govern at the pleasure of the electorate; it’s not such a bad thing to regularly remind them that they are directly accountable to someone, even in a symbolic way. So lets remind them they are directly accountable to the people, not to some antiquated upper crust twit. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/97 "2010-12-02T16:16:18Z")
> [@villa](#): > > So, in my 41 years, one PM is indisputably born into privilege and never lived outside it. And he only just arrived. Some of the others have had privileged times of their lives, but they at least have a clue about what life is like outside it. Elizabeth Windsor has no such clue. Aren’t you forgetting her service in WW2? And in WW2 the royal family was still subject to rationing, just like everyone else - even after it had ended too. People sent her clothing rations coupons for her wedding dress. And as she’s Duke of Lancaster, I’m confident she has a very tight grip on issues such as rents. I’m confident she knows what it’s like in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/98 "2010-12-02T16:28:04Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Aren’t you forgetting her service in WW2? And in WW2 the royal family was still subject to rationing, just like everyone else - even after it had ended too. People sent her clothing rations coupons for her wedding dress. I’m not forgetting her service. But when you talk of rationing, it is important to remember what wasn’t rationed. The Royal Family wasn’t sitting there eking food out like other people. And the fact that people gave up their limited clothing ration so she could have her wedding dress is really kind of an indication of how she has never had to suffer hardship at any time - if it looked like the poor darling might not get the wedding dress of her dreams, **other** people stepped in to suffer for her. > [@Quartz](#): > > And as she’s Duke of Lancaster, I’m confident she has a very tight grip on issues such as rents. I am certain she is round on the first Friday of the month to collect the rent. :rolleyes: Really, she has probably never even seen how much is charged. > [@Quartz](#): > > I’m confident she knows what it’s like in the real world. Why? She certainly doesn’t live in it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/99 "2010-12-02T17:00:12Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > And as she’s Duke of Lancaster . . . Not Duchess? I ask because I happen to know that the Queen, regardless of gender, is the **Duke** of Normandy, in which capacity she is sovereign of the [Channel Islands](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands) (constitutionally separate from the UK). More or less. > [@](#): > > The Channel Islands fall into two separate self-governing bailiwicks. Both the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey are British Crown Dependencies, but neither is part of the United Kingdom. They have been part of the Duchy of Normandy since the 10th century and Queen Elizabeth II is often referred to by her traditional and conventional title of Duke of Normandy. However, pursuant to the Treaty of Paris (1259) she is not the Duke in a constitutional capacity and instead governs in her right as Queen (the “Crown in right of Jersey”,[16] and the “Crown in right of the _république_ of the Bailiwick of Guernsey”).[17] This notwithstanding, it is a matter of local pride for monarchists to treat the situation otherwise: the Loyal Toast at formal dinners is to ‘The Queen, our Duke’, rather than ‘Her Majesty, the Queen’ as in the UK.[18] But I’m not clear on why she is “Duke” and not “Duchess.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326/100 "2010-12-02T17:16:16Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > I’m glad these procedures (especially the latter) are kept away from Parliament. One only needs to look to America regarding the politicisation of treaties (START) and appointments (never ending hearings in front of Congress) to see the mess you can easily get yourself in. That’s a bit different. The Senate has to approve a treaty _whether or not legislation is required to enact it._ Totally different (and much more clusterfucky). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-brits-want-king-charles-iii-or-will-it-be-king-george-vii/562326.md?page=6)