Why don't Elizabeth and Charles get along?

[OttoDaFe]

@Bryan_Ekers

Investigators uncovered his malfeasance when they put a tail on him.

Booooooooooooooooooooo!!!

[chappachula]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Personally, I’d skip him because coronations are expensive. .

Yeah, but finanically profitable in the end. Think of the boost to the economy from millions of tourists.
(And imagine if they could sell the TV rights, like sports events do. The income could erase the national debt! )
The coronation ceremony will probably break all records for ratings. Beamed world-wide, it could become the most-watched show in history. And without a nipple slip, too.

[the_diego]

A slight swerve: is the end of the the Forsyth novel “Icon” plausible, that Charles would become king of Russia, assuming popular acceptance?

[epbrown01]

@SaharaTea

I’ve never heard that the Queen doesn’t get along with Charles or wants to cut him out of the line of succession.

Is it always Liz’s fault? I’m remembering my late grandmother, who (ala “So I Married An Axe Murderer”) considered the National Enquirer a legitimate paper, telling me that the Queen hated Princess Di. Now she hates Chuck. Does she like Philip, at least?

Charles seemed happy in the picture I saw of him with Daphne Moon - I wonder why that didn’t work out.

[Lord_Feldon]

@epbrown01

Does she like Philip, at least?

In the late 50s, the gossip was that she didn’t, and that a scandalous divorce was imminent.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Snupzilla

While not the king of England yet, James I (VI in Scotland) became the king of Scotland while his father was still alive. His father was murdered a couple months later at the age of 21.

Also, in England, Edward III was crowned in February of 1327, after Edward II was deposed. Edward II wasn’t killed until September.

[CalMeacham]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Personally, I’d skip him because coronations are expensive. As you point out, though, the whole “will of the people” thing is incompatible with a hereditary office.

It isn’t, though, as history has shown. When Lady Jane Grey became Queen Jane, most of the people watching her coronation procession had no idea who the hell she was. Her accession was legal, having been signed by the dying Edward VI (although some have claimed shenanigans over that), but, as someone unknown to and not accepted by the populace, she had practically no support base. This made it very easy for Mary Tudor to sweep her out of the way and assume control. There wasn’t much worry about resistance, because Mary was the one people had been expecting as Queen all along.

eventually a movement supporting Jane sprang up (it took some time), made up of friends and relatives of Jane and (more important) her ambitious father-in-law (who had engineered Jane’s accession to get his son, Guilford Dudley, steered toward the throne) and malcontents who didn’t like Mary, either because of her Catholic religion or her policies (including the poet Thomas Wyat). They were crushed. Jane suffered as collatoral damage – Mary had her executed to prevent her being a rallying point for further uprisings.
So even hereditary monarchs in England needed the approval and blessing of the people, if they wanted a secure throne. You could argue that Mary’s supporting army did all the work, but it would’ve been harder (and might even have failed) if Jane had been a looked-for and beloved princess. She wasn’t.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

That’s not quite the same thing. Mary Tudor got to be Queen because she forced her way onto the throne and people liked her. Here, we’re saying Charles can’t not be King simply because people don’t like him.

[Malden_Capell]

@Simple_Linctus

Wow, tbh when I said the tampon thing I figured that wouldbe the thing people would pick up on. Perhaps it’s more well known than I thought.

I should imagine you can start here: The Prince Charles letters cover-up only makes his views seem weirder | Joan Smith | The Guardian

I find the whole Guardian bee-in-the-bonnet about Charles and his letters to be a storm in a teacup, really. They seem to have ‘discovered’ that Charles can ‘veto’ laws last year, when in fact it’s been a long-standing constitutional mechanism for several centuries that the Prince of Wales be consulted on matters that affect him and his Duchy, and as heir to the throne needs to get trained up on the whole kinging job.

I think the Guardian is quite badly informed on this matter and is simply waving its republican banner in a year full of Jubilee fever.

[SeldomSeen]

@the_diego

A slight swerve: is the end of the the Forsyth novel “Icon” plausible, that Charles would become king of Russia, assuming popular acceptance?

The “English prince” in the Forsyth novel is not Charles, but Prince Michael of Kent. Who actually does have a connection to the Russian dynasty through his mother’s line.

As the book pointed out, however, if the Russians were to actually establish a constitutional monarchy they could ask anyone they wanted to become czar. There are plenty of precedents for such a thing. As it happens, Russia never had a constitutional monarchy…the former czars were absolute monarchs.

[Condescending_Robot]

@Malden_Capell

I find the whole Guardian bee-in-the-bonnet about Charles and his letters to be a storm in a teacup, really. They seem to have ‘discovered’ that Charles can ‘veto’ laws last year, when in fact it’s been a long-standing constitutional mechanism for several centuries that the Prince of Wales be consulted on matters that affect him and his Duchy, and as heir to the throne needs to get trained up on the whole kinging job.

I think the Guardian is quite badly informed on this matter and is simply waving its republican banner in a year full of Jubilee fever.

I believe it is you who are misinformed about the workings of the English constitution. The monarch does not intervene in the actual substance of politics, period. If Charles is expressing his opinions to ministers, he is overreaching.

[colonial]

@BrainGlutton

He will if he takes after his mother and maternal grandmother in longevity.

And his father, who is 91.

[Malden_Capell]

@Condescending_Robot

I believe it is you who are misinformed about the workings of the English constitution. The monarch does not intervene in the actual substance of politics, period. If Charles is expressing his opinions to ministers, he is overreaching.

I think you misunderstand my point. I know that the Queen doesn’t interfere. But she does enjoy the right of access to Ministers, and no doubt has pretty frank things to say in private. She has weekly audiences with Her Ministers and devolved legislature ministers, too.

I’m saying that Prince Charles’ activities are broadly approximate to that. He is consulted because of long-standing constitutional practice, and also because he, as the future monarch (presumably), will have to eventually do the same thing in a more significant role.

He’s not overreaching. In any case, if any minister decided to comply with what the Prince said, that minister has nobody to blame but himself. The Prince can’t force him to do anything.

[Little_Nemo]

@Condescending_Robot

I believe it is you who are misinformed about the workings of the English constitution. The monarch does not intervene in the actual substance of politics, period. If Charles is expressing his opinions to ministers, he is overreaching.

British monarchs are not supposed to give orders to their ministers anymore. But they are expected to advise them.

Obviously, Charles isn’t the monarch yet. But Elizabeth is 86 so it seems appropriate that the British government is getting him involved in the process.

[Malthus]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That’s not quite the same thing. Mary Tudor got to be Queen because she forced her way onto the throne and people liked her. Here, we’re saying Charles can’t not be King simply because people don’t like him.

Ever since the the English Civil War, there has been a dance between Parliament (representing, if in attenuated form, the “will of the people”) and the Monarchy over who could inherit.

For example - in the “Glorious Revolution”, James II was turfed out on his ear basically for being unpopular … and worse, having a son who was Catholic (the English were willing to tolerate a Catholic James but not a Catholic Dynasty).

So James’s Daughter and her hubby became monarchs - being adequately Protestant. When they passed without issue, the crown passed to sister Anne.

When she was on the throne, the nearest relations were all Catholics … so Parliament then passed an “Act of Succession”. All those nasty Catholics got skipped. That’s why we have descendants of German monarchs on the throne, rather than desendants of British Stewarts.

Succession to the Crown Act 1707 - Wikipedia

Under this Act, it was made treason to deny that Parliament had the right to monkey with the succession as it saw fit (with the connivance of the ruling monarch of course).

The Act also made it treason maliciously, advisedly and directly by writing or printing to maintain and affirm that any person has a right to the Crown otherwise than according to the Act of Settlement and Acts of Union, or that the Crown and Parliament cannot pass statutes for the limitation of the succession to the Crown.[10][11] It was praemunire to say so in speech.[12] These provisions were extended to Scotland by the Treason Act 1708, and were repealed in 1967 (however see the Treason Act 1702 which makes similar provision).

[alphaboi867]

@Baker

… Charles would be a king of England with a living father. Is that unprecedented in the history of the British monarchy? I mean, before a woman was ever crowned(Queen Mary, daughter of Henry VIII) a guy got the job because his father was already dead.

Mary II became Queen of England after her father was deposed despite having a younger brother. Her husband, William of Orange, was even made her co-sovereign and got to stay on the throne after she died.

@CalMeacham

It isn’t, though, as history has shown. When Lady Jane Grey became Queen Jane, most of the people watching her coronation procession had no idea who the hell she was. Her accession was legal, having been signed by the dying Edward VI (although some have claimed shenanigans over that),…

It wasn’t though. Edward VI was a minor, therefore both his will & any decrees he signed were invalid. Even if he had been of age he didn’t have the authority to unilaterly change the succession. Henry VIII did, but that was only because Parliament passed an act giving him (& him alone) the ability to set the line of succesion in his will.

[BrainGlutton]

@Broomstick

Charles has said he isn’t in a rush to become king because doing so requires that his mother has died.

Yes, I’m sure George IV must have said something like that too!

[BrainGlutton]

@chappachula

The coronation ceremony will probably break all records for ratings. Beamed world-wide, it could become the most-watched show in history. And without a nipple slip, too.

Well, the Sovereign is anointed on the bare chest. (One reason why they use a canopy, I suppose.)

[BrainGlutton]

@the_diego

A slight swerve: is the end of the the Forsyth novel “Icon” plausible, that Charles would become king of Russia, assuming popular acceptance?

Well, Charles probably would have to convert to Russian Orthodoxy, which would be a bit of a challenge as he’s clearly uncomfortable even with Anglicanism.

[BrainGlutton]

@Malden_Capell

I think you misunderstand my point. I know that the Queen doesn’t interfere. But she does enjoy the right of access to Ministers, and no doubt has pretty frank things to say in private. She has weekly audiences with Her Ministers and devolved legislature ministers, too.

If TVTropes is any guide:

While the monarch does technically have the ability to veto any act of Parliament, to refuse a nominated Prime Minister, to sack the Prime Minister if he messes up, or to mobilise the army, to actually do so would likely cause a massive public outcry as it would be going against the will of the people by virtue of going against their democratically-elected leader. It is also extremely unlikely that the monarch could face-off against the rest of the British political establishment and win (the last monarch to do anything against the will of Parliament was King William IV in the 19th century and even then his action - appointing his own choice of Prime Minister - was extremely controversial).

However, the current Queen is not entirely powerless. As the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch and not to the Government, should the Prime Minister declare himself a dictatorial leader the queen can directly order them to stand down and, if necessary, turn against Westminster. This would be an awesome ending to a film, if anyone wants to make it. She also holds similar powers over most of the other nations in the Commonwealth via her Governors-General, her official representatives to the Commonwealth nations who swear allegiance to her as their head of state. The entire Australian Parliament was even dismissed by one Governor-General as recently as 1975, mainly because the politicians were arguing too much over money and how it should be spent.

Mostly, however, the monarch drinks tea and acts as a source of advice to the Prime Minister. Several prime ministers have attested that this is typically not just ceremony: the Queen has access to most significant government documents, and apparently, has spent several hours a day every day for the last fifty or so years going through them. There’s very little she doesn’t know about government policy.