It seems like Prince Charles is unhappy with the idea of staying within his “constitutional” role. He likes to express his opnion on political questions within the UK government. I wonder if he becomes King and continues to act this way will the parliment bring an end to the Monarchy since it has become too big of a nuisance? What is the line that he must not cross?
Can Parliament abolish the monarchy? I thought the public had to vote on that.
Parliament can do anything it feels like. Checks and balances aren’t really a thing in the UK.
There’s a big difference between Charles expressing his opinion and having the power to change things on his own. The Monarchy will survive.
Besides, William, his successor, is quite popular.
But Parliament wouldn’t make that move unless they knew public opinion was on their side, right?
William is a reluctant heir. He’s tried hard to make a separate life. He’s flying air ambulances now. Important work that connects him directly with people. I just read that ends later in 2017. The royal insiders finally got their way and he’ll be another guy waving at parades and touring factories.
I suspect he’d prefer working a few more years. He’s lucky they gave him this much freedom for a private life.
I wouldn’t be surprised if William ends the monarchy during his reign. Sparing his son the burdon of royal responsibility.
I don’t think Charles will ever be king. But if he is, it won’t be for long, and William is popular. The monarchy is not going away. It has tremendous symbolic, mythic, and moral power, even if not much mundane political power. I can’t imagine William ending it. Duty will win out.
The British monarchy will continue as long as it serves a purpose that most Brits find useful or necessary. I presume it is as a symbol of the country as well as convenient head of state for otherwise-meaningless ceremonies.
Offensive material is spoilered.
[OFFENSIVE]Since Diana has had the grace to be long dead before Charles takes the throne, the royal family has had plenty of time to clean up its act (from Charles’ near disaster) and polish its image in the person of William and presumably his eldest son. So there is no upcoming apparent reason to abandon the institution. Imagine the discomfort all around if Diana were still there to be the Princess Mother for William.[/OFFENSIVE]
I don’t believe William has the power to do that himself.
Here’s the thing: people have been saying this for generations. They said it about Queen Victoria’s son, Edward VII. He wound up being an excellent monarch. If you think today’s royal family is bad, you should read about George III’s sons.
Not English, not even British, but for the life of me, I cannot imagine Prince Charles as King. Somehow I have it my head that he will die before he can ascend to the throne (of natural causes or caused by his own actions, not anything nefarious)
The claims of HRH’s political interference are somewhat overblown, IMO.
The conventions regulating the political impartiality of the Sovereign are pretty watertight, but there was always a modicum of wriggle-room for other royals - after all, it’s the Queen’s Government, not theirs, and on the face of it there is no contradiction in HRH saying something the Government disagrees with. But really, to avoid the Queen embarrassment, speeches and comments by royals are vetted in advance, out of courtesy.
As for his tendency to express his opinions to ministers - that’s what all Princes of Wales have had the right to do. He is Heir to the Throne - at any moment his mother may die and he’ll instantly be King. It behooves him and his mother’s Government to be on highly intimate terms, and for him to be frank and forthright with ministers.
We have a very good idea that the Queen behaves the same way in accordance with Walter Bagehot’s rights of the Sovereign - to be informed, to encourage and to warn. For some reason, the Guardian and the anti-monarchy group Republic have convinced themselves that it’s wrong for HRH to do the same - they are wrong.
Plus, the publication of the Black Spider Memos (which was a mistake, constitutionally, IMO) revealed how innocuous HRH’s ‘interference’ is: dealing with detail, raising points, asking questions and making observations - never the kind of sweeping demands and haranguing of ministers that Republic was certain took place.
King Charles will be fine.
The English Monarchy is good for tourism … very good for tourism … the royals pay for themselves in tourist pounds … haha … “worth their weight”
But in twenty years he’ll be boring and middle aged and people will be wondering if maybe he ought not just step aside for the sake of the younger crowd. (There was a time when the idea of the Queen abdicating was quite popular too.)
If Charles lives to the age his father now is, William will be in his 60s before he inherits the throne. And if William lives to a like age his son, again, will be in his 60s before he becomes king.
Odds are that the British are in for a succession of monarch who are near to or over retirement age. It will be hard to keep the monarchy “glamourous” in these circumstances, unless the tradition of treating children and grandchildren - even those unlikely to inherit the throne - as signficant figures in their own right is maintained, and even intensified. And that’s fraught with danger - the danger of misbehaviour, or the danger that the younger generation will realise that, although the money is quite good, this is actually a pretty sh*tty deal for them in terms of loss of privacy and dignity, narrowing of educational and career opportunities, etc.
And if he lives that long, none of us reading this will ever see a Queen again. Even more so if he has a first born son.
His interference in matters of matters of science and health is documented (speaking out against him has already turned out to be hazardous). One of Charles’ worst tendencies has been to promote potentially dangerous health quackery. It’d be hard for anyone in the NHS to criticize his forays into homeopathy and detox nonsense once he got to be King.
Those of his subjects who follow his “leadership” on this issue might not turn out to be so fortunate.
But serving glorious tradition and raking in the tourist dollar are no doubt paramount considerations. :dubious:
This supposes that it would somehow be easier to depose Charles than to ignore him.
While the Queen will never abdicate (neither will Charles) I could see William deciding to abdicate once he reaches a certain age & turn the crown over to his son like Benelux monarchs do. But otherwise it could get even worse depending on how much science can increase the human lifespan (at least for people with access to the best medical care possible). Elizabeth II may live to be 101; George VII may live to be 131, and be succeeded by his nonagenarian daughter.
Well, now that popes have started abdicating, nothing can be taken for granted about the British monarchy.
But the whole ethos that sustains the institution internally is the notion of duty; if this office falls to you, it’s your duty to fill it. Whether you enjoy the office or is beside the point; whether you fill it well or not is also beside the point. If you’re absolutely phyisically incapable you can abdicate (maybe) but you don’t abdicate merely because you think someone else could do a better job. It’s almost always going to be the case that someone else could do a better job, but this job didn’t come to you in the first place because anybody thought you could do it well. The fact that somebody else could do it better isn’t really a relevant consideration, and it doesn’t become so merely because that someone else also happens to be your heir, and the reason they could do it better is because they are younger and fitter.
Once you admit that how good you are at doing the job is a relevant consideration, the whole argument in favour of monarchy has essentially been given away.