The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[royal rob]

Funny that you went off topic too

 

[wyevale]

Princess Squirrell ,

Aside from being twice divorced [a CARDINAL sin in 1936] Wallis Simpson was known [by MI5] to be having an affair with Joachim von Ribbentrop [Hitlers ambassador in Britain] AND 'a used car salesman' at the same time as conducting her relationship with Prince [then King] Edward.
So it was not merely the [perceived] waspishness and unpleasantness of character that marked her as wholly unsuitable as British Queen Consort, but that she is likely to have passed on Edwards indiscreet 'pillowtalk' to he Nazi's in the run up to WWII.
War was already anticipated in the mid-thirties and it was [rightly] unthinkable that a Woman with NO loyalty to Britain, or her husband{s} should be in so crucial a role at that time.

 

[padams2359]

Princess Squirrell ,

Aside from being twice divorced [a CARDINAL sin in 1936] Wallis Simpson was known [by MI5] to be having an affair with Joachim von Ribbentrop [Hitlers ambassador in Britain] AND 'a used car salesman' at the same time as conducting her relationship with Prince [then King] Edward.
So it was not merely the [perceived] waspishness and unpleasantness of character that marked her as wholly unsuitable as British Queen Consort, but that she is likely to have passed on Edwards indiscreet 'pillowtalk' to he Nazi's in the run up to WWII.
War was already anticipated in the mid-thirties and it was [rightly] unthinkable that a Woman with NO loyalty to Britain, or her husband{s} should be in so crucial a role at that time.

Totally agree.
I am American, and I think Wallis was totally unsuitable and would have been a nightmare as Queen. Comparing Wallis to Camilla is comparing apples and oranges. Not that I totally believe what MI5 was putting out at that time. She had so many other faults, their intel was moot.

 

[Osipi]

The fact that the CoE was also dead against divorce played a role in it all too with Wallis. Times and attitudes changed. I don't think Wallis was the sticking point either. David, himself, was a man they didn't want to be king and it was a blessing for the UK that he abdicated. It all worked out in the long run.

Camilla basically knew Charles so well that she was and is able to bring out the best in him. She understands his moods and his idiosyncrasies and Charles knows that she'll be beside him no matter what but yet doesn't hold on to him too tightly so that he can enjoy his alone times to unwind or be constantly on the go doing things he needs to do. They both have a secure relationship that they don't have to worry about.

They both go ahead with what they do and in doing so, just kind of present themselves to the public as a older, ordinary couple. No glamor, no drama, no trend setting fashions which are what the media feeds on. They keep their private lives to themselves so basically the media doesn't really have much to report about these two other than cover their public lives which doesn't serve to create screaming headlines. This is how it should be. As King and consort, that will be the focus on them very similar to HM's coverage now. We rarely hear about the private life of the Queen and the inner workings. The Queen is on retreat at her blessed Balmoral and none of that makes the papers or headline news.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Totally agree.
I am American, and I think Wallis was totally unsuitable and would have been a nightmare as Queen. Comparing Wallis to Camilla is comparing apples and oranges. Not that I totally believe what MI5 was putting out at that time. She had so many other faults, their intel was moot.

Couldn't agree more! Wallis would have been a terrible Queen Consort, and more importantly, had Edward continued to sit on the throne (thank god that this didn't happen) he would have been even worse as monarch and most likely destroyed the monarchy. And comparing either of these two with Charles and Camilla is just wrong.

And this is 2017 not 1936.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Vows

What does anybody think about what Charles said regarding his coronation vows? That he wants to be defender of 'faiths' not 'The Faith.'

 

[Osipi]

I think that when the time comes for Charles' coronation, I sincerely doubt that he will veer away from tradition and will be anointed as King and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England as monarchs before him have done.

One thing I think will be true of Charles though as monarch is that he will continue to honor and respect all faiths. Of all the Windsors, I think Charles is the one that has gone out of his way to know and understand different faiths, beliefs and practices and that is going to be of value to him in a country that is growing more and more diverse as time passes.

 

[tommy100]

TBH I think it would be more of a reflection of modern society but then, equally do other faiths feel he is the person to "defend" them?

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

After an error by a Government official, we now know that the codename of the coronation is Operation Golden Orb, and that the title of Defender of the Faith will be retained:
Operation Golden Orb: Codename given by officials for Charles's top secret coronation plans is revealed after Whitehall blunder* | Daily Mail Online

Charles, who will be the oldest Monarch to ever take the crown, will also retain the title of ‘Defender of the Faith’ like his predecessors despite reports he would be ‘Defender of Faith’ instead.

 

[EllieCat]

With respect, it is not up to Prince Charles to defend other faiths; though of course if it's said as defend people's right to their own faith, that's all right.

 

[maria-olivia]

I just saw a film on french TV about Prince Philip.
He wanted a modern Coronation. But the Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Queens Mary and Elisabeth QM refused and wanted a traditonnal what happen.

 

[ladongas]

I just saw a film on french TV about Prince Philip.
He wanted a modern Coronation. But the Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Queens Mary and Elisabeth QM refused and wanted a traditonnal what happen.

He didn't stand a chance against those three. At least he didn't demand to be made King, though.

 

[Denville]

What on earth is a modern coronation. I understand that some of the European MOnarchies don't have a coronation anymore but just a simple investiture ceremony... that would be the equivalent surely.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

What on earth is a modern coronation. I understand that some of the European MOnarchies don't have a coronation anymore but just a simple investiture ceremony... that would be the equivalent surely.

I love the pageantry of our coronation ceremonies. I too read that we are pretty unique in still having the 'full works.' I think in most European countries with monarchies, the crown in just on display at the investiture, but is not actually placed on the monarch's head. And of course duchies and principalities don't have a crown as there is no king or queen. Prince Albert II just had an enthronement. Don't know about non-European countries as the book I read was just concerning European monarchies.

Funny but Brits born after 1953 have never witnessed a live coronation, me included. My mum is 77 and only there for one, the current Queen's one.

 

[Denville]

Harldy funny since the queen's reign is now the longest ever, as far as I recall.

 

[JR76]

Harald of Norway had a very grand and beautiful blessing ceremony in Nidaros cathedral where his grandparents and the medieval kings of Norway were crowned. Queen Sonja was dressed in all white (at the investiture in the Parliament she was veiled and dressed in all black) and the crowns were placed in front of them. To my knowledge that's as close to a modern coronation you can get.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Coronation

Harldy funny since the queen's reign is now the longest ever, as far as I recall.

It didn't mean funny in that way. Never mind.

 

[Muhler]

After an error by a Government official, we now know that the codename of the coronation is Operation Golden Orb, and that the title of Defender of the Faith will be retained:
Operation Golden Orb: Codename given by officials for Charles's top secret coronation plans is revealed after Whitehall blunder* | Daily Mail Online

Interesting.

But surely he couldn't be Defender of Faith anyway as Britain has an official state religion?
And that means one religion.
So until Britain no longer has an official religion that title is out.
I imagine there are moves to abolish the state church so to speak, and turn Britain into a religiously neutral country? Is there any chance of that happening within the next couple of decades you (all of you) think?

Because that would mean the throne would be open to someone of any religion, or an atheist. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense IMO.

 

[Mbruno]

Interesting.

But surely he couldn't be Defender of Faith anyway as Britain has an official state religion?
And that means one religion.
So until Britain no longer has an official religion that title is out.
I imagine there are moves to abolish the state church so to speak, and turn Britain into a religiously neutral country? Is there any chance of that happening within the next couple of decades you (all of you) think?

Because that would mean the throne would be open to someone of any religion, or an atheist. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense IMO.

I believe there is a chance that the CoE will be disestablished at some point in this century, but the initiative to do it will have to come from the politicians, not least because it would require an act of Parliament. Since the proposed legislation would affect a royal prerogative, custom dictates that the monarch would be consulted first, but I am pretty sure that neither Charles nor William would object to disestablishment.

 

[hel]

So I was poking through the Tom Sykes archive at the daily beast, because sometimes it's interesting to see his spin on things.

Last week he wrote an article about how the Cambridge pregnancy is particularly well timed since it has reset the PR narrative after a terrible summer. (How Kate Middleton's Pregnancy Reset the Royal Narrative After Disastrous, Diana-Fueled Summer)

He makes a good point here:

The calls for the crown to skip a generation are as unwelcome to William as they are to his father.
The last thing Prince William wants or needs is for his father to abdicate his claim to the throne.
This is not just because William would like to spend the next 20 or 30 years with a lower profile and less official duties (although he no doubt would). It’s also because William knows that if his father gives in to rule by opinion poll, if those same opinion polls turn against William—be that in 30, 40, or 50 years time—the gig will be up, and the monarchy may well be gone.

The article then goes a bit off the rails, since Sykes seems to think that Kate's been suffering HG for weeks and they deliberately held off until September (which makes no sense with the available pictorial evidence).

But the thrust of the article is sound: the story about the monarchy is heavily focused on the baby whereas two weeks ago the world was in convulsions of "but what about Diana's impact on whether Charles can/will be king". It's a good bit of luck.

 

[Osipi]

This is perhaps one of the best, logical posts I've seen made taken from an article in a long time. It takes the prominent issue of just why all the opinion that Charles should step aside in favor of William without cluttering it up with the run of the mill sensationalism that can come alone with these sort of of articles.

Thanks hel!

 

[MARG]

Agreed. We all needed a change of direction and I would go so far as to say it couldn't have been better timed. And yes I believe that she has already spent one overnight in hospital and as I posted earlier, medical vehicles have been sighted at KP recently.

Should Harry announce his engagement it will be even better with two really special things to look forward to. And now all we need is for the haters to stop ragging on about punishing Charles by making him stand down so William can become the next king. William doesn't want to be the king any time soon, he's got his hands full.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I think this fits better here than in the residence thread.

More from the Times - some quotes from the article:

Prince Charles: I won’t live at Buckingham Palace
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/prince-charles-i-wont-live-at-buckingham-palace-9jxdvdqm9

The Prince of Wales wants to give up Buckingham *Palace as a royal residence when he becomes king and is discussing plans to turn it into a more businesslike “monarchy HQ”, say royal insiders.

The Duke of Cambridge is also believed to agree that the palace is too large and costly for modern family life. Prince Charles thinks it could be made more commercially viable by opening it to the public on a larger scale than is possible with the Queen in residence.

The sources said Charles has told staff he does not intend to live at the palace. One said the prince was “very comfortable” at *Clarence House, his London home *formerly occupied by the Queen Mother, and both he and the *Duchess of Cornwall are believed to be keen to remain living there.

Roya Nikkhah goes on to write that the palace might become a museum open for longer periods with an exhibition dedicated to the Queen's record-breaking reign under Charles.

But I doubt that there are any truth to it - why? This - also from the article:

A Clarence House spokesman said: “Buckingham Palace will remain the official London residence of the monarch.”

A royal source said: “We have continued to say that Kensington Palace will be the Duke of Cambridge’s residence throughout the next reign, whereupon he will move into Buckingham Palace.”

And this:
Charles's communications secretary denies reports that the Prince will not live at Buckingham Palace when he is King – Royal Central

The Prince of Wales’s communications secretary, Julian Payne, has denied reports that Prince Charles will not reside at Buckingham Palace once he becomes King.

Commenting on the story, Mr Payne simply said that the story is untrue.

Here's the tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/909162453988249601

 

[Skippyboo]

If Charles follows the schedule that the Queen follows when King like Christmas, January and part of February, BP could be opened during that time. However, you still need the palace for garden parties, receptions, state dinners, investitures. BP is also basically the office space for royal household.

If you open BP year round, that's more wear and tear on the building. More need for security to screen all the people. More staff to attend to the guests. Plus when the have the summer opening, they build temporary restrooms, a cafe and gift shop in the garden.

Also let's not forget the 10 years of renovations BP is undergoing. A lot of money is being spent there.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Aren't they renovating BP right now? Or scheduling it for major renovations that will take years? Under such conditions it makes sense that the next monarch will not live there. But it would also be important to maintain the idea that BP will be a residence, else how to justify the extensive renovation fitting the place for a future monarch who would want to live there? Not so?

It seems like two 'realities' are possibly being conflated: Charles and Camillia won't be moving into BP but that has mostly to do with years of renovation work taking place, and BP may well be the residence for William when he becomes monarch, by-passing CH. So both stories are true.

All sorted.

 

[MARG]

Buckingham Palace is where the Monarch lives and even though both King George VI and Queen Elizabeth wanted to stay at Clarence House they were required to move to Buckingham Palace. I don't see Charles being able to break that tradition. It has the international cachet that CH doesn't and it is a working Palace with the guards actually guarding members of the BRF.

Besides, CH doesn't have the famous Balcony.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Buckingham Palace is where the Monarch lives and even though both King George VI and Queen Elizabeth wanted to stay at Clarence House they were required to move to Buckingham Palace. I don't see Charles being able to break that tradition. It has the international cachet that CH doesn't and it is a working Palace with the guards actually guarding members of the BRF.

Besides, CH doesn't have the famous Balcony.

They'd go over there to do all of that stuff. They just wouldn't live there.

I think wherever the monarch lives will have cache. BP isn't that far from CH and certainly KP is in walking distance. They could even renovate so that there are a warren of underground passageways, even an underground electric tram (like D.C. has) for travel between the various buildings by the principals and employees.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Duke and Duchess of York as George VI and Queen Elizabeth would have been prior to the abdication never lived at CH so they wouldn't have wanted to live there instead of BP. Queen Victoria's son Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn lived at CH until 1942

 

[MARG]

The Duke and Duchess of York as George VI and Queen Elizabeth would have been prior to the abdication never lived at CH so they wouldn't have wanted to live there instead of BP. Queen Victoria's son Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn lived at CH until 1942

You are absolutely correct. My research was faulty . . . now I just have to find out who the last unhappy BP residents were.

 

[Pranter]

I read in one of the Queen's bios that she actually didn't want to move into BP but her advisors at the time strongly encouraged her to do so.

I've also read that Charles wants to stay in CH and leave BP more or less as offices or for whoever is living there could still stay too.


LaRae