The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

When The Prince of Wales becomes King at the passing of Her Majesty. I hope at his Coronation he uses the Grand Robes and of course St Edward's Crown and not just uses his military uniform. For there has been talk of just his uniform. I also hope that the Duchess of Cornwall upon becoming Queen Consort...becomes Queen Consort and not Princess Consort and uses the Crown of Mary (Charles's great grandmother). I dont particularly like the Crown of the Queen Mother. And I hope he retains the traditional elements and customs of monarchy like Her Majesty The Queen.

He will keep some of the traditions but he will also change some of them - just as the Queen has done throughout her reign e.g. removing debutantes being presented to her at BP and adding the idea of garden parties there instead, the walkabouts, which we take for granted now weren't there when the Queen became Queen.

Charles will make changes because the institution of monarchy has evolved to meet the needs and desires of the people.

He will wear his uniform, of course but whether he wears any robes - who knows and does it really make a difference??

 

[wanderer11220]

Should Prince Charles change his name when he becomes king?

Prince Charles would be Charles III when his mother dies, but I'd imagine Charles to be an unlucky name considering the last two. Would he take another name? Based on his full name, he could be Charles III, Philip I, Arthur I, or George VII. Philip would be a nod to his father, of course, but it isn't a very British name. Arthur would be obvious if he wanted to go for the ancient historical link to old Britain, but there's never been an Arthur before. George would be a good homage to his maternal grandfather and paternal great-grandfather, two previous kings, but the Georges have some bad luck too. What do you think, would he change his name?

 

[Madame Royale]

Charles to be an unlucky name considering the last two.

And in response to that, I'd suggest anyone who considers the use of this name as an "omen" to move on and leave the past in the past. Should Charles himself be concerned by it, then that doesn't speak much about the man's ability to think logically and sensibly. It is his name and to use any other name which is not his own Christian name is just rediculous.

Also, I'd think it a great shame should he choose not to wear any robes at his coronation. By the Prince's own actions, he'll be setting a precedent for change that in the long run, I don't believe will benefit the monarchy in any real capacity.

What I fail to understand is why he should not wear them. If ever there should be an occasion to wear such finery, then surely it should be the day of his crowning. He could wear it once, be painted in them for a state portrait or two and then never wear them again.

I mean what next? Diamond tiara's will no longer be worn, orders shall be bestowed but never seen and royal carriages will only be viewed in a museum? Should red carpets be replaced by bare pavements and the royal box at the opera will make a "wonderful" intermission kiosk I'm sure!

Set about unecessary and trivial change for the purpose of PR and for all intents and purposes, it will only ever harm the institution. Currently, succession rights and sizing of the royal family are the only issues of importance that require change at some forseeable time, imo. To continue retaining the aesthetic majesty of the monarchy is vitally important for it's continued longevity. No one does pomp and ceremony like the British and as was seen with the Cambridge wedding, it sells the royal brand and sells it hard!

People will bitch, they always have, but when all's said and done there is a nationalistic pride that is at stake. Take elements of it away, and imo you dishonour the institution for it personifies the ritual of tradition and all the embellishments which are associated. It is these things which have captivated the curiosity of people far and wide for centuries and it is these things (whether deemed insignfication to some, or otherwise) which keep the magic alive.

 

[MARG]

I really can't see Charles being known as anything other than, well, Charles. At his age if they called him George (or whatever), he'd forever be looking around for George.

As for his coronation? Well you only have to look at his son's wedding where he wore his uniform with all it's accoutrement's. I hardly think he is likely to turn up in an unmarked car wearing a suit to his own coronation!

The BRF are fully aware of the supreme importance of such an occasion. I wouldn't mind betting the entire ceremony, from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the shine on his shoes has been planned down to the last detail with lot's of input from his parents. They all know that like his mother's funeral, his coronation is the passing of the baton from one generation to another and must be handled in the correct way for Britain and the Commonwealth to ensure a smooth transition.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Whatever his regnal name will be he will still be Charles to his family of course - or Pa or Uncle Charles or whatever.

The planning of his coronation has been well and truly planned by the Earl Marshal with regular updates - this is what the Earl Marshal does and he also has the records of earlier coronations at his fingertips.

The Earl Marshal (The Duke of Norfolk) is an hereditary position that includes the responsibilities for planning coronations and funerals in particular.

Every so often there are reports of what Charles is planning and people think he is trying to jump into his mother's shoes rather then the fact that he is simply reviewing what is currently planned so that it can come together in about a year.

This is the same with the Queen and Philip's funerals. They will have been planned in quite some detail and the Earl Marshal will have those plans.

 

[Kataryn]

It will be interesting to see which name he chooses.

Charles III. , for the Jacobites, was Charles Edward Louis John Stuart, eldest son of James II./VII.'s only son and legitimate heir James Francis Edward Stuart.

James, his father, was born in St. James' Palace in 1688 as only son of the reigning king and his queen, thus he was Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay from birth. Only days after his birth, his father created him "The Prince of Wales" on 4. July 1688. His father lost his throne on 23. december 1688 when he fled England never to come back.

After James' death in 1766, Charles (aka Bonnie Prince Charlie") declared himself rightful king as Charles III. He died in 1788, leaving no legitimate children but only a brother who was a Roman Catholic priest and Cardinal in Rome.

So for "our" Charles to announce he will be known as Charles III. means that he is fully agreeing with the Act of Succession of 1701 because according to that Act there never was a Charles III. before. Deciding on George VII. would leave this question open.

I wonder what the queen thought when she named her heir Charles? And what does Charles think? Did he ever talk about this topic - Jacobite Succession?

 

[Iluvbertie]

How can he not fully approve of the Act of Settlement? Without it there were about 50 people with a better claim to the throne than George I and it is from that Act and that Act alone that the present royals claim the throne.

No Act of Settlement and there would be heaps of people ahead of Elizabeth II able to claim the throne - all the descendents of the older siblings of Sophia, Electress of Hanover along with the Jacobites.

 

[Madame Royale]

I wonder what the queen thought when she named her heir Charles?

No doubt that that would be the regnal name her son would use when King.

The Queen doesn't strike me as being a superstitious woman with a fear of the past.

Forward thinking and sensible though, certainly.

 

[Kataryn]

How can he not fully approve of the Act of Settlement? Without it there were about 50 people with a better claim to the throne than George I and it is from that Act and that Act alone that the present royals claim the throne.

No Act of Settlement and there would be heaps of people ahead of Elizabeth II able to claim the throne - all the descendents of the older siblings of Sophia, Electress of Hanover along with the Jacobites.

You think it would only be 50 persons? I doubt that as both daughters of Henriette Anne d'Orleans (daughter of Charles I.) and the children of her successor Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orleans (second wife of the duke d'Orleans and daughter of Sophia's eldest brother) alone were quite prolific. All current French pretenders from the Orleans-family have a better claim without the 1701 Act than Charles. And these are only the descendants of Philippe d'Orleans, the only son of the Duke d'Orleans. Then there were the girls.... Not the least Elisabeth Charlotte, who became the mother of Franz I. Stephan of Lorraine - thus all living Habsburg-Lothringens have a Jacobite claim before Charles....
Somehow I believe all other (catholic) Royals of Europe might have a better claim than the Windsors if it wasn't for the Act of Settlement...

 

[Renata4711]

I've no problems with "Charles the Third" as a regnal number - although I object to him actually becoming King.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchical_ordinal - lovely article...

 

[Iluvbertie]

You think it would only be 50 persons?

No I don't - I said there were 50 ahead of George I. That was in 1714. I didn't say there were 50 ahead of Charles now. As I said there would be heaps ahead of the current royals without the Act of Settlement.

I doubt that as both daughters of Henriette Anne d'Orleans (daughter of Charles I.) and the children of her successor Elisabeth Charlotte d'Orleans (second wife of the duke d'Orleans and daughter of Sophia's eldest brother) alone were quite prolific. All current French pretenders from the Orleans-family have a better claim without the 1701 Act than Charles. And these are only the descendants of Philippe d'Orleans, the only son of the Duke d'Orleans. Then there were the girls.... Not the least Elisabeth Charlotte, who became the mother of Franz I. Stephan of Lorraine - thus all living Habsburg-Lothringens have a Jacobite claim before Charles....
Somehow I believe all other (catholic) Royals of Europe might have a better claim than the Windsors if it wasn't for the Act of Settlement...

Obviously as there were 50 or so ahead of George I with better blood claims there would be 1000s with better claims than Charles without the Act of Settlement.

 

[MARG]

I've no problems with "Charles the Third" as a regnal number - although I object to him actually becoming King.

I am confused. It's OK to be Charles III but not KIng?

 

[Kataryn]

No I don't - I said there were 50 ahead of George I. That was in 1714. I didn't say there were 50 ahead of Charles now. As I said there would be heaps ahead of the current royals without the Act of Settlement.




Obviously as there were 50 or so ahead of George I with better blood claims there would be 1000s with better claims than Charles without the Act of Settlement.

You're right, I misunderstood your post. Of course - but doesn't the fact that all Habsburgs living today including all descendants of Habsburg-Archduchesses have a better Jacobite claim than Charles is absolutely astonishing?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am confused. It's OK to be Charles III but not KIng?

Remember that Renata has said on another thread that she hopes the Queen actually has to attend the funeral of her first born child. The actual wording was something like 'hopes the Queen outlives Charles'.

Armed with that knowledge about Renata I read her comment to mean that she doesn't want Charles to ever be King but also accepts that he probably will be and thus when that day arrives will accept his regnal name as Charles III.

I really find it sad that anyone would want a mother to have to mourn her own child but also wants to see William and Harry lose their remaining parent while they will still have young children who will lose their only remaining paternal grandparent.

 

[Kataryn]

I have very much harder feelings on thinking that someone wishes Charles' death before his mother dies. That is disgusting.

 

[Renata4711]

That's all very well for those of you who won't have to live under "Charles the Third".

Over the years I have listened to endless comments from friends and strangers, to the effect that these people want the Queen to outlive PC.
I will spare you the verbiage they used...

 

[Lumutqueen]

That's all very well for those of you who won't have to live under "Charles the Third".

Over the years I have listened to endless comments from friends and strangers, to the effect that these people want the Queen to outlive PC.
I will spare you the verbiage they used...

I'll have to live under Charles III and I'm very glad of it. To be honest, I'm not surprised by the comments you've heard, considering where you live.

 

[Renata4711]

No Scotland-bashing, please. We're only a small country

In any case, the First Minister has already reacted positively to the idea of retaining the Monarchy if Scotland becomes an independent state.

My guess is that a majority of Scots would have no problem with allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland.

But I'm not so sure about her son...

 

[Kataryn]

Considering what the Scots accepted from their Stuart-kings, Charles will be a great exeption as a peace-loving, positive man.

 

[Renata4711]

Considering what the Scots had to put up with from the "English" over many centuries, almost anybody would be acceptable.

And, in many ways, Charles is what you say he is. And more...

But we can't really have a king who will still be known for the Camillagate incident.
Look at Google - about 224,000 results.....

It would make the British Monarchy a global laughing stock - all over again.

 

[Lumutqueen]

No Scotland-bashing, please. We're only a small country

In any case, the First Minister has already reacted positively to the idea of retaining the Monarchy if Scotland becomes an independent state.

My guess is that a majority of Scots would have no problem with allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland.

But I'm not so sure about her son...

Umm where was I 'bashing' scotland? Nothing like your England bashing the other day.

I stand by what I say, all this not so sure about allegiance to Charles is no surprise considering where you live. I would expect the same from the Welsh and Northern Irish wishing for independence from our country and our Monarchy.
The fact that you've openly wished for Charles to die before his mother is shocking, you must really either hate the man or love his mother.
If Scotland does not want Charles as it's monarch then they can cry for independence and have it listened. If they don't, then Charles will be King of Scotland when the time comes. You should have faith in your people and your government to carry out your rather cruel wishes.

This is a thread about The Monarchy under Charles, allegiance to QE2 means nothing if she's gone.

But we can't really have a king who will still be known for the Camillagate incident.
Look at Google - about 224,000 results.....

It would make the British Monarchy a global laughing stock - all over again.

Actually if you bothered to look past 'Camillagate', you would see that Charles is worthy and more to be your King. "We can't really have" - this does make me chuckle.

What do your Google results mean exactly?
You're just showing again and again, what I said. Your dislike of the monarchy links more to where you come from. It's a real shame.

 

[MARG]

Don't you think it a tad infantile to spend your time fanning the flames of a not too interesting, and more than a little passé, 20 year old "scandal"?

Most normal adults have moved on with their lives and look back on the vicissitudes, not to mention indiscretions, of their past's with more than the occasional cringe. Charles is our Prince of Wales, he is not being elected Pope, so why is it that you can't allow him the same privilege?

Is your personal animus of such a deep and abiding hatred that you wish him dead, sometime in the not too distant future? For Her Majesty to bury her son just so you can satisfy your own persona agenda?l If so then I think it time you took stock of exactly what sort of person it is that would personally hold such a vile and misanthropic belief. persuasio

As to it making the British Monarchy a global laughing stock - all over again? People of the above persuasion are enough to make the world shake it's head in disgust.

Oh by the way, I googled Camillagate and I only got 45,300, coming up a few hundred thousand short but I am sure that those of your persuasion are industriously racking up the numbers to validate your claims.

 

[Renata4711]

It's not a question of what I think, but what the community (or communities) at large think(s), and will think in the future.

Perception is important, even vital, for any person in high office.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I didn't know communites at large disliked Charles in Scotland. They are keeping quiet.

 

[Renata4711]

Remember this "Telegraph" article from 2008 ?

Prince Charles may never be King Charles - Telegraph

 

[MARG]

I'm confused, are you talking to me? If so, I don't get why?

I wasn't fast enough on the reply and didn't realised I had posted unfinished. Your entry beat me to it and I was, of course, referring to Renata4711!

 

[Lumutqueen]

A 3 year old article that doesn't really say much about people's opinion of him, particularly not up north as I said.

Death may strike any member of the royal family, today, tomorrow, next week - of course for Charles every birthday is a wait but you can't exactly use his mothers age as a reason for him not to be King. Every birthday is another year for Charles to prove he is worthy of being King, in my opinion anyway.

I wasn't fast enough on the reply and didn't realised I had posted unfinished. Your entry beat me to it and I was, of course, referring to Renata4711!

I am glad, you got me all confused.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Remember this "Telegraph" article from 2008 ?

Prince Charles may never be King Charles - Telegraph

Yes I do - nothing much there at all.

Nothing to suggest that he won't be King or that people don't want him to be King.

What is says is that his is about to turn 60 and that he realises that the years are passing and that maybe he won't be King. Nothing to suggest that there is a groundswell of opinion to that effect.

Charles made a bad marriage but that doesn't mean he will make a bad king. If everyone who made a bad marriage was to be denied the right to do their job about half the population would be unable to work.

He will be a fine king because he has shown as Prince of Wales - to quote the article to which you have referred us - "He really cares. He always has," said the official. "He does not just moan about it. He gets on and tries to do something about it. He wants to change things. He could have been a different Prince of Wales but he has chosen to wear his conscience on his sleeve and take on causes, even though he knows people sometimes mock him."

Sure the article talks about his fears about not becoming King and his fears that he will be overshadowed by his sons, particulary William but also shows that there is a great deal of love between father and sons and that also leads to another concept - do you really think that William wants the job while his father is alive. William clearly adores his father and wouldn't want to hurt him that way - and effectively end the relationship with his only remaining parent, which is what would happen.

Unfortunately there are some people on this board, and in the wider world, who can't get passed the fact that Charles is alive, Diana is dead and that William and Harry actually love both their parents - not just Diana and think that by hating Charles they are preserving Diana's memory and showing support for Charles' sons by hating Charles.

 

[Renata4711]

I cannot - for the life of me - imagine anyone wanting to "hate" Charles.

He is a nice chap in very many ways, I'm sure. Of course his family love him, and he loves them, and he's been lucky to have Camilla.

He's the epitome of an English country gentleman.

I admire all his achievements, especially the Prince's Trust and all the projects listed under http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...es-charities-patronages-and-causes-16209.html

I share his interest in organic gardening:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...t-in-organic-farming-and-gardening-17707.html

My contention was - and is - and always will be - that he is not suited to be King.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I cannot - for the life of me - imagine anyone wanting to "hate" Charles.

He is a nice chap in very many ways, I'm sure. Of course his family love him, and he loves them, and he's been lucky to have Camilla.

He's the epitome of an English country gentleman.

I admire all his achievements, especially the Prince's Trust and all the projects listed under http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...es-charities-patronages-and-causes-16209.html

I share his interest in organic gardening:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...t-in-organic-farming-and-gardening-17707.html

My contention was - and is - and always will be - that he is not suited to be King.

Your posts have always come across as very much a 'I hate Charles' and you have also stated that you wish him to die before his mother I am sorry if that isn't what you meant but it is certainly the way they read to me.

I would love to know why you think he isn't suited to be King. He has the best training and preparation of any King in history and has been dedicated to the service of his country since he became an adult.

What more could you ask of a man than what he has done for the last 40 or so years?

Sure he could have been like Edward VII and do nothing (because he wasn't allowed to do anything) but he chose to forge a role for himself that involved helping the people of Britain in their 1000s while waiting for the job for which he has been trained since birth by his mother. If he isn't suited then his mother has failed in her duty - to train him to be suitable.

He has spoken his mind on some issues - certainly - but as Prince of Wales he is actually allowed to do so but he also knows that as King he won't have that right (William will).