The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inspired by the article about Charles' "plot" this morning's "Sunrise" TV show had a telephone poll asking whether or not people thought Camilla should be Queen in due course. Something in the order of 88% voted "no". I don't know the number of callers or the extent to which republicanism motivated people to call, but, for what it is, I thought the result of the poll was interesting.

Just as scientific a poll, Yahoo7 is running one of 'princess title for Camilla' it was up to 81% no, so then the implication is that 81% of people who voted thought she should have the queen title.
 
I find these various polls hilarious. Either they have phoned 1000 people and based the opinions of 61 million (in the UK) on the results from the 1000, or they are click to vote (You can click as many times as you want as long as you clear your cookies) or phone in, again as many times as you want.

A friend of mine is a whizz with polls and how many you would actually need to ask to get a real idea, but even to this simpleton, the ones I have mentioned don't appear to be very scientific!:D
 
If the recent article in News of the World have got the tiniest grain of truth, it could be viewed as the water testing by the Clarence House. As for news and polls of such nature in general, they are annoying and faulty. Given the current developments in the economic environment, who really cares about the title of the second wife of the Heir Apparent? I wonder why the Clarence House tends to create awkward situation out of nothing.
Personally I would like to see King Charles and his wife entertaining Chinese Prime Minister...
 
I find these various polls hilarious. Either they have phoned 1000 people and based the opinions of 61 million (in the UK) on the results from the 1000, or they are click to vote (You can click as many times as you want as long as you clear your cookies) or phone in, again as many times as you want.

A friend of mine is a whizz with polls and how many you would actually need to ask to get a real idea, but even to this simpleton, the ones I have mentioned don't appear to be very scientific!:D
80% of statistics are made up on the spot 60% of the time. . . .:whistling:
 
I think Queen Camilla's time will come, we just have to wait!!!
 
If the monarchy ended, would the Crown Estates actually revert to being the personal property of the ex-monarch, though? It seems like it could easily be argued that it's become, like the palaces, something along the lines of "state property" due to the near unbreakable convention that each monarch surrender it. Did Edward VIII have to sell it when he abdicated, or did it automatically change hands? If it's the latter, I don't think it could really be considered personal property.

I think that Edward VIII did sell his property(but which properties I am not sure) to his brother when he abdicated, it was to provide money for him to live off. He was worried that he would be left penniless (his worry all his life even though he was a millionaire) and this sale was supposed to compensate for the fact that as the heir to the throne only his brothers and sister were mentioned in George V´s will.
 
The only properties Edward VIII sold were Balmoral and Sandringham, both of which belonged to him under his father's will as the eldest son and successor to the throne. He did not receive any additional bequests from George V because as The Duke of Cornwall, he had received its income for years as the heir, while his brothers did not. The properties were valued at 300,000 sterling, but this lump-sum was not paid directly to The Duke, rather an equivalent amount was used to purchase War Loan bonds to generate 11,000 pounds annually in tax-free income. His brother supplemented this income with an allowance of 10,000 sterling per year.

Keep in mind The Duke had lied about his personal means when George VI initially agreed to a 25,000 sterling annual income, stating he only had 5,000 per year, when his fortune was worth over 1 million sterling from years of income from the Duchy of Cornwall. This does not include substantial sums of money he spent from his brief time as King from the Duchy of Lancaster, most of which was used to purchase jewels for Wallis.

The Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent each received about 1 million sterling in trust (about $30 million today) from their father's estate, believed to be limited to the income only, with the grandchildren inheriting the principal. Unfortunately, due to World War II, currency controls and inflation, much of this money was greatly diminished by the early 50's.

The Crown Estate is inalienable from the State, although it technically belongs to the Crown in the person of the Sovereign. If the monarchy was abolished, those assets would remain with the Exchequer.
 
Prince Charles: Ready for active service

November 16

It was always expected that when he finally came to the throne, the 'interfering' Charles would fall silent. Now the constitutionally explosive idea is taking root that he should continue to speak out on public issues, writes his biographer

Jonathan Dimbleby

Prince Charles: Ready for active service - Times Online
 
From what I have read about the Duke of Windsor he was very shocked to find he was not left any money in his father´s will, his father had expected him to follow him and be King and of course there was all the money he had received from the Duchy of Cornwall.
The royal family and advisers were suddenly faced with a King who was abdicating and wanted compensation and after much talk they decided to "buy" the two properties that could be considered private, Sandringham and Balmoral from him, as well as giving him what was a generous allowance. He continued to count himself as a poor man and if we can believe some of his biographers although he was always very generous with the Duchess if there were some way he could get out of paying he would, especially expensive restaurants he would, and he was always ready for a discount.
The French were especially good to him and he paid what was considered a "peppercorn" rent for his sumptious mansion in Paris. He led a frivolous life but he seemed to enjoy it although he never stopped complaining almost to the day he died.
 
It was always expected that when he finally came to the throne, the 'interfering' Charles would fall silent. Now the constitutionally explosive idea is taking root that he should continue to speak out on public issues, writes his biographer

Jonathan Dimbleby

Prince Charles: Ready for active service - Times Online
Thanks for posting this claim by Dimbleby, a claim I hasten to add that was denied by Clarence House according to reports by the BBC & ITV & Charles: rethink of sovereign's role - Liverpool Echo.co.uk.
Clarence House denied there was any truth in the reports and said people should refer to comments made by the prince himself. Asked by the BBC, for a recent documentary celebrating his 60th birthday, if he would continue to campaign in his role as king, he said: "I don't know. I don't know - probably not in the same way.
 

If spokesmen at Buckingham Palace are to be trusted, which I do think they are, it is noteworthy to read this statement (also according to the Sunday Express) made last night by a Buckingham Palace spokesman:

“The Queen has always made it clear that she will not step down and that hasn’t changed.”

That is a rather firm statement leaving no doors open for regret.
 
So unless she pases when hes 65 he wont be King that what your saying?
 
No, she isn't saying that. She's just saying that the Queen won't abdicate, she'll continue as Queen for her whole life, just as she promised to do on her 21st birthday.
 
Exactly, Elspet :flowers:

Except that it isn't me saying that. It is a Buckingham Palace spokesman.
 
Thanks for posting this claim by Dimbleby, a claim I hasten to add that was denied by Clarence House according to reports by the BBC & ITV & Charles: rethink of sovereign's role - Liverpool Echo.co.uk.
I doubt Charles has any interest in a public discussion of his way to be king now. Why should he? He will be able to reign by the power of his personality, he will still be able to influence the government through his right to advise and I bet those politicians who will have to deal with him will learn that the king intends to see results.

OTOH I don't think Charles can be interested in a formal change of kingship for the next generations - what about william? so far he is not even interested in starting his Royal duties but prefers a pilot's duty, he is not yet learning how to care for the Duchy of Cornwall once it's his enterprise and he seems to be much less political than Charles. So where is the sense in annoying his mother and getting into a danger zone, when the purpose he would do it for is short-lived and potentially dangerous for his heirs?
 
When Charles will be King i think there´ll be changes: He has a strong personality and the in same way he is now a special Prince of Wales he´ll be in many ways a special King.

I think it´s the ´normal´ way that Clarence House denied this kind of reports or articles, although i can imagine that Charles could be interested in the public mind about possible ´reforms´, about his ´aktive role´as a King or about the question to be´defender of faith´, or ´the faith´.

It seems that more people start to think about the time he´ll be King and if the dicussion about it runs in a way with sustance and knowledge ( and not on a tabloid level) it can be interesting for us and maybe for him too.(IMO).
 
I agree. I would hate to see such a passionate campaigner silenced in any way. Even if it does cause the fur to fly, I think it will be worth it to have a King with a "Personality".
 
I think Charles is wise enough to use his "power to convene" judiciously, once he is King. I do think he will let his thoughts on matters close to his heart be heard. He is also a shrewd enough PR operator to know how he must use the next years in assessing public opinion for such a potential King, and to the extent he needs to, manage public opinion in this regard.

In some ways, I agree with the view in the article in the Mail that, perhaps, the time has come for the next monarch to be slightly more vocal to reinvigorate the monarchy.
 
Prince Charles uses book Harmony to pledge a duty to the environment | Mail Online

Prince Charles has already said he will take the title of Defender of the Faith when he becomes King.

But now the Prince of Wales has pledged to dedicate himself to becoming the Defender of Nature.

Prince of Wales wants to be 'defender of nature' - Telegraph

As heir to the throne Prince Charles will one day be given the title Defender of Faith.

But as his job, he says he intends to become the defender of nature
 
Fresh heir? How? I can't imagine it. Just hearing him talk puts me to sleep. :pigsfly:
 
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Prince Charles: I’ll be a breath of fresh heir and if my parents don’t like it, bad luck

Prince Charles has given his strongest signal yet that he plans to break with tradition and be as outspoken when king as he is now.

The heir to the throne sees the role of a constitutional monarch in the 21st century as very different from the example his mother has set, he makes clear.

This is not exactly what P Charles said, right? :) I can see the BRF's fortune being reduced after he becomes King. Which is fair as a big part of the property still belongs to the Crown out of regard for HM, the Queen.
 
I know that. It's impossible for me to find the new VF issue here. Could someone, please, post the article when it becomes available online? :flowers:
 
Thanks Lumutqueen!

For what it's worth, I like Charles. He has causes that he's passionate about and gets stuck in. He became involved in environmental issues LONG before they became fashionable.So yes, he often behaves like an embarrassing Dad at a wedding but he has carved out a role for himself, and isn't just being a 'monarch in waiting' and for that I applaud him. I think he'll be a great King; different to his mother which is a good thing (not because she's bad, just he needs his own identity) and I think he'll continue saying what he thinks, and championing causes that he cares about, and being a good ambassador at home and abroad.
 
I agree with you here.

Charles is coming into his own and it will reflect on the monarchy he holds and personally I like it. Even being American, I think I've watched Charles' path more than I have our own presidents. Perhaps because it's a longer one. I'm still wading through the Dimbleby biography that was written way back when and there's so much insight into Charles in that book that is not about Diana.

Defender of Nature. yes. (no druish joke here) I can see him being that. Also the Defender of Faith. By the time he does sit as King, I really do think he'll be concerned with more of the global effects of things that will not only affect the UK but all of us. Presidents and PMs and politics come and go.. wax and wane but actually a man dedicated to preserving our planet and the folks that live on it rank high in my book. If being King means he has to be silenced and just be a figurehead, its time for a republic.

He was given big ears for a reason.. perhaps he hears and senses things most of us don't.

Perhaps
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If being King means he has to be silenced and just be a figurehead, its time for a republic.

The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom