Will Charles Ever Reign?

[tiaraprin]

We barely know William so we can not really judge how good of a human being he is. What makes Charles a bad human being. He has done more for charity than most people in this world. Maybe he doesnt show it in public as much as Diana did because he does not need to. He cares for his country and is constantly trying to find ways to keep tradition and move into the modern world. William took a different major than his father and the williams major was Geography. Not the best subject to judge intellegence on. William is a smart boy but is no were near as wise as his father is or as wise as he needs to be to survive the royal family yet. Charles has also learned from his past mistakes. We dont know that william wont make mistakes. He probably will and will learn from them. People are always growing and learning and Charles is so much more suited to be king than william is right now. I do agree that william is the perfect blend of his father and mother when it comes to his public figure from what we have seen from him so far, which is not much. He has his fathers sense of duty and occasion and his mothers compassion. But, that is so much better used as a Prince and Heir to the Throne. Remember,that william cannot be how he is now when he becomes monarch. Things change. It is better to have william waiting so we can have him longer rather than have him controlled by the crown as monarch. Lets not takes Williams life away from him so young. I hope he has until his 40's to live a free life.

I truly don't wish to take William's freedom away. I wish for him to make to his 40's before Her Majesty passes on. I want the crown to pass to William after Her Majesty. It is my personal opinion and what I think will be best for the monarchy. Charles' situation and errors cause and have caused too much turmoil in the House of Windsor.

 

[Saragli]

Not just Charles errors though but of many others have cost the monarchy turmoils in the PAST. We are in the present and things are looking bright. Charles is doing a lot of good things right now and that is what we should be looking at. Trying to skip Charles would cause turmoil and a family rift. The law is the law and william would never want to knock out his fathers place in succession. It would not be best for the monarchy because it shows that there is no law and order. Charles is one of the best if not thee best Prince of Wales in history. He has defined the title and served his nation well. He will make a good king. I want reasons as to why Charles should not be king based on his service to the nation not his private life. There is a difference.

 

[ysbel]

tiaraprin, wasn't it you who said the discussion of which crown prince would succeed first was morbid because it was speculating on which monarch was going to die first?

How is it different when you have a ferverent wish that Charles die before he has a chance to acceed the throne? He may well die before his mother but praying and wishing that he die before her is like putting a death wish on him. That's morbid.

 

[Margrethe II]

I want reasons

Mind the fact that I just pin pointed this phrase out of your whole post. I just noticed that I seem to see these words repeated constantly in them.

You see, maybe if you asked politely for members to explain their views on a certain subject (and not demand them like you so often do), you would more than likely be given what you so passionately seek on a more regular basis.

Since we are all fans of the truth here at the Royal Forums (well, I know I am), I just wanted it to be expressed how I find your responses to be rather aggressive and quite frankly, rude. Tact goes a long way when one uses it.

Now, you can get your back up and be confrontational if you wish, that seems to be your agenda and to be honest it wont bother me at all if you chose that path. But, you could take what I've said on board constructively (not that you shall of course) and work on your cyber social skills so that most of the people here who post along side you wont continue to get the wrong impression (unless of course that is the impression you wish for them to recieve).

You may think I'm not a nice person either, thats fine you can think that if you wish, but just so you know (of course not that you care), I am in actual fact a very down to earth, warm and sicnere person who believes that no one deserves to be spoken down to or ridiculed for having their own beliefs and thoughts on an issue that arent in line with your own. Try seeing it from the other posters point of view (I know I do). I am almost certain you would'nt like it much if the roles were reversed.

Good health and happiness to you princejohhny25.

"MII"

This isnt a malicious post and I hope it is not viewed as such.

 

[Elspeth]

The Queen is already nearly 80. William is in his early 20s. If you wish for her to live for another 20 years, you're just looking at a situation where Charles will effectively be the ruler because he'll have taken most of the duties off the shoulders of his extremely old mother, but he won't have the restrictions that go with being the sovereign. The scenario you hope for would in fact be a great deal more dangerous for a person so allegedly error-prone than a scenario where he becomes king and is constitutionally far more limited. Simply so that he never gets the title "king" and Camilla never gets to become queen. Simply so that the throne can go straight to Diana's son. If you really think Charles is such an error-prone waste of space, then your preferred scenario would be the one that gave him the greatest possible scope to screw up.

 

[branchg]

I totally agree branchg, but other monarchies with equally ancient coronation traditions have given them up and Tony Blair is cutting out a lot of other revered traditions of the British monarchy. The House of Windsor is being criticized for being too expensive, too grand, and is being unfavorably compared to the simpler, more modernistic royal houses on the continent.

That having been said, I hope they don't cut out the coronation.

I doubt a future Prime Minister would even entertain abolishing the coronation ceremony. There is no way Parliament would agree to it.

Polls show the majority of the British public still supports the monarchy and most still enjoy the ceremonial pomp and grandeur of the throne. I think it is highly unlikely anything will change.

 

[Mapple]

I doubt a future Prime Minister would even entertain abolishing the coronation ceremony. There is no way Parliament would agree to it.

-snip-

Hope so. I'm an Anglophile, and I really want to watch a British coronation on TV.

 

[branchg]

I am not shallow to pick a king based on his looks number one. Number two, while William has much to learn, I think he is a better human being and more caring than his father. I believe William can successfully merge royalty with the caring mode like his mother did. William is also more intelligent than his father, his grades and degree prove this. William also has the benefit of learning from his father's numerous errors.

I think that's unfair. Charles has performed many years of service to the nation as Prince of Wales and there is no evidence to indicate he is not a good and caring person. In fact, there is much evidence to indicate the opposite is true. And what makes you think Charles is not intelligent? He certainly has much more education and preparation than his mother ever did.

William seems like a person of fine character and personality, but he is very much unprepared for the burden of the throne. He is entitled to have the time necessary to grow into his future role and experience life on his own terms. He has a lifetime of public duty and protocol ahead of him and every moment he can have to be himself is important to his development.

Basing these assessments on a marriage that went wrong for a lot of different reasons is not a reason to deny someone the throne. Diana is no longer here to speak for herself and it is time to move on with life. Succession is determined by Parliament and Charles will be King under the Act of Settlement.

 

[Saragli]

I do not think im agresive Margereth. Im sorry if I come of that way. I simply want to understand why everyone is so adamently against C and C. All the answers go back to Diana. That is not good enough in my opinion. Diana is equal in C and C. No one worse or better. Theyre both human who makes mistakes humans do everyday exept theirs is blasted on the papers. It doesn not bother me that other people have different opinions I just want to understand where there opinions come from. I also give reasons for my views. Im a rationalist forgive me. Charles and Camilla have proven to be warm caring people who care about their family and country. They are loyal to their country and Charles works his deriere off like crazy and Camilla is starting at a good rate. I am sure all of you have done things in the past you wish never happened. But, you all got second chances. Why not Charles. He has proven himself over and over. Stop the Hypocracy. Non of you are Jesus.

 

[caroline mathilda]

Stop the Hypocracy. Non of you are Jesus.

Princejonnhy25, I think this is exactly the type of aggressive hyperbole to which Margarethe II was referring. It is not a useful tool for getting your point across.

All of us have our opinions regarding the Charles- Camilla-Diana triangle. Obviously some are more passionate than others.

As in any debate we should contiue to give each other a fair hearing and then respond in a civil manner. The various opinions and wealth of information is why I am a member of this Forum.

Caroline Mathilda

 

[Saragli]

Im sorry, im just used to writing that way. I didnt think it was aggresive when I wrote I was just trying to say that no one is perfect and flawed people shouldnt condemn others for being flawed. I am not concerned with the triangle I just want to know why people think charles will be a bad king and to skip him.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re;

If I had my way, William would never be King. His mother was nothing but a damaging force to the Monarchy - if he follows her example and not his grandmothers then the Monarchy will become a laughing stock and will crumble.

I'd much prefer to see Queen Beatrice after King Charles but unless William and Harry are killed, illegitimate or marry catholics - it aint gonna happen.

And no, I'm not wishing them dead, insinuating that they are illegitimate or are set up with catholics!

 

[caroline mathilda]

I want the Succession to go on in the prescribed manner. After the Queen dies, then Charles succeeds and in the natural course of time William will become king. I do not forsee Parliment ever tampering with it.

Although I am not British ( and thus do not have to pay for it), I hope the pomp and circumstance of the coronations will continue as well.

I think William will be well prepared for the Throne when his time comes. I think he will take the best of both parents to the Throne and will have learned from BOTH of their mistakes.

Caroline Mathilda

 

[ysbel]

The British monarchy will be poorly served by any scenario other than Charles succeeding the Queen and William succeeding Charles. No one else is prepared for the throne. William may be but monarchies are most vulnerable when the crown skips generations.

The Swedish monarchy lost a great deal when its Crown Prince was killed in a plane crash in 1945 and his son had to succeed his grandfather in the early 70s.

Above and foremost, the monarchy needs the thread of continuity to make it survive and be relevant to all the generations. And that includes a King Charles.

 

[Saragli]

There has to be a show of Law and Order in the Royal Family. Skipping generations would damage the monarchy to unreparable limits. It would take away what defines the monarchy. That blood chooses monarch not goverment.

 

[branchg]

This is purely my opinion, but I think the irony in all of this debate about Charles' "worthiness" to ascend the throne that today Diana would have agreed Charles IS worthy and done everything she could to strengthen the monarchy. Her tactics and pressure on the Establishment and the Queen were designed to produce a settlement as favorable as possible to her once divorced. She totally changed her tune once everything was over and had assumed increasing duties with the Queen and the Government's approval.

Regarding Camilla, many friends of Diana were quoted as saying she had come to accept her presence and loyalty to Charles and thought he should eventually "make an honest woman of her". I think Diana would have supported a remarriage in time, provided of course, she was given appropriate rank and title as the mother of a future king.

 

[Saragli]

Just a question could the Queen have created a title for Diana like The Princess Mother. People see what they want to see. Diana had a lot to lose if she did not get a good settlement. She did her part and made herself look like and victim and after the divorce there was a change. Diana did a lot of her noticable landmine and aids work after her death(if im wrong correct me).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Just a question could the Queen have created a title for Diana like The Princess Mother. People see what they want to see. Diana had a lot to lose if she did not get a good settlement. She did her part and made herself look like and victim and after the divorce there was a change. Diana did a lot of her noticable landmine and aids work after her death(if im wrong correct me).

Call my picky but don't you mean after her 'divorce' not her 'death'?

Landmine work - yes - aids work - she started relatively early in her life as POW and continued throughout.

 

[iowabelle]

tiaraprin, wasn't it you who said the discussion of which crown prince would succeed first was morbid because it was speculating on which monarch was going to die first?

How is it different when you have a ferverent wish that Charles die before he has a chance to acceed the throne? He may well die before his mother but praying and wishing that he die before her is like putting a death wish on him. That's morbid.

I think I was the one who said it was morbid to speculate about the current monarchs dying.

And I have never wished Charles to die first.

 

[Saragli]

Diana did a lot of her noticable landmine and aids work after her death(if im wrong correct me).

How ironic I didnt even realize I did that. I mean after the divorce. I remember now. The landmines were in 97 but Diana made huge aids news headlines in 87 when she touched an Aids victim.

 

[branchg]

Just a question could the Queen have created a title for Diana like The Princess Mother.

Assuming the Government and the Queen would have agreed Diana could return to official duties, it is likely she would have become "HRH Princess Diana". There is no meaning to the style "Princess Mother".

 

[Saragli]

Yea I know I was just thinking they might make something up for her unique situation. I think they should have changed the royal law so that they could have given Diana the title of Her Highness, The Princess Diana, Princess of the Untied Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. To not be a royal highness but become a princess in her own right. O well doesnt matter now.

 

[branchg]

Yea I know I was just thinking they might make something up for her unique situation. I think they should have changed the royal law so that they could have given Diana the title of Her Highness, The Princess Diana, Princess of the Untied Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. To not be a royal highness but become a princess in her own right. O well doesnt matter now.

The dignity of Highness was used throughout the reign of the House of Hanover, including Queen Victoria. Her grandson, George V, abolished the use of it when he issued his 1917 letters patent governing the use of the titular dignity of Prince/Princess and the rank of Royal Highness.

Only children of the Sovereign are permitted to use "The" before their titular dignity of Prince/Princess. The one exception was when the Duke of Edinburgh was created a Prince of the UK in 1957. He was granted precedence ahead of all other princes of the UK and assumed the style of The Prince Philip. I doubt the Queen would have granted Diana a similar honour.

All princes and princesses are of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. So, if Diana had been HRH Princess Diana, she would be a princess of the same realms.

 

[wymanda]

Yea I know I was just thinking they might make something up for her unique situation. I think they should have changed the royal law so that they could have given Diana the title of Her Highness, The Princess Diana, Princess of the Untied Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. To not be a royal highness but become a princess in her own right. O well doesnt matter now.

They could also have created her Duchess of Somewhere as Queen Margarethe did for Alexandra.
I do think that with divorce becoming more acceptable there needs to be some type of title for divorced mothers of an heir, perhaps the Her Highness should be reintroduced?

 

[Saragli]

Not all princes and princess were prince and princess of the uk. Diana and Sarah were not princess in their own right. They were princes by marriage to their husband. Diana would have had to be created a Princess in her own right like the Queen did to Prince Philip. I agree I think the HH should be reintroduced. It makes everything much more eaiser.

 

[Margrethe II]

They could also have created her Duchess of Somewhere as Queen Margarethe did for Alexandra.

Hey wymanda.

Her Majesty the Queen Margrethe II created Her Highness the Princess Alexandra a countess upon her divorce from Joachim. Apart from the fact that it was a lovely personal gesture from the Queen to her ex daughter in-law, it was also bestowed upon Alexandra so that if she were to infact remarry (which would demand the loss of Her Highness style and that of a Princess of the Kingdom of Denmark) would remain Her Excellency the countess of Frederiksborg in her own right. This title however cannot be passed down to her children and shall be placed under abeyance upon Her Highness' greatly distant passing.

I agree with both princejohnny25 and yourself that the reintrodcution of His or Her Highness styles would make the situation (whenever they come about) alot easier and less controversial for those involved.

Kind regards to you,

"MII"

I would also like to thank princejohnny25 for responding to my post. I appreciated your response and am happy to see that it was'nt interpreted in a nasty way as it was not meant to serve such a purpose.

 

[branchg]

Anyone who marries a prince of the UK automatically becomes a princess of the UK with the rank of Royal Highness. Their style and title follows their husband's peerages, if any.

The only exception was the marriage of Wallis Simpson to HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor. George VI issued letters patent denying Wallis the rank of Royal Highness and princess of the UK. As a result, she was styled "Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor" and held a lesser rank than the Duke, who remained a Royal Highness.

 

[branchg]

They could also have created her Duchess of Somewhere as Queen Margarethe did for Alexandra.
I do think that with divorce becoming more acceptable there needs to be some type of title for divorced mothers of an heir, perhaps the Her Highness should be reintroduced?

It's not really the same because the rank of Highness is held by the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the male line in Denmark. The rank of Royal Highness is reserved for the children of the Sovereign only.

Alexandra remained a princess of Denmark after her divorce with the rank of Highness (equal to her children). She will lose this rank and title with remarriage, therefore, the Queen generously created Alexandra a countess with the rank of Excellency in her own right.

 

[branchg]

They could also have created her Duchess of Somewhere as Queen Margarethe did for Alexandra.

I doubt Diana would have agreed to a dukedom in her own right, rather than retaining her style as Princess of Wales. It was said she felt it was very important to retain the Wales name and would not accept anything else. I find this rather strange since if she had remarried, she would have lost the Wales style and assumed her new husband's name or title.

It would have been better for Diana to become a duchess in her own right, rather than just Diana, Princess of Wales. This way she would have retained her rank and peerage despite a remarriage.

 

[Warren]

It's hard to stop Diana discussion taking over various Charles (and Camilla) threads isn't it?

Thanks to Margrethe II and Princejonnhy25 for their civil responses. Something I learnt early on in TRF was not to assume the writing style of a member as necessarily being a true reflection of their nature or personality.

As to the use of "Highness", this was indeed abolished by George V in 1917 but with a couple of exceptions: Princesses Marie Louise and Helena Victoria (the daughters of Princess Christian of Schleswig Holstein), who have the distinction of being known as Princesses "of nothing".

I don't know what happened with the style of HH Princess Maud, who married in 1923 the Earl of Southesk and was the mother of the current 3rd Duke of Fife.

W