Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Saragli]

I dont think it is ment as a tribute to his grandfather but rather that he likes George more. Like I said choosing Charles would be the english and modern thing to do but I still would love a George VII. I think it is the bigger number. It sounds more regal to me.

 

[branchg]

and reign after the damage to the monarchy by the Duke of Windsor.

That is if you count it to be damage. I think he showed that Royals are human beings too and fall in love with the same passion and devotion as commoners do.
Maybe Charles should become Edward IX as that could apply to him.

I don't believe Edward abdicated because he was in love with Wallis. She was a convenient excuse for him to relinquish the throne he really never wanted in the first place. He wasn't stupid enough to believe the Establishment would ever sanction a marriage to a person of such poor character and background.

 

[wymanda]

Prince Charles could never become King Albert for the same reason his grandfather did not. Queen Victoria wrote in her will or something that she wishes no future monarch take the name of her beloved husband or after herself. So there will never be another Queen Victoria. I think sticking with Charles would be a very english thing to do. But, I actually really like George and would want him to be George VII. George is more kingly to me and it would follow tradition. There are many parallels between Q Victore and P Edward and Q Elizabeth and P Charles. Both Queens are highly respectable and both over saw major changes in their empires. They became monarchs young and lived for a long time. Their sons were both scandalous prince of wales. But, Prince Edward became a popular King so I have great hope for Charles.

Actually quite the opposite was true. Victoria wished to see an unbroken line of Albert's & Victoria's. Her son was Albert Edward and most of her grandchildren had either Albert, Victor, Victoria or Alberta in their list of names.

 

[Saragli]

I wasnt talking about names of Prince and Princess but rather Kings and Queens. I am nearly 90% sure it was Queen Victorias wishes that no monarch use Albert or Victoria as their name when they become king or queen. That is why Prince Albert became King George.

 

[ysbel]

I thought Victoria didn't want a King Albert either?

 

[wymanda]

I don't believe Edward abdicated because he was in love with Wallis. She was a convenient excuse for him to relinquish the throne he really never wanted in the first place. He wasn't stupid enough to believe the Establishment would ever sanction a marriage to a person of such poor character and background.

How do we know that Wallis was "of poor character & background"?

In fact she came from one of the leading society families of Baltimore and her mother was a member of another of these families. The Warfields were quite wealthy but, as Wallis's father died when she was a baby and her mother had little income of her own. Wallis's uncle Solomon Warfield supported his sister-in-law and niece during Wallis's childhood and he funded her launch into society.

As far as her character, we have made much of the fact that Diana was right to free herself from a loveless marriage & yet we castigate Wallis for divorcing her first husband who was abusing her both physically and mentally. In that day and age a divorcee was not socially acceptable so Wallis obviously took the first chance of "protection" in Ernest Simpson. I'm sure she didn't anticipate (or plan) falling in love with the Prince of Wales.

 

[Cynthia Victoria]

Charles will rule

As disliked as he is now, in both Britain and abroad, will Charles ever become king or will the British send him packing?

Of course Charles will become king. Being king is based on birth not a meritocracy or who is best suited for the job at the time. If that were the case, the Duke of Kent might have been king instead of George the VI after the abdication. The idea was floated about by the gov't of the time and the Royals refused...heredity ruled.

 

[Margrethe II]

I thought Victoria didn't want a King Albert either?

Hello ysbel,

Actually, His Majesty the King Edward VII was infact meant to be known as King Albert Edward upon his mothers highest expectations. Her Majesty the Queen Alexandrina Victoria wished for 'Bertie' to be known as Albert Edward as a tribute to his beloved father (and was actually highly in favour of her husbands name being used by future Monarchs aswell). There had never been a British sovereign to use two joint names before.

Its was 'Bertie' who chose not to take the title Albert Edward as this was his way of freeing himself from his mothers grasp (it shows how influential the Queen/Empress was even in death) and defining his own position within the new Edwardian era.

My kind regards,

"MII"

 

[Feberin]

I think he's going to stick with Charles. His mother didn't change her name when she assended the throne and I think some people (the press especially) will find it confusing if he were to change his name. If he wished to honor his grandfather then why didn't he want William's name to be George? Didn't he want William's name to be Arthur or something?

 

[Elspeth]

I don't believe Edward abdicated because he was in love with Wallis. She was a convenient excuse for him to relinquish the throne he really never wanted in the first place. He wasn't stupid enough to believe the Establishment would ever sanction a marriage to a person of such poor character and background.

I doubt he took up with her just so that he'd have an excuse to abdicate (although I assume that isn't what you're suggesting). It sounds as though he was infatuated with her in the same way that his brother the Duke of York was infatuated by Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and his great-nephew was/is infatuated by Camilla. If he'd ended up being infatuated by someone eminently suitable to be Queen, I wonder if he'd have tried getting out of kingship in some other way or what he'd have done.

I think Wymanda has a good point about Wallis's character and background. If she'd been a single woman with whom the King had fallen in love, no doubt the press would have devoted gallons of ink to her position as a member of two of America's oldest and most aristocratic families, with the "poor relation" aspect romaticised to the point where she'd have been presented as a latter-day Cinderella.

She showed a lot of courage in standing up to her family and getting out of what seems to have been a dangerously abusive first marriage; if the Prince of Wales hadn't become attached to her, she probably would have stayed with her second husband. It's one of the unfortunate aspects of society until relatively recently that respectability was considered more important than physical safety. It sounds as though her Uncle Solomon would have been happier if she'd have stayed with Win Spencer at the risk of her life; attending her funeral and squeezing out some crocodile tears at the sad "accident" that had ended her life would have appealed to him a great deal more than being related to a divorced woman. Personally I'm glad those days are, for the most part, behind us.

 

[branchg]

How do we know that Wallis was "of poor character & background"?

In fact she came from one of the leading society families of Baltimore and her mother was a member of another of these families. The Warfields were quite wealthy but, as Wallis's father died when she was a baby and her mother had little income of her own. Wallis's uncle Solomon Warfield supported his sister-in-law and niece during Wallis's childhood and he funded her launch into society.

As far as her character, we have made much of the fact that Diana was right to free herself from a loveless marriage & yet we castigate Wallis for divorcing her first husband who was abusing her both physically and mentally. In that day and age a divorcee was not socially acceptable so Wallis obviously took the first chance of "protection" in Ernest Simpson. I'm sure she didn't anticipate (or plan) falling in love with the Prince of Wales.

While it's true Wallis was born into an old and distinguished Virginia family, she certainly was not an appropriate candidate to become Queen Consort. Regardless of the reasons, she was a twice-divorced woman (and her divorce from Ernest Simpson was at the King's behest) and she had an affair with a car salesman at the same time she was seeing the Prince of Wales while married.

I hardly think her character was suitable to become Queen, do you?

 

[branchg]

If that were the case, the Duke of Kent might have been king instead of George the VI after the abdication. The idea was floated about by the gov't of the time and the Royals refused...heredity ruled.

This was discussed privately among members of Parliament and the Cabinet before Edward's abdication. Baldwin refused to consider it and there wasn't enough support in Parliament to change the succession.

Parliament could have, and can, amend the succession and grant the Crown to any lineal descendant of Electress Sophia under the Act of Settlement. The royal family has no choice in the matter.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This was discussed privately among members of Parliament and the Cabinet before Edward's abdication. Baldwin refused to consider it and there wasn't enough support in Parliament to change the succession.

Parliament could have, and can, amend the succession and grant the Crown to any lineal descendant of Electress Sophia under the Act of Settlement. The royal family has no choice in the matter.

The family does have a choice in that the person to whom the throne is passed would have to agree to having people who were ahead of them in the line of succession still alive while they took the position. E.g. William would have to agree to take his father's place while his father is still alive.

Parliament would have to find a member of the family who was willing to take the throne and that may not be an easy task. Would you take the inheritance of a member of your family??

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

If it were not for Diana, the Monarchy would not have woken up to the fact of how old fashioned and stuffy it was. It needed a breath of fresh air and Diana provided it. She also showed she cared about people. Despite her personal errors, Diana was a great attribute to the Monarchy in many ways and William will continue that caring tradition.


Without drifting into a Diana row (God knows I've had enough of those to last me a lifetime), I don't think thats true at all but I respect your opinion. I'd question that the monarchy was 'old fashioned and stuffy' and I don't think it needed or needs a breath of fresh air.

On the subject of The Duchess of Windsor and Edward VIII - I think that they were in love but then again, I suppose I'd like to believe it was one of the greatest love stories of the 20th Century. The title thing annoys me with Wallis - British Royals don't marry morganatically and so legally, she was HRH The Duchess of Windsor - she should have been treated as such.

Back on topic with Prince Charles - I think he should reign as Charles III with Queen Camilla by his side. Then let William and Kate have their spell as Prince and Princess of Wales.

I'm jumping ship anyway, so whatever the British Monarchy wants to do will not affect me at all - I'm afraid the Golden Age of the British Monarchy is approaching its end anyway. Charles III will be the last true King of England IMHO.

I'll pop off to Denmark and enjoy life under Frederik X and Queen Mary!

 

[Elspeth]

You're popping off to Denmark, but your name is BeatrixFan? Isn't that the wrong monarch?

 

[Alexandria]

If it were not for Diana, the Monarchy would not have woken up to the fact of how old fashioned and stuffy it was. It needed a breath of fresh air and Diana provided it. She also showed she cared about people. Despite her personal errors, Diana was a great attribute to the Monarchy in many ways and William will continue that caring tradition.

Isn't the basis of monarchy old fashioned anyway? So one would think that any attempts at modernity might be rebelled against -- and hence a reason for not many people trying to modernize things.

And how much did Diana really modernize the monarchy? Don't get me wrong, I think Diana achieved many things as Princess of Wales, but I don't think she revolutionized it in any way.

Also, I think it's unfair to say that the other members of the royal family did not care about people when they visited them. I think the Queen, Prince Philip, Princess Anne, Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and the Duchess of York, Prince Edward and the Countess of Wessex, Princess Alexandra, et. al., care a great deal about the people they meet. Their way of demonstrating that care and concern is just different from the way Diana demonstrated her affection. Just as Diana was always very publicly affectionate with her sons and Charles wasn't, doesn't mean that Charles cares less for his sons because he won't hug them or or kiss them in public.

To quote Christopher Wilson from The Windsor Knot:

Diana was the brightest shining star in The British Royal Family in nearly 500 years. In her time as princess she brought luster, freshness, and a new sense of purpose to a tired and rudderless institution. . .Diana was able to use the fascination people retain for credible royalty to draw attention to other matters. . .Her celebrity was a positive force for good--that much cannot be denied, despite the revisionist theories which have been floated (mostly by Prince Charles' camp) since her death in 1997. She gave a new zest and a new meaning to royalty. (pp 8)

While I am most up to date on the more current British royals, from the Queen Mum to the present members of the royal family, I would debate that Diana was the shining star from the last 500 years. I'm sure others can provide examples of other bright stars within the British royal family from generations ago, but from my measly present-day knowledge, I think the Queem Mum was pretty impressive in her time. I have read a lot about how her wartime efforts were much appreciated and admired, how she stood up to her father-in-law, how supportive and strong she was of her husband as he made the transition from Duke of York to King, and how she guided a young Princess Elizabeth as she became Queen.

 

[branchg]

On the subject of The Duchess of Windsor and Edward VIII - I think that they were in love but then again, I suppose I'd like to believe it was one of the greatest love stories of the 20th Century. The title thing annoys me with Wallis - British Royals don't marry morganatically and so legally, she was HRH The Duchess of Windsor - she should have been treated as such.

Legally, Wallis was not a Royal Highness or princess of the UK because the King denied her the rank via letters patent. She was a duchess with a royal title.

 

[Feberin]

To quote Christopher Wilson from The Windsor Knot:

Diana was the brightest shining star in The British Royal Family in nearly 500 years. In her time as princess she brought luster, freshness, and a new sense of purpose to a tired and rudderless institution. . .Diana was able to use the fascination people retain for credible royalty to draw attention to other matters. . .Her celebrity was a positive force for good--that much cannot be denied, despite the revisionist theories which have been floated (mostly by Prince Charles' camp) since her death in 1997. She gave a new zest and a new meaning to royalty. (pp 8)

I think that it is crazy to think that Diana was the brightest star in 500 years! Think of all the people that have been in the family in the past 500 years. Diana may be the brightest star in the past 50 years but 500 is going back a bit to far. If she would be considered the brightest star in 500 years that is only because increased use of photography in recent years by the press.
You know when Queen Elizabeth was a small child whatever she wore instantly became a fashion statement and hundreds of mothers would rush off to buy their little "princesses" a dress just like hers! I can't recall where I read that but I think it may have been in one of Crawfie's books.
What about Queen Victoria? She is still very much remembered over 100 years after her death!
Also Diana was not the first member of the royal family to preform charity work. She may have done things differantly but royals have been involved in charity long before she joined the family.

 

[caroline mathilda]

Hyperbole-either positive or negative- always sells better than plain old reality.

CM

 

[Warren]

I think that it is crazy to think that Diana was the brightest star in 500 years!

Yes, a bit of perspective (and less hyperbole) may not go amiss. For a Royal Superstar on an Imperial scale, check out the coverage of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor) on his tour of the Empire after the First World War. Puts even the Beatles' hysterical public receptions in the shade.
.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, a bit of perspective (and less hyperbole) may not go amiss. For a Royal Superstar on an Imperial scale, check out the coverage of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor) on his tour of the Empire after the First World War. Puts even the Beatles' hysterical public receptions in the shade.
.

And lets not forget the reception that the Queen got on her early tours in the 50s.

Almost the entire population of Sydney turned out to see her arrival in 1954. She was a STAR in those days but the press and younger people seem to think that that star quality only existed for Diana. It didn't.

Elizabeth and Philip were the tops in the 50s and 60s as they were young, beautiful/handsome and, in the case of Elizabeth, on the throne. They had two gorgeous children (later to add to make 4) and they were feted wherever they went.

Not even Diana could command the crowds that Elizabeth did at that time.

How easily people forget or want to believe that their generation is the first to do something. It is the same with the headlines about William. Look back to the late 60s and 70s and see the headlines about Charles - the savious of the monarchy and the most in touch royal ever etc. etc. He could really draw the girls too!!! At my school and university we all swooned over Charles as a gorgeous hunk in the same way that girls are swooning over William and Harry now and others did in the 20s over Edward, Prince of Wales.

 

[Idriel]

The originality of Diana is that she touched people from far wider horizons than other royals (the Queen included). At her funerals you could see a complete spectrum of the British society from punks to city type men, all races, all social classes. I'm not totally sure this is the case for other royals. But clearly, the Windsors have not been short of shinning stars. Fat Mary was call the people's Princess at her time and was hugely popular.
Side note, a lot of people keep saying that Diana was popular just because she was pretty, but if you compare the kind of popularity Fat Mary (the well named) did enjoyed, compared to that of the stunning Alexandra (Pss of Wales) did enjoyed, I guess you can see that beauty is not always equivalent to popularity. Both fat Mary and Diana had this very 'common' touch, which is what made them so hugely popular IMO.

 

[tiaraprin]

The originality of Diana is that she touched people from far wider horizons than other royals (the Queen included). At her funerals you could see a complete spectrum of the British society from punks to city type men, all races, all social classes. I'm not totally sure this is the case for other royals. But clearly, the Windsors have not been short of shinning stars. Fat Mary was call the people's Princess at her time and was hugely popular.
Side note, a lot of people keep saying that Diana was popular just because she was pretty, but if you compare the kind of popularity Fat Mary (the well named) did enjoyed, compared to that of the stunning Alexandra (Pss of Wales) did enjoyed, I guess you can see that beauty is not always equivalent to popularity. Both fat Mary and Diana had this very 'common' touch, which is what made them so hugely popular IMO.

Very Good point Idriel.

Looks are not the most important thing in picking someone whom one feels to be a good person for the common good. Princess Mary Adelaide of Teck did ceaseless charity work for the poor while having many faults of her own, such as a tremendous debt that made Queen Victoria send her and her family to Italy for three years to "economize".

My purpose in quoting the passage I did before was to stand up for Diana. Despite her faults, she did much to help the monarchy althought many feel she harmed it.

I know there are many royal stars within the last 500 years who deserve and had tumultuous praise such as the Queen Mum and Queen Victoria. I do not denigrate their achievements. They deserve the praise they receive.

 

[Warren]

Very Good point Idriel.

Looks are not the most important thing in picking someone whom one feels to be a good person for the common good. Princess Mary Adelaide of Teck did ceaseless charity work for the poor while having many faults of her own, such as a tremendous debt that made Queen Victoria send her and her family to Italy for three years to "economize".

Yes, indeed, Princess Mary Adelaide ("Fat Mary") and the mother of Queen Mary seems to have been an absolute hoot from what I've read. Totally irrepressible, she knew how to handle (manipulate) Queen Victoria, set the lead in involving herself (and her daughter) in charitable works, had a keen sense of the ridiculous, and was very popular with "the people". There are some great stories to be told about her (thread suggestion, hint).
.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

The originality of Diana is that she touched people from far wider horizons than other royals (the Queen included).

Her job was to support the Queen and other members of the Royal Family - not upstage them as she did on many occassions, especially with Prince Charles.

I forget which politician it was who said she was an airhead, but it seems the general consensus amongst those who spent time with her that she was (to put it politely) a little dense. Looks clearly are not everything. In saying that, she knew how to manipulate.

Prince Charles had to suffer being upstaged by his wife and he needs a consort who will be happy to walk one step behind him as Camilla is doing. She'll support and not want to be the shining star and so I think they make a good team as King and Queen.

Charles needs a woman who will look elegant and dignified, take the posies, wave to the crowds, attend the cenotaph, sit with the boring dignitaries at dinner and be there for other members of the Royal Family. What he doesn't need is a Prima Donna who wants to be the centre of attention. Finally, he's got that woman, who is perfect Queen material.

Charles and Camilla now need to act like sponges (Charles not so much) to learn all they can from Prince Philip and the Queen - learning the role of Monarch and Consort. I am sure that they will make a brilliant pair and I think that in time, when the hype of Diana fades away, those who have resisted the idea of King Charles III will come to realise that he's a good man who cares and that Camilla is a good wife and is personable.

I think that it very much depends on what you want to see from the Royal Family. If you want a two-faced, celebrity, Jordan and Peter type set-up then Diana's way is perfect. But if you want to retain the tradition and the dignity of the Royal Family then stick with the Windsors. This really does make me favour Beatrice and not William, who is after all, half Spencer. Let us hope that he isn't taking any public speaking lessons from his Uncle on the Spencer side.

It amazes me how many people (who don't nessecarily live in Britain) say "What we need from the Monarchy is....", when actually, it's we Brits who should make the decision and not the outsiders who like to watch. The Brits aren't as stuffy as we're made out to be and I think the Diana craze has broken down a lot - Camilla has become very popular and everyone is now seeing how happy Charles is - he'll be King one day and a good one at that.

For now, let's enjoy living in the reign of Elizabeth II!

 

[Iluvbertie]

It amazes me how many people (who don't nessecarily live in Britain) say "What we need from the Monarchy is....", when actually, it's we Brits who should make the decision and not the outsiders who like to watch. The Brits aren't as stuffy as we're made out to be and I think the Diana craze has broken down a lot - Camilla has become very popular and everyone is now seeing how happy Charles is - he'll be King one day and a good one at that.

For now, let's enjoy living in the reign of Elizabeth II!

I hope you don't think that those of us who live in other realms shouldn't also be considered when you say 'it's we Brits who should make the decision and not the outsiders who like to watch'. Afterall any decision affects us as much as the Brits.

Saying that I fully support Charles and Camilla and am delighted to see just how happy he is when he is with her. They really do love each other and she does support him fully - just as the wife of the Prince of Wales is supposed to do.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I hope you don't think that those of us who live in other realms shouldn't also be considered when you say 'it's we Brits who should make the decision and not the outsiders who like to watch'. Afterall any decision affects us as much as the Brits.

Not at all. I'm all for those abroad taking an interest - I do it myself with many Monarchies but it's wrong for Americans, Lithuanians, Slovakians or any other non-commonwealth individual to say things like, "He shouldn't be King" because it won't affect them in the slightest and if we think he's good enough to be King then thats all there is to it. In all reality, I don't think that the opinion of America means that much to Prince Charles - I think this upcoming visit is more to present a united front between Britain and the US politically and that fact that its the first time Camilla has been there is a pleasant coincidence (call my cynical).

Saying that I fully support Charles and Camilla and am delighted to see just how happy he is when he is with her. They really do love each other and she does support him fully - just as the wife of the Prince of Wales is supposed to do.

Well said.

 

[ysbel]

I think Diana most resembles Evita, the wife of the Argentine dictator who commanded almost fanatical adoration from loyal disciples and sometimes commanded equally passionate hate.

Evita could be both very caring to the masses and yet sometimes very cruel to those around her. Like Diana, she was a woman of contradictions.

Unlike Diana, Evita was passionately almost fanatically devoted to her husband until her death. She never forgot that by marrying her, he raised her to dizzying heights that she would never have seen without him and she was forever grateful. She used her great charisma to put her husband in office two times. Diana seemed to care only about her own shining star and used her star power and charisma to tear her husband down.

Diana forgot that the Royal Family is a team effort where you needed to be a team player. So every triumph she enjoyed made the Royal family look worse, they looked uncaring, they looked stiff, they looked selfish. Where was the benefit to the institution of the monarchy from all this bad press?

And this was all horribly unfair and a lie, the Royal family cares deeply and have given their lives to the service of their country. I think the worse thing that Diana did was to pit one royal against another in the hearts of the people.

So I think after her death, the Royal family was in many ways worse off than before her marriage. I don't think this family can survive another Diana.

 

[Saragli]

Ill take Evita over Diana anyday. I think Evita is such an amazing person and her situation and everything that just when on in argentina at her time and what she was doing. Diana did hurt the monarchy in that she pitted royalty against others and wanted to be a solo star. She forgot the part of team effort. If Diana was more about team effort, people wouldnt be debating whether Charles should be King or whether Camilla shoud be Queen. O well, its all in the past and the Royal Family does not seem so divided and they sure are making a effort to seem unitited.

 

[ysbel]

Ill take Evita over Diana anyday. I think Evita is such an amazing person and her situation and everything that just when on in argentina at her time and what she was doing.

I wouldn't go that far! Evita could be very vengeful and she never forgot a grudge. The word in Argentina was that you didn't want to get on her bad side or you were ruined.

One can even argue that her support for her husband's dictatorship put Argentine efforts at democracy back a few decades.

But overall I would say she supported her husband and his governnment, questionable though they were so she supported the status quo.