Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Elspeth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage.

It does now. The rules about divorce and remarriage have been considerably relaxed by the CofE in the last few years.

Marriage in Church after Divorce (updated February 2003) | Church of England

As for accepting Camilla, while this forum seems to be extremely pro camilla, this is not neccessarily true of the general population. There are a lot of people who were crazy about Diana and are still not thrilled with Camilla.

I think you might find that the people who were crazy about Diana won't have enough clout to get Charles kicked off the throne. They may be very voluble, but they're increasingly in the minority. Now people have seen that Camilla is actually a reasonable human being and not some species of monster, as well as reading all the books about Diana which showed that she wasn't all that easy a person to live with (and even her friends say how possessive and insecure she was), they seem to be warming to her, the best efforts of the Daily Mail notwithstanding.

 

[diamondBrg]

At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty.

Yes she did and I believe she received the title "Diana, Princess of Wales" for life and 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling in a divorce settlement for doing so?

 

[branchg]

Yes she did and I believe she received the title "Diana, Princess of Wales" for life and 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling in a divorce settlement for doing so?

Diana did not receive the title of "Princess of Wales" for life. Like all divorcees of peers, she was permitted to retain her style until she remarried, but was no longer The Princess of Wales or HRH.

Because she was the mother of a future king, Diana did receive special considerations from The Queen, including remaining a member of the royal family and retaining her precedence and dignity as a princess.

 

[diamondBrg]

Diana did not receive the title of "Princess of Wales" for life. Like all divorcees of peers, she was permitted to retain her style until she remarried, but was no longer The Princess of Wales or HRH.

Because she was the mother of a future king, Diana did receive special considerations from The Queen, including remaining a member of the royal family and retaining her precedence and dignity as a princess.

If Diana had remarried and as I understand you post would have lost the "style" Diana, Princess of Wales, she would have reverted to the status of a "Commoner?" How would that be possible as she would still be the mother of a future King?

 

[Al_bina]

Yes she did and I believe she received the title "Diana, Princess of Wales" for life and 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling in a divorce settlement for doing so?

Why not? 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling is an adequate payoff for securing the bloodline.

 

[diamondBrg]

Why not? 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling is an adequate payoff for securing the bloodline.

You had previously posted;

"At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty."

My point was that she was adequately compensated for fulfilling that ONE duty successfully.

 

[Al_bina]

You had previously posted;

"At least, controversial Princess Diana did successfully fulfil this duty."

My point was that she was adequately compensated for fulfilling that ONE duty successfully.

May be or may be not... It was for the parties involved to determine. I am sure that the divorce was a tactical and strategic mistake of Princess Diana. If she did not find happiness with Prince Charles, she should have concentrated on her sons and charities. Unfortunately, Princess Diana failed to separate a fairy tale from harsh realities.

 

[milla Ca]

Charles does face public ridicule due to his quirks and personal issues...talking to plants, Defender of Faiths, admitted adultery of Diana and, sadly, his big ears...and such ridicule and mirth was exactly what the Queen Mum did not have in mind when her favourite grandson would have to face when it was his turn to reign...but she was well aware of all of this and knew it was part of the "landscape" so to speak...

Sorry, but i can see in your list of ´personal issues´ nothing ridicule and mirth.
´Talking to plants´ and ´his big ears´ , do you really think this has something to do with a successful or not successful reign of a future King Charles?
About Defender of Faiths you can dicuss, be for or against it, etc..., about the broken marriage you can talk, judge, be sad, etc..., but does it make someone ridicule? Does it make someone not suitable to be a good King?

 

[branchg]

If Diana had remarried and as I understand you post would have lost the "style" Diana, Princess of Wales, she would have reverted to the status of a "Commoner?" How would that be possible as she would still be the mother of a future King?

Being the mother of a future King doesn't mean you are entitled to enjoy the status and titles enjoyed as a consequence of marriage. Diana became a Royal Highness and Princess of the UK as a result of her marriage to Prince Charles, not because she gave birth to Princes William and Harry.

Whether The Queen (or a future King Charles) would have granted Diana a lifetime or hereditary peerage of her own upon remarriage is a question that can never be answered. But it is reasonable to assume some additional honours would have been granted to her since any subsequent children would have been half-siblings of a future king.

 

[scooter]

Being the mother of a future King doesn't mean you are entitled to enjoy the status and titles enjoyed as a consequence of marriage. Diana became a Royal Highness and Princess of the UK as a result of her marriage to Prince Charles, not because she gave birth to Princes William and Harry.

Whether The Queen (or a future King Charles) would have granted Diana a lifetime or hereditary peerage of her own upon remarriage is a question that can never be answered. But it is reasonable to assume some additional honours would have been granted to her since any subsequent children would have been half-siblings of a future king.

It's not neccessarily true that it can never be answered. Prince William was widely quoted as saying 'Mummy I'll give you back HRH when I am King', which is something (I think?) can be done posthumously. As regards to whether the Diana Claque will or wont successfully 'rise up' about Queen Camilla, and whether or not they are powerful enough, to quote Dominick Dunne 'the aristos hate her and the commoners love her'. Given the Republican sentiment and the 20 (probable) year wait for a passing of the sceptor, I am concerned that the man in the street might just prefer some one with less baggage (ie william) , rather than changing the constitution, etc. Or perhaps a President instead?Although as stated before, if APB dies before the coronation the problem goes away. Or for that matter, if Camilla dies before then, not that I am wishing the grim reaper on anyone. I still dont understand why Edward was not permitted to remain King if married to his divorcee while Charles was allowed to marry his divorcee and remain PoW. Isn't it the exact same situation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Charles and Camilla Marriage could not even be discussed when QEQM was alive. After all, the whole reason that she and her daughter were Queens was because Edward could not marry a divorcee (who in that instence was not responsible for the break up of the PoW/King's marriage).
*shuts laptop and goes to sit under desk to avoid bullets*

 

[branchg]

The British Government isn't interested in abolishing the constitutional monarchy and replacing it with a written constitution and a republican head of state. The monarchy represents continuity and the royal perogative held by the Crown is exercised by a parliamentary government with considerable powers.

Titles and styles are awarded to the living, not the dead. Diana's status as the mother of Prince William was recognized when she was granted full royal honours and a semi-state occasion at Westminster Abbey for her funeral. Restoring her style of HRH means little when she isn't around to enjoy it.

Charles is heir to the throne and has married Camilla with the approval and consent of the Government. She is his lawful wife and entitled to be Queen Consort when the time comes. If the public remains uneasy, Parliament can and will pass legislation denying her the right to share her husband's rank, allowing Charles to create her HRH The Princess Consort instead.

 

[scooter]

Titles and styles are awarded to the living, not the dead. Diana's status as the mother of Prince William was recognized when she was granted full royal honours and a semi-state occasion at Westminster Abbey for her funeral. Restoring her style of HRH means little when she isn't around to enjoy it.

Charles is heir to the throne and has married Camilla with the approval and consent of the Government. She is his lawful wife and entitled to be Queen Consort when the time comes. If the public remains uneasy, Parliament can and will pass legislation denying her the right to share her husband's rank, allowing Charles to create her HRH The Princess Consort instead.

Once again I ask.."For what possible reason did they have to have a civil marriage service (specifically forbidden in the Marriage Act), if they had the approval and consent of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who must perform the coronation)?" and "what is the difference between the situation with Charles and Camilla v. David and Wallis?"
The only reason that Queen Elizabeth is on the throne today is that it was ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE that the King/Defender of the Faith be married to a divorcee. Queen Wallis anyone? Would those of you in the Camilla camp have been so accepting of Queen/Princess Consort Wallis?

 

[wbenson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the coronation oath requires the sovereign to swear to 'uphold the established church of England', which at this point does not recognise divorce or remarriage. The fact that it does not recognise divorce and remarriage was the reason that Charles and Camilla had a civil marriage and a service of dedication in the church, rather than marrying in the church. If he is 'not in good standing' as it were, how can he swear to uphold the church?

Swearing to uphold it (i.e. make sure it stays established) has nothing to do with his own standing in the church. So long as he promises to do his best to make sure it stays the way it is now, he is upholding the church. It has nothing to do with his own personal conduct, only his future conduct related to church affairs.

 

[Al_bina]

Once again I ask.."For what possible reason did they have to have a civil marriage service (specifically forbidden in the Marriage Act), if they had the approval and consent of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who must perform the coronation)?" and "what is the difference between the situation with Charles and Camilla v. David and Wallis?"
The only reason that Queen Elizabeth is on the throne today is that it was ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE that the King/Defender of the Faith be married to a divorcee. Queen Wallis anyone? Would those of you in the Camilla camp have been so accepting of Queen/Princess Consort Wallis?

The key argument for accepting King Charles and Queen or Princess Consort Camilla is significant changes in the spirit of times. Manoeuvring in the legalities and slightly manipulating the public opinion will help to embrace the situation with the King and Queen as the life of Prince Charles mirrors the life of the subjects he represents so much.
As far as I have understood, the period 1930-1970 is viewed as dark ages.

 

[ysbel]

I think the legalities will have to be moved however they go; whether Camilla is a Queen or Camilla is a Princess Consort. As with any touchy political decision, I think the powers to be will decide at first what the desired outcome will be - they will either deny Camilla the Queenship or crown her Queen and only after then will they find the reasons to support their actions.

There isn't a precedent for a wife of a King not being a Queen although George IVs wife was locked out of his coronation on his orders. I doubt seriously if Charles is going to lock Camilla out of his coronation.

There is however a precedent of a King committing adultery against his Queen and then marrying the other woman. Henry VIII did it several times. He was rumoured to commit adultery with Anne Boleyn, his second wife, while married to Catherine of Aragon. He definitely committed adultery with Jane Seymour, his third wife, while married to Anne Boleyn, he was rumoured to commit adultery with Catherine Howard, his fifth wife, while still married to Anne of Cleves. BTW, he wouldn't give Catherine Howard a coronation until she bore him a child which she never did but she still was called the Queen.

 

[Charlotte1]

As regards to whether the Diana Claque will or wont successfully 'rise up' about Queen Camilla, and whether or not they are powerful enough, to quote Dominick Dunne 'the aristos hate her and the commoners love her'. Given the Republican sentiment and the 20 (probable) year wait for a passing of the sceptor, I am concerned that the man in the street might just prefer some one with less baggage (ie william) , rather than changing the constitution, etc. Or perhaps a President instead?Although as stated before, if APB dies before the coronation the problem goes away. Or for that matter, if Camilla dies before then, not that I am wishing the grim reaper on anyone. I still dont understand why Edward was not permitted to remain King if married to his divorcee while Charles was allowed to marry his divorcee and remain PoW. Isn't it the exact same situation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that the Charles and Camilla Marriage could not even be discussed when QEQM was alive. After all, the whole reason that she and her daughter were Queens was because Edward could not marry a divorcee

The Republican movement in the UK is a very minor movement. It was at it highest at the death of Diana (which supposedly brought the monarchy to its knees) at the time support for a republic rose to 20%. Since then it has dropped again to 9% and has remained there. There was no rise of support for a republic at C & C's marriage.

Traditionally monarchs are the most popular when they are young and when they are old. QEII also reflects this trend, Charles will garner more support as he ages, Camilla too. In 20 years time it isn't likely that there will be a higher amount of support for a republic. QEII also realised they had time on their side as she wanted Charles to marry Camilla while she (QEII) was still alive and active to give them time together and become accepted as an official couple. Smart woman as that's what's happening. Look even to Camilla in Madame Tussaud's, at her marriage MT said there were no plans for a Camilla waxwork to be made, since then the public have been asking for one and so recently a Camilla model has been placed in MT.

I've already stated there is no problem with APB's being alive as Charles was considered a divorcee by the Anglican church not a widower. The church recognizes divorce. He was a divorcee who married a divorcee.

The issue with Edward VIII was not that he wasn't allowed to marry a divorcee, that was just the excuse the government of the day used to get rid of an unsuitable King. Edward VIII was believed to have Nazi sympathies, he left State Secrets lying around, the government of the day was presented with a problem with him, they were also given a solution in his relationship with Wallis. At the abdication she was still married to her husband, it was Stanley Baldwin the Prime Minister at the time that gave Edward VIII the ultimatium, Wallis or the Crown. The government's assumption was that he would abdicate and thus ending their problem of the unsuitable King.
At his marriage Charles had the support of all 3 major political parties in the UK, there was no question of him being given any kind of ultimatium. Camilla being a divorcee wasn't an issue.

The Queen Mother was from the generation where 'one did not marry one's mistress', she was born in 1900. Marry a divorcee would not have been the major issue and being around at the abdication she would have well known that Edward VIII abdicated not because he wanted to marry a divorcee but rather that it was the excuse the government needed to remove him. In a constitutional monarch it's parliament who have the power to accept or reject the new monarch.

The Diana claque is strongest and most vocal with non-Brits. Eg "The Diana Circle" is actually founded and based in the US. This is also reflected in the royalty forums, generally the most virulent Diana supporters are not from the UK. ( the most critical of Diana are) While Diana will always be around as far as the papers and magazines will be concerned, time will fade the emotion that surrounded her. 10 to 20 years from now isn't going to see a 'rising' of the Dianaites to get rid of either Charles as King of the monarchy in general. Thoughout history the British monarchy has shown itself remarkably resilient to various events and crises.

 

[Al_bina]

ysbel,
I am in full agreement with your opinion. However, Prince Charles is not going to be an absolute ruler of the country as Henry VIII was. Thus, Prince Charles and his advisors have to duly consider emotions of the crowd. Necessary legal issues have to and will be resolved to the satisfaction of the parties concerned.

 

[Elspeth]

The British Government isn't interested in abolishing the constitutional monarchy and replacing it with a written constitution and a republican head of state.

I wouldn't be too sure. I think Tony Blair would have quite liked to do exactly that. He spent enough time trying to undermine the Queen in a lot of different ways. Whether the current PM feels the same way is another matter, of course.

 

[Al_bina]

I wouldn't be too sure. I think Tony Blair would have quite liked to do exactly that. He spent enough time trying to undermine the Queen in a lot of different ways. Whether the current PM feels the same way is another matter, of course.

Tony Blair is a history, isn't he? Whatever he has done to undermine the Royal Family is not relevant right now or will not be relevant when the time comes for ascension to the throne.

 

[Elspeth]

He's history, but some of the things he did have survived his tenure.

 

[Skydragon]

As regards to whether the Diana Claque will or wont successfully 'rise up' about Queen Camilla, and whether or not they are powerful enough, to quote Dominick Dunne 'the aristos hate her and the commoners love her'.

I wonder why you would think an American writer could have any idea what aristo's or commoners in the UK feel about Camilla? Diana was disliked by some aristocrats, who felt she let the side down and loved by some commoners who were led to believe she was just like them.

Camilla is liked by the aristocrats, IMO, and disliked, at the moment by some commoners. Although we can see from her reception throughout the UK, the UK public is warming to her by the day and a large percentage of Highlanders love her, IMO.

I don't see the Diana circle with it's shrinking UK membership (it was reportedly 1000 at the time of C & C's wedding), rising up in anyway. Don't forget, these were the people who were going to mount massive demonstrations outside the registry office, when in fact the 5 or so that did turn up were 'pushed out' by the well wishers and barely got a mention in the media, (as far as I can recall).

 

[Al_bina]

He's history, but some of the things he did have survived his tenure.

I could not imagine Tony Blair as a person, who severely discredited the British Royal Family. Why didn't he fully capitalize on emotions of the crowds after Princess' death and start the process of abolishment?

 

[branchg]

I could not imagine Tony Blair as a person, who severely discredited the British Royal Family. Why didn't he fully capitalize on emotions of the crowds after Princess' death and start the process of abolishment?

Because like all Prime Ministers, he came to understand how the constitutional monarchy benefits a sitting Prime Minister by allowing him/her to exercise the royal perogative.

 

[Al_bina]

to Skydragon

I agree with you stating that aristocrats did not like Princess Diana much because she betrayed their traditions and broke protocols.
Aristocrats like and accept Duchess of Cornwall because Prince Charles fully supports her. Although I do not mean to offend anybody's feelings or sensitive nature, but namely royal mistresses and lovers were used by nobility to get favours from rulers.

 

[ysbel]

Adultery has alwasy been more common and accepted in aristocratic and royal circles where marriages were made to protect the bloodlines than it has been in middle class circles. Even Diana remained close friends with people she knew were committing adultery and she approved of it.

I seriously doubt though that Andrew Parker-Bowles was trying to get a favour from Prince Charles by sharing his wife.

 

[diamondBrg]

I agree with you stating that aristocrats did not like Princess Diana much because she betrayed their traditions and broke protocols.
Aristocrats like and accept Duchess of Cornwall because Prince Charles fully supports her. Although I do not mean to offend anybody's feelngs or sensitive nature, but namely royal mistresses and lovers were used by nobility to get favours from rulers.

Diana wanted her cake and to eat it too, that is the heart of the matter.

Diana wanted to walk on the plush Royal carpeting that was reserved for Royalty in the palaces, she wanted the deference and respect that came from "HRH" and the men bowing and the women doing their curtsey to her, she wanted the money and fame. What she was unwilling to do was PAY THE PRICE for all of that. Diana took on a job when she married into the Royal Family, she was simply unwilling to do the work.

Diana LIED in order to get Prince Charles to marry her. She pretended that she LOVED the things that he did (hunting, fishing, horseback riding) when in truth she detested them and stopped engaging in those activities as soon as she was married to him.

Diana was damaged goods before she married Prince Charles, she was emotionally impaired from a horrible childhood, a cold father and a domineering maternal grandmother.

Diana was unwilling to accept that Prince Charles had and has a multitude of responsibilities and was not able to devote himself entirely to her and her emotional needs.

Camilla is the exact opposite and that is why she is such a better match for Prince Charles, imo.

 

[Al_bina]

Adultery has alwasy been more common and accepted in aristocratic and royal circles where marriages were made to protect the bloodlines than it has been in middle class circles. Even Diana remained close friends with people she knew were committing adultery and she approved of it.

I seriously doubt though that Andrew Parker-Bowles was trying to get a favour from Prince Charles by sharing his wife.

Actually I have not meant Andrew Parker Bowles. At any case, his children will benefit from the marriage of their mother.

 

[Skydragon]

Diana wanted her cake and to eat it too, that is the heart of the matter...
.....Diana LIED in order to get Prince Charles to marry her. She pretended that she LOVED the things that he did (hunting, fishing, horseback riding) when in truth she detested them and stopped engaging in those activities as soon as she was married to him.

I agree, Diana struck me as being in love with the Prince of Wales and not Charles. I believe that Charles was pushed into marrying Diana by the media, her family and his sense of honour.

 

[Skydragon]

At any case, his children will benefit from the marriage of their mother.

In what way? Charles as godfather is reputed to have set up trust funds for them, but I can't see how else they might benefit.

 

[Al_bina]

Diana wanted her cake and to eat it too, that is the heart of the matter.

Diana wanted to walk on the plush Royal carpeting that was reserved for Royalty in the palaces, she wanted the deference and respect that came from "HRH" and the men bowing and the women doing their curtsey to her, she wanted the money and fame. What she was unwilling to do was PAY THE PRICE for all of that. Diana took on a job when she married into the Royal Family, she was simply unwilling to do the work.

Diana LIED in order to get Prince Charles to marry her. She pretended that she LOVED the things that he did (hunting, fishing, horseback riding) when in truth she detested them and stopped engaging in those activities as soon as she was married to him.

Diana was damaged goods before she married Prince Charles, she was emotionally impaired from a horrible childhood, a cold father and a domineering maternal grandmother.

Diana was unwilling to accept that Prince Charles had and has a multitude of responsibilities and was not able to devote himself entirely to her and her emotional needs.

Camilla is the exact opposite and that is why she is such a better match for Prince Charles, imo.

I would say that Prince Charles and Princess Diana underestimated each other and suffered because of it later. Although Princess Diana might have lied about her interests, Prince Charles was old enough to fairly judge her character and choose another appropriate lady to secure the bloodline. Princess Diana might not be viewed as a witch, who nagged the life out of innocent and poor Prince Charles. Each party "slept on the bed they made".