So who takes over from Liz?
Poll: So who takes over from Liz?
Total Members Polled: 303
Discussion
Steve H said:
Far less likely to lose commonwealth countries if it does go straight to William.
I said 'they all have their own agendas'. That may include getting out of the commonwealth. Thus they will likely block any attempt to bypass the established system of accession to the throne, by installing the dashing young Prince and Princess ahead of the rightful heir.BOR said:
The monarchy won't survive if Charles takes over, so hopefully, Charles will take over.
The reality will be a joint announcement from the queen and Charles, stating that Charles will take the throne for a nominal year or two, before handing over to William and Diana II.
This will be an attempt to placate the serfs, until Charles and The Royal Adultress can be moved on.
+1The reality will be a joint announcement from the queen and Charles, stating that Charles will take the throne for a nominal year or two, before handing over to William and Diana II.
This will be an attempt to placate the serfs, until Charles and The Royal Adultress can be moved on.
The succession rules will be followed, though no doubt King George the Whatever will already be old. Should he die relatively young, we'll have a young King.CommanderJameson said:
I think Charles II didn't do so badly.
I agree, he restored peace and process into the nation, was widely admired and his passing mourned by the people. He had a few on the side, including Nell Gwynne, but that was acceptable practice in those days. Three cheers for Old Rowley, the "black boy"...His father was murdered by a bunch of anarchists who, when their "protector" croaked, faded away and allowed Charles II to take his rightful place. (I may have paraphrased a little
but the sequence is right).It may well be that Charles will become George VII as a Windsor tradition but in my book there is nothing to be ashamed of being associated with the name of the two Stuart forebears.
Steve H said:
..his outspokenness on all sorts of issues including the environment has shown that he is ahead of his time, a lot of what he was being laughed at for twenty years ago is entirely accepted now (not so much the talking to flowers thing).
His position on environmental issues is complete twaddle and has been proven as such. Don't give credit where it's not due.thehawk said:
it's not as if Charles is even a bad or incompetent person.
Yeah, banging your mistress whilst taking a wife isn't bad or incompetent?Please. Prince Charles couldn't keep a marriage vow, so how will he behave when he has something "serious" to contend with like Head of State.
On a sensible level though, Charles has shown himself to be politically active, and that in a constitutional head of state is wrong. He needs to stfu and behave like a future Head of State.
colonel c said:
I said 'they all have their own agendas'. That may include getting out of the commonwealth. Thus they will likely block any attempt to bypass the established system of accession to the throne, by installing the dashing young Prince and Princess ahead of the rightful heir.
Some are perhaps just waiting for the correct moment.
Funk said:
Steve H said:
..his outspokenness on all sorts of issues including the environment has shown that he is ahead of his time, a lot of what he was being laughed at for twenty years ago is entirely accepted now (not so much the talking to flowers thing).
His position on environmental issues is complete twaddle and has been proven as such. Don't give credit where it's not due.
) about environmental stuff but you might have noticed that he saw the importance of it and spoke out well before it became mainstream. Perhaps it's the advantage of having a job for life and guaranteed income that makes him comfortable in saying things that would get most of us fired from any other public position but he has picked issues that interest him and pushed them forward, when you do that you are not going to get it right every time but it's better than not even trying. If you don't like the environment bit then try the millions he has raised for youth projects over the last 35 years, CLICKY.
Sure, he could have STFU as has been suggested but would we have been any better off if he had just taken his share of the civil list and sat back to wait for his kingdom to come to him?
Steve H said:
Perhaps it's the advantage of having a job for life and guaranteed income that makes him comfortable in saying things that would get most of us fired from any other public position but he has picked issues that interest him and pushed them forward, when you do that you are not going to get it right every time but it's better than not even trying.
It's not his job to pick issues that interest him and to move them forward.That's what makes him unsuitable as Head of State. Name any issue that the Queen has actively picked up and pursued for instance in the same way that Prince Charles has?
For instance, do we hear the Queen giving speeches about architecture she doesn't agree with, or does she make environmental speeches, or does she get involved with planning permission like the barracks last year?
No, she stays out of it, and that is why she is such an excellent head of state. Prince Charles is a box of frogs waiting to happen.
Well for all those that think it is a matter of choice, It isn't.
It really isn't a popularity contest being Monarch its about birth and succesion.
You want a popularity contest elect a President, but you'll have to take away some of those powers the Queen has but doesn't exercise. After all what do you want someone who has been taught from day one, literally, that they have power but its best not to use it, or someone who has actively sought power by running in an election?
It really isn't a popularity contest being Monarch its about birth and succesion.
You want a popularity contest elect a President, but you'll have to take away some of those powers the Queen has but doesn't exercise. After all what do you want someone who has been taught from day one, literally, that they have power but its best not to use it, or someone who has actively sought power by running in an election?
tinman0 said:
It's not his job to pick issues that interest him and to move them forward.
That's what makes him unsuitable as Head of State. Name any issue that the Queen has actively picked up and pursued No, she stays out of it, and that is why she is such an excellent head of state.
What is the purpose of a head of state who doesn't think anything, doesn't say anything and doesn't do anything?That's what makes him unsuitable as Head of State. Name any issue that the Queen has actively picked up and pursued No, she stays out of it, and that is why she is such an excellent head of state.
It's all just misty-eyed sentiment and a nice tourist attraction.
Mikeyboy said:
Well for all those that think it is a matter of choice, It isn't.
It really isn't a popularity contest being Monarch its about birth and succesion.
You want a popularity contest elect a President, but you'll have to take away some of those powers the Queen has but doesn't exercise. After all what do you want someone who has been taught from day one, literally, that they have power but its best not to use it, or someone who has actively sought power by running in an election?
It wouldn't be a popularity contest if Prince Charles wasn't so dis-likable. His behaviour up to this point (and frankly most of the Queen's children) has been below par, and I think the Royal family really could do with some new blood.It really isn't a popularity contest being Monarch its about birth and succesion.
You want a popularity contest elect a President, but you'll have to take away some of those powers the Queen has but doesn't exercise. After all what do you want someone who has been taught from day one, literally, that they have power but its best not to use it, or someone who has actively sought power by running in an election?
Royalty in the UK will only survive if it's popular, and with characters like Charles, Camilla, Andrew and Fergie, no wonder that the Royal family is at quite a low ebb these days. The only one who has stayed off the front pages is Edward, but he's not exactly God's gift to business....
tinman0 said:
Steve H said:
Perhaps it's the advantage of having a job for life and guaranteed income that makes him comfortable in saying things that would get most of us fired from any other public position but he has picked issues that interest him and pushed them forward, when you do that you are not going to get it right every time but it's better than not even trying.
It's not his job to pick issues that interest him and to move them forward.That's what makes him unsuitable as Head of State. Name any issue that the Queen has actively picked up and pursued for instance in the same way that Prince Charles has?
For instance, do we hear the Queen giving speeches about architecture she doesn't agree with, or does she make environmental speeches, or does she get involved with planning permission like the barracks last year?
No, she stays out of it, and that is why she is such an excellent head of state. Prince Charles is a box of frogs waiting to happen.
Given that he is now over 60 years old, would you actually have liked him more if he had got to this age having done nothing except open libraries?
tinman0 said:
no wonder that the Royal family is at quite a low ebb these days.
Were you on a different planet to the rest of us last Friday? 
5potTurbo said:
If QE2 lives as long as Her Maj the QM did, Charlie will be about 80 before he becomes King George the Whatever (8th?).
I wonder how much like his mad old duffer of a father he'll be like then?
George VII, as his Grandfather was George VI.I wonder how much like his mad old duffer of a father he'll be like then?
Phil the Greek is much less of an old duffer than his eldest son is..... don't believe all the anti-D of E media sniping that goes on.
aeropilot said:
Phil the Greek is much less of an old duffer than his eldest son is..... don't believe all the anti-D of E media sniping that goes on.
Yes he was terribly grief struck by Diana's death, something that didn't seem to be reported in the press.dandarez said:
The only thing that might break Liz's spirit is Philip passing but even he will probably reach a ton.
I think you're right, and really hope he lasts another decade. He is looking increasingly fragile though. 
I expect the family would like to give Will and Catherine a chance to lead relatively normal lives and time to raise a family before he ascends to the throne. Hence Charles will become king (as George VII). It's a moot point whether he will be a good one or not, but don't forget there has been a previous Prince of Wales about whom there were concerns, who went on to do well eg Edward VII.
Edited by Daisy Duke on Tuesday 3rd May 12:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff