So who takes over from Liz?

[Ozzie Osmond]

catso said:

No, Elton John would have to be the Queen

Yes indeed!

OzOs

[BigBob]

Killer2005 said:

Funk said:

Forgive me for being a little dim, but why the name change?

Because the previous two King Charles' weren't exactly the greatest kings we've ever had, and there's a stigma about being a new king Charles

I hope he does change his name if he ascends to the throne.

We've had Tudors, Georgians, Elizabethans, Victorians etc - the era being named after the monarch.

Do you really want the future to know us as 'Charlies'?


BB

[Mikeyboy]

tinman0 said:

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.

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....

OK, the point on having someone elected as Head of State rather than a hereditary monarch seems to have been lost. Let alone the point about popularity.
Giorgio Napolitano, know who he is? Hes the Italian Head of State and an avowed Communist, chum of Nicolae Ceaucescu. Thats your alternative. Pay for someone you probably don't like either who doesn't do anything extra and actually has a political opinion which could be dangerous in the future if they decide to side witht eh incumbent government.

I really don't know what Charles has done to upset you. He's spoke his mind and had a divorce from a woman who slept with more people inside their marriage than stories say he ever did outside the marriage. So like anybody could have done really. Its only since Queen Vic that we have believed our Monarchy to be superhuman and before and since they have proved with one or two exceptions to be just what we are, human.
I'd rather thave that than a human with all the same frailties, a political bias and the power to exercise that bias.

[Cyder]

BigBob said:

Killer2005 said:

Funk said:

Forgive me for being a little dim, but why the name change?

Because the previous two King Charles' weren't exactly the greatest kings we've ever had, and there's a stigma about being a new king Charles

I hope he does change his name if he ascends to the throne.

We've had Tudors, Georgians, Elizabethans, Victorians etc - the era being named after the monarch.

Do you really want the future to know us as 'Charlies'?


BB

Wasn't Tudor a surname?

Wouldn't this era be known as the 'Windsor's'

[Mr Dave]

Charles could prove to be a fantastic King and William could turn out to be absolutely shambolic.

You cant really predict these things but one thing to remember is how long Charles has been plying his trade so to speak, he knows how to behave, how to talk to people and what will be expected of him. William hasnt although I am sure he would be fantastic at it.

I "met" The Queen and Prince Phillip at a Royal reception last year and from what I saw of her, HRH is still very switched on, extremely charming and I believe could go on for a good few years yet.

[louiebaby]

Killer2005 said:

Funk said:

Forgive me for being a little dim, but why the name change?

Because the previous two King Charles' weren't exactly the greatest kings we've ever had, and there's a stigma about being a new king Charles

So why the bloody hell did they call him Charles then?

Seems a bit stupid to give the first born son of the ruling monarch a superstitious name, if you're a superstitious family.

That's similar (ish) to Wills and Kate calling theirs Adolf or Osama. Bloomin' plonkers.

(I might get a free trip to Paris for this comment...)

[tinman0]

Mikeyboy said:

OK, the point on having someone elected as Head of State rather than a hereditary monarch seems to have been lost. Let alone the point about popularity.
Giorgio Napolitano, know who he is? Hes the Italian Head of State and an avowed Communist, chum of Nicolae Ceaucescu. Thats your alternative. Pay for someone you probably don't like either who doesn't do anything extra and actually has a political opinion which could be dangerous in the future if they decide to side witht eh incumbent government.

I really don't know what Charles has done to upset you. He's spoke his mind and had a divorce from a woman who slept with more people inside their marriage than stories say he ever did outside the marriage. So like anybody could have done really. Its only since Queen Vic that we have believed our Monarchy to be superhuman and before and since they have proved with one or two exceptions to be just what we are, human.
I'd rather thave that than a human with all the same frailties, a political bias and the power to exercise that bias.

I don't want a republic in the slightest, I am staunch Royalist, but I'm not hell bent on Charles ever becoming King when there are better alternatives.

Diana may well have slept around, but that doesn't excuse Charles from his role of a never ending an affair with another woman in the first place. Maybe if Charles had kept his pants on, and his prick in his wife, then maybe, just maybe she wouldn't have sought the comfort of other men.

Diana's philandering can be entirely laid at Charles feet.

I'd rather our Head of State had no human frailties. We give them a life of luxury, and there is no reason not to expect the very best out of them. I'm rather old school to be honest, I expect people in high regard to lead by example, whether that is royalty or gold plated footballers or wealthy celebrities.

So no, Prince Charles running around the countryside poking the woman who isn't his wife, does not lead me to think that he's a suitable monarch.

It's really simple, unbelievably simple - marry the woman you love. If you get that wrong you are a bit of a loser and the job of Head of State really should pass you by because you are one of life's plonkers.

[ewenm]

tinman0 said:

It's really simple, unbelievably simple - marry the woman you love. If you get that wrong you are a bit of a loser and the job of Head of State really should pass you by because you are one of life's plonkers.

I'd suggest that William marrying Catherine is one very rare instance of a Prince being allowed to marry the woman he loves. The normal situation is for an arranged marriage to some other European Royal or Aristocrat. It's refreshing to see that William has managed to avoid the poisoned chalice his father had.

William and Catherine have already been together longer than Charles and Diana. It's fantasy to believe that most of our Monarchs have married someone they love.

[tinman0]

ewenm said:

It's fantasy to believe that most of our Monarchs have married someone they love.

Quite. But generally they kept any wrong doings quiet. Not divorce the wife, let her die in a horrible car crash in the company of some questionable gentlemen, and then marry the woman who was the cause of all this. And do this in full glare of the public.

The story of the Duke of Windsor should have served as a stark reminder of values and duty to Charles.

It hasn't.

Royalty demands dignity and respect, but how do you respect Charles when he couldn't even respect his own wife and behaved like someone from a soap opera? Charles is not meant to be a caricature of someone from EastEnders.

[thinfourth2]

CommanderJameson said:

What makes you think that?

There have been deeply unpopular monarchs in the past, and there will be again.

Were as our elected leaders have been hugely popular

[DJRC]

tinman0 said:

Quite. But generally they kept any wrong doings quiet. Not divorce the wife, let her die in a horrible car crash in the company of some questionable gentlemen, and then marry the woman who was the cause of all this. And do this in full glare of the public.

The story of the Duke of Windsor should have served as a stark reminder of values and duty to Charles.

It hasn't.

Royalty demands dignity and respect, but how do you respect Charles when he couldn't even respect his own wife and behaved like someone from a soap opera? Charles is not meant to be a caricature of someone from EastEnders.

Got a point there.

Equally some might say that the Establishment's treatment of the DoW was out of order and that we live in a better time, that Charles and Diana were allowed to get on with their lives and at the time of her accident things had largely sorted themselves out and they were both living their lives again.


Im split between the 2 opinions, except with the comment that the DoW and his lass crossed the wrath of Liz's mum, which by all accounts was not a place to be.

[tinman0]

DJRC said:

Equally some might say that the Establishment's treatment of the DoW was out of order and that we live in a better time, that Charles and Diana were allowed to get on with their lives and at the time of her accident things had largely sorted themselves out and they were both living their lives again.

I think there is a wider issue that we have accepted things today that were unacceptable in previous years.

The Diana thing hadn't really sorted itself out - remember the lead up to the car crash? Even at the time I was thinking it was going to end badly. The press obsessively stalked Diana and reported on her every bowel movement. It was a Greek Tragedy in the making.

Every picture of Diana in the press damaged the monarchy.

And who was the architect behind all this? Prince Charles.

Yet somehow he thinks that all this business is behind him and he can be King at some point....

(I do apologise, Prince Charles becoming King is one of my sore points).

[rs1952]

CommanderJameson said:

tinman0 said:

Royalty in the UK will only survive if it's popular

What makes you think that?

There have been deeply unpopular monarchs in the past, and there will be again.

We have been used to popular monarchs only since Queen Victoria. Before that we had hundreds of years of despising the barstewards. Have a look back through history:

1605 James VI of Scotland imposed on England
1649 Charles I topped by popular demand
1688 James II got rid of
1714 George I, the first of the Hanoverian line, couldn't speak English
1800 ish George III went crackers, the Price Regent (later to become George IV) spent more time in Brighton enjoying himself than doing anything useful
1830 Wiiliam IV - ditto George III
1901 Edward VII - not exactly adept at keeping his tackle in his trousers, a trait common in many royal heads of state, and of course a tradition kept going by the current heir apparent.

The less said about Edward VIII the better

[DWP]

It’s very simple. The succession will remain as the succession. The Queen Mother believed her brother in law ran away, she also believed the abdication hastened the death of her husband, when he became King. The Queen Mother never forgave her brother in law or Wallace Simpson.

The Queen will never abdicate out of respect to her late mother. Charles will not avoid or abdicate from the throne out of respect for his mother and even more so his grandmother. Any other outcome is inconceivable. Those who think that the monarchy has any thoughts or interest in any other view are whistling in the wind.

We have no ability to change any of the above unless we are prepared to overthrow the monarchy, something that seems very unlikely. Not least as the armed forces all make an oath to the Queen.

I’m not a particular supporter of the monarchy, but I struggle to imagine hw successful the alternatives might be. Not least as they could have been, President Thatcher, President Blair or heaven help us President Brown. Or perhaps Her Majesty Queen Mandleson.

[rs1952]

DWP said:

It’s very simple. The succession will remain as the succession. The Queen Mother believed her brother in law ran away, she also believed the abdication hastened the death of her husband, when he became King. The Queen Mother never forgave her brother in law or Wallace Simpson.

The Queen will never abdicate out of respect to her late mother. Charles will not avoid or abdicate from the throne out of respect for his mother and even more so his grandmother. Any other outcome is inconceivable. Those who think that the monarchy has any thoughts or interest in any other view are whistling in the wind.

We have no ability to change any of the above unless we are prepared to overthrow the monarchy, something that seems very unlikely. Not least as the armed forces all make an oath to the Queen.

I’m not a particular supporter of the monarchy, but I struggle to imagine hw successful the alternatives might be. Not least as they could have been, President Thatcher, President Blair or heaven help us President Brown. Or perhaps Her Majesty Queen Mandleson.

again

Leaving to one side any untimley deaths, the next monarch will be King Charles, whatever he actually decides to call himself on succession. Given his age now, his reign will be relatively short (compared ith his mother's), and the next monarch after that will be King William, or whatever he decides to call himself after he succeeds.

PH can have whatever polls it likes, it won't make a bit of difference to what is going to happen

[Ozzie Osmond]

rs1952 said:

the next monarch will be King Charles, whatever he actually decides to call himself on succession.

KC and the Sunshine Band?

You gotta love 'em....