Will Charles take the throne.....or not?

it was acceptable in the 80s

JaneJudge

it was acceptable in the 80s

We all live and learn from past mistakes…

I just feel Charles may consider the people would prefer a younger more vibrant King, having had an elderly monarch for some years. It would keep the monarchy more relevant to have someone younger.

William will be Prince of Wales, Charles was very popular when younger

I'm with MOnica - why on earth would he abdicate?

I hope he'll share the duties around and take time to ensure Prince William is fully up to speed for when he needs to take over.

Anniebach

William will be Prince of Wales, Charles was very popular when younger

Anniebach by your name I assume you are Welsh. Do you think the Welsh people will be in favour of a formal investiture as happened with his father in 1969?

When I was watching the lighting of the beacon, I was surprised that it was William on the other end. I felt it was very symbolic of passing the torch so to speak.

On one hand, I would have expected Charles to be there. It would have shown us that he will be taking over the reigns.

On the other, having William there would imply she is entrusting his generation with the commonwealth. Very poignant in today's climate.

Or maybe it means nothing and I am speculating.

Hang about, the Queen is being encouraged by some royalists to remain as monarch despite her great age and yet poor Charles is being encouraged to stand down in favour of a younger, more vibrant king. That makes no sense to me.

The Regency Act 1937 introduced the concept of Counsellor of State.

If Prince Charles becomes king before Prince George is 18, Princess Beatrice would become a Counsellor of State.

Queen Elizabeth, wife of King George VI, was a Counsellor of State by being spouse of the sovereign.

She lost that role when the king died.

However, an Act of Parliament made her a Counsellor of State personally.

If the need was felt to be there, an Act of Parliament could be passed to make Prince Edward personally and Princess Anne personally Counsellors of State.

Both have served in the role previously.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counsellor_of_State#Elizabeth_II

The following includes a history of Regency Acts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_Acts

I do hope Prince Charles becomes King. I think he is a thoroughly decent man and although he may not have a long reign, obviously compared to his mother, I do think he will make changes which will pave the way for when it's Prince William's turn

Grannyben

I do hope Prince Charles becomes King. I think he is a thoroughly decent man and although he may not have a long reign, obviously compared to his mother, I do think he will make changes which will pave the way for when it's Prince William's turn

I agree.

Anniebach

Charles and William are already working together

You keep hitting nails on heads at the moment Annie. I think you are right (although who knows). I would guess they will work very much in tandem. I would be very suprised if Charles didn't become King.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I am not patronising anybody. This is a chat thread and I posted links that I thought that some readers might enjoy reading as a happy joyful contribution to the chat.

You are being patronising but don’t realise it. You assume we don’t know something or know how to look it up. Perhaps because we are women?

Whatever age the monarch is they will not be 'relevant' to some age group or another. If the monarch is in their 20s they will antagonise the older people by not understanding and the other way round if the monarch is old are old.

The monarchy doesn't work on the basis of who we would most like, at one point in time,or who is the best of the bunch. It works on primogeniture. the eldest child of the sovereign succeeds to their parent and stays there until they die.

That way we get a head of state who is completely uncoupled from politics and popularity polls. It is this that makes a monarchy so different from an elected head of state who will, by necessity have been in the public eye for what they have done in their own name and who is often an ex-politician, and elected for who they are. This also means that they cannot be seen as being totally impartial.

Our current monarch has dealt with governments of many different complexions over the years, without regard to their political allegiances. She has been willing to greet country leaders of every kind from the best to the worst (someone said to day the worst was Nicolai Ceasescu, the communist tyrant of Rumania, and the Queen at one point disappeared into a shrubbery to avoid him when she saw him coming when taking a walk during his visit).

So king Charles it will be and it is best that we can only like it or lump it.

Abolish the monarchy

Germanshepherdsmum

You are being patronising but don’t realise it. You assume we don’t know something or know how to look it up. Perhaps because we are women?

If I am regarded as being patronising, then I cerainly don't realise it. That never occurred to me. I was simply in a chat about a topic and I included links to some relevant information.

Has me doing that caused offence to many people for some reason? If so, why is that please?

I didn't assume anything about the people reading the thread.

The information is relevant to the discuusion so I included a link to it in the thread for completeness.

Some readers might appreciate those links.

It is nothing at all to do with whether readers are women or men.

There may be many more people reading than people posting.

> So king Charles it will be ...

Not necessarily. He might choose to be King George VII.

I think in view of her age and decreasing mobility the Queen should be allowed to retire, not abdicate, and take over the role of Queen Mother. She would then be able to enjoy a less pressurised lifestyle and also see her eldest son Charles ascend to the throne. Should he achieve the same sort of age as his mother he in turn could pass the role onto William and still be there to support him.

My personal opinion is I think it should be Prince William ... although I accept others think it will be Charles ...

StarDreamer

> So king Charles it will be ...

Not necessarily. He might choose to be King George VII.

He had better not do that! When our current Queen was asked what name she wished to be known as, she said, ‘my own of course!’

M0nica

Whatever age the monarch is they will not be 'relevant' to some age group or another. If the monarch is in their 20s they will antagonise the older people by not understanding and the other way round if the monarch is old are old.

The monarchy doesn't work on the basis of who we would most like, at one point in time,or who is the best of the bunch. It works on primogeniture. the eldest child of the sovereign succeeds to their parent and stays there until they die.

That way we get a head of state who is completely uncoupled from politics and popularity polls. It is this that makes a monarchy so different from an elected head of state who will, by necessity have been in the public eye for what they have done in their own name and who is often an ex-politician, and elected for who they are. This also means that they cannot be seen as being totally impartial.

Our current monarch has dealt with governments of many different complexions over the years, without regard to their political allegiances. She has been willing to greet country leaders of every kind from the best to the worst (someone said to day the worst was Nicolai Ceasescu, the communist tyrant of Rumania, and the Queen at one point disappeared into a shrubbery to avoid him when she saw him coming when taking a walk during his visit).

So king Charles it will be and it is best that we can only like it or lump it.

The queen is involved in politics queen's consent and Charles they vet laws in their own interests and both lobby ministers.

The queen is said to favour conservatives

An Elected Head of State may not nessessarily be a politition he could be a scientist a doctor ect but even if he She were there would be strict rules of the job to remain neutral.

Looks like we will have three old men Charles William and George if the monarchy is not abolished by then.

Or there could be an alternative We could choose who we want as our Head of State.

StarDreamer

I am not patronising anybody. This is a chat thread and I posted links that I thought that some readers might enjoy reading as a happy joyful contribution to the chat.

Thank you Stardreamer, I see nothing patronising about posting links.

StarDreamer

I am not patronising anybody. This is a chat thread and I posted links that I thought that some readers might enjoy reading as a happy joyful contribution to the chat.

I am very appreciate of your post. Since I am in the US, I do not know the full workings of the monarchy. Information such as this is helpful to me.