advertisement


Monarchy question

M

midband

pfm Member
It must have crossed our minds before, but why hasn't the Queen stepped down to let Charles take the "reigns". Is it the decision of either of them or is there because there is something written in the constituition?
 
It would be the Queens decision and there is no precedent for a monarch "retiring".

There is no (written) constitution.

Anyway who wants Charles as King?
 
Tony Lockhart said:
Let Chuck do it once Liz has kicked the bucket. Let him mess it up so that the monarchy is an international embarrassment. Bye bye monarchy. Yay.
Click to expand...
Although Vicky kept Bertie waiting a long time, during which time he bedded approximately half the women in the kingdom, but when he became king, he was quite a good one. Times were different back then, of course, but Chuck may surprise us (personally I think not, but who knows?)
 
I don’t understand the dislike shown for Charles. His marriage broke up and he went through a messy divorce. Has no one here ever been down that road? He has managed to end up in a second marriage that works. He appears to have managed to keep the respect and affection of his children. He works long hours supporting a lot of charities. You may not agree with all his views, but his pet causes have been ones that many here espouse, good design and architecture, environmental issues etc. His Prince’s Trust has done good work.

So he has used his privileged position to lobby government. He’s hardly the only one to have done so, and there is no particular sign that his influence counts for that much in ministerial circles.

He has stated that he he has no intention of being a meddling monarch, and when he becomes King, he’ll be surrounded by advisers who will make it very clear if he oversteps the mark.

The monarchy is a pretty toothless institution in the 21st century, but still preferable in my view to having a political head of state. Boris as a trump lite president of the U.K.? No thank you very much!
 
AndrewM said:
I don’t understand the dislike shown for Charles. His marriage broke up and he went through a messy divorce. Has no one here ever been down that road? He has managed to end up in a second marriage that works. He appears to have managed to keep the respect and affection of his children. He works long hours supporting a lot of charities. You may not agree with all his views, but his pet causes have been ones that many here espouse, good design and architecture, environmental issues etc. His Prince’s Trust has done good work.

So he has used his privileged position to lobby government. He’s hardly the only one to have done so, and there is no particular sign that his influence counts for that much in ministerial circles.

He has stated that he he has no intention of being a meddling monarch, and when he becomes King, he’ll be surrounded by advisers who will make it very clear if he oversteps the mark.

The monarchy is a pretty toothless institution in the 21st century, but still preferable in my view to having a political head of state. Boris as a trump lite president of the U.K.? No thank you very much!
Click to expand...
+1
I watched tonight's BBC1 documentary. Charles came over as an amiable cove - I couldn't help but be reminded of Harry Enfield's portrayal of him in The Windsors - and I can think of plenty of worse people to have as Head of State or Head of the Commonwealth. He knows how to work a crowd too.
 
FireMoon said:
Apparently, he'll be George VII cos of the baggage that goes with the regnal name Charles.
Click to expand...
Don’t really see the logic of that. I think it would be a bit of a shame. George IV (Prinny) was a a rather revolting specimen, not a particularly good advert for the name. We’ve then presumably got a William V (William IV managed 10 illegitimate children, so hardly a moral exemplar), and if the institution survives, then a “real” George.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top