Will Charles ever be the King?

by Mulan 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mulan

  Do the British people think Charles will ever be the King?

  If Elizabeth inherits her mother's longevity, she could live another 25 years or so. That will make Charles quite old, won't it? Near 80? He may not inherit that genetic trait. Poor guy, if he never gets to be King, his life's training will all be for nothing. Kind of like good old King Edward VII. He was 59 when he became King, but he sure looked older, and only lived another 9 years.

  Marilyn (aka Mulan)
  "No one can take advantage of you, without your permission." Ann Landers
  
• 

  Scully

  I hope Charles doesn't become King. I think Wills is much better suited for the role, and is more "in touch" with the people the way his mother Diana was.

  just my tuppence
  Love, Scully
• 

  sleepy

  I hope not.

  I believe that this Queen may very possibly be the very last Ruling Monarch.
  If there is any future for the Monarchy it is in a very reduced role.
• 

  Francois

  How could it be much more reduced? The royal family is just a British tradition now and they don't RULE anything. Haven't for a loooooong time.

  Francois
• 

  Englishman

  Charles is first in line and will become King automatically unless he agrees to be bypassed. That is possibly his intention so as he can marry Camilla, who would never be accepted as Queen by the Brits who feel that she played a big part in Diana's departure.

  Francois,

  The Queens powers are limited indeed, here's a resume:

  The Bill of Rights (1689) was the most important legal step towards constitutional monarchy, and since then the power of Parliament has grown steadily, while the power of the monarch has weakened.

  Today, Queen Elizabeth II, who succeeded her father, George VI, upon the latter's death in 1952, is the Head of State und by law the Head of government as well. She plays an important social und symbolic role, but for the most part the conventions of the constitution prescribe a purely formal part in the conduct of government, Theoretically every act of the State is done in her name and every letter sent out by any government department is posted in an envelope marked 'On Her Majesty's Service'. All ministers in the government are appointed by her, und every public official is her servant, But in reality, except for her act in appointing a new Prime Minister. everything she does is done "on the advice of her ministers," and she has personally no part in the process whereby they make the real decisions. Laws passed by the two Houses of Parliament do not become effective until she has signed them, so it may seen that she has a power of veto, but that power has not been used since the modern political system came into being almost 300 years ago.

  The Queen's veto power is not clearly defined, and it seems that for normal purposes it does not really exist at all. The only real personal power left to the Queen in the political sphere is that of appointing the Prime Minister, but she is bound in practice to appoint a person who will be supported by a majority in the House of Commons.

  Britain has a 'bi-cameral' legislature; this means that the British Parliament has two parts - the House of Commons und the House of Lords. The House of Commons, the only elected House of Parliament, may be described as the body which makes laws though, as with most 'lawmaking' institutions, its essential function is to discuss what the ruling political party has done, is doing and intends to do.
  The party which wins the most 'seats'in a general election forms the government.

  Englishman.

  
• 

  its_my_life2001ca

  I agree with you Mulan. Seeing the Queen Mum's longevity and the fact that Elizabeth seems as healthy as a horse, Charles may need a walker for his coronation. Seriously though,I think monarchies have outlived their usefullness.The concept of 'blue blood' is outdated. This line should die out with Eliz and let the rest of the Windsor's try to get back as much as a possible a 'normal' life. Give them a nice little home in the country and repossess their castles as public property.Oh such heresy..probably stone me in England.
• 

  Englishman

  Ah, but you are only partly right here. Of course the country would run perfectly competently without Lizzie or the Royal family.

  However, the Royals are such a part of our lives that many Brits would feel as though a part of their identity had been taken away, imagine if the Americans decided to do away with the Stars and Stripes and also their evocative anthem.

  It would just be a loss with nothing gained.

  Also, the whole Royal thing is a money making machine that far outstrips the cost of us keeping a Royal family.

  It also makes us feel quite happy at showing great disrespect for all other authorities, as long as you're not too rude about Her Maj, that is. It means we can be as anarchic as we like, yet we still have a ruler to love.

  Englishman.

  
• 

  WildHorses

  I like the fact that there is still a Royal family in England. It's part of history.

  I do however hope that William takes his fathers place as King. He is so much like his mother, Diana, who was so loved by the whole world. I cried when I heard she had died. She was such a lovable woman. I miss her.

  Lilacs

  
  

  I don't want someone in my life I can live with. I want someone in my life I can't live without.
• 

  sleepy

  Englishman,

  Maybe you speak for an older generation when you say,
  "However, the Royals are such a part of our lives that many Brits would feel as though a part of their identity had been taken away, imagine if the Americans decided to do away with the Stars and Stripes and also their evocative anthem."

  The Royal family is no part of my life and I feel nothing extra toward them, than I would to a stranger.

  Maybe they are a money spinner for Britian, but i still feel it wrong for them to have a right to national wealth due to their family of birth , while others live in poverty etc.It sjust not fair.
  I'm sure some drug dealers and crime bosses bring good things to their communities by donating to charities etc, but that doesn't make what they do right.(not that I'm suggesting they are criminals.)

  Although saying this I would wish no harm to them or for them to go into poverty.

  But we should have a say on the issue which at present we don't.
• 

  Waygooder64

  No, Charles will never be king.It is a known fact that men with ears that stick out like satellite dishes can never become king...Oh yeah he has a bald spot on his head so large it makes him look Jewish.