For Our British Friends - Is it a shock that the Queen is passing over Charles?

[dejr_8]

Prince William to share Queen's duties: Treasury document reveals secret plan to make him the 'Shadow King'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ent-reveals-secret-plan-make-Shadow-King.html

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I don't believe she is going to pass over her son.

 

[2cats1kid]

I actually didn't read it that the crown wouldn't pass to Charles, more that she was handing some of her duties over to William, which is fair enough as she is getting on a bit now! Hope I'm still keeping going as well as she is when I'm nearly 90!

As I understand it, constitutionally she can't bypass Charles as he is the heir by right - HMQ does not "name" an heir as such. Charles would need to abdicate to pass the crown to William and he has always said he wouldn't do that. Poor man has waited years to get the "top job" as it is!

Camilla is still a huge stumbling block for Charles' popularity over here though, so pushing William more to the fore will be a popular move. He has kept his nose clean so far, unlike Harry, although Harry is arguably the more popular just because he does get into scrapes now and then!

Still think you will see King Charles III at some point.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

That makes sense. Frankly I think they wake up everyday with a schedule, right?
Now Prince William will just have more duties added to his to do list.

I remember Princess Diana speaking about her "schedule", which is why she enjoyed those vacations.

 

[2cats1kid]

Yes, somewhere you can find lists of how many official engagements each royal does in a year. The Queen has always worked her socks off and had a very punishing schedule, although she has cut back somewhat the last few years. William has had very few official engagements - none until he left school (although he did do some unofficial stuff with Diana as a child, like visiting hospices and care centres and so on), and few because of his military commitments. I guess he will back off a bit on the military and do a bit more "royal" stuff so that when he is ready to go he knows how the system works and can hit the ground running.

 

[Boxley]

Isn't the Daily Mail a tabloid magazine?

 

[BelleWDW]

Yeah-its like a People magazine-pure gossip

 

[JPN4265]

This is political and should be removed immediately.

 

[Boxley]

This is political and should be removed immediately.

I think it is more "gossip" then political, you can't really look that that magazine as a good source.

 

[Shmily1]

Thanks for the info on this thread. I still miss seeing Diana in all her generous adventures. Since we don't have Kings and Queens, it's very interesting to see how that all works.

 

[jazzielady]

This is political and should be removed immediately.

I'm guessing that you are serious here, so here is my response:

No, it is not political, as the royal family is not the ruling political entity in the UK. That belongs to the PM, who is not part of this discussion.

Therefore, discussing the succession to the throne based on rumors is not political.

Good friends in the UK, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[happygirl]

this is political and should be removed immediately.

This isn't a political thread since they are more like figure heads. I don't think they do anything political at all.

 

[jazzielady]

OT here sort of. On Friday, we were watching the evening local news because of the frigid temps. One of the stories was about how people were not dressing appropriately outside for the temps.

They showed a short video of a woman walking all bundled up. All you could see was her face. She looked just like Diana. The same doe-eyed look - eyes turned down, but looking up, and the same nose.

If I was a tin-foiler (which I'm not) I would say that they faked Di's death and she's alive and well here in PA!

 

[dejr_8]

Isn't the Daily Mail a tabloid magazine?

Aren't most papers in the UK tabloid-ish?

 

[tennisfan]

Aren't most papers in the UK tabloid-ish?

Not all of them & I wouldn't say the Mail was tabloidish when compared to the Sun, Mirror etc.

Its has been planned for a while to have Prince William to take on more duties now he is getting older to prepare him for the future. As it stands Charles is the next in line to the throne

 

[lillygator]

This is political and should be removed immediately.

this is funny....!!

 

[ERICS MUM]

I'm guessing that you are serious here, so here is my response:

No, it is not political, as the royal family is not the ruling political entity in the UK. That belongs to the PM, who is not part of this discussion.

Therefore, discussing the succession to the throne based on rumors is not political.

Good friends in the UK, please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are absolutely right. This article is harmless speculation & gossip, which a lot of us find interesting - I like to catch a glimpse of life within the royal family. I agree with an earlier poster that Charles' popularity has never recovered from the Diana/Camilla issues and I would guess that William is more likely to be accepted by the general public.


Linda

 

[Disney Doll]

Can the Queen decide who's to follow her??? I thought there was some "rule" about that, insofar as the succession is mandated a certain way and the reigning monarch can't change it.

It would make sense to me to start letting William really learn the ropes of reigning...after all, he'll be doing it someday.

Prince Charles is already in his 60's...his reign as King won't be anywhere near as long as his mother's, seeing as she was so young when she was crowned.

If Charles is in his 60's now, unless he lives to be 100 and is capable of reigning all those years, presumably he'll have at best 20 years on the throne, especially since we have no idea when the current Queen is going to die. The older she gets, the older Charles gets and the fewer years he'll have to be King once he is crowned.

Chances are that William will be King somewhere in his 40's, so he could potentially have a good 30-40 years to reign.

 

[Blue.Fairy2]

I'm guessing that you are serious here, so here is my response:

No, it is not political, as the royal family is not the ruling political entity in the UK. That belongs to the PM, who is not part of this discussion.

Therefore, discussing the succession to the throne based on rumors is not political.

Good friends in the UK, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Husband is a Brit, the Queen is nothing more than a figure head, nothing political in it.

 

[NotUrsula]

It sort of *is* political, and also involves religion, because the thing stopping the Queen from appointing William as her successor is the Act of Settlement of 1701.

That law not only specifies how the heir apparent is determined (and no, the ruling monarch does NOT get any say in it), but also strikes from the line of succession any Catholic or person married to a Catholic, and also specifies that male issue precede female issue, even if the female child is older.

There is quite a lot of controversy in the UK over the Act of Settlement's provisions in regard to Catholics and women, and there has been a lot of talk lately about amending it to eliminate those provisions. I don't think that it is likely to happen in the present Queen's lifetime, however. (I won't go into the reasons why, as that would be getting too political.)

Charles is staying right where he is, and unless he predeceases his mother, he will one day be King. What the Queen is doing in terms of putting William in the limelight is simple PR -- he's popular and good-looking, so he makes a good public face for the family business, and I'm sure that his father understands that. There is a wide gulf between this and actual abdication, and I wouldn't be placing bets that the Prince of Wales would do that for anything less than a catastrophic health reason (his own health, that is.)

The Queen will still open Parliament and handle the Red Boxes, and if she gets to the point that she cannot do those things, then the present Prince of Wales will be the next one doing them.