I don't think it's appropriate for her to go on and on until she dies. Yes, that's how it was done in the past, but historic precedent isn't written in stone. Who wants a 120 year old queen and a 100 year old Prince Charles still hanging around waiting for a job? As a mother, you would think she would be honored to let her son have a go at it.
2006-12-14 22:35:39 · 11 answers · asked by niko 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Are you kidding? they will have to pry that old lady off the throne. You can tell she loves her power.
2006-12-14 22:39:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
The truth is that if Prince Charles hadn't left Diana then he would have been King and Diana Queen. Look at the Queen she is like your mum and my mum they love there kids. Only if they do the right think by there parents and for the people.
Diana was not pregnant with Dodis baby that still hasn't been proven. If she was, then definitely Queen Elizabeth will never have Charles take over the Throne before she dies. It would discredit the Monarchy
2006-12-15 06:43:26 · answer #2 · answered by Tonia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly... it so inconsequential who is monarch that it is laughable. It doesn't matter who holds the post... it is the post itself that is vitally important.
Elizabeth has been an outstanding monarch with an oaf as a husband... long may she continue..
Charles would also make an excellent monarch... but his wife is a mule...
With any luck Prince William will make a fantastic "reforming" monarch.
Being honoured as a mother has nothing to do with it... being protective of the monarchy is where the Queen is coming from.
2006-12-15 06:40:16 · answer #3 · answered by jonti 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a mother, she would be obliged/honoured to stay on. Prince Charles ought to have demonstrated worthiness of the suggested precedent. After all, she enjoys it and loves every minute of it, doesn't she? Very very slim chance for Charly! She goes strong!!
2006-12-15 07:42:30 · answer #4 · answered by Ebby 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that Queen Elizabeth II should step down from the throne. She's a better ruler than her son.
2006-12-15 16:23:56 · answer #5 · answered by 3lixir 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Queen was raised to believe that it's a job for life. (And yes it is a job to her. She may live in splendour with no financial worries, but she has had to sacrifice the luxury of a private life. She is always on display and always under scrutiny. )
She would never abdicate.
2006-12-15 10:24:39 · answer #6 · answered by castle h 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Charles? He's an adulterer and a kiss up to Muslim terrorists.
We're hoping his kids will be better which is why the Queen doesn't want to die just yet. Hopefully she'll out live Charles and horseface and the kids will turn out to be good rulers.
else I'm all for a republic.
2006-12-15 06:38:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
We were talking the other day and I think that someone said that Prince Charles is no longer eligable for the throne anyway b/c of the divorce.
2006-12-15 06:38:15 · answer #8 · answered by tera_duke 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What, and have one more half-wit son of a former leader in charge of a world power?
2006-12-15 06:38:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The royals dont do anything in the running of the country, they are only tourist attractions now. Who cares who has the crown?
2006-12-15 06:39:04 · answer #10 · answered by MrBret 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
no, lizzy is infinitely more popular than charles
2006-12-15 09:46:04 · answer #11 · answered by Pope Barley 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋