and the Queen died, God forbid, would Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales do the decent thing and stand aside in favour of Prince William, or, would he accept the job?
i) Do you think he's fit for Office of being the next King of great Britain (note the deliberate usage of short casing in "great" !)
ii) Do you think he would make the decision to tell his Prime Minister to withdraw our troops from Iraq when he took over the ultimate Commander-in-Chief of HM Forces aka His Majesty's Forces unlike the Queen today?
iii) If the job is mearly a PR constitutional one today, and the Monarch has no real powers, even though it is THE MONARCH WHO HAS TO ASK the PM IF he wants to form a Govt even though elected by the people democratically, why are our troops mind-set that of "fighting for Queeen and Country" (though granted not so much today...!) WHY are we tax payers contributing to thier coffers instead of the private sector paying them for bringing in so many tourists?
2007-03-18 22:11:47 · 29 answers · asked by Hello 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Re : aren't we using our brains today...
Hmmmmm you obviously cannot read a simple question - ie UK ANSWERS ONLY PLEASE !!!
Yep, you are just reinforcing the world's opinion and things slot easily into place so much easier for us to understand when you don't stop to LISTEN or READ...
So, maybe YOU should START USING YOUR "BRAIN" TODAY !!
2007-03-18 22:47:38 · update #1
Re Soldjablue
My apologies. You are right, I should have included the Commonwealth, but I thought by saying UK only, the Americans would take the hint and move on from answering a question that is in no way related to them. I was wrong !!
My apologies. For sure if you are from a Commonwealth country, please, add your comments, and state which particular country you are from, by way of adding more interest to my question.
2007-03-18 22:56:02 · update #2
Re Soldjablue -
Didn't Australia have a referendum to opt out from the Commonwealth in favour of becomming a Republic?
IF you are an australian, I wonder which way you voted?
2007-03-18 23:24:14 · update #3
Re Septocular
I beg to differ about your comments re the Monarch only offering a personal view to her/his Prime Minister.
The DUTY of the Monarch, who INVITES the PM to form a Govt - contrary to popular belief it's a done deal when all votes counted - is to Advise, Guide and Warn to PM and it's Govt not "offer a person view"
2007-03-18 23:53:12 · update #4
Let me see... the queen dies and there's a great debate over whether or not Charles should acceed to the throne.
Charles himself scours his inner being... 'I make awful faux pas... is it right that I should be king?', 'I've been divorced... is it right that I should be king?', 'I think organic carrots are fantastic... is it right that I should be king?', 'that William of mine is far better looking than I am, maybe I should hand the throne to him instead?'.
Get real! Why should Charles hand the throne to William?
As you point out, the job of the royals these days is largely PR (particularly between commonwealth nations). But you can't ignore the tradition of it. This can be taken in two ways: 1) as something that's just done for the sake of it, has no worth in modern society and actually holds us back, or 2) as one of the few unifying factors left in British (and particularly English) culture - something that ties us to our history in a good way, and gives us a national identity. Many other countries prioritise their cultural identities and traditions more than we do - take Spain with their plethora of national holidays. What do the English have? Morris dancing?
There's a reason why lots of Americans are fascinated with our historical sites. They don't have our extensive history. Their genealogy often leads back to our little island. We have bigger roots.
This is in contrast to the 21st century reality of the nation (which is, of course, glorious in its corporate wealth and capitalism). But we can keep both aspects of our culture alive - the modern and the traditional.
Charles is forward thinking. He's had his finger on the button over green issues for a long time. He might make a few mistakes but he'll also be outspoken. Also, he does at least travel the globe and meet people of other cultures in a relatively spin-free context - how many of our other representatives can we say that of?
As for the heat society will put on him come the time of the next king being crowned, we only need to look to the House of Commons to see the shambles that is our elected representatives, twisting their words and fighting over the definition of 'is'. A monarch doesn't have to remain loyal to a manifesto and doesn't have to fight an opposition, only to put a personal view to the prime minister and (hopefully) have a thought for the greater national good. We don't vote for our monarch, and nor should we - this would turn the monarchy into a political contest and render it redundant when we already have political representatives.
Re: re: septocular (your additional comments: "The DUTY of the Monarch, who INVITES the PM to form a Govt - contrary to popular belief it's a done deal when all votes counted - is to Advise, Guide and Warn to PM and it's Govt not "offer a person view")
The invitation to form a government is, as we all know, a tradition. We could scrap that and the government would still form because our political system depends upon it. That's not to say that the monarchy is useless, only that this aspect of it is a formality.
If the duty of the monarch is to "Advise, Guide and Warn" the PM, then that necessarily involves the monarch's personal opinion on what's best for the country at that time, bearing in mind the views of his advisors and the need to maintain political stability.
2007-03-18 23:43:31 · answer #1 · answered by stuffnstuff 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
UK only??? You do know that there's a freaking Commonwealth out here that also has to contribute taxes to the cause. Don't we get a vote? I would love Australia to be a republic. I'd love to lose the Union Jack on our flag. But being part of the Commonwealth has wonderful advantages. Both in terms of allies and finances. If England became a republic, then the Commonwealth would by necessity dissolve, and that would be the end of a wonderful tradition. And then we'd be a world without. And even though I could do without the Union Jack, I don't really want to live in a world without the Commonwealth. So whether Charles or William takes the Crown is no matter to me, But I will say, Long live the Queen, the Queen is dead, Long live the King.
2007-03-19 05:48:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No I do not think Prince Charles would stand aside for Prince William and no I don't think he is fit for office. I have had parents and friends of mine at me all year saying if it was not for the Queen then we would have a dictator. I don't agree although I do think that it is a matter that should first be addressed. I think that Charles would try to get Blair to remove the troops from Iraq, but I am equally sure that Blair or whoever takes over would not agree. Not unless they got paid for it. That is how government in this country appears to work now you know. Look at it.
We are on the slippery slope, it won't be long before this country will work to "Capitalist" ideals like America and without the American legal system we will rot in seconds. It is not important apparently. Oh well we are no longer a decent country, let alone great when we are dictated to by foreign villains and rogues.
2007-03-21 21:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by Aunty Wendy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Kind of disagree with your point of view about the "decent thing". Prince Charles is a very politically involved figure (much to the disgust of others) who is not afraid to voice his opinions who will get more involved in this situation, he's politically involved in a lot of environmental issues .
The question of power? Anything that King Charles doesn't like, constitutional wise, he can set about changing.
Yes I think that he's fit for office. OK he's had a messy divorce and there are issues with the church over this, but have you ever made mistakes? But looking at the work that he does (and indeed his wife), the Princes Trust, charity work, the oesteoporosis society, in my opinion Charles and Camilla, although pompous are still fit for office
Looking at the alternative William. He's only in his twenties probably wants to see more life, probably enjoying his career at the moment, probably wants to get married first. Maybe even doing as much partying as his brother only the press don't report it. (What the press will have you believe and what really goes on are two different things).
As to the question of who should pay for them, consider the alternative, a republic and a president, who wont set about bringing more tourism to the country, charities will suffer to the work that these people do will have to be paid for by the state either in increased NHS funding (oesteoporosis and others) or increased benefit/welfare costs (the princes trust).
2007-03-24 06:11:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do you think it would be "the decent thing" for Prince Charles not to ascend the throne?
I think he's the most useful royal of modern times. He speaks out about the environment and good (organic) farming practices which politicians should speak about but don't.
He's been labelled nutty by the gutter press but so was Nelson Mandela and all the people who campaigned for his release from prison.
Yes, I do think he's fit to be King.
He would not interfere directly in politics by even suggesting that the government should pull troops out of Iraq. The role of monarchy has been separate from such decisions since the time of William of Orange.
Fighting for Queen and country is an old patriotic expression which is still true in a sense. As for their coffers, you have a point. But these things have been decided a long time ago. It's part of the bargain for them losing their real power.
2007-03-19 05:26:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
About two years ago Prince Charles was interviewed and made it clear he would take up his right as heir to the throne.
He is no more or less fit for office than any other head of state in today's media frenzied world. I prefer our system of arriving at a head of state than the Republic's of the world.
If we became a republic it would only cost us even more, I regard the Monarchy as 'good value for money' if such crude measurements need to be applied.
As head of state in our system I understand whilst he can express his opinion in private to the PM of the day he would not actually be able to order the troops out. The decision to go to war was made by parliament and not the Monarch.
2007-03-26 18:25:19 · answer #6 · answered by noeusuperstate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can anyone every be truly ready for such an Office? If Charles were to step aside the lad would have to grow up PDQ. The monarchy is purely a show piece and although a part of the mechanics of the powers that be, it is nothing more than a voice box - -if one that would hold a lot of attention in the public mind should it decide to become a dissenting voice, but it's unlikely in the extreme. If William were to become King next then I would suggest that he would be William The Last and his seat in the Hall of Kings would complete the set!
Best wishes
M
2007-03-19 15:02:44 · answer #7 · answered by Moebious 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ok, first off GREAT question i have had this debate many many times!
I dont think that charles would step aside to give william the role of king, i think thats all charles actually wants but i think that after a year or so the public would demand him to step down, i dont think he is fit to be king, he has the morals of a flea and really has no real standing!
I think that if he loved his sons he would withdraw troops from iraq and afghanistan, and hopefully stand up to the americans and tell them that we will no longer fight thier battles!
I think that although the king/queen makes the 'final' decision on all that is english, they are there for the tourist factor more than anything else and the reason our tax pays for them is Coz they said so lol
2007-03-19 05:19:18 · answer #8 · answered by alaniss2 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Love the rant above, grow up and read the question properly. Charles would be OK but Wills is a true King. Dont think they would interefere with the Iraq war. Apparently they bring inmore revenue for the state than they cost. I'm proud that we have a monarchy as it gives us identity.
2007-03-19 05:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think Charlie would accept the role of King, I don't think he would want to hand it over to William just yet, probably to give him more time to "grow-up" and have a life of his own, The royal family have no rules over the country, they are mearly there as a head of state, I agree, I don;t think tax payers should be paying for them, they have enough money to support themselves.
2007-03-19 05:21:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋