Between getting divorced, marrying Camilla, and his inability to keep his mouth shut, why would he not just be skipped over in favor of William?
2007-08-15 05:51:05 · 11 answers · asked by Showtunes 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Im not trying to interfere, just get opinions
Note: Im not British, I would really like the British view of him and his chances since all Ive seen is from the media here and from reading stuff put out by the BBC.
2007-08-15 06:20:17 · update #1
I dont ask this because of popularity. I ask this because Charles has embarrassed the monarchy on more than one occasion and because the Queen has never seemed overly thrilled with Camilla, even with her current acceptance of her.
2007-08-15 07:03:00 · update #2
"They" being Parliament and Royal Family since based on history both could potentially have him skipped over.
2007-08-15 07:03:39 · update #3
Howdo, Brit here.
Personally, I think the chances of him being skipped are very slim, he's been the Heir Presumptive since his birth and its not the "done thing" with the British monarchy to choose who can and who can't be the next Monarch. I think regardless of his personal life and personality, putting the crown on his head will restrict him as to what he can and can't say. A crown is a responsibility and IMO he's not likely to mess it up by saying more things that just shame the family. Take the Queen, she's fantastic at keeping everyone guessing about what she thinks. I do hope dear ol' Liz is around for a little while longer (longevity runs in the family, fantastic!), and I do think Charles will make a good King. How the media will feel about it and then therefore make the rest of us feel about it, I'm not sure. Some people just still can't let Diana go. Ten years people, put it to rest.
2007-08-15 06:43:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
To a certain extent, it's not a question of popularity where ascension to th Brit throne is concerned. While the public's opinion of the heir presumptive is important, that is overruled with the fact that Prince Charles is the monarch's oldest child and will ascend the throne.
Unlike other European monarchies where the former monarch monarch abdicated in favor of their child, to be explained later. The word Abdication is not one that is used in the House of Windsor.
That is because the HOW was almost demolished when the queen's uncle Edward VIII abdicated in 1938 to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's father, George VI, the Brit Monarchy would have ceased to exist.
A lot has changed in the last 71 years. Divorce is no longer a taboo subject, thus Charles wouldn't need to abdicate in favor of William. And as far as William being to young to take the throne if heaven forbid ever happened to his father, just remember the queen was the same age her grandson is now, 25 when her father died and she came to the throne. So if William did come to the throne after some extraordinary events, he would rise to the occasion and be a popular monarch.
As for the monarchies in which the monarch abdicated in favor of their son/daughter are the Grand Duke of
Luxembourg and the Queens of the Netherlands. In 2000, Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg abdicated the throne in favor of his son, the present Grand Duke Henri. Most notably, the queens of the Netherlands have abdicated in favor of their daughters.
Begininng with the present queen, Beatrix's grandmother Queen Wilehemia.
Queen Wilehemia abdicated in favor of her daughter Princess Juliana, In 1980, Queen Juliana stepped down in favor of her daughter Beatrix. When she stepped down, the queen went back to using HRH Princess Juliana of the Netherlands until her death a few yrs ago. The present heir to the throne of the Netherlands is Queen Beatrix's oldest son, Crown Prince Willem-Alexander.
2007-08-16 04:00:36 · answer #2 · answered by Danielle P 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's not a popularity contest, he will be King because he is the current ruling monarch's eldest son. Do you really think William is ready to be King anyway? He's what...24? I think the Queen was even older than that when she came to the throne. Let William live his life as privately as he can before he is struck properly in the limelight until he dies.
2007-08-15 13:50:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no "let" about it. He is heir to the throne by law, because he is the oldest male child, and nothing can change that.
It's not up for vote, and the Queen has no right to name her successor. Parliament sets the succession law, and it is not going to be changed just because of gossip.
2007-08-16 11:42:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Dear Showtunes,
I was once a British protected citizen before my country Independence.
The right to the British Thrown is nothing to our concern.
I think it better for us not to interfere and we leave it to the right authority to do their jobs. I hope you agree to my point.
You and me are not royalty anyway!.
2007-08-15 13:16:14 · answer #5 · answered by AHMAD FUAD Harun 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If life was fair then yes he would be passed over but he is next in line and must be made king .
2007-08-15 23:53:39 · answer #6 · answered by knightrunner13 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think he will become king, I personally think he has been waiting for that moment his whole life behind the shadow of his mother.
2007-08-15 16:31:11 · answer #7 · answered by Alejandro 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course they'll let him be King. They're used to him.
2007-08-15 13:38:27 · answer #8 · answered by kiwi 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no I think it'll go straight to Wills, Charlie'll be too old by the time the queen dies
2007-08-15 14:40:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
no - if he is alive before she dies, he will have the opportunity to be king. no doubt.....
2007-08-15 16:39:33 · answer #10 · answered by Goodmomma1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋