to think that Camilla is a bit of a national treasure

[GitAwfMayLend]

Yes another wedding based thread.

I think she seems a good egg. And looked lovely today.

Plus there were a few moments where she looked very emotional in the abbey, was very touching.

clam I want to be Queen.

:) Yellowstone

I don't claim to be learned, I just know a bit about it all through a combination of personal interest and study. If you wants omething a bit more modern than Edward II and Richard II you could have a look at the republican movements of the 19thC

Anyway, the whole point of a monarchy is that you don't get to choose who is king or queen - that's not how it works.

Btw I didn't point it out earlier, but you got the date of the abdication wrong - it was 1936, not 1938.

I'm sure that was just a typo though.

The monarchy needs public support to continue. Will be interesting to see whether there is such support for Chaz and Camilla when the time comes.

Monarchies don't have to have primogeniture - in some cultures at some points in history the people (not necessarily all of them, of course) got to choose from the group of people who were qualified. So you could miss out the current monarch's eldest son in favour of someone more popular.

I suspect Anne would make a far better monarch than Charles, but she'd probably turn the job down...

Interesting point clam. Britain doesn't have an actual, physical, constitution, does it?

My personal opinion, it was probably for the best that Edward VII abdicated. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor had some very worrying friends!

I'm not sure public support has that much of an influence tbh edam. Maybe more so now than historically.

Monarchies might not have to have primogeniture (the Holy Roman Empereror was elected by a group of peers) but this one (GB) has a tradition of primogeniture established over hundreds of years.

"Worrying friends." Bit like the current Duke of York, you mean?

For Charles to "step aside" in favour of William, he would have to abdicate. Edward VIII's abdication rocked the monarchy to its core. No one who values it is going to allow that to happen again.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it has to carry on the same way. I think the monarchy was in real danger when Diana died - the level of public hostility was quite something. (Actually they really should have invited Blair - he saved them from themselves.)

In the modern world, the monarchy survives on our consent - if that is withdrawn, the Windsors fall. Although I expect in reality people will put up with Chaz and just wait impatiently for Wills. (Who will be a middle aged man by the time he gets there, so probably won't have quite such a hold on the public's affections anyway.)

Very much like the Duke of York!

I really don't believe the monarchy are that much bothered about people's opinions to be honest. Sure they pay them lip service but otherwise, no.

Charles is not going to abdicate but people fretting about him succeeding to the throne probably shouldn't worry too much - if the Queen lasts as long as her mum (entirely possible), he might never get there.

"In the modern world, the monarchy survives on our consent"

Does though, edam? I'm not sure it does.

People were predicting the downfall of the monarchy 14 years ago and here they are still going strong. They were also predicting it in the 19th C, didn't happen then either.

Sorry, that should read 'Does it'? Should preview!

roundtoit Fri 29-Apr-11 22:31:29
She will never be my queen, marriage wrecker . i cannot believe after what she put their mother through will and harry have totally accepted her.

This attitude cracks me up. If the woman's sons don't have an issue with her, what right do you have? "She will never be my queen" ffs get a grip. They know what really happened, you don't. To take issue with it is laughable.

I like Camilla.

Nobody really knows what happened between PC, PD and CPB. I can only guess and say that Camilla was deemed unsuitable for Charles and he wasn't allowed to marry her for some reason. As is often the way with Royal Families. The whole thing was a very sorry, sad mess.

William and Harry appear to have accepted her in to their family. If they're happy that's all that matters really.

I don't want Prince Charles and Camilla to be the next regents though. It should definitely go to William. Charles is completely out of touch with the real world (doesn't he have somebody to cut up his boiled eggs or something?), it's beyond belief that he raised two children who are the complete opposite!

He won't be a regent though AmyStake - he'll be King - if he succeeds.

Monarchs are generally not in touch with the real world; they don't have to be.

flippin I've long since given up correcting typos and I won't be such a school girl at to correct yours! (the typo about Edward VII abdicating). Thanks for the useful suggested reading.

Camilla's loo paper joke is funny? Hmm. Wonder where she went to uni?

We have an unwritten constitution; it's no less valid.

Oops sorry that's what I meant flippin :)

flippin they do have to be in touch with the real world and they used to have to too if they wanted to survive or hang on to power which is the main point here. A few of my forebears who had their heads chopped off/ fled the country could vouch for that....

Blimey yellow are you related to French aristocracy?

I seem to be coming out of a mental fog of wedding fever. Normally I don't give a monkeys about any of this stuff.

I still like Camilla, and think all the affair stuff is water under the bridge. But evidently people still feel very strongly about the Diana stuff still. So who knows. Perhaps people would prefer Will to be king as opposed to Charles.

I think there will be a great schism when the queen dies. Very few people can remember another head of state. I wonder if it really be automatically the Queen is dead, Long live the King?

Did I say Edward VII instead of Edward VIII Yellowstone?

I don't think so but if you can quote it back at me then I stand corrected. These distinctions are important, after all :).

The Monarchy in GB has been around for 1000 years plus (with a brief hiatus for the Commonwealth). I'd say that shows an impressive adapaibility combined with a strong survival instinct.

They don't have to be in touch with the real world at all..they just have to convince us that they are!

Another pro-Camilla vote here. Shame Charles didn't marry her years ago. I blame Lord Louis and the old biddies (Queen Mum, Diana's granny etc). They interfered and had far too much control.

Well, there was an earlier system in England whereby the person in the royal family considered most suitable got the job. That would be Anne then .

flippin 12.02 today. God you'd have been a real pain at school. Did you give the teachers shiny apples too? Actually, typos really are not that important at all and if you think they are then hahaha for doing one yourself. You could always ask MN to delete your post to save face.

Yes adaptability is pretty key in the survival of the monarchy in Britain. But it's been a 1000 year journey with a few twists and turns, heads lost and thrones lost etc. for all manner of reasons - a little more multi-layered and complex than some of your posts would suggest.

Why doesn't Charles show some adaptability then and offer Anne his place? She's great. Adapt and push off - brilliant idea.

Actually adaptability is what the monarchy has only done lately and not especially willingly. I'd have thought intransigence would be a better generic term for the fate of monarchs and the monarchy historically.

Camilla, OMG who really actually cares

honestly don't think I feel anything at all (good or bad) about Camilla. She doesn't move me at all.

Why doesn't Charles show some adaptability then and offer Anne his place?

He couldn't even if he wanted to. The line of succession is fixed and the RF do not have the power to change it by themselves.

Blimey yellowstone, what on earth has rattled your cage? I'll leave my posts as they are, thanks.

herecomesthesun - that's an interesting idea. I think it started out like that and then it caused all sorts of problems with sons jostling for position (thinking of Henry II for example, all sorts of issues there).

Primogeniture of course means you get the first born, with men taking precedence over women. So no fights. But then first born may not always be best for the job..