To think prince Charles isn't that bad

[Julia2016]

The princes trust does good work. Yes he didn't treat Diana well but she also manipulated the media and they were an odd match from the start.

Take the other night, why did Charles not meet Obama? Or was this William picking a job he liked doing?? It looks to me like Charles is being sidelined, perhaps there are plans to bypass him in the line of succession. Or maybe the media are not bothered about him.

I kinda like him.. 😌

[MintyChapstick]

I'm no Royalist, but I don't dislike him. I think the marriage to Diana was ill advised, as aside from the obvious age difference they had fuck all in common with each other. He seems happier with Camila, and I don't believe that Diana was whiter than white either. In fact I'd imagine she was a bloody nightmare to live with, not that I'm condoning his affair, but to nake out she was the wronged party when she was putting it about herself (with married men, with families I might add) is naive.

[Sunnymeg]

When Edward VIII abdicated he did so on for himself and also for any children he might have. The establishment wanted well rid of him and didn't want a schism of the Royals causing problems for George VI and his descendants. However if Charles does decline the throne then I'm sure a fudge could be made to keep William as it would all be in house as it were. I suppose the sticking point might be over Camilla and how her title is styled.

[BillSykesDog]

Indeed. But that act of abdicating removes both him and his heirs from the line of succession, as they are only in the line of succession by virtue of their (living) parent being so. It wouldn't have mattered, for example, had David Windsor had children prior to abdicating, the crown would still have passed to his brother. The precedent is His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, but it codified long-established constitutional theory.

Wrong. The Abdication Act didn't codify anything because each individual act of abdication requires it's own individual act of Parliament to become law so precedent doesn't apply. All abdication acts are legally required to be primary legislation. Just because one abdication act said something (eg ruling out heirs) doesn't mean that the next one has to.

Edward Windsor (David was a family nickname taken from his fifth middle name, never his name) had an abdication act which ruled out heirs of his body because they did not exist and perhaps never would. Including them would have massively weakened the position of any future sovereign right up to his death in 1973 and done huge damage to the monarchy.

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that Charles' adult, living sons and Grandchildren would be ruled out in the same way. The idea of only being in the succession because of a parent who is really only applies at the moment of their birth.

And far from there being a universal feeling that Edward VIII was a wrong 'un, he was popular and up until right before the abdication the British public had no idea he was even having a relationship with Wallis.

[Julia2016]

I agree Charles shouldn't be involved with politics but the truth is the royals are, they get listened to because no one would dare tell them shut up. why would the queen meet the pm weekly?

I think given it is likely to be Obamas last visit to the uk that Charles would have met him. William strikes me as a petulant child and will take the good jobs. How he can say he wants to have time with his family when asked why he isn't doing more! Wouldn't we all love that but bills need paying. He's a bit like Margaret, won't give up the position, way too many privileges but shows a dislike to a lot of aspects of it.

And how are the media giving into how he is controlling them??

[Ricardian]

When Edward VIII abdicated he did so on for himself and also for any children he might have

It seems unlikely that would have been an issue (ho ho) anyway. This article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023050/Was-Wallis-Simpson-woman-New-evidence-speculates-sexual-make-up.html

combines things that are plausible with some that are less so, but there is pretty wide-ranging evidence that at least one, if not both, of them were infertile. In any event, once George VI had been crowned, the whole discussion would be moot as he had two children already who (by any rational argument) would have been ahead of any putative children of the abdicated ex-king anyway. Had George VI not already had children the debate might have been more pertinent.

He didn't get any choice in the terms of the abdication anyway. It had been made clear that if he didn't, no even vaguely electable politician would serve as his prime minister, so he was hardly in a negotiating position.

[Ricardian]

And far from there being a universal feeling that Edward VIII was a wrong 'un, he was popular and up until right before the abdication

But that didn't apply amongst the people that mattered in government. His affair with Simpson was widely known amongst MPs and the aristocracy (or, indeed, anyone who had left the country and read a newpaper at any point in the previous twelve months) and - to take a primary source - the diaries of "Chips" Channon make it quite clear that there was massive debate amongst politicians in the year prior to the actual abdication.

All abdication acts are legally required to be primary legislation.

There's only been one abdication since the Act of Settlement, so it's all uncharted territory. As I've repeatedly said, "everything is fixable in primary legislation".

[DinosaursRoar]

Julia - the Queen meets the PM weekly because she's the head of state, not him! He works for her. Nowt becomes law without her sign off, now, she has never refused, but it's a final check we have and the fact that she could do that, does mean we don't have to worry about a crazy PM with a big majority doing batshit crazy things. (Tis the "the Nazis couldn't do it here" arguement for Royality, or at least, for having someone in that role as a final check to the PM's power, which is where it becomes tricky if we had an elected president as they might actually start regularly using the powers the Queen doesn't, esp if they were from one party and the other had the majority in the house of commons).

The Prince of Wales has no consitutional right or role, which is tricky, as the Queen has clearly been handing a lot over to him, and, do we want someone kept completely in the dark as PofW and then suddenly expect them to take on a tricky and important political role when their parent has just died?

[Ricardian]

Tis the "the Nazis couldn't do it here" argument for Royality

The more convincing argument is that the military answer to the Queen, not the PM, and take that seriously. However, you might like to ask yourself what would happen if a popular, left-wing government were elected which an activist, conservative king didn't think much to, and started passing legislation which (say) weakened the landed gentry's hold on farmland. In the end, accounts of possible coups against Wilson (a) suffer from the problem of Peter Wright being a fantasist and (b) our present Queen not being likely to order the Guards Armoured down the Mall. I wouldn't be quite as sanguine about Charles.

[WallisSimpson11]

I appreciate him for the Duchy of Cornwall products.

[eaglesreach]

I don't know how we can tell anyone's nice just by how they come across on the telly. Obviously he's going to show his nice side, we'll see what he wants us to see. His servants (he has about 150) would be able to tell us what he's really like. From what I've read he sounds incredibly lazy and rather bad tempered.

[Julia2016]

Ok but if the queen is the final check, what if she decided to go crazy? Could she order the military to act? That's not exactly democratic either..

[Falling270]

YANBU. He does a lot of good for the county and agriculture. I like him.

[Falling270]

Also to be fair it really doesn't matter that any of us think because like it or not he will be King one day unless he passes before the Queen it's not up to us to decide!

[acasualobserver]

... he came straight over and talked to me with his 'Eccles' voice ( a Goon character) Whether or not he will make a good King I cant say ...

I can't help thinking that this is not the strongest argument in favour of the monarchy. But if Brenda was prepared to perfect her Neddie Seagoon impersonation, I might change my mind.

[BillSykesDog]

They didn't know they were infertile at the time in all likelihood and neither did anyone else. But the point is that any future children's legal status had to be defined by the abdication act and that meant ruling them out because there couldn't be a middle ground. They didn't exist and nobody knew if they would or not so their status had to be to be ruled out. It was the only option. That is not the case with children who are already living adults so they wouldn't need to be treated the same way in any new abdication acts.

As I've repeatedly said, "everything is fixable in primary legislation".

But every single act of abdication has to be an act of Parliament according to the Act of Settlement therefore all abdication acts are primary legislation. They all start with a blank slate. You're saying primary legislation would be needed to 'fix' things in the case of an abdication to make William king. That is not true. If Charles abdicated a new abdication act with it's own terms would be drawn up with it's own terms which would already be primary legislation. No further primary legislation would be required. And it's highly, highly unlikely those terms would involve disinheriting the Cambridges and Harry in favour of Andrew.

You're assuming that the terms would have to be the same as the 1936 act unless more primary legislation was passed to change it. This is not true. Any further abdication acts will be primary legislation and set new terms from an entirely blank slate.

[MrHannahSnell]

Ricardian you are totally mistaken in saying that Andrew would become king. He's no 6 in line now.

[Wauden]

Having read some the 'black spider letters', the topics that Prince Charles writes about are perfectly reasonable. Ragwort is a weed that poisons cattle so yes that is a problem; protected species need protection; and historic buildings at risk need to be restored. Seems common sense to me to be concerned about the ecology and the historic environment - many people share those concerns (English Heritage membership and RSPB Birdwatch prove this).
How on earth does that makes him unfit to be a monarch? He was way ahead of his time with organic farming.

[Owllady]

I liked Sarah chatto :) assuming we are going by the family pictures thing that has just been n bbc1

[diddl]

Oh yes, Owl

I so felt for her, having lost her mum so long ago & there's Anne & Charles both more than 10yrs older than her still with both of their parents.

Something that reallyamused me was Charles & Anne dancing on the beach in towels.

So unselfconscious.

I think that that is what strikes me about Charles-how ill at ease he seems.

[corythatwas]

"There is no sillier location in the Venn diagram than the intersection of “people who are royalists” with “people who think the crown should miss out Prince Charles and go straight to Prince William”. How in the name of porphyria-by-proxy can they be both? The British monarchy is a hereditary gig as governed by the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. You can’t just skip a round because you don’t like whoever the random figurehead generator has thrown up."

Doesn't the same type of argument apply to someone who thinks they can become a constitutional monarch and meddle in politics at the same time? You can't just change the rules that govern your position because you happen to feel strongly about something. Either he will have to decide not to use that influence or he will have to give up on being the heir to the throne- in which case he will lose influence anyway.

[Buckinbronco]

I don't believe for a second savile was in with Charles. A mentor? This is prince Charles. The queens son. What on earth would he get from a friendship with someone who in life was a deprived, uneducated, coarse northerner Turned DJ and TV presenter, and in death the biggest sex offender we now know about?

[Owllady]

She just seemed so unassuming didn't she?
I don't really have an opinion 're Charles. I think there has been alot of pressure and criticism of him 're Diana, that people have most probably forgotten about. At the end of the day, he was left with two young sons who had lost their mother. No amount of wealth or privilege makes up for the loss of your mum (or your child's mum) it will be twenty years next year since her death, seems unimaginable when you look how young her son's are

[corythatwas]

Some of the topics are reasonably, Wauden, but that does not alter the fact that Charles is no expert: his only claim to be listened to more than Joe Bloggs in the street lies in his position which specifically forbids him to meddle. If he can't accept that, he will have to accept becoming Joe Bloggs.

[Owllady]

Sorry that was a reply to diddl
I do wish people wouldn't use northerner as a derogatory label

[Rezolution123]

The succession passes from Charles to William and then his children.
Prince Andrew is next in line AFTER Prince Harry and any children he may have at the time.