To think Prince George will never be King?

[SerfTerf]

Or if he is, the next generation won't be?

We were talking about it at lunch. I just have the strong feeling now that the monarchy will fizzle out at some point in the next 50-100 years.

It's not an active "want" just a notion.

Two of us talking earlier felt similarly but the other three were aghast.

So, AIBU?

Charles and camilla are legally married as the queen gave her assent

But if it was as simple as that, why would all the legal consultations have been necessary? I imagine the queen has good advice around what she can and can't assent to, but apparently it was still not enough

More to the point, why is that legal advice being kept secret during it's "beneficiary's" lifetime? To be fair we're all entitled to keep family legal matters private, but where constitutional matters are concerned isn't it better for such things to be open?

And on a purely personal level, isn't it likely that Charles would have been only too happy to publicise the reports and say "there you are you see!!" if the conclusions had gone his way?

It's nothing to do with camilla and everything to do with Charles and the monarch's position as the head of the Church of England.

Obviously it's all speculation but the individual discretion of individual vicars to marry divorcees is something quite different to a divorcee potentially being the head of the church.

Phillip is also a consort, I think that's neither here nor there.

What is the main issue is really 'what is in the interests of the institution of the monarchy?' For many reasons that is William succeeding the queen.

The legal consultations were necessary in relation to the issue of a royal divorcee remarrying and the wedding taking place at Windsor.

It was resolved that it would be a civil ceremony with a blessing as the Church of England could not marry them (so could Charles be head of the church? Not likely) and it would be held in the registry office not in Windsor as this would mean the public would be able to marry at Windsor for a period of three years afterwards.

I highly doubt that will happen when charles is alive. Imagine the humiliation. His sons are extremely fond of him and Camilla. I doubt William will want to accede the throne when he is in his late 30's or 40's when he still has young children. Why would he want that, while having his father waiting around in the shadows, POrince of Wales for eternity? I dont understand the vitriol against Camilla either. i think people think their happily ever after fairytale is compromised by her, and if only she wasnt around, Charles and Diana's marriage would have been all hunky Dory. But they met 13 times before they married. they barely knew each other. They had nothing in common. the Monarchy and the Spencers for that matter, used a 19 year old girl as a brood mare for a 30 year old commitment phobic Heir to the Throne. That would have been the case with or without Camilla.

Camilla is going to be Princess Consort and not Queen Consort. Princess Consort has never existed in the U.K. It does exist in some other European monarchies.

That's the thing - if after many years of thinking, planning and advice it has been resolved that Charles and camilla can marry but that the Church of England should not perform the ceremony and the head of the Church of England shouldn't attend the civil ceremony what we are left with is Charles and camilla being legally married (as the queen gave assent) but the likelihood of Charles ever being able to be head of the Church being very slim.

So that is the issue - the monarch is the head of the Church of England. Can Charles be the head of the Church of England when the issues relating to his remarriage were resolved in the above way? I suspect not.

I doubt very much Charles will ever be let next nor near the throne. If he was that good he'd be well and truly in the public eye already, and he's not. When's the last time you saw primetime footage of Charles and Camilla on a public tour? Or Charles making a speech? The Queen would have reduced her duties over the past few years, if she had thought Charles would be a welcome substitute. He's a very unpopular figure and only the negative stories about him sell newspapers.
When the Queen dies, Prince William and Kate will become the main monarchs.

Camilla will not have the title of Queen, but will go by Royal Consort (or something)

Can anyone seriously see Charles accepting that though? His very skilled PR machine may have bought off public opinion in this way, but they can hardly overturn the legal principle of a wife sharing her husband's title if that husband wishes to take advantage of it

A cynic might even take the view that Charles is happy to use the law when it works for him, but equally willing to brush what doesn't suit under the carpet

When the Queen dies, Prince William and Kate will become the main monarchs

"Main monarchs"?

How does that work, then?

But the church is now much more relaxed about the marriage of divorcees and there is nothing set in stone to say that the monarch (and head of the church) can't marry a divorcee.

I suspect the Queen was just being over cautious in not attending.

I don't think there's any doubt about Charles being King. He is, after all, officially first in the line of succession. To have made a deal about what happens when the queen dies, would introduce uncertainty and ambiguity. That, above all, is something the Queen hates. She wouldn't agree to that in a million years. If he was to step down, he would have done it on his marriage.

I suspect there's more of a 'wait and see' approach to Camilla. If she seems more popular come the time, they'll give her the same title as Philip. If not, they'll leave it as is.

The royal family could be the most intelligent, caring, sensible, wonderful humans in the world and I would still want the monarchy abolished. The idea that someone is born to superiority, that they are 'royal' because of their parents, is utterly abhorrent.

I agree @Puzzledandpissedoff

It's been an incremental PR creep from his people.

He said he'd never remarry, when that seemed politic, but he did.

She'll be Queen Consort, I'm sure. Well she definitely will be constitutionally but I think she'll use the full title too. It's not as though it's a title Diana ever used, which is the main reason she doesn't use Princess OW.

I don't dislike them but I don't see the point in them. I have slightly gone off William since he was filmed in a room full of homeless people telling them all how George was growing so fast that they had to retailore all his clothes! I'm sure they could all really relate to that problem!

The hate I often read towards Charles is astonishing. Had Diana not died and was now married to someone else, most people wouldn't give two hoots. It's like he was personally responsible for her death in thousands of minds. She's become a veritable saint. Neither behaved well in that marriage and I actually feel sorry for BOTH of them.

Half of all marriages end in divorce and as a survey in 2015 suggested that 41% of men will cheat and 21% of women will cheat.

Seems to me makes the Royals look more like the rest of us!

Camilla doesn't have the title POW. That's why she doesn't use it.

It's entirely a constitutional issue relating to the royal family and the monarch's relationship to the Church of England. The fact that the Church of England did not marry Charles and camilla and the head of the Church did not attend the civil ceremony means that certainly the position the queen took as the head of the Church was that the church did not accept the marriage of Charles and camilla. Whatever it's approach is towards ordinary other people.

Charles is first in line to the throne. As someone else said, either he becomes King, abdicates or dies. There are no other alternatives in a monarchical system.

Good fron tourism, good for the promoting of U.K. overseas
Get Queen Kate on throne!

Wrong on both counts, even the tourist boards "Visit Britain" will no longer promote the royal family as a reason to visit Britain, and rightly so. Tourists come to Britain for its rich history, beautiful scenery, museums etc, not for the remote chance of catching a glimpse of a royal. Evidence has shown that Chester Zoo, Stonehenge, the Roman Baths, Lego land are more popular than Windsor Castle (the only residence to bring in large numbers)

As for the promotion of the UK overseas
So an institution that represents the opposite of everything we want to promote overseas is the answer? How on earth are we supposed to support democracy across the world when we have such an inperfect democracy ourselves.
Never in the history of the world has so much been taken from so many, by so few.....and they epitomise that, the royals have been taking other people's wealth for centuries, they're also a stark reminder that Britain used to rule countries in subordinate ways, so no, Britain would do fine being promoted abroad without the help of such a throwback to medieval times as the royal family are, in fact would do far better without.

Camilla doesn't have the title POW. That's why she doesn't use it.

She has it. Any wife of the POW would. They made a decision that she wouldn't use it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princessoff_Wales

Camilla doesn't have the title POW. That's why she doesn't use it

It's true that she doesn't use it - but not that, legally, it isn't hers. As so often, the royal PR people hope to get away with whatever today's story is, and that we won't look too far into things

Even as someone who was ambivalent about Diana, it strikes me that the whole mess could have been avoided by simply saying "no" to Charles for once ... except that "no" clearly isn't a word he appreciates hearing

And she will also automatically become Queen too if Charles becomes King. She may choose not to use the title but it will be hers.

Why would we want something that symbolises deference and hierarchy to our trading partners abroad If anything they're a public relations disaster.

even the tourist boards "Visit Britain" will no longer promote the royal family as a reason to visit Britain, and rightly so. Tourists come to Britain for its rich history, beautiful scenery, museums etc, not for the remote chance of catching a glimpse of a royal. Evidence has shown that Chester Zoo, Stonehenge, the Roman Baths, Lego land are more popular than Windsor Castle (the only residence to bring in large numbers)

That's progress.

Maybe would could compromise? Abolish a lot of the folderol and pomp, drastically cut costs. But wheel them out for half a dozen key ceremonies per year?