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?

Even the pyramids bring in dollars and when did you last see a pharaoh?

@Tapandgo that has to be the best comment on this thread

it strikes me that the whole mess could have been avoided by simply saying "no" to Charles for once which bit? Whether he becomes kING and saying no the marriage?

Tbh their marriages to other people didn't kill their love. Not being married and both being single would just have led to them being together unmarried until he was king. At least this is kinder (no adult should be told who to marry) and neater because they have time yo plan

which bit? Whether he becomes kING and saying no the marriage?

Preferable both, actually, though I appreciate the first isn't as simple as that

Then again, who knows; maybe being told he couldn't have Camilla might have persuaded Charles to simply go ... which could well have avoided a lot of problems in the end

Nor do I necessarily accept that marriage to others failed to "kill their love", terribly romantic as it might sound. It seems widely accepted that Charles was never wedded to his "brood mare" in any way most of us would consider meaningful ... and Andrew Parker Bowles's constant extra marital rutting (and hers with Charles) perhaps suggests their commitment to married life was less than strong

Yeah thtta basically what I meant I just worded it nicer hahah

Yes he will, or Charlotte, the monarchy will just evolve & be different.

It's what they do.

Apart from the immense wealth, privilege..

But that's the point. You and I have immense wealth and privilege compared with people in the third world. The other stuff is by the bye. We weren't elected either! Who cares how people got there... the point is there is huge disparity in the way wealth is distributed throughout the world. All well and good looking up and moaning. Take a look down and realise, relatively speaking, that you are obscenely rich yourself.

Tourists come to Britain for its rich history, beautiful scenery, museums etc, not for the remote chance of catching a glimpse of a royal.

Well, I don't accept your premise, (I saw an interview carried out with people who had travelled from Brazil, all because Richard III's body had been discovered), but even so, you miss the point.

Our thousand year old monarchy, together with tales of monarchs such as Henry VI, Elizabeth I, Victoria, Edward VIII, is part of our national identity. People don't come here to see a monarch of course... but the monarchy and associated pagentry is something that is distinctly British.

If we disbanded it would we see the effect tomorrow? Of course not. Next year? No. In another few hundred years? I think possibly we would.

Look at, for example, Royal wedding viewing figures..according to multiple sources approx 2 billion people watched the last one. People are interested.

I for one am happy to have an apolitical head of state. And in my view, as soon as you are elected, politics rears its head.

Emilee if Oliver Cromwell body had been discovered under a carpark people would have come, theyd have come for any historical figure. The number of people who came from Brazil is comparatively insignificant. People have a fascination with the past, if there were no royals people would still come, if they came for a dead Richard111 that just proves it. People flock in their droves to France, far more than cone to Britain. As for the Royal wedding, it actually cost the country in lost revenue far more than it made. They are an unnecessary burden on a country that can no longer feed its poor. Time we got our priorities right.

The Church of England came into existence so Henry VIII could divorce and remarry. So, while Prince Charles' relationship status has been the focus of a lot of attention, I don't think it is a barrier to him becoming monarch.

Dissolving the monarchy in the UK would probably be even more of a constitutional nightmare than Brexit, so I don't see it happening without a much more significant trigger than an unpopular King with a divorcee for a wife, especially as 40%+ of marriages now end in divorce.

I do see the death of the Queen triggering calls for referenda in Australia and elsewhere. And I would anticipate those referenda resulting in removing the monarch as head of state. So I think that by the time Prince Charles dies, the British monarchy will only be associated with England, Scotland and Wales.

If Prince William lives into his 90s like the Queen and Prince Phillip, then George won't be stepping up to the throne for 60 years. Who knows what the world will be like in 2077.

The Church of England came into existence so Henry VIII could divorce and remarry. So, while Prince Charles' relationship status has been the focus of a lot of attention, I don't think it is a barrier to him becoming monarch.

Actually that isn't quite right. Henry VIII actually sought what we would now call an annulment (a declaration the marriage had never been valid) and not a divorce (dissolution of a valid marriage). So there is not the precendent there of a divorced monarch. As far as Henry VIII was concerned he was only genuinely married twice and all the rest were invalid.

Plus, the C of E was only set up in name then and was not established as the Church we know now, because it was not Protestant. It still remained essentially Catholic and followed Catholic doctrine except Henry was head of the church instead of the Pope. The C of E as we know it (Protestant) was founded by his son, Edward VI. So Henry VIII really can't be used as a means of saying the C of E should accept a divorcee as a monarch. They probably will, but not for those reasons.

Oliver Cromwell body had been discovered under a carpark people would have come, theyd have come for any historical figure.

Actually Oliver Cromwell's mummified head has been knocking around Bromley in a cardboard box for some years without drawing any tourists at all.

Henry viii had his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled on the basis that she had previously been married to his brother and therefore the marriage was void. That is entirely different to divorce.

He created the Church of England with the monarch of England as head of the Church, at least in great part, because of his disagreement with the Pope about whether his marriage was void.

Despite the popular rhyme Henry viii was never divorced. He had two annulments - one because Catherine of Aragon had been married to his brother. She gave evidence in person (caused rather a stir) that the marriage to Henry's brother was never consummated (the basis for Henry's requested annulment) and the pope would not grant an annulment leading Henry to instigate the English reformation and create the Church of England.

The marriage to Anne of cleves was also annulled, this time due to the marriage itself not being consummated - embarrassing for Henry.

The problem re Charles is that if the Church of England cannot marry him and camilla, the head of the Church (the monarch) cannot attend the civil ceremony, can Charles ever be head of the Church and what does this mean in relation to the likelihood he will ever be king?

Margaret just proves a point then really, tourists would come here in their droves to visit places where royals used to be, just like in France. We can't ignore the fact that the royal palaces of France (that no longer house royals) draw in many more tourists than ours do.

I know all that, including that the annulment was not granted by the Pope and Protestant sympathisers in Henry's court used the situation to influence him into leaving the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of England remains a compromise because Henry would never have entertained a Calvinist form of Protestantism, so it only really became Protestant when his son was a boy king and others pulled the string. Even today the Church of England describes itself as a 'holy catholic and apostolic church' - both Protestant and Catholic, but not Roman Catholic.

In Henry's case I think the difference between the use of the word annulment and divorce is a matter of semantics. The reality remains that the Church of England's very existence was built on the desire to break up a monarch's marriage. Today the need for annulment doesn't really exist in most communities because it is not considered sinful for a marriage to break down, but I think there is a strong argument for saying both Diana and Charles were forced / pressurised into their marriage, so should have been given an annulment. Henry VIII was happily married for the best part of 20 years. It was only his desire for an heir that changed his mind. The argument about the validity of his marriage was rejected with good reason, so even if it was called an annulment, it was actually a divorce.

The problem re Charles is that if the Church of England cannot marry him and camilla, the head of the Church (the monarch) cannot attend the civil ceremony, can Charles ever be head of the Church and what does this mean in relation to the likelihood he will ever be king?

I've always believed that, come the time, the Church's view on the matter will be quietly ignored. Not everyone fully understands the issues here and doubtless Charles's camp will encourage the idea that those who do are just republicans making a fuss about nothing

Probably, too, there'll be subtle pressure on the CofE to change their stance, or if that doesn't work, suggestions that the Coronation Oath could be changed to suit ... in fact hasn't there already been some talk about him being "defender of faith" rather than defender of the faith?

For someone who insists that traditional things are so important, Charles's expectations can seem hypocritical at best

That's a bridge they'll cross then.
When the Queen dies or abdicates, Camilla's ex might be dead, she might be dead, Charles might be dead or he could abdicate then (no point in saying so now).

Or there will be legislation passed that will say he is King and head of the Church of England. It's not as if TPTB havent had long enough to discuss it. Or he will decide he doesnt want to be head of the Church of England, as he has said before, he wants to be Defender of all Faiths. The only way he wont be king is if the Queen outlives him. We don't get the chance to choose who is the monarch, otherwise what is the point of them? We might as well have a non political Head of State, then we can choose from a wider pool of people.

We might as well have a non political Head of State, then we can choose from a wider pool of people.

What do you mean by non political?

The pool you have to choose from in most countries that have a President, even a non-executive one, is from political parties.
As soon as you have elections, you introduce politics. People don't tend to vote for the most beautiful or nicest candidates, but on their politics.

Or there will be legislation passed that will say he is King and head of the Church of England

There doesn't need to be legislation for that - as things stand now, the monarch is the head of the CofE

Lweji's right that it will no doubt be addressed at the time, but it all seems a bit undignified somehow. I recall a visit where a youngster asked him if Camilla was going to be queen, and the stumbling reply: "well, umm, could be ... umm ... we'll have to see won't we"

Is that really the best we can do for a future head of state?

Apologies - it seems it was in response to an NBC interviewer he said that, not after a child's question:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/20/prince-charles-camilla-queen

People flock in their droves to France, far more than cone to Britain.

Nothing to do with, say, the Riviera, WWI and II battlefields, wine regions, ski resorts, Cannes Film Festival, and any number of other things that identify France as France Britain doesn't have?

As soon as you have elections, you introduce politics. People don't tend to vote for the most beautiful or nicest candidates, but on their politics

Yup.

Nothing to do with, say, the Riviera, WWI and II battlefields, wine regions, ski resorts, Cannes Film Festival, and any number of other things that identify France as France Britain doesn't have?

Oh... and of course, Disneyland Paris!

a. The difference between annulment and divorce is crucial because annulment voids marriage, divorce ends it. At that time the church had sole control of marriage. The pope wouldn't annul Henry's marriage so he created the Church of England with the monarch at the head of it.

We don't have separation of church and state in this country. That means that there are constitutional issues thrown up by charles' divorce which are not really much to do with what the CofE's position is on marrying ordinary ppl who have had a divorce or leaving the church's view as the only consideration. That's why the queen took legal advice.

B. The Roman Catholic Church might consider Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon to be still valid, Mary to be legitimate etc. Catholics do not have status in the legislature so it is irrelevant. If Charles and Diana's marriage was annulled rather than a divorce then William and harry would be illegitimate children and succession would be problematic. In any case civil marriage has been introduced post Henry viii so that there is now both a religious element and a civil legal element.

Divorce is a civil legal thing. The approach of various religions to separation of spouses and remarriage is totally separate to civil divorce.

What Charles and camilla have is a civil legal marriage. What Charles and Diana had was a civil legal marriage and a marriage in the eyes of the Church of England under god.

I suppose that potentially what the queen was advised was that civil legal marriage was a compromise that would avert a repeat of the abdication crisis but that if there was a marriage in the eyes of the church that could then have an effect on the legitimacy of charles' first marriage and therefore the legitimacy (in the eyes of the church) of his sons.

For Charles to be 'defender of all faiths' there would need to be a separation of church and state. Most likely enacted by parliament, most likely if Charles attempted to leverage parliament into doing so there would be uproar and he would have to abdicate. A new abdication crisis.

There is no real easy way around this. There doesn't seem to be political will to separate church and state TBH.

I expect the queen is clinging on because she is worried about the potential instability when she goes.

If Charles and Diana's marriage was annulled rather than a divorce then William and harry would be illegitimate children
I don't think that's true for Catholics, but have no idea about the CoE.