To think it's time the Queen passed the throne to Charles?

[CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook]

Given recent events concerning Prince Andrew, and the ensuing scandal, is it time for Charles to take over as King now? The Queen has been dedicated all her life to her civil duties, and continues to perform them well, but as she and the DOE are getting older, it appears her/their ability to control situations with some of the other members of the royal family is waning.

It could be argued that both Harry and Meghan and now Prince Andrew seem to be ignoring advice, unwisely sharing their grievances with the media and striking out on their own with the inevitable backlash (I am referring to interviews, not libel actions). Anecdotally, more and more people are saying it's time to get rid of the royal institution.

If Charles were to become King, it is probable that he would streamline the RF to just William and his heirs and make some needed adjustments, such a move might renew interest in the RF, increase their popularity and ensure their continuance as Charles is more in touch with the mood of the nation.

Also just read this provocative Daily Mail article,

Headline: 'The Queen 'backs' Prince Andrew and 'believes him 100 per cent'

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7698021/Queen-goes-horse-ride-Windsor-Castle-grounds-days-Prince-Andrews-car-crash-interview.html

Do think something has to change.

Times the reigning monarch has voluntarily abdicated due to age or health related issues: NONE.

So, sure, when she gets to a point where she is unable to do the job, she can make Charles her regent. But she's never going to abdicate, nor should she.

When you think of sex trafficking you think of a 12 year old that is chained in a cage.

You might do, Vicky, but the rest of us are more enlightened.

Times the reigning monarch has voluntarily abdicated due to age or health related issues: NONE.

Loads, actually. Just not in the UK.

Times the reigning monarch has voluntarily abdicated due to age or health related issues: NONE.

Loads, actually. Just not in the UK.

George III - if a Regency counts as abdication.

But she's never going to abdicate, nor should she.

Why not? Why should Charles wait till his health wanes to get the throne? Who is it about? What if she lives (long live the Queen) till she 105 or so? It's entirely possible given the age of the Queen Mother who wasn't known for her healthy lifestyle.

Don't you think it's a little bit short sighted at best?

George III - if a Regency counts as abdication

Don’t think that was voluntary.

If the Queen held any power it would obviously be essential that she stepped down. But, given that she’s basically window dressing, I can’t see that it matters.

However, where have the newspapers been until now?

They've been around, too busy smearing the Sussexes.

I think the decision for PA to step down from royal duties was the right decision or instruction.

The Queen or whoever should tell them no more interviews!!!

Why not? Why should Charles wait till his health wanes to get the throne? Who is it about? What if she lives (long live the Queen) till she 105 or so? It's entirely possible given the age of the Queen Mother who wasn't known for her healthy lifestyle.

He won’t wait until her death for the duties. They’re gradually being passed over so that she only has the ones she wants and can manage left. If she becomes completely unfit there’s a straightforward process to making Charles Prince Regent

She won’t abdicate because she’s a religious woman who believes that she was born to be Queen and that she should dedicate her whole life to it.

Regency is different from abdication. That was indeed my point.

If the Royal Protection Officers don't come forward and say what they know (you can bet Andrew was accompanied on his visits to Epstein), they could end up being compromised or indeed implicated.

@CatherineOfAragonsPrayerBook

However, where have the newspapers been until now? Not reporting much

Keeping us well informed about Meghan's dynasty destroying antics. You know:

dark nail polish
wearing a coat made by people earning above the minimum wage
inciting murder by eating an avocado
choosing to spend Christmas with her mum
making is wait to find out if her son was a ginger

I mean there's been bigger scandals to cover than allegations of sexual slavery and underage rape

@CareOfPunts No one has “confirmed Charles as successor”. His place in the line of succession was set from the moment of his birth.

You appear to be ill-informed and clearly missed that Commonwealth Heads of Government have to confirm him. Or maybe you simply did not know. *Commonwealth leaders have formally announced that Prince Charles will become the next head of the organisation after the Queen.

As they returned from a “retreat” hosted by the Queen at Windsor Castle on Friday, leaders issued a statement confirming the news, which had emerged earlier in the day.

“We recognise the role of the Queen in championing the Commonwealth and its peoples. The next head of the Commonwealth shall be his Royal Highness Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales,” they said.

The role is not hereditary, but the Queen, who turns 92 on Saturday, used the Commonwealth heads of government (Chogm) gathering in London to say it was her “sincere wish” to be succeeded by her son.
After the Queen made her wishes known, there would have been little prospect of the 53 Commonwealth leaders and foreign ministers, who met at Buckingham Palace on Thursday, not endorsing the plan.*
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/20/prince-charles-next-head-commonwealth-queen

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/prince-charles-has-been-confirmed-as-the-successor-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-as-the-next-head-of-the-commonwealth/video/dc98df68a9c853b15078672fc291d057

As the queen can’t just “give up” her role, neither can Charles be skipped and it “given” to William.
Again, wrong. The Queen can choose to abdicate whenever she wants, and choose who she wants to replace her, as I've proved with links.

You're right on only one thing;
Some people really don’t have a clue how it all works, do they?

The thread is about accession to the Monarchy. Not the commonwealth. And whether a crowned monarch can just abdicate is constitutionally far from clear. There has been much commentary that Edward VIII was only able to do so as he hadn’t yet been crowned. So despite your ability to use google, you’re nowhere near as informed as you think you are.

I did find it strange that Charles was voted to be next leader of the commonwealth. I didn't understand there to be so much good will among the commonwealth countries to him. Like the Queen's tactics there. Go Queenie.

Once the current Queen dies - I don't think she'll ever abdicate - I reckon it's the beginning of the end.

She's the last one standing with that untouchable mystique thing. She is the ONLY one to understand that it only really works if you are completely removed. No opinions. No scandals. Never giving ANY insight into how you actually feel. Nobody knows the Queen. In this day and age, that in itself is kind of so weird it's awe-inspiring and THAT is why it still works. She is THE QUEEN

Charles? Well we all know he fantasised about being a tampon. So that kind of settles it really. That's what I'll be thinking of if I'm ever caught short watching his coronation on tv. Hmmmm. Not quite IT, is it?

And thanks to The World We Live In Today, everyone coming after Charles etc. are kind of in the same boat. They are accessible, they are known, down the line they have grown up in an internet-based public eye and in a world where everyone shares.

Once Charles is on the throne there will be a total shift, from public perception to the level of deference given by the media.

It will be interesting to see!

Charles? Well we all know he fantasised about being a tampon. So that kind of settles it really.

Yes @careofpunts

The commonwealth has nothing to do with who the next hereditary monarch of Great Britain is. The commonwealth could disband tomorrow and Charles would still be next in line to the British throne.

I did find it strange that Charles was voted to be next leader of the commonwealth. I didn't understand there to be so much good will among the commonwealth countries to him. Like the Queen's tactics there. Go Queenie!

I think it had to be Charles otherwise they would have had to end the royal connection to the Commonwealth

It would have been beyond awkward for them to pick William over his father, or someone further out. Tours and visits would then have a “who is more senior at this event the King or the Head of Commonwealth?”

Charles? Well we all know he fantasised about being a tampon. So that kind of settles it really. That's what I'll be thinking of if I'm ever caught short watching his coronation on tv. Hmmmm. Not quite IT, is it?

I get what you say about the mystique 100% completely. It's TMI! It's a bugbear I have against the Sussexes regarding their interview (no I am not saying it's anywhere on the scale or kind of PA!!!)
However, I've always thought 'so what?' in regards to Tampongate. I imagine people have all sorts of strange sexual fantasies. As long as it's between consenting adults then who cares? It was a private conversation. Charles would like to be in close proximity to the vagina of a woman he desires very much. Ok. And?

Good point lyralalala

Can't remember which royal family it was in Europe but they struck off a bunch of family members as they'd never be on the throne anyway which meant they didn't receive any allowance anymore or anything i think we would do that over here. Anyone past Prince Louie is never going to be on the throne so therefore do not need a royal title or an allowance or perks that come with it strip them all and send them on their way and then the queen can relax a bit and not have to deal with all this drama and scandal

@CareOfPunts The Commonwealth is the Monarchy. You are nowhere near as educated as you think you are.

The Commonwealth is the Monarchy.

No it isn’t.

Monarch of the United Kingdom is a different role to head of the Commonwealth. This thread is about the former.

@Kit19 The Queen (or King) reigns over the countries that form the commonwealth, that is why it is called a Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is the reason for the Monarchy's being. If every country pulled out of the Commonwealth tomorrow, that would only leave the UK, and the Monarchy would not be viable or accepted politically/logistically as purely for England/UK. It would thus be disbanded.

You don't get 4 units shy of a degree in History without learning something...