When will pointless King abdicate

[IhateHPSDeaneCnt]

in favour of another bastion of the Monarchy? Loathe them all but assume it will take another generation to allow them to bow out in some sort of graceful manner - and hang onto loads of Titles, Land, Jewels, money etc. How has someone given the title of 'Queen Consort' i.e ex Mistress is now referred to as Queen and bestowed privileges e.g being allowed to allocate Royal Warrants? Don't know how she's got the gall to wear jewellery that previously adorned previous incumbent let alone the late Queen. Luckily, she does bugger all but retire to the home settled in the Divorce, smoke fags, drink Gin and Dubonnet (smells just like Granny!) and ensures stock of fully functioning Mont Blanc Fountain Pens are to hand - ready to be despatched to King at the faintest sign of a tremulous lip.

We? We the taxpayer didn’t get anything from that it went to the broadcasters.

I suppose an added complication for Charles was that he was no spring chicken when he ascended to the throne, so it was bound to be more of an ordeal

I take your point and acknowledge the why. However I'm puzzled that the takeover logistics/signing/sealing did not take place at the Royal deathbed, therefore immediately.

I fail to see what difference it would make if the takeover stuff was undertaken after the funeral. However there may be other reasons such as Parliament needing the Royal approval for legislation and so on.

I suppose at the end of the day, it was the televising of it that irritated me. That part of the takeover could have been done off camera. The Coronation is/was enough for us all to witness. Unless it was done to SHOW the subjects that the Queen is dead, long live the King.

I think because it was the first time it was possible to televise everything they did.

I’m sure they learned a lot about all the logistics of it for next time. Everyone who’d sorted it out for the previous one was dead and there has never been an option to let the people outside of the officials see what the process is - it was a big learning curve for everyone including the media.

I think it's just the 24 hour news and the expectation now that everything will be filmed and broadcast. 1952 was a very different world in that regard so there was really no precedent.

There are photographs of LBJ being sworn in. Should a future president die in office and the VP be sworn ASAP I would fully expect that to be filmed and broadcast as well. It just also hasn't happened for a very long time.

I agree. And as far back as the resignation of President Nixon, the swearing in of President Ford was televised and filmed.

Why are people absolutely unable to educate themselves on what the words "queen consort" means?

Every single queen who has married in to the family has been Queen consort and every single one of those has been called the queen in general speech. Sometimes QE2 was absolutely aware of. When she declared that Camilla was to be queen consort, she was announcing her desire for Camilla to be queen.

Camilla is not the first former mistress to be queen and I doubt she'll be the last.

Charles will not abdicate given his mother's feelings on abdication. However he is in his 70s and in poor health.

Anothernamechane

Why are people absolutely unable to educate themselves on what the words "queen consort" means?

I think they don't want to; it would spoil their whole narrative.
And, when absolutely pinned down with facts, they wriggle away saying "Godsake! Can't you take a joke?!".
Easier than admitting to being a bit dim, I suppose.

What do you think happened to that £72m though? They didn’t stand in the street ripping it up…

It got paid to suppliers for goods and services, to people in the form of wages and payments for their time. Even the television broadcasting meant that camera crews needed to be engaged, camera equipment and lights hired, the broadcasters’ commentary booths designed, constructed and decorated. And so on. And given it was for the coronation of the new sovereign of the UK, there was a focus on UK suppliers being used. In other words the money spent entered the economy and put more money in the hands of consumers, which stimulates spending, and is therefore economically productive.

It's normally dropped???

Do you know anything of the history of British kings and queens?

Maybe you should learn a little before writing rubbish like this!

She is our crowned Queen; whether you like it or not does not change the fact! I don't think you are aware of how it works!!

Go on, cite your evidence then??

Why call Prince Philip, "Phil the Greek"? Do you also refer to 'Meghan the American'?

Prince Philip had more royal blood in him actually than the Queen. He knew and was fine with how it worked.

I don't think there was much equality legislation in 1953....

Agree. Also in Scotland. The Dumfries House project is fantastic and is also providing training for a lot of young people.
Further to this I have a friend who grew up in an ex-mining town after the strike put paid to everything. There were no jobs and not much hope and like so many others he was drifting into a life of drugs and petty crime. He got a grant from the Prince's Trust, got himself some training and started his own business with a second grant. Completely turned his life around. There are lots of stories like this. It'sjust that they're not known about, because it's easier to slag Charles off. Pity he was mocked all those years ago when he started to bang about climate change, food degradation and all the other bees in his bonnet which are now mainstream concerns.
I'm not a royalist but I do like people's assertions to be based on fairness and evidence.

Not much in the way of general knowledge though...

Plenty of other educational establishments are available

Why do you need to know what results the royals got? Why would it be any of your business?

Well you are easily amused and again demonstrate your lack of understanding.

Only someone with extremely limited comprehension!!

And when your ignorance is challenged, you attack.

Classic.

Point is she is in a position she does not deserve to be in. It's laughable and making a mockery of our wonderful Queen Elizabeth. If Charles wanted to marry her so badly, instead of throwing his toys out of the pram they should have copied his uncle and Mrs Simpson and left. How anyone backs them or takes them seriously after their behaviour is beyond me. It's not even the true love (allegedly) aspect, it's their - especially Camilla's - treatment and manipulation of Diana behind the scenes. Added to the fact she's never done a day's work in her life. It will be a good day when we don't have to look at her evil face anymore. All the hatred that goes on to Meghan and Harry is so terribly displaced. Even the late Queen called Charles 'insufferable'. Just a man child with a big old heavy crown on his head.

Why do any of them deserve to be in their position? The whole thing is nonsense. I don't see Kate as being deserving of being Queen sometime probably in the next decade anymore than Camilla does now. Nor any of them that are born into it. It's all just accident of birth or who you happen to meet.

I do agree with you and I'm glad you see sense. I don't think any of them do. I think the one exception was Queen Elizabeth who at the age of 25 was left without a choice really. And she actually WORKED for it. And she was exceptional. I don't think Wills and Kate deserve it per say, but I do think they will be a hell of a lot more approachable, loving and hopefully giving due to their age - although how long Chuck hangs in for may mean they are much older too by the time they get there. The whole thing is ridiculous considering the struggle that most people go through - the disproportion of wealth when some are starving is the height of unfairness and anyone who can't see that in this day and age, I just despair really. Charles has 7 homes - some don't have any. But of course when you are in THAT position you aren't going to think it's your responsibility. Both Charles and Kate have been given cancer treatment while others progress through the stages and are dying. But yay! What wonderful people!

My main issue with Camilla not deserving it is how she came to get it. She is a deceitful, nasty, manipulative adulteress. She was at least 20 years older than Princess Diana when she 'befriended' her to stay close to Charles. Regardless of her behaviour or his, they should have just quietly disappeared but no they wanted it all. Charles is well documented as being a spoilt man child, sitting dictating to others, including putting the shine on his own brother (who is admittedly charged with sex offences) but painting himself to be this great humanitarian.

I'm not some huge Diana fan but the two of them did destroy her, and how William and Harry have lived with that, seeing Camilla pose in pics with their kids as if she's their grandmother, and living a life of privilege when she has done nothing her entire life but cheat, manipulate, lie and take - how is she taken seriously as a queen consort? The rules were bent to allow them to marry to shut Charles up, also well documented. She's an absolute joke, and has made a mockery of the RF, but it's ok because the haters have Meghan to hate when that girl has done nothing but remove the man she loves away from them, including taking her kids away from a suspected paedophile. How anyone can take Charles, but especially Camilla, seriously as any sort of great representation for the UK is beyond me. They are a perfect example of appalling behaviour being rewarded. I could vomit looking at either one of them.

That's an awful lot of anger and assumption about people you don't actually know from Adam.

I know QE2 is perceived as hugely hard-working blah blah but that seems to be based almost entirely on the number of public appearances. None of us actually know how much any of them "work" any more than we actually know their personalities or how they've historically treated each other.

She is a deceitful, nasty, manipulative adulteress.

"Adulteress"?

Is this the 19th century?

Diana, of course, was an 'adulteress' too. With multiple men, some of them married. Whereas Camilla, as far as we know, was only an 'adulteress' with one man who she has now been married to for 2 decades.

She was at least 20 years older than Princess Diana when she 'befriended' her to stay close to Charles

14 years older.

And are you really getting upset over things which happened 40 years ago, when almost all of those involved have long since moved on?

Well at least he didn’t cut off Diana’s head and created a whole new religion to marry Camilla. Now that I would have a problem with.

@AliceandOscar i was just looking to see if they did break any new ground. But the CofE started allowing divorcees to marry in Church 3 years prior to C@Cs wedding. I'm sure the Queen was said to make some kind of concession to allow them to Marry but I'm not sure what that was.

Though to be honest if they had been the catalyst to a change in the rules I think that would be seen as a good and progressive thing compared to the whole bloodshed and change of religion good old Henry imposed on us. Much like I appreciate the rule changing that now gives females equal rights in the line of succession as their brothers. This is a positive change.