UK get ready, we are being lined up.

originally posted by: gortex
My understanding is Charles will take over when the Queen either abdicates (unlikely) or dies.

That's correct. The rules of Succession are quite clear. While some think it's a popularity contest, it ain't; Charles cannot just abdicate or be bypassed, as to do so would require political approval and that's quite complicated.

On Camilla. She's OK and quietly productive. Also, she won't be titled as "queen" - she'll likely be titled as "Consort".

I am not a republican as I see no value in changing the UK's political system when the alternatives will be worse. President Blair does not have the right ring.

originally posted by: crayzeed
A small piece of news sneaked out at the weekend that's probably the fuse being lit. The Queen at the meeting of all the heads of the commonwealth announced that she is stepping down as the head and giving it to Charles. You can take that as the Queen passing some "work" down to Charles.
BBBUUUTTT, all this week on TV we have seen programs of personal audience of the Queen and David Attenborough and last night a program "the real Camilla". I don't believe in coincidences so I seriously think we are being lined up and softened for the near future the Queen abdicating and Charles to be King.
The Queen being shown as an old lady willing to pass on and Camilla as a really, really nice and caring woman. I wont be surprised if later in the week we get a program BS Charles up as a caring individual. Get ready, you heard it here first.

I agree, the statement by the young bloke, whats his name, who said he was in favour of depopulation started this roll.

When these kinds of people make internationally and politically significant statements, the timing of such releases would in all likelyhood be very carefully planned.

Given that the dust has settled on the death of lady Di and its evident the royal family are going to survive it and given the birth of the grand kid generation has started, I'm sure they have decided that now is time for the agenda to made public.

Its somewhat logical and likely, that the journey kicks off with a hand over between the generations.

a reply to: crayzeed

Al this is a continuation of a royal family so they can continue to live off the rest of us. Prince William and Kate Middleton have just had another one to add to the two they already had so that's another 80 odd years at least and they themselves will more than likely have children of their own and so it will continue..

Prince Harry and Meghan Markel will most likely have a few too...

No end in sight for the Royals I'm afraid.

a reply to: crayzeed

Is charles being king some kind of problem that this american just isn't seeing?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

It could be quite funny to be honest because he expresses opinions which are often contrary to the governments.
The monarch is supposed to basically do as they are told by the executive or it causes all manner of constitutional crisis.
Charles as King 'could' refuse an act of Parliament, and I believe at least, refuse to send troops to war, but in doing so (I also believe) he would have to abdicate.
Now I'm not sure about the fine points but you get my drift.

That said, I have always assumed the Queen, being top dog would have definitely got a sniff of news that Tony Bliar was full of # when he gave the "45 minutes away from WMD's" speech, and if she did she let it slide so as not to cause massive constitutional issues.
Could that constitutional problem (being such a big thing over here) if she had said publicly "No, you ain't sending our troops" have kept Britain out of the 2nd Iraq war?

We'll never know, but it could be very interesting with Charles as King, will he open his mouth too much, would he speak out against government policy if it went against what he claims to stand for in life?
It could be very interesting, and I support Britain being a republic with no head of state.
If the head of state can't actually do anything then why even have one, Parliament and the executive make all the decisions.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
Thanks for that post as it explains what some posters are asking. Though a lot of people don't know the monarchy has no real power but just a figurehead and as such when Charles takes over he WILL loudly give his opinion and because he is King he will expect parliament to bend to his will. That is the time when parliament have to put up or shut up. An awful lot of people especially on here do not understand the very importance and danger of this situation.
The last time this happened his namesakes (Charles 1st and Charles 2nd) they soon got what it was on about. But this Charles knows we are not so bloodthirsty now.

a reply to: crayzeed

Do you reckon Charles will give it the large one with his opinions on government policy or just conform when he gets the job?
It could be really interesting times, especially 'if' the public image he has created for himself were to actually be true.
Imagine for example some terrible policy was coming in against the people and he opposed it publicly, it would go the other way and he'd win popular support.

I actually hope he does become the opinionated King and either makes a change for the good of our lands, or gives the kiss of death to the institution of a constitutional monarchy. Win win for me, so Go Charles!

EDIT
I know the basic history of the monarchy but I'll be honest I haven't a clue about whatever happened to Charles 1 and 2, bet it is a bloodthirsty story, I'll have a search, thanks for adding that in...another King Charles [evil laugh]


Ah, just skim read and yep I know both their stories, just couldn't remember their names linking them to the event.
I only remembered Cromwell from those events, and yep, I'd have been running with him not Charles back in the day.
...Let's see how this Charles will pan out if he gets the top job, he could pull it off if he spins his role as 'for the people', who knows, he's got the media savvy (celeb) kids and grandkids, these could be very interesting times.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
Well the Greens will go for him big time because he talks to trees. He will go for it big time because that is the reason he wants to become King, the supposed power he thinks the position will give him. He's been wanting to become King for a long time and he is very, very frustrated with his mother not deferring for him. He can hardly contain himself. So yes, he will try to push the boundaries and he ought to be put in his place when he does.

Sorry folks but I'm gonna rain on your parade!

In 1947 to the commonwealth HM Queen Elizabeth said

""It is very simple.

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family"

originally posted by: crayzeed
So yes, he will try to push the boundaries and he ought to be put in his place when he does.

Haha it depends on what he stands for if he makes King, I'm on the fence and don't care about any constitutional crisis, if he starts advocating for the people against government actions which most of us don't want then he'll nail it.
Imagine the irony, the unelected king supported by the people over the elected government, I'm game, could well be interesting times.

a reply to: redchad

"Dedicated to your service" doesn't assert in the role as Monarch though, so if I was her up on that charge of a u-turn I'd easily argue that one and continue doing charity stuff/whatever as retired-queen.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
Though a lot of people don't know the monarchy has no real power but just a figurehead and as such when Charles takes over he WILL loudly give his opinion and because he is King he will expect parliament to bend to his will.

When you say "the monarchy has no real power but is just a figure head"... Don't you actually mean the Queen chooses not to exercise those powers and instead plays a ceremonial role as a figure head?

Admittedly, I'm no expert on the matter, but considering the queens the head of parliament and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, logic would dictate that in theory the monarchy has a significant amount of power... whether the queen chooses to exercise that power or not.

I know back in 1975, Australias governor general fired the prime minister. So the powers of the monarchy are obviously more than just 'ceremonial', as people often claim.

Anyway, I personally hope when Charles is made king, it'll be the motivation Australians need to pull their figure out and demand to finally become a republic... The commonwealth should die with the Queen, imo.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I chuckle with mates when talking about such things that the Queen is the queen of so many independent nations.
Seems odd to me that former colonies keep the Crown as head of state.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Beyond Creation
Let's remember all of the unjustified, immoral and illegal wars she prevented.

Does she have any power to do that?

As Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces, the title alone should provide an answer.

Wiki

WRT to the Church..

More Wiki

originally posted by: Beyond Creation
As Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces, the title alone should provide an answer.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. That Wikipedia articles doesn't provide an answer either, so my doubt remains: does the Queen have the power to prevent wars?

PS: I didn't ask a thing about the church.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Beyond Creation
As Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces, the title alone should provide an answer.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. That Wikipedia articles doesn't provide an answer either, so my doubt remains: does the Queen have the power to prevent wars?

PS: I didn't ask a thing about the church.

Of course. Is an invasion and possession of a nation not considered war? What else effected the British Empire ie The Commonwealth?

A decision was made. Power was displayed.

Granted that was by the hands of her predecessors, however, how can you possibly question the utmost power in military force and deny their influence over combat?

The British Royals, in their time, have conquered nearly a quarter of the planet. If they can achieve such, surely they have the power to refrain.

If the UN and NATO wish to go to war, then the Monarchy is not the authority, however, the original comment was made with respect to her subjects, in which case, the Queen can prevent at least our involvement in such.

As far as we're concerned, the Queen has done little to bring any peace. Only lip service and hats.

originally posted by: Beyond Creation
Of course. Is an invasion and possession of a nation not considered war? What else effected the British Empire ie The Commonwealth?

A decision was made. Power was displayed.

I was talking about preventing war and about today's queen, not about what happened decades before she was born, as things have changed since then.

Granted that was by the hands of her predecessors, however, how can you possibly question the utmost power in military force and deny their influence over combat?

I was talking about legal powers. If she has them then they must be written somewhere, as I suppose such important things are not just oral tradition.

The British Royals, in their time, have conquered nearly a quarter of the planet. If they can achieve such, surely they have the power to refrain.

In this discussion I'm not interested in the past.

If the UN and NATO wish to go to war, then the Monarchy is not the authority, however, the original comment was made with respect to her subjects, in which case, the Queen can prevent at least our involvement in such.

How?

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Bluntone22
£££££££. Need I say more. But Charles is totally different to the Queen. The Queen plays along with parliament but Charles is a different kettle of fish. Before he has been warned about overstepping his authority and if he becomes King he WILL try to exercise more power he hasn't got. It can lead to constitutional problems.

Wow, that sucks. I feel bad.

Welcome to the real world.


Didn't he kill his first wife?

Go check out the queens diamond, and egg, collections. Their land holdings. Etc. And you tell me.

Look up the petro holdings.

Big old money. Don't get any bigger.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Go check out the queens diamond, and egg, collections. Their land holdings. Etc. And you tell me.

Canada is a Crown Corporation . Maybe there will be a hostile take over by some other large Corporation and Canada will get liquidated . Oh the possibilities or maybe probabilities .

??!!! OMG!

Think of the maple syrups!!

I like my grade A.

But I can roll with Butterworth and Jemima. Cheaper.

Or make my own with maple candy from Maine and dark corn syrup.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Al this is a continuation of a royal family so they can continue to live off the rest of us.

Aren't the Windsors rather disgustingly, independently wealthy?