It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Prince Charles or William

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:18 PM
i would like to see the throne passed down to william!! - it would be embarrising for us as a country to have king charles and *cough* queen camilla!!

reading other people's replys though and saying britain should not have a monarchy anymore, is just daft and its just abolishing ALL the history and tridtion of our great country!!

true, the royal family don't run our country anymore (unlike the old days) but the royal family is part of british history from (longshanks to henry 8th etc).

ive heard in the past that it costs british taxpayers (£1 billion) for our monarchy per year, but we get all that back from the tourism.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by st3ve_o]

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:32 AM

Originally posted by MacDonagh
I may not like them, but then how would you go about getting rid of the Royal Family?

The way Cromwell did?

(Just kidding.)

Getting a bit more serious -- I have to wonder why either Charles or William would want the job, apart from the perks which they enjoy currently anyway. If there's another position in the world that holds more power in theory while holding less in practice, I don't know what it would be. The Queen can legally do all sorts of things she can't do practically, like dismiss Blair and appoint someone else PM, declare war on France, veto acts of Parliament, dismiss Parliament and try to rule without it (except she can't levy taxes herself, so that might not work too well), and generally make a thorough monarchical nuissance of herself. But if she did any of these things, she'd almost certainly be deposed, even if nowadays it's unlikely she'd be decapitated.

England has the world's richest and deepest tradition of civil liberties. English rule of law and protection of freedom is the inspirational source of such things in all former parts of the British Empire, including the U.S., delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. Yet England is also, if I'm not mistaken, the world's second-oldest monarchy, and in terms of law the monarchy is not a mere figurehead, even if in practice it is. A contradiction?

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Zaimless
I am curious to know, though I am not sure if this is political, which people would rather see to be the King of England. Do you think it would be Charles or William, and why???

That's like asking if you would prefer death by lethal injection or the chair.

We need a monarchy like we need 80's perms back in style.

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:29 AM
Who's to say 80's perm's are a bad thing?!?

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:16 AM
Its a nice idea to think that William could suceed the Queen instead of Charles, but because he is so young and unmarried you'd be left with the question as to who comes after him.

If we are to carry on with the monachy as apposed to becoming a Republic I think it is best to keep things as they are and leave Prince Charles as next in line - I think he's not a bad guy and could only really be judged once he becomes king.

The Queen will be 80 this year and very unlikely to abdicate, she could go on for another 20 years.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:08 PM
1. We don't have a choice

2. Charles would be a good King

3. Make the guy work - we've paid for 60+ years of training, might as well get some value from our investment

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:51 PM
Cake or death?

Seriously, Is there really still people out there that still give a flying monkey about this stuff?

"I want the small ginger one to rule us all"


"His brother is taller and less ginger therefore he will make a better king!!"

I mean really... feudalism is gone, long long ago. With very good reason.

We should have chopped their ******* heads off when we had the chance.

The whole point was that you were meant to look up to these people simply because they had more money than you. The fact that so many people still want to give some random German family reverence bordering on the religious says it all...

If you were in the queue for Diana’s funeral… kill yourself now.

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:14 AM
I would rather have a Monarchy ruling us than having someone like President Blair ruling us (God Help Us If That Happened).... Charlie boi should step aside an let Willie Rule(Dont want Bull Ddog Camillia as Queen anyways......

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:01 AM
I think the queen is hoping to out live Charles so she can hand it over to William, but then anything is possible.
All hale the queen!

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 02:20 AM
Wills for sure. He's all that Charles isn't and doesn't suffer from the "legacy" stuff of tabloids as does his Father. Wills is young and hip so is England's population. It's a natural.

Either way I look forward to a new Monarch as Her Majesty should have some "time" without the yolk of imperial harness to enjoy Her golden years. Gosh darn she is a superb monarch tho'.

I still sing God Save The Queen before I get on my racebike at the track - many don't in Canada anymore. No matter what my country does I will always be loyal to the Crown - I can't help it - it's how I was raised.


Victor K.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 05:30 AM
Charles is too partisan, he goes against the rules by having a public political opinion (which the Labour party extremely dislikes). If he does become King (which will result in me living Britian) than he won't last long because he will end up getting engage in political debates.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by infinite]

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:45 AM
Prince Charles or Prince William?

Either way I think the Monarchy is in seriously big trouble when Elizebeth 2 goes.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:13 AM

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Either way I think the Monarchy is in seriously big trouble when Elizebeth 2 goes.

Yet, again i see myself agreeing with sminkeypinkey. The Monarchy has remained popular during Lizzy's watch, but i doubt it will anymore. Prince Charles has worked wonders for the republican movement in the United Kingdom and so has Prince Harry to be perfectly honest.

I strongly feel, once Elizebeth has gone, you can say that republican movement will start around the commonwealth (those who has the monarch as head of state). But i really cannot see the Monarchy maintaining power after Elizebeth has left the stage.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:40 PM
Well she wants to (Q.E.II) wants to outlive Queen Vvictorias Reign that is her main goal I think... Funny is it not that Alot of Scottish Folks stick up for the monarchy

Maybe deep down we love the monarchy... cough cough... Who is to say William will not be married or dead by the Time The Queen dies herself, he like his brother wants to be invilved with eveything to do with war..... Might have to go with who ever is inline charle's brother maybe?

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:19 PM
Ok then... if the Queen or King can't do much in England then wouldn't it be in Englands best to have Prince Williiam as King. He is much more of a people person than anyone in the monarchy.

I don't believe that it could make a real difference, this was more of a question of... if YOU had a choice who would you choose?

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:04 PM
My dreams from long ago have been a ‘William’. So I would like Prince William to be the next ‘King’ of the United Kingdom while the Queen is still alive. I mean, what grandmother wouldn’t want to see her chosen successor be crowned with her own eyes? To me this radical decision to abdicate would symbolize a change for the Monarchy to maintain its ‘power’ through its younger generation. I dunno. I'd like to see another coronation during my lifetime, at least.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Zaimless

I can't see Charles giving it all up personally, though William might be the better choice.

Oh, and he's not just the King of England... he'll be king of the whole UK, plus Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:28 AM
The Royal family are living on borrowed time In my opinion. Give it another ten years and maybe the Australians, Kiwi's and Canadians will have thrown them out for good.

The new generations of Britain don't hold much love for the Royals. The younger generations and my generation simply don't understand the the Royals. We hate the Christmas day speech. We hate the all the pomp. We can't relate to their extravagance. We share nothing in common.

The Royals are falling from grace. There is nothing anybody can do to stop that. It's simply a sign of the times. The new generation have evolved and moved on. We're living in a different world now. I don't believe the Royal family have a long term future. Give it twenty years and I reckon they'll be gone.

Down with the Queen. Up the Republic.

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:49 AM
An interesting thread. It's nice to see something other than American "problems" being brought to the fore.

As an American, I can't really understand the feeling people in the UK have over this. But we have our own popular aristocracy in the Kennedy family, complete with saints and scoundrels, so in a small way I do note the love/hate relationship that shadows such figures.

In the final analysis, I think a lot of people would miss the Royal Family. I know our nation would be poorer if there were no Kennedys, even though some of them have been less than stellar.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in