Should Prince Charles stand down in favour of his son William

This thread is NOT intended to discuss the rights and wrongs on the monarchy.

Should Charles give up the throne in favour of his son?

I'm not sure why he would consider doing that.

He will certainly come to the throne late in life but that is not a problem in itself and many would suggest that an older more experienced monarch would be a better idea that a very young inexperienced one.

Charles has some very strong ideas about how the Monarchy should develop and I can't see why he would effectively put those ideas aside and defer to William.

Some may argue that Charles will bring the monarchy into conflict with the political world and, thereby damage the institution, possibly irreparably and that is certainly a possibility but we know so little about William, (other than his love for fox hunting and, apparently, Take That), that I don't think we are really in any position to judge his suitability as a future King.

I personally think that when Charles does eventually become king, it will lead to many conflicts with the government at the time of his "reign". He has already shown his political views on a number of occasions, and when he finally does get to become King, i can see a few problems ahead.

One such being that if he does not like a particular law, he could refuse to sign it - therefore not giving it Royal Assent. Nowadays, the Royal signature on a bill is simply a formality and doesnt have any real bearing on whether a law is passed, but it would be interesting to see what would happen if such a situation arose - constitutional crisis perhaps??

But as for him standing down for William, I dont think he should to be honest - the Royals have no real power now so it would make bugger all of a difference whoever we have in "power" as it were.

Let Charles have his time as King I say!

I say let Charles be king, he will be old anyways by the time the Queen either abdicates or dies. And anyways she has always said she will remain as Monarch until the day she dies.

By that time William will have matured or maybe married, who knows. Maybe by then charles will decide to step down an pass the Crown on to William.

Charles should be King and the sooner the better.

The whole country needs a fire lit under it's fat retarded useless posterior. Charles has some strong views about life and class.

A good shake up would do the country a lot of good. If the people don't like it I don't expect he will care too much. It's the King's job to do what's right for their country not what people want or will like, but what they need!

And right now there are a whole lot of Brits that need a good kick up the jacksey!

The government can't be trusted, they're all just in for themselves.

The Queen has done a fantastic job, but time's up. she should do the right thing and step aside.

So NO he shouldn't stand down for William.

MonKey

I could care less either way.

I just wish we had either a more Euro-style Monarchy where their utter irrelevance to anything especially practical in our and the country's political life is clear and obvious to all - or better still (IMO) a proper republic.

I guess one will follow the other eventually.

Charles can stand up and say 'nice things' we all - or most of us - agree with but so what?
That hardly justifies the whole institution of 'accident of birth' leadership and all that relies upon it in our country.

Hereditary pilots, surgeons, doctors, engineers etc etc anyone?

I don't thinkit makes much of a difference either way

But there is some conceren over charles becoming king, the fact is the politicians don't trust him to stay out of politics.

I say he should stand downhe's too much of a busy body for my likeing

Freedom's original remit for the thread was not to discuss the rights and wrongs of the monarchy per se. Now I'll admit that constraint kinda spoils the fun but given that rule I can see no reason why Charles should step aside.

The whole point about a hereditary office is that you accept the office holder warts and all, (yeah OK I am conscious of the irony of using that quote in this context), an appointee from God if you like. I don't see how anyone can say a hereditary monarchy is a good idea one minute but then try to pick and choose which ones are acceptable the next.

If I were to be entirely honest I would dearly love to see Charles as King as soon as possible as I believe that his reign can only hasten the demise of the institution.

Go on Gordon, strike whilst the iron is hot man...

We've had numerous debates about whether the monarchy should stay or go in other threads... let's not derail this one (since I know there's a tendency to do such a thing, isn't there Sminkey and Timeless? )

Anyway, I don't mind either way. Entirely up to Charles - if he wants to be King, let him have his day in the sun. If he wants to pass it straight on to William, then let him go for it. Although inexperienced, I think William would still be able to take over - he's a lot more 'normal' than the rest of the Royal family (we see him at nightclubs and so on enjoying himself) which is definitely not something we've seen before in a monarch. I'd be very interested to see how William carries himself as the King.

[edit on 3/7/07 by Ste2652]

And I wanted this thread to consider just the issue of Charles or William being the next king. If there has not been a thread on the rights or wrongs on the monarchy then I would be surprised.

Timeless, you seem to have hit the nail on the head for me. If Charles becomes king will that hasten the end of the monarchy in the UK? I fear it will for several reasons:

Can Charles keep out of politics publically? I am sure that if the current queen did not want to sign a act of parliament in to law, would it get that far? If the queen does get involved, it seems to be in private and using her influence. I do not believe that Charles will be able to keep quiet on issues. We elect Governments on a agenda and expect them to implement that agenda based on a mandate from the electorate so the monarchy can not publically disagree with the elected agenda.

I do see the monarchy as part of the system and acting as another review of what is being done by a Government in our name, and do not forget that the queen still has the right not to sign a act of parliament.

Does who Charles is married to make a difference. Yes it does. Charles is expected to be amongst other things, defender of the faith, and I do have an issue with the claims that he was not unfaithful during his marriage. How can you have some one being defender of the faith when you have doubts if he has lived up to one of the tenements of the bible?

I am happy to go on record as being in favour of the monarchy and was very consious not to mention this when I started this thread.

I believe if Charles becomes king, it will hasten the end but if it moved to William, then we may see a new modern monarchy (influenced greatly by his mother).

Freedom,

There is no doubt that the Queen does discuss politics with the PM during the weekly audience, this has been coverd in numerous political memoirs but the important thing is that she does it privately. (Charles has also expressed his views to Tony Blair in writing and those letters have been leaked in the past).

To be fair to Charles he is in an impossible position and one that has not really been faced by any other heir to the throne in that he has no job and yet is a very public figure in a world which is now almost entirely driven by the media. In the past an heir could simply tour the race tracks and casinos of the world without being expected to offer any insight into world or domestic politics whilst poor old Charles has deeply held convictions about a wide range of subjects which, in theory, he should not express any opinion on. Just to add to his woes he is in the media spotlight more than any previous heir has ever been and has had to endure that position for a very long time.

Does his wife make a difference? Well, if you accept that the institution makes a difference at all then I suppose you have to accept that the wife of the Monarch will also make a difference. After all, they presumably do discuss things and she will influence Charles to some extent. The politicians of the 1930s certainly believed it mattered, hence the abdication of Edward VIII but our political masters have decided that in these more enlightened times we are entitled to expect Camilla as our King's consort. Lucky old us.

The problem with William is that we know next to nothing about him. It's easy to look upon him as the clean cut nice young man but he has been hidden from the media for most of his life and we have no real inkling about his politics or even his attitude to the Monarchy itself. I am old enough to recall the days when Charles was a bright young thing and would frolic on the odd beach with any nubile young lady who could thrust herself upon him so I'm not sure that simply knowing how to enjoy himself is much of a qualification. It was only as the years went by and the spongy brain set in that we recognised him for the old duffer that he appears to be now.

The problem is that society is changing at a terrifying pace and the institution of the Monarchy simply cannot keep up and maintain its constitutional position at the same time.

Finally, can I add that I know we are all a bit gooey about Diana again because of the concert and all that slushy stuff but William was a young boy when she died and I fail to see how she could be expected to influence his attitude as a Monarch. However, if it was possible would it be too cynical to suggest that we would have a King which who would treat the media as his personal plaything whilst being serially unfaithful to his wife before setting off around the world to bed anything that moved and owned a large yacht or had captained the England rugby team?

I think I'd rather have dear old Charles.



[edit on 3-7-2007 by timeless test]

Let Charles reign. William needs maturity, and it's simply not his turn yet. Nothing says Her Majesty needs to step down, but Charles is entitled to his Kingship.

Does the forum know that the Royal representative in Canada...the Governor-General...is a black Francophone woman born in Haiti? That pretty much exemplifies what I love about this country.

God Save the Queen.

Ok i dont live in England but i'm 50 50 on Charles standing down for his son. Do you think William is ready for the job with all the responablity goes with it ? maybe he will make a great king time will tell

[edit on 4/7/07 by Sth Hemisphere]

The monarchy is a useless drain on tax income so it doesn't much matter who is at the head of it .... but just for fun I'd like to see Charles and William BOTH step aside and let HARRY have a run at it. Now THAT would blow the cobwebs out of the palace!!

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The monarchy is a useless drain on tax income so it doesn't much matter who is at the head of it ....

The "Tax Drain" concept is a non point. The monarchy barely costs £12 million a year, but the returns in Tourism, investment and foreign relations are worth more than that. Not to mention the charitable work they do in the country and out of it, boosting the UK's image abroad. Whilst the Monarchy may be sidelined in Politics (I personally think they should be more active), their role in British Society is important.

What is a drain on Tax income is blindly following you damn Yanks around getting us into all sorts of mischief, amongst other things.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
but just for fun I'd like to see Charles and William BOTH step aside and let HARRY have a run at it. Now THAT would blow the cobwebs out of the palace!!

True, Harry is my favourite too. Although, he is a ginger....

I Think if there's ever a King Charles and a Queen Camilla all other states in the Commonwealth that still have the British monarchy of head-of-state such as Canada and Australia (just to name two) should fully divest themselves of that archaic institutions and become true republics.

Perhaps the Monarchy, for all their problems, is still a net plus for the UK itself, but I don't see any advantages to the other commonwealth nations that still retain ties to the British throne.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I Think if there's ever a King Charles and a Queen Camilla all other states in the Commonwealth that still have the British monarchy of head-of-state such as Canada and Australia (just to name two) should fully divest themselves of that archaic institutions and become true republics.

Perhaps the Monarchy, for all their problems, is still a net plus for the UK itself, but I don't see any advantages to the other commonwealth nations that still retain ties to the British throne.

Camilla will never be Queen.

And, I have to take you opinion on the monarchy as that of a treasonous colonial ... Your "republic" is hardly free from dynastic families controlling the country anyway, so whats the difference?

Canada, Australia et al all have major and very recent historical links to Britain and vice versa. Obviously, if they want to become Republics, then so be it, but there isn't the popular support for it anyway. People actually like having that connection. It's a historical link that costs them nothing.

Sth Hemisphere, Is any one ready to take this role on?

Flyersfan and Stumason, Harry as king!! Now that sound like something I would like to see.

Just how much control do you think the establisment have over Harry?

And happy for the thread to move down this road as well

Since Charles is probably the "anti-christ" I would guess he can't step aside for William...

And of course no one wants to talk about the monarchy and its wrongness, if we do that people might learn about what they truely are.

hey theindependentjournal, I just wanted this thread to focus on the question rather than a debate on the monarchy. I have not done a search to see if and when there was a thread on the merits of the monarchy.