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.


Should Prince Charles stand down in favour of his son William

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 12:01 PM
Well I had to add something or it would be a One Liner, sorry to say it but your question, although a good one, leads towards a one line response, hell possibly a one word response. So I was filling space not debating the monarchy, my answer is No Charles won't step aside for William.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:41 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:48 AM
Prince Charles step aside? Really?
What I've thought for years, is that it's the Queen who should "step down".
Why won't she? Does it seem a little greedy for her to continue to hold on? I mean, give her poor son a FEW years as King, he deserves at least that, and he's no spring chicken either.

You guys really, really, mean it when you say "long live the Queen".


posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:02 AM
Given the fact that Her Majesty seems to show no sign of stepping aside any time soon it looks to be a bit of a moot point Freedom.

However I do think that it would be a better idea - Charles in my opinion lost all credibility a long time ago.

William has at least served his country both in the armed forces and in charitable roles - far more than his father ever has. I can respect that in a monarch far more than a posturing pseudo eco warrior with dubious views on architecture.

As William would also be De-Facto head of our armed forces I would also think he would command a huge amount of respect from the seving men and women of this country as well as that of many of the population for his service alone.

I think this is something I'm going to ask the other hosts on the ATS Euro show to bring up as a debate - Im sure there are plenty of members who would be willing to contribute an opinion on.

Great OP Freedom S&F

Edit for a DOH moment!

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Silk]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:06 AM
Charles is an arrogant and pompous arse, he won't stand aside for his son as he has waited a long time to for what he regards as his right to the throne.

I suspect Charles won't be able to help himself and will interfere in matters of state beyond his constitutional duty and right.

William does seem to be a liitle bit more 'in tune' with people.

Harry appears to have inherited HIS father's sense of mischievousness.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:16 AM
I must be honest and say I don't have much respect for Charles, his son's however, I feel have done the right thing by going into the armed forces and doing their bit, they also appear to be genuinely nice guys who seem to care for the country, as for Charles standing down? Can’t see it happening myself but I would like to see it happen personally.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:13 AM
Charles will never be King, he is a nincompoop and he is of "Monkey" quality within the realm of Blue-bloods. They have bred out the best and all that is left is a Monkey face with Monkey ears and a pretense for stupidity.

Charles believes we should all embrace Islam as a shining example of Culture! I am not making this up!

However, William is already a King within his Blood, he is more than his mother and Charles has no parentage here! William is the AntiChrist and he will rule all who survive what is to befall us soon.

William was born on the Summer Solstice. He will turn 30 in 2012, the same age as the Christ when he started his ministry. He suffered a head-wound of which he recovered from (1991). His mother was an incubator for this Whore Family and he is not their blood, he is the DNA of the Shroud of Turin, which was consecrated as the true Shroud of Christ by our most sinister of Popes, Benedict!

He is all and more and his training has already begun. The Queen will announce his Throne, and Charles will be just a handbag for Camilla Parker Bowles (who is also of Monkey Blood).

Poor little Monkey Harry will likely die soon, a great sacrifice for the Monkey Kingdom and their plans of running the world.

Soon the entire World will receive the Mark of the Beast, but first the Whore of Babylon must fall (USofA) and it will with a mighty force from the South, a Black Serpent is poised to strike!

Obama will stand beside the AntiChrist as the False Prophet he is, they will stand before the rebuilt temple and they will declare themselves Gods.

I will pray for Europe! You will either take the Mark or you will be Martyred. I would recommend martyrdom over damnation!

For years I have confused the Harlot with the Whore, they are the same by way of control and money, we have never left the covenants of the crown and so she, the Queen, is the Great Harlot, dressed in purple and gold. The Whore is us! Yeah US, the USofA, and she will fall in one hour of one day and then it begins!

Charles is nothing, but William will be King of all of you who take the Mark. Each of us have thought this very moment and now we must stand on our convictions and accept the true Return of Christ as your Lord and Savior!

We are who we have been waiting for, and this was never about America, because the Whore was slated for destruction. It was written and so it shall be because all Christians, all Jews, and all Muslims know this is the path they will find their Salvation!

Bless us All!

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by Greensage

Care to offer any real evidence for the points made in your post? Rather that just opinion!

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:22 PM
Only Charles would be able to say really.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:35 PM
I don't think Charles has any intent to stand down. An example of this:

It may be easier to save the world if you aren't tied down to the bureaucratic methods. So maybe he will step aside, but use his son's position to make great changes with none of the fallout toward him. However, he does mention being King in the article, so I'll assume that it is his intent.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Freeborn
Charles is an arrogant and pompous arse, he won't stand aside for his son as he has waited a long time to for what he regards as his right to the throne.

I would say the complete opposite.

Anyway, Charles should be King even if it is only just for a short while.

Meanwhile William can get on with saving ignorant chaves climbing Snowdon in trainers and t-shirts ......

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
reply to post by Greensage

Care to offer any real evidence for the points made in your post? Rather that just opinion!

Please don't do that, it only makes you look Monkey! This post is "Should Charles stand down in favour of his son William?". Does that require proof, or does that require "opinion"?

I wouldn't mind directing you to many aspects of "Reality" with real-time "proof" if you really wanted to know the Truth, but you already know that.

The real facts are within you to decipher what it is you do not understand. Take for instance my reference to Monkey Charles and his stance on Islam, it is available to you on the internet! Take for instance the fact that William did suffer a head injury (I gave the year, half the work done), yeah the internet! As for the incubator part, well Princess Diana is quoted as saying just such a thing that she was nothing but an surrogate/incubator for this Family. Embellishments or not, you too have the Internet and you have the ability to seek the Truth! That is, if this was your intent by posing such nonsense about my "opinions".

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by Greensage

As the OP, I have every right to challenge any comments made on my thread and if I ask a poster to provide evidence, I would expect it or excuses.

So I am a monkey now. Way to go and insult the OP rather than offer any real evidence. But hey, this is now the common currency on ATS. Either put up or shut up.

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:47 PM
I do not believe, under the current laws of the England, that Charles would be eligible to sit on the crown, as his current wife is a roman Catholic.
The succession of the britsh monarchy is steeped in tradition and law, the first being that it has to be a child of the sitting monarch, and a male child, in that respect. When Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne, there were no eligible male members of the royal family to take the throne, so it went to her. The other law that prevents anyone who is of the Catholic faith from ascending the throne, was enacted to prevent anyone who was of the Stuart line from coming back onto the throne.
So here you go with the question of who will ascend the throne. If there is to be a change, it will require a change in the laws, some dating back more than 300 years, and then new laws passed, that have to be accepted by the members of the commonwealth around the world. Then Charles may have a chance at the throne.
However, due to the scandle and nasty divorce between Charles and Di, ruined the concept of the monarchy in many peoples mind. If they want to keep the monarchy, Charles should not accpet the offer to take the throne when it is made and step aside for his son. His son, Prince William is taking on more and more roles of what the Queen is doing to learn the ropes of being on the throne, and thus is steadily being groomed for the position. if he can have a sucessful marriage and one that shows a steady family that is not rocked by scandle and have several children, then he very well may have a shot at being such.

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

You are going to have to offer some serious proof on that claim. There is no way that the establishment would knowing let the future king marriage a Roman Catholic.

edit on 12-9-2010 by Freedom ERP because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:08 PM
reply to post by Freedom ERP

Succession to the British Thrown is governed by both common law and statute. Under common law, the crown is passed on by the male of the line, only the males children are preffered over his or her female children, and the older child is preferred over a younger child of the same child. Succession in the United Kindown is also governed by the Act of Union, 1800, which restates the provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701, and the Bill of Rights, 1689. The laws stipulate that those who are not legitmate decendants of Sophia, electress of Hanover, and those who have ever been Roman Catholics, or who have married Roman Catholics, however, may still be eligible to succeed. The succession was also regulated by His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1963, which excluded the abdicated king and his descendants, if any, from the thrown. Under the arrangements by which the Monarchy is shared by the 16 realms of the Commonwealth, the British line of succession is separated from, but symmetrical to, the lines of succession in the 15 other Realms, unless that Realm's constitution specifically defers.
The Royal Marriages Act 1772, provides that those in the line of succession may not marry without the Sovereigns consent, and it could be voided if it is disapproved of by both houses of Parliament.
The Act of Settlement further stipulates: The precise meaning of the aforementioned clauses is subject to contention. Under one interpretation, the religion of an individual at the precise moment of succession is relevant. Under another interpretation, anyone who has been a Roman Catholic at any time since 1689 ("then … or afterwards") is forever ineligible to succeed. The former interpretation allows a Roman Catholic to convert to Protestantism and succeed to the Throne just before his predecessor dies; the latter does not. In either case, however, other religions are not affected; it is clear that any non-Catholic may convert to Protestantism and succeed to the Throne.
Furthermore, all of the kings and queens of Great Britan, also serves as head of its church, and thus it would not be viewed favorably for someone who is Roman Catholic were to be sitting onthe throne.
Any changes to the laws of Succession, would cause further problems, as it would lead into questions as to who should technically Succeede after Queen Elizabeth II were to die, does it go to the oldest child, if that is so, then the line would change immediately, where HRH the Princess Royal (Anne) being placed in 4th for the line, rather than 10th, followed by her son and daughter, and overtaking the place of Princes Andrew and Edward and their children.
So this gets to be complicated, as there are laws and traditions that are present.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

You have missed the point of my reply. I know the law but what evidence can you offer that the wife of the future King is a Roman Catholic?

edit on 13-9-2010 by Freedom ERP because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by Freedom ERP

Andrew Parker Bowles, Camilla's first husband, is a Catholic and they married in a Catholic ceremony.
Their children were nominally raised as Catholic's but married in Church Of England ceremonies.

As far as I recall it is a requirement of The Catholic church that a person has to convert to Catholicism to be married in a Catholic ceremony.

Could be wrong though.

I also think that The Catholic Church still does not recognise divorce and that Camilla would have had to renounce her alleged Catholcism to marry Charles.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:21 PM
yes! because William is hot!

Charles is not!

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

Just to clarify -

"On 4 July 1973, Camilla married Andrew Parker Bowles, at the Guards Chapel, Wellington Barracks, London, their bridesmaids including Parker Bowles's goddaughter Lady Emma Herbert.[9] The couple had two children: Tom, born in the year after the marriage, who is a godson of Prince Charles, and Laura, born in 1978; both Parker Bowles children were raised in their father's Roman Catholic faith, although both were married in the Church of England. Andrew Parker Bowles initiated divorce proceedings against Camilla following the admission by the Prince of Wales that he had conducted a long-term extra-marital affair with Mrs. Parker Bowles; the couple's divorce was finalised on 3 March 1995."


The key phrase being - "Their Father's Roman Catholic faith"

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in