It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Prince Charles - 'Don't think above your station'

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
King James II was Catholic, and he was repressive. So the Protestants got together with William and Mary [of Orange] and wrote the 1689 Bill of Rights in which the people renounced Catholicism and adopted a strictly-Protestant king and queen.

www.yale.edu...

I don't think William is going to work out. He's too young, preoccupied with youth; and the Queen at 78 is not well. She has lost her sister, her mother and her aunt Alice just in the past year--all the women who held her nose to the grindstone.




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Very true, but there were rules in place before that restricting Catholic power in England. Resistance against James came to a head because the people did not want a Catholic King, Charles even advised James before his death to keep his Religion a secret from the people as he saw the possibility of the Stewart's losing the throne, and that is exactly what happened.

Unfortunately we only have William as a viable future King, i would like to see a Stewart King but i think most of the eligible Heirs from the Stewart family live in France or other countries ( i may be wrong on that though ) and wouldn't be accepted.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
He had two American daughters, you know--both aptly named "Elizabeth" at birth in 1934 and 1944.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
He had two American daughters, you know--both aptly named "Elizabeth" at birth in 1934 and 1944.



The same would apply I'm afraid. The country wouldn't accept an American born King or Queen any more than they would accept one born in France or Spain for instance, thats why we are stuck with the Hanoverian/Saxe-Coburg line, because even though they are of foreign decent the current Heirs are British born. Remember even though Victoria loved prince Albert and would have had him rule beside her as King he was not allowed by the Constitutional law and Parliament sidelined him as much as possible.

Although there are precedents for foreign born Monarchies in the past they were usually through necessity i.e. the Country didn't have much choice in the matter.



[edit on 21-11-2004 by Janus]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I thought heredity is heredity. Show me.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about the place of birth; merely, who the sire is.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
I thought heredity is heredity. Show me.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about the place of birth; merely, who the sire is.






We have no Bill of rights ( We are a Monarchy remember?). Before the Government even look abroad they would do so only after exhausting all other avenues, there are quite a few British born Noble families that would qualify for the Throne.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Janus]

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Janus]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong with expressing a view of human potential.

Nor the view that some educational policy and teachings can extend expectations beyond what an individual will achieve without the benefit of a silver spoon or years of hard slog - leading to a climate of disenfranchisement and dissatisfaction for the non-realists.

There is, however, rampant foot-in-mouth disease in this bunch of royal white trash. Starting with Prince Phillip, who will happily ask an aboriginal delegate in Australia, "Do you people still throw spears at each other?"

It is pleasing to see they are out of touch, as it ever was and as it ever will be.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The 1689 Bill of Rights doesn't cover that.

So, then it's up to Parliament whether Charles' children will be eligible; or whether they will be out of bounds--

just as it was Parliament that declared Edw VIII had not only to abdicate, but his children would have to forfeight all rights. That was part of the abdication.

This means, when Elizabeth succumbs, both teams [both sons of Geo V--Edw and Bertie] are out and they have to find a new team? Maybe the Duke of Glouchester or Duke of Kent? I can't remember which Duchies Alice and Henry took over. Do you know? Geo V had 3 sons and 1 daughter. Where's Henry?

Is that how it will work?

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
He he they still live in a different time MA, a time where Britain ruled the waves and the sun never set on the British Empire. There is hope though with William he has a strong streak of Spencer blood in him.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
If Charles abdicates [and does so under practically IDENTICAL circumstances to the abdication of Edward VIII], then HIS SONS will forfeit everything, just as Edward's offspring forfeited everything.

They can't change the rules. What applied to Edw VIII has to apply to Charles.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
The 1689 Bill of Rights doesn't cover that.

So, then it's up to Parliament whether Charles' children will be eligible; or whether they will be out of bounds--

just as it was Parliament that declared Edw VIII had not only to abdicate, but his children would have to forfeight all rights. That was part of the abdication.

This means, when Elizabeth succumbs, both teams [both sons of Geo V--Edw and Bertie] are out and they have to find a new team? Maybe the Duke of Glouchester or Duke of Kent? I can't remember which Duchies Alice and Henry took over. Do you know? Geo V had 3 sons and 1 daughter. Where's Henry?

Is that how it will work?

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Emily_Cragg]



Yes, thats about how it will work, Could be the Kent's ( who have a strong connection to the Tzar's of Russia, just put a photo of Tsar Nicholas next to one of the Duke of Kent .... Scary ) could be any number of Families with a legit claim. But in the end Parliament will decide. If they cant find anyone in Britain who fits the Bill then they will look abroad.

Or they could turn us into a Republic *Shudder*

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Janus]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Charles' situation is almost identical to Edward VIII's situation.

If he abdicates, then his children lose everything, as Edward VIIIs children did--title, inheritance and place on the List.

If they don't lose everything, then Edward VIIIs children should not have lost everything--title, inheritance and place on the List.

That's what's so ironic and paradoxical about this situation--it MIRRORS the 1936 abdication so well, in performance prior to abdication.

Now, what will Parliament do this time? Hard to say. There are lots of other factors in play, as in the amount of monies running through Royal accounts.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
They cannot change the law, not without an act of Parliament. So your scenario should hold true. But the feelings of the people will play a large part in it now, more than it did when Edward abdicated. The country love William, he is seen as the future of the monarchy free of the old guard. The people would not what him cut out of the line of succession.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Please elaborate on this statement.

I'm really curious. I sense you are saying that British people like him because he's UN-ROYAL.

Is that correct?

If so, why not go to your local pub, and just go get somebody to be King?



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Please elaborate on this statement.

I'm really curious. I sense you are saying that British people like him because he's UN-ROYAL.

Is that correct?

If so, why not go to your local pub, and just go get somebody to be King?



The Old Guard would be IMO the old courters, the people who pull the strings, Lords and Knights who serve and insulate the current Royals from the outside world. The same people who drove Diana out of the Royal Family. The people who will have the Devils own time keeping William from his people. We want our King to be modern and approachable, something that the current Queen is not. But he will still be the King and entitled to the same respect that goes with that. So no i don't think id find someone down my local pub who quite fits the bill.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
What part does God have in choosing the next Sovereign?

Do you think God might be able to overrule "the old courters, the people who pull the strings, Lords and Knights who serve and insulate the current Royals from the outside world. The same people who drove Diana out of the Royal Family" ??

It appears to me the Royal family has lost sight of its purpose: to role-model Family, Community and Civility to the rest of the world.

They are very ordinary individuals in very extraordinary roles. They are just as full of soap operas as the rest of their own nation. And--yes--everybody thinks William is dashing. So?

Does that mean Williams has the sensitivity, the knowledge and the wisdom to turn the monarchy around and away from ordinary-ness?

That's God's call--not yours or mine.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
All we can do is hope, the nation loved Diana and when she died the grief was palpable. For all her faults, yes she had a few, the Queen underestimated just how much she meant to people. A lot of that hope and love has been transfered to William. But in the end the only person who can decide what kind of King he will be will be William. Its not just the fact the girls swoon over him or that he is dashing, it goes a lot deeper than that. He is the future of the Monarchy, not Charles, if Charles succeeds then i for one will see him as just looking after the Family Business for William.
Yes only God can decide, but didn't God put them where they are through birth? God has a role for us all and this is theirs.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
God had a role for William and Mary of Orange.

They returned to restore the form of Laws that James the II overturned; to repair the corruption that he had permitted.

If the current Royal family is also corrupt under the surface, merely handing the Crown to William--who by all accounts DESPISES the Queen--and ensures NO Royal VALUES will be permitted in William's reign due to his bitterness over the death of his late mother Diana--

then it wouldn't surprise me if God moves in this situation and responds by changing the Guard completely.

England and the UK simply aren't some dipshift monarchy: coming out of legal reforms of the 12th century, they epitomize some of the best features of the Kingdom of God through a royal line that began in Israel with the Diaspora, moved to the British Isles early in the history of Celtic Christianity and intends to continue to claim God's blessing, as we speak.

None of this history is congruent with the family life of a soap opera. Placing an angry bereaved kid on the throne who only wants to take it all down to get even--that's not going to do very well.

Yes, he's dashing, but he's bitter too. That won't do.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   
He has no choice. His fate and destiny were ordained before he was even born. His sole purpose is to be King, nothing more nothing less. He may not like it, he may fight it but he may as well try and turn back the Sea. His only other choice would be abdication and a life of obscurity and decadence like Edward and Simpson. The Queen is Britain and Britain is the Queen. They are the same, indivisible. And that is his future too. The monarchy is more than just state dinners and Crown Jewels they ARE Britain just as i am, just as every other Citizen no matter who they are. Of course there are the Republicans and people who would like to be rid of them. But we would be a much poorer Country without them.
What people don't understand is that the ties of History bind us as tightly to them as they are tied to us.
We have fought for them and died for them. We have carried their standard across a Dozen Countries. Do you think the troops in Iraq think they are fighting for the Royals? No of course they don't think that. But they know their responsibility to the Country and their Queen, just as the the Queen knows her responsibility to them.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Janus]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
... Change happens, even in England.

... And I for one want to see England returned to a Sovereign that has a grasp of History, of Law, of Ethics, of Statesmanship that goes beyond tea receptions and horse shows.

... I for one would love to see England.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join