Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys,

Regarding the news a few days ago of Holland's Queen Beatrix abdicating and passing on the crown to her son, and Queen Elizabeth affirming that she will not do the same thing and will only pass on the crown upon death - possibly saying something about the crown being prised 'from her cold, dead hands' (there we go - got a mention of gun politics in there ) - has got me thinking about what is likely to happen to the crown here in the UK when she does finally pass away?

Chiefly, assuming that Elizabeth reaches a similar age to her mother (and dies in perhaps another decade or so), Charles is going to be well into his 70's. There is also the matter of his early infidelity and scandal surrounding Diana and her death (which the country seems unable to forget), Camilla Parker Bowles then being made Queen, and finally the fact that it's widely publicised that he is a bit of an imbecile. And not in the 'aww isn't he sweet' level of stupidity that seems to endear us to Homer Simpson or Londoners to Boris Johnson. But I think that 2nd point is probably the sticker, and I'm not sure how many of the 'family' will be keen on the idea of Camilla taking on the role of Queen. The possibility of drunk chauffeurs driving into tunnels late at night, pursued by white Fiat Pandas and paparazzi, remains.

As well as this the Monarchy must surely be aware that having a young, popular king like William (who, so far, hasn't managed to continually ridicule himself in the eyes of the public) would most likely safeguard the position of the Crown for the foreseeable future. Certainly, he seems to have been the island of normality and respect, in amongst the ocean of horsey drunkards, nazi-uniform wearing illegitimates and Duchesses of York, who have all seemed to have done their best to undermine the position and respectability of the Monarchy over the past few decades with their antics.

Contrary to this of course goes the opinion that, well if we don't have tradition, then what do we have? Despite his poor behaviour with regards to Diana and level of buffoonery Charles is still next in line to the throne, like it or lump it. There is also the fact that (and sorry if I'm wrong with this), constitutionally Charles does not have to do anything. It is quite permissible that he can sit on the throne, crown on head and holy hand-grenade in hand, and no-one can do a damn thing about it!

So anyway just a quick poll to see what the users of Dakka feel about this. Upon the death of Elizabeth, crown to Charles, should he abdicate in favour of his son, or something else? I'm hoping that the discussion here will be a bit more intellectual than the absolutely hilarious comments section of the Daily Mail following their article about Queen Beatrix!

So please, fire away!

I'm a staunch republican (in the traditional sense) so if he does abdicate I hope he takes the monarchy with him.

I don't see why he should abdicate though, why would he?

It's a monarchy, not a democracy. I'm sure when Richard the Lionheart died and King John gained the throne there were people saying "skip him, he seems like an donkey-cave". Didn't make much difference.

Prince Charles for king!

I don't see why he should skip out on being king unless he doesn't want to be.

I'm not a royalist in any way shape or form, but I don't want the monarchy to be torn down at all.

After all, who wants to become a republic and have even more politicians whilst simultaneously losing part of our national identity and living part of our history?

 Pacific wrote:
Hey guys,

Regarding the news a few days ago of Holland's Queen Beatrix abdicating and passing on the crown to her son, and Queen Elizabeth affirming that she will not do the same thing and will only pass on the crown upon death - possibly saying something about the crown being prised 'from her cold, dead hands' (there we go - got a mention of gun politics in there ) - has got me thinking about what is likely to happen to the crown here in the UK when she does finally pass away?

Chiefly, assuming that Elizabeth reaches a similar age to her mother (and dies in perhaps another decade or so), Charles is going to be well into his 70's. There is also the matter of his early infidelity and scandal surrounding Diana and her death (which the country seems unable to forget), Camilla Parker Bowles then being made Queen, and finally the fact that it's widely publicised that he is a bit of an imbecile. And not in the 'aww isn't he sweet' level of stupidity that seems to endear us to Homer Simpson or Londoners to Boris Johnson. But I think that 2nd point is probably the sticker, and I'm not sure how many of the 'family' will be keen on the idea of Camilla taking on the role of Queen. The possibility of drunk chauffeurs driving into tunnels late at night, pursued by white Fiat Pandas and paparazzi, remains.

As well as this the Monarchy must surely be aware that having a young, popular king like William (who, so far, hasn't managed to continually ridicule himself in the eyes of the public) would most likely safeguard the position of the Crown for the foreseeable future. Certainly, he seems to have been the island of normality and respect, in amongst the ocean of horsey drunkards, nazi-uniform wearing illegitimates and Duchesses of York, who have all seemed to have done their best to undermine the position and respectability of the Monarchy over the past few decades with their antics.

Contrary to this of course goes the opinion that, well if we don't have tradition, then what do we have? Despite his poor behaviour with regards to Diana and level of buffoonery Charles is still next in line to the throne, like it or lump it. There is also the fact that (and sorry if I'm wrong with this), constitutionally Charles does not have to do anything. It is quite permissible that he can sit on the throne, crown on head and holy hand-grenade in hand, and no-one can do a damn thing about it!

So anyway just a quick poll to see what the users of Dakka feel about this. Upon the death of Elizabeth, crown to Charles, should he abdicate in favour of his son, or something else? I'm hoping that the discussion here will be a bit more intellectual than the absolutely hilarious comments section of the Daily Mail following their article about Queen Beatrix!

So please, fire away!

The British should rid themselves of these cruel hereditary overlords once and for all.

Now then. I'm no royalist either, but I don't see why he should not be King. I agree completely with SilverMK2. Better to have a living history instead of more dirty politicians mucking the place up...

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Now then. I'm no royalist either, but I don't see why he should not be King. I agree completely with SilverMK2. Better to have a living history instead of more dirty politicians mucking the place up...

he should be king. Further, since the British family was related to the Kaiser, he should claim all the Germanies as his domain as well. He should show up at the Berlin airport, get off the plane with about fifty of those cavalry guys, and try to ride through downtown Berlin all the while waving at his "new subjects."

I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.

 Bangbangboom wrote:
I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.

Come on, deep down you want to see him at the head of a column of shiny guilded calvalry, clomping down the middle of the Berlinstrasse, proclaiming "thats mine, yes that too, yes that too, Oi! Hands off you tosser!"

Is having an affair and getting divorced the worst thing he did? No need to step down.

 Bangbangboom wrote:
I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.

Thats intentional though, the Monarchy is deliberately apolitical these days and I can't see it changing.

I wonder if the people who want Charles to abdicate in favour of one of his sons are aware of what a monarchy actually is?

Palindrome wrote:
I wonder if the people who want Charles to abdicate in favour of one of his sons are aware of what a monarchy actually is?

To be fair there are precedents in history for where a monarch is asked or forced to abdicate because their actions and have done so. Edward VIII for example.

Not necessarily, and there is a precedent - in particular Edward VIII in the 1930s, whose marriage to Wallis Simpson could not be abided and so he abdicated in favour of his younger brother.

Palindrome wrote:
I'm a staunch republican (in the traditional sense)

Don't worry: I'll hold it against you.

If Charles had just been allowed to marry who he wanted in the first place then there wouldn't have been the disaster that was Diana. Also, Camilla won't be 'queen' whatever happens.

Palindrome wrote:

 Bangbangboom wrote:
I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.

Thats intentional though, the Monarchy is deliberately apolitical these days and I can't see it changing.

I realise its deliberate, I don't agree with it, but I suppose it serves their purpose.

 Frazzled wrote:


Come on, deep down you want to see him at the head of a column of shiny guilded calvalry, clomping down the middle of the Berlinstrasse, proclaiming "thats mine, yes that too, yes that too, Oi! Hands off you tosser!"

Oh I wish they could, it would elevate them above the tourist attraction they have become.

Can you say Pops her Clogs when talking about the Queen? That seems like a no-no...

Even if it were say Queen Beatrix?

Who is the prince that is married to th Queen and says stupid things?
Him.

 Glorioski wrote:
It's a monarchy, not a democracy.

Wrong-o! What we have is a Constitutional Monarchy based on the Westminster System of government. It's very much a democracy. In fact, that's a central part of our constitution - the Magna Carta basically recognises the fact that Monarchs rule by our consent. We elect HM Queen Elizabeth II every day, and frankly, she's a bargain.

As for my opinion on the succession? Hoo boy! Not sure. It's Charles' right to become king upon the death of HM ERII, but I think there's a little bit in all of we royalists that would (not-so) secretly like to see William on the throne sooner rather than later. I think Charles cops a lot of flak, but when you look at the way some presidents carry on the guy's practically a saint. I've heard that he's actually quite a nice bloke too. He has the common touch in a way that perhaps his mother doesn't.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bangbangboom wrote:
I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.

Come on, deep down you want to see him at the head of a column of shiny guilded calvalry, clomping down the middle of the Berlinstrasse, proclaiming "thats mine, yes that too, yes that too, Oi! Hands off you tosser!"

I'd love to see that. So funny

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Who is the prince that is married to th Queen and says stupid things?
Him.

Phil the Greek?

Can't you just give the crown to the Duke of Bavaria like good Jacobites?

Can I put in a good word for the Earl of Heinz and Count of Basey?

Palindrome wrote:
I'm a staunch republican (in the traditional sense) so if he does abdicate I hope he takes the monarchy with him.

I don't see why he should abdicate though, why would he?

Same here

I have heard that he would like to change his name upon ascension to the throne after what happened to the previous King Charles

 Albatross wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
It's a monarchy, not a democracy.

Wrong-o! What we have is a Constitutional Monarchy based on the Westminster System of government. It's very much a democracy. In fact, that's a central part of our constitution - the Magna Carta basically recognises the fact that Monarchs rule by our consent. We elect HM Queen Elizabeth II every day, and frankly, she's a bargain.

The Magna Carta is actually a document written up by nobility who made King John sign it in order to give them more power. The conception that it was intended to speak about the rights of the common man is a misconception. King John reneged on the promises made in the document only years later and despite it being reissued hundred of years later only three clauses of it are still in force today, concerning the freedoms of the church the land and the famous 'no imprisonment without fair trail' clause. And the monarchy is not a democracy, the position of King and Queen is not open to anyone nor are they elected by majority, this fact is not dependant on whether or not the UK is a democracy, which it obviously is.

Ditch the welfare kings upon the (sweet old) welfare queen's death.

Nothing personal, we just can't possibly justify the massive cost of the Royal Family.

Pff, you do realise they own ridiculous amounts of land, not only that, but the government derives its legal authority from the crown. If you got rid of the Royal Family that would erase every law on the books, as well as dissolve parliament.

I'm not even sure they could legally get rid of the monarchy without the assent of the current monarch. Which means that if they don't want to sign off their own oblivion the government can't do anything about it unless they stage a revolution.

Second English Civil War? I call royalists.

I don't want him to abdicate but I wouldn't blame him if he did.
(There has also been more than 1 civil war in england...)

feeder wrote:
Ditch the welfare kings upon the (sweet old) welfare queen's death.

Nothing personal, we just can't possibly justify the massive cost of the Royal Family.

Yes the Royals should take thier ball and go home. Instead of being paid the Sovereign Grant of a percentage of the Crown Estates they already own they can just start pocketing all of it. The Royals pay for themselves and graciously give the rest of thier income to the state in an over 300 year old arrangement. But as far as "Welfare Kings" goes, you're just plain wrong; released of the civic responsibility to pay for the civil government the Royals would be taking a fair chunk of the budget with them since the whole arrangement they have is based on not having to pay for the government out of pocket.