Charles to marry Camilla

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

maybe we'll have King Ozzy I of the house of Osbourne?

[IronParrot]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I completely agree with your first and last paragraphs, but can't help thinking that the second would open up a can of worms. If we start choosing a monarch on the grounds of who is most popular, we'd have King David Beckham by 2010, because there is no longer any solid reason for to make someone king. If we pass over Charles just because he's not very well-liked, what's to stop us deciding after a few years that actually William isn't working out, let's have Harry instead? Then if he's not very good, we can have Zara Philips, because she's pretty and has a tongue stud. Personally I'd love to see William as king while he's still young, but only in the natural course of succession - unless Charles decides to step down, which seems unlikely.

sun-star, there's no question of popularity here. Charles can be rejected for the same reason that Camilla is only recognized as a Duchess; I think there is a way to cite the divorce and remarriage as legitimate grounds to invalidate him. (See Edward VIII abdicating to wed an American commoner, for instance; I think that may serve as a precedent of sorts.) Unlike David Beckham, William has a legitimate claim to the throne. Charles is not currently the sitting monarch, and skipping him is not analogous to interrupting William's rule and passing it to Harry as in your scenario.

You do propose an ideal scenario, though, which is that Charles steps down voluntarily.

[sun-star]

These are the reasons you gave for wanting William as king:

Originally Posted by IronParrot

He's the right age (Elizabeth was crowned in her twenties as well), sources allege that he may actually have a personality, and I sure as hell don't want his father on my coinage.

Those are issues of popularity, not constitutional questions.

[IronParrot]

Okay, so you caught me there. Um... those are supplementary justifications! Purely supplementary!

[sun-star]

Hey, I sympathise with them - just not enough to build a constitution on them

[Khamûl]

"The big royal wedding is a little over a month away. This is going to be a difficult adjustment for Prince Charles’ fiancee, Camilla. You know, Buckingham Palace is a big change from her old job ringing the bell at Notre Dame." -- Jay Leno

[The Gaffer]

Soft targets are always the best.

The mere fact that people are discussing whether Charles should be King is an indication that the institution needs to be abolished PDQ. As sun-star says, the whole point about monarchy is that you don't get to choose who's next up: it depends on who dropped out of the royal womb in what order.

There are a lot of people, who would ordinarily be royalists, who loathe both Charles and Camilla because of their own Diana fixation. They want William to take the throne because he looks like her and is a nice young man. Once you get royalists thinking like that then the whole basis of monarchy goes down the tubes.

[IronParrot]

No, you don't get to choose who's up based on positive terms, but as in my cited example of Edward VIII, you can certainly eliminate people from the running based on negative criteria. This isn't a matter of "preferring William" as much as it is "not preferring Charles."

[Twista]

Does everyone know there issuing stamps of the happy couple? I'll be sure to add them to my collection!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

(See Edward VIII abdicating to wed an American commoner, for instance; I think that may serve as a precedent of sorts.)

Actually it had nothing to do with her being American - or a "commoner" (since we don't have royalty or anything - there is no such thign as commoner in America anyway). But anyway - it had to do with her being a divorcee - since Charles is divorced and everyone accepts him being divorced and Diana died - I don't see the issue of him taking the throw - other than people not liking him personally.

[The Gaffer]

IIRC, Edward abdicated because of the legal problems associated with marrying a divorcee. Several governments (not just the UK) would have had to pass legislation to make the marriage legal. I guess that's where the popular opinion might come in, in that governments are supposed to do what their people want. However, it would seem far better just to directly elect the head of state instead, and then we'd be spared the embarrassment...

[sun-star]

The difference with Edward VIII is that he became king in the usual course of succession and then chose to abdicate. He could very well have decided to remain king (many people were in favour of him doing so, including Churchill IIRC) but the PM Stanley Baldwin recommended that he abdicate. He must have wanted to do it - monarchs are allowed to abdicate at any time, I believe, but they can't be forced to. However, it was not an easy decision and caused rather a lot of angst, so there would have to be very good reasons for it to happen again.

Interestingly, it wasn't British public opinion that Baldwin was worried about, but opinion in... Canada

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

damned canucks

i say we just get rid of monarchy and aristocracy all together

[The Gaffer]

Hear hear!

And what better way to provoke a peasants' revolt than to have Camilla as Queen?

Latest constitutional shenanigans from the BBC

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

well they got married today, apparently she looked nice, i dont care, bloody royals, but i didnt see what the queen of sweden wore, now she always looks nice, for an 8 foot tall, 6 foot wide, viking warrior and Juan Carlos II of Spain always looks nice, wonder whether it was a Gucci or an Armani suit he wore?

BTW, i hear charles is not attending the funeral of Prince Rainier of Monaco! the cheek of it, Prince Rainier was probably the only royal in the world that i did like!

[Rían]

Best wishes for both of them


but what a hat!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i didnt watch it, too busy taping cd's to care about some pair of boring old farts, now ken and deirdre's wedding on 'Coronation Street' last night, that i did watch

my mum said it looked like the Duchess of Cornwall had a dead peasant, ahem pheasant, on her hat, was that true?

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i dont care, bloody royals

You know, that would be much more convincing if you hadn't started this thread in the first place and then just bumped it yourself, when no one else had any inclination to discuss the wedding.

BTW, i hear charles is not attending the funeral of Prince Rainier of Monaco! the cheek of it, Prince Rainier was probably the only royal in the world that i did like!

Because he had a pretty, dead wife, right? I see a pattern developing here...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hey it beats talkin to myself

and Rainier i liked not because he had a pretty dead wife, honest *whistles innocently*

and i like talkin about royals, even if i want them removed

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

and i like talkin about royals, even if i want them removed

But if they were removed, you'd have nothing to talk about

Andrew Motion, the Poet Laureate, wrote an uncharacteristically good poem on the occasion:

Spring Wedding

I took your news outdoors, and strolled a while
In silence on my square of garden-ground
Where I could dim the roar of arguments,
Ignore the scandal-flywheel whirring round,

And hear instead the green fuse in the flower
Ignite, the breeze stretch out a shadow-hand
To ruffle blossom on its sticking points,
The blackbirds sing, and singing take their stand.

I took your news outdoors, and found the Spring
Had honoured all its promises to start
Disclosing how the principles of earth
Can make a common purpose with the heart.

The heart which slips and sidles like a stream
Weighed down by winter-wreckage near its source -
But given time, and come the clearing rain,
Breaks loose to revel in its proper course.