Interested on people’s thought on whether King Charles should reign until his death or should he step down within say 5-10 to let the Prince William become king.

It seems he has got a much needed bounce but it’s more to do with the Queen than anything else in my opinion

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-ne ... f085379e27

A101 wrote:

Interested on people’s thought on whether King Charles should reign until his death or should he step down within say 5-10 to let the Prince William become king.

It seems he has got a much needed bounce but it’s more to do with the Queen than anything else in my opinion

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-ne ... f085379e27

It changes absolutely nothing in my or most people's lives in any measurable way....so the honest answer is, who cares?

The Queen had barely reached her majority when she assumed the throne, and reigned for longer than most of us have been alive. Pretty much any of her known foibles have occured during her reign.

Charles is an elderly man with a "fairytale" wedding and nightmare divorce in his past, as well as marriage to his long-term mistress. Although not the playboy prince that Edward VII was, he assumes the throne in his dotage with a chequered past and even his envoronmental priorities split opinion.

I cannot see any way that he will receive the same suport as his mother.

Kent350787 wrote:

The Queen had barely reached her majority when she assumed the throne, and reigned for longer than most of us have been alive. Pretty much any of her known foibles have occured during her reign.

Charles is an elderly man with a "fairytale" wedding and nightmare divorce in his past, as well as marriage to his long-term mistress. Although not the playboy prince that Edward VII was, he assumes the throne in his dotage with a chequered past and even his envoronmental priorities split opinion.

I cannot see any way that he will receive the same suport as his mother.

The odd moment the other day ignoring non-white admirers also didn't help any.

I think Elizabeth was the stabilizing force in the family. Without that I don't see Charles accomplishing all that much, besides keeping the traditions going. He has an interest in the environment that he can pursue.

When William's time comes, he has a better shot at creating and pursuing his own transformation of the crown, based on his own interests. He seems the most like Elizabeth out of all of them. And after him will be George. Maybe among those two generations they will dissolve the office. It's hard to say what will happen.

I think the public will be drawn to William and his family as a symbol of Britain, as Elizabeth and her family were in the 50's and 60's. Much more so than to Charles and his wife, who isn't that well liked.

He isn’t my favorite royal but I’d at least give him a chance. People had a pretty dim view of Elizabeth’s father George VI when he came to throne, yet he ended up endearing himself quite well among his subjects. I’m hopeful Charles can similarly defy expectations…but then I also wouldn’t put it past him to muck it up one way or other.

Short answer - no, he will never be as popular as the Queen.

I don’t see any way he abdicates. He’s already hinted that he’ll follow his mother’s example of life-long service.

scbriml wrote:

Short answer - no, he will never be as popular as the Queen.

I don’t see any way he abdicates. He’s already hinted that he’ll follow his mother’s example of life-long service.

Probably not the worst thing. The Wales aren’t ready.

luckyone wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Short answer - no, he will never be as popular as the Queen.

I don’t see any way he abdicates. He’s already hinted that he’ll follow his mother’s example of life-long service.

Probably not the worst thing. The Wales aren’t ready.

Ready for what? How much preparation is required to greet well-wishers, participate in scripted ceremonies, and read speeches someone else writes?

QF7 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Short answer - no, he will never be as popular as the Queen.

I don’t see any way he abdicates. He’s already hinted that he’ll follow his mother’s example of life-long service.

Probably not the worst thing. The Wales aren’t ready.

Ready for what? How much preparation is required to greet well-wishers, participate in scripted ceremonies, and read speeches someone else writes?

Even if a lot of that is correct, the institution is still more than that. Look at George the VI. All that speech reading and stress of public leadership over 15 years or so led to his early death (hastened by lifelong smoking). The institution itself still needs a director, guidance. It needs a leader, and the Queen was a good, though quiet leader.

scbriml wrote:

Short answer - no, he will never be as popular as the Queen.

I don’t see any way he abdicates. He’s already hinted that he’ll follow his mother’s example of life-long service.

He's wanted the position for so long that he'll never give it up.

johns624 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Short answer - no, he will never be as popular as the Queen.

I don’t see any way he abdicates. He’s already hinted that he’ll follow his mother’s example of life-long service.

He's wanted the position for so long that he'll never give it up.

He knows first hand what it did to his own family when his mom was thrust into office much earlier than she should have been, so he will try to save William from the same fate which is just the right thing to do for all involved.

Maybe when William's kids are out of the house and he's getting bored while Charles is getting creaky a de facto transition will take place, but probably not a formal one even then.

Given Charles' age it won't be that long anyway.

Charles as King will never have the popularity of his mother had as Queen. I think his reign will continue his efforts to 'slim down' the size and duties of the Civil List. Charles won't make as many in-person appearances as his mom did in her prime. Perhaps we see the transfer of some Royal and family owned properties to a preservation trust in line with environmental concerns of Charles had long espoused. Along with expansions of spending by the Royal and family wealth for real needs in the UK, such actions would likely help his image.
Charles will also have to address the serous past connections of the Royals with colonialism, slavery, racism and genocide done in the Royal's name by the UK. Perhaps during his reign, we may see Northern Ireland no longer part of the UK and become unified with the Republic of Ireland.

journeyperson wrote:

In 1901, a line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (itself a cadet branch of the House of Wettin) succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy with the accession of King Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In 1917, the name of the British royal house was changed from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor.

What Elizabeth did over seventy years was strengthen the rather shaky foundations of the Crown through total dedication to her symbolic role as Head of State and Head of the Church. The monarch has no real power and everyone knows that but as an ambassador she won respect and admiration as a person and as the country's figurehead. Backed by over a thousand years of history and the physical symbols of permanence, constancy and solidity in the forms of palaces, castles, lineage and pageantry, the monarch is immeasurably more valuable to the country than a president would be.

All King Charles has to do is follow the example she set and I think he will do that. He could slim down the Civil List a lot without doing any harm. There would probably be brownie points in doing that.

I agree and how could a real comparison be made?
If he learned the main lessons from his Mother, he should be OK, abdication is a dirty word even if the result was positive, a nervous at first but steady King as WW2 loomed, with no hint of his lazy, dissolute Brother's flirtation with who were obviously our enemy.
Leading to Queen Elizabeth II.
He has signaled for years he wants a slimmed down Monarchy.

His problem in the immediate, a moron as his first PM.
Will she be discreet in her audiences with him?
Will she lie as frequently to him as her immediate predecessor did to his Mother, which on one occasion he certainly had to apologize for?

King Charles made it clear in his first broadcast as King that he will follow his Mother's example, he has been much more engaging with the public than many expected, even right after her death was announced, he cut a dignified figure at the funeral, while expressing sadness.

The Monarchy while not a popularity contest, above politics, nonetheless exists by consent.
Much was made by some Republicans about 'this bit here (gun carriage) only dates from 1901', others cite as mentioned above. 'this part, their names, since 1917' 'where is this history going back hundreds of years, apart from the costumes?'
Which completely misses the point, the Monarchy has survived through adaptation, changing with the times, they actually do achieve, up to now certainly, that awful corporate speak of 'changing yet staying the same'.

The ones in Europe that did not, fell.

It’s going to take 3 years of so for things to settle down for the King.

The British monarchy has a fascinating history, with the good, the bad and the ugly all being represented over the centuries. Charles will probably, when he settles down comfortably into the role of king, earn the respect of the nation, given that his mishaps seem to be fading into history, but I don't believe he will ever be held to anything like the level of affection his mother was. She nailed it with her never explain, never complain philosophy.

I think he will do fine as King. But let him have time to grieve, away from the pressures of media.

I just watched the committal service, extremely well done - the pallbearers were absolutely perfect.

I had wanted to include some of this in the Queen thread, having read the amusing, informed diaries of the former Labour MP Chris Mullin, including his run ins with Royalty (Mullin was on the left of the party but matured, so the reverse of Tony Benn, as even Mullin, a long time friend of his, remarked at times), sadly that thread was cut and locked without warning again, before I could find the relevant links or failing that, quote sections from the three volumes.
I don't like using the Mail, this as you will see is from 2020, however this also concerns Prince now King Charles so I think it is relevant to the discussion as well as amusing and insightful;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... h-wit.html