Should Prince Charles (HRH) be the next king?

[gsdx]

She must be in the public eye at all times and smile at the crowds.

No, she doesn't. She chooses to. She does a lot of stuff she doesn't 'have to do'. She does it because she wants to.

 

[mikemizanin729]

Isn't that a good thing though?

 

[gsdx]

It's good that she's in the public eye because she wants to be there, not that she must as you implied.

 

[Benvolio]

---

No, she doesn't. She chooses to. She does a lot of stuff she doesn't 'have to do'. She does it because she wants to.

i think she knows it is her job and her duty. I cannot believe that she enjoys cutting ribbons and laying cornerstones after all these years.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

---

i think she knows it is her job and her duty. I cannot believe that she enjoys cutting ribbons and laying cornerstones after all these years.

She certainly never appears happy to be doing it these days! Always a miserable look on here face (not that I blame here).

 

[gsdx]

i think she knows it is her job and her duty.

She has duties, of course, but a lot of stuff she does isn't because of 'duty'.

 

[herry1]

In the United Kingdom parliament is sovereign, and should on the death, or approaching demise of Queen Elizabeth the will of the people support the accession of William, rather than Charles parliament can legislate in favour of William....by amending the succession law...

It's not that simple though. Charles is also heir to the throne of another 15 countries and convention says all must agree.

:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931#Implications_for_succession_to_the_throne

 

[TONYKO]

I think he will make a good Monarch. I know there's no legislative power to the title but they lead a nation's pulse and ppl take their cue's from them and I think he's lived thru things that will make him emphathetic to many kinds of social change. (I always felt kind of sorry for him you know like billionaire Brooke Astor's son; SHE being one of THE Astor's n lived to like 106 or 108 something crazy and he was EIGHTY FIVE and still waiting to get his inheritence lol. (Yes I know he ripped her off can u blame him lol?) I know nada of the laws of succession but I'm sure if he chose to he could find a way to step aside like his great uncle (the Nazi) because I get the feeling he would rather just live the rest of his days quietly with his love. But he seems like a caring man, and I'm sure he also knows the longer his son and his young family can have BEFORE they have to step up and carry that burden, the happier they and their kids will be.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

 

[bankside]

It's not that simple though. Charles is also heir to the throne of another 15 countries and convention says all must agree.

:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931#Implications_for_succession_to_the_throne

The official position of the Canadian government is that it is up to the UK to decide.

The official position of every Canadian historian, constitutional scholar and legal theorist is that the Canadian government is full of shit, and it is absolutely a matter of Canadian jurisdiction.

The government's conundrum is that not only is the position of the Sovereign an issue of Canadian law, but it is an issue of mandatory unanimity between the national government and ten provinces before anything can be changed.Thus the abdication of responsibility.

 

[mikemizanin729]

What is this silly man saying at 00.26.

 

[JimLahey]

I don't understand the point of a monarchy. The queen is still on the bills here in Canada. Why should my tax money go to some family on the other side of the world so they can be waited on hand and foot? I'd probably be even more annoyed if I was on the other side of the world and seeing them flaunt it in my face! Though to be fair it's the same way I feel about Hollywood...

 

[unloadonme]

I don't understand the point of a monarchy. The queen is still on the bills here in Canada. Why should my tax money go to some family on the other side of the world so they can be waited on hand and foot? I'd probably be even more annoyed if I was on the other side of the world and seeing them flaunt it in my face! Though to be fair it's the same way I feel about Hollywood...

As far as I'm aware, the Canadian taxpayer does not fund the monarchy, except I suppose for meeting the cost of duties actually carried out in Canada. As a British taxpayer, I contribute something less than £1 per annum and I'm entirely comfortable with that.

 

[kallipolis]

It's not that simple though. Charles is also heir to the throne of another 15 countries and convention says all must agree.

:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931#Implications_for_succession_to_the_throne

Of course there would be discussions with the governments of those countries where Elizabeth is also head of state....there is precedent in this matter when recalling the abdication crisis of Edward V111 when the UK government was legally obliged to liaise with the governments of The Dominions to ensure a smooth transition to George V1 assuming the crown.

 

[kallipolis]

As far as I'm aware, the Canadian taxpayer does not fund the monarchy, except I suppose for meeting the cost of duties actually carried out in Canada. As a British taxpayer, I contribute something less than £1 per annum and I'm entirely comfortable with that.

You are correct...and for all practical purposes the governor general of Canada is the de facto head of state....with the same reality applying in the other Commonwealth realms where Elizabeth is the de jure head of state...

 

[kallipolis]

The official position of the Canadian government is that it is up to the UK to decide.

The official position of every Canadian historian, constitutional scholar and legal theorist is that the Canadian government is full of shit, and it is absolutely a matter of Canadian jurisdiction.

The government's conundrum is that not only is the position of the Sovereign an issue of Canadian law, but it is an issue of mandatory unanimity between the national government and ten provinces before anything can be changed.Thus the abdication of responsibility.

This conumdrum also applies in Australia.... but on the death of Elizabeth it is assumed that Australia, and New Zealand may well vote in favour of declaring a republic...flag changes are also inevitable....I doubt whether this will alter the excellent relationship that exists between the UK, and its former dominions...for history does not change, and the shared cultural, and language bodes well for a continuing harmonious relationship.

 

[gsdx]

I don't understand the point of a monarchy. The queen is still on the bills here in Canada. Why should my tax money go to some family on the other side of the world so they can be waited on hand and foot?

Listen to this man.

As far as I'm aware, the Canadian taxpayer does not fund the monarchy

Our tax dollars don't go to the Queen except when she or her family are in the country. But then, our tax dollars go to any dignitary in our country here on official visits. Our tax dollars go to our governor-general (the Queen's representative while the Queen is out-of-country), and he costs us a whole lot less than the Queen. The senatorial base salary is half what the governor-general is paid.

Just because her image is on some of our money (as a royal image has been since Confederation) doesn't mean she gets part of the proceeds. We are, after all, still part of the Commonwealth.

 

[Kabluey]

The royals are fantastic for tourism - everyone likes to see a working palace.

But... if the current queen lives as long as her mum, Charles will be 80 before he's king, if he's alive by then. Tough break for him.

 

[JohnnyAnger]

The royals are fantastic for tourism - everyone likes to see a working palace.

It's true, no one ever goes to Versailles or Potsdam - as I have said elsewhere the monarchy does not provide tourism. More people go to Legoland Windsor than Windsor Castle (the only money spinner they have).

 

[JohnnyAnger]

As a British taxpayer, I contribute something less than £1 per annum and I'm entirely comfortable with that.

That figure only works on what they publicly from the treasury. The real figure they receive is five times higher than they normally quote (things like local grants, heating bills, security costs). It's not much more but they do confuse it by never stating the full amount they take from the government annually.