To the Diana fans. Why can't Prince Charles be King, and Camilla Queen? Not Prince William to succeed The Queen

Prince Charles was not the first heir to provoke hostility.

Prince Charles wasn't the first to suffer the attacks of newspapers.

Give Prince Charles his chance to reign.

Don’t judge until you see this.

With the continuing controversy raging in the country as to whether Prince Charles should relinquish his claim to the throne in favour of, the recently married, Prince William, I feel the time is right to revisit the history of a previous monarch who succeeded a mother who had occupied the highest place for even longer than our present Queen has. I speak of Edward VII who became King in 1901 as the successor of his mother Queen Victoria, who had reigned for over sixty four years.

When Queen Victoria died she had been Queen for so long that the vast majority of her subjects could remember no other sovereign. Her longevity, and the almost apotheosis that was confered on her at the time of her Diamond Jubilee in 1897, meant that her death came as a great shock to the country. It seemed that no human person would ever be able to fill her shoes.

Her heir, Edward VII, had had a rather chequered career. He was excluded from almost all participation in affairs of state by his mother, with the result that he had to carve out whatever role in life for himself that his own tastes divined. The result was that a large part of his time was spent trying to combat the boredom that comes with waiting interminably for the opportunity to fulfil his hereditary destiny. He got into an almighty amount of scrapes, from being called as a witness in a divorce case, to the scandal of Tranby Croft where an officer was caught cheating at a game of illegal cards. He had so many mistresses that he was nicknamed "Edward the Caresser".

There is a continuing fascination with the Illuminati and their all pervasive influence on world affairs.

There was an organisation called the Illuminati, which was founded in Bavaria in the eighteenth century. This is not the sinister organisation that aims to gain ruler ship over the world.

Only very few people can reveal the true facts about this sinister “society above society”. I am one of those with full knowledge. No doubt you are wondering how deep my insight goes.

To find out read my latest e-book The Zombie, the Cat and Barack Obama.

It contains information on the history and power of the Illuminati that is not detailed anywhere else.

There is also some fascinating, but very embarrassing, information about the ancestry of Barack Obama.

Osama bin Laden was not killed in the way we have been told either. Read the true account of his demise here.

There is a royal connection here also, although with Queen Elizabeth II, not Prince Charles or Prince William.

Check out the reviews and

Sample it FREE at AMAZON.

United States.

http://goo.gl/ckqfk

So little faith was there in the abilities of the new king that even The Times printed this famous editorial.

"The King has passed through

that tremendous ordeal, prolonged through youth and manhood

to middle age. We shall not pretend that there is nothing in his

long career which those who respect and admire him could wish

otherwise. Which of us can say that with even approximate

temptations to meet he could face the fierce light that beats upon

an heir-apparent no less than upon a throne? As is pointed out

in an appreciation of the new King which we print to-day, the

Prince of Wales in all his public relations has been as unique

among those who have occupied the same position as was his

mother among sovereigns. He has never failed in his duty to

the throne and the nation...."

King Edward VII had an heir as well. George Duke of York was very much the grandson of Victoria. Hardworking, simple in his tastes, and devoted to his wife, Princess Mary of Teck; he must have appeared to be a much better prospect to succeed his grandmother than his rather racy and somewhat elderly father. I'm sure there were then, as there are now, those who would have preferred the inheritance to be passed directly to the younger prince. But the rules of succession were more clearly understood in those days, and Edward became King unopposed.

So, you may ask, what was the result? Edward VII reigned for nine years. He is remembered as one of our most popular and capable monarchs. He revitalised an ancient institution. The splendour, that is the admiration of the world today, dates mainly from his reign. His affability, and the charm and genuine friendliness he showed endeared him to all classes of his subjects. The contacts which he had built up internationally, gained many friends in Europe that were invaluable to this country during The Great War. He, entirely on his own initiative, charmed the French people so much that the result was "The Entente Cordiale", which sustained both our countries through the nightmares of the twentieth century; and which still endures today.

A further result of the nine years that Edward VII occupied the throne is that it gave his heir an invaluable period of time to gain experience of public life before his turn came in 1910. Like Prince Charles today, King Edward had a close and loving relationship with his son. Both them, and the country benefited from the experiences gained during the Edwardian era. If Prince George had become sovereign instead of his father this country would have been deprived of the services of a very good king. And the loving relationship that had been built up between a father and his son would have been destroyed.

So think about it people. Give Prince Charles his chance. He is a good man. Neither the country, nor The Commonwealth will regret it.