Who says Prince William should be next King after reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Prince Charles to be bypassed?
74A happy Royal Family
Standing up for Prince Charles. The lawful successor. Before Prince William.
While most people in the United Kingdom, and throughout the sixteen other realms reigned over by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, will rejoice at the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton, a poll in one of the newspapers, (The News of The World) indicating that, Prince Charles, the current Prince of Wales ought to step aside from his position as heir to the throne, and make way for the direct succession of Prince William, on the death of The Queen, can only give disquiet to those of us who are devoted to the monarchy, and want it to continue in the way that history, and historic right dictates.
The notion that the throne should skip a generation, and that Prince William should be the next King, is not just insulting to Prince Charles, who has done a lot for his country, through such institutions as The Princes Trust, but it also undermines the very point of the monarchy, which is that a soveriegn reigns until death, and is then succeeded by their lawful successor. Prince William will get his turn when it comes round. No other way is right. While we accept the institution of monarchy, we should be prepared to also accept how it works. Ancient institutions should never change their fundamentals in response to anything as ephemeral as a newspaper poll. The strength of the monarchy lies in it being the symbol of continuity in an ever changing world. If we are going to meddle with how it operates we might as well get rid of it altogether. Then we can look forward to having such stalwarts as Gordon Brown, John Prescott, or Cherie Blair as our Head of State.
Another problem with this poll is that it might be used to drive a wedge between father and son. Prince Charles is a devoted father, with a very good relationship with his sons. Both William And Harry have had to cope with the loss of their beloved mother. The last thing that is needed, when William has just tied the knot with a girl that will, please God, bring him happiness for the rest of his life, is to have people trying to stir up tensions with his beloved father. It is not likely to bring happiness to the declining years of The Queen either, to see that sections in the media are trying to destabilise the succession in an institution that she has spent her life serving.
So I say to those who answered the questionnaire in the newspaper.
"Stop disrespecting a man who has worked hard for this country all his life".
“Stop trying to drive a wedge between a father and his eldest son".
And finally
"All this controversy can only serve to distress Her Majesty the Queen, who definitely doesn’t need or deserve the grief when she is marking sixty glorious years of fulltime devotion to our country".
My final wish is that the recent splendid wedding, will not only bring lasting happiness to the bride and groom, but that it will serve to unite the country in celebration of an institution, and a family, that have worked tirelessly for this country for many generations.
God Save the Queen and her lawful successors.
For more on this interesting subject read
http://hubpages.com/hub/Prince-Charles-not-to-be-The-King
Dont ruin this happy family.
More hubs with a Royal Theme.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
I believe that our species is by it,s nature heirarchical, and monarchy is it,s highest expression. If you glance through history, especially twentieth century, you will see all the grief that forgetting that fact brought to Europe, and a lot of other countries as well. It should be constitutional monarchy, because people have democratic rights as well, but monarchy is definitely best.
Thanks for your very interesting comment.
Hi, I think the problem is these days, is the fact that everything is happening so quickly, from the TV, to the internet and technology to lives in general, that's why they want to skip a generation and have the young ones on the throne, it seems that to be older these days is old fashioned! good luck to them both on their wedding, cheers nell
I liked this hub, not least because I do actually like Prince Charles and his love of the environment, as well as his work with "The Prince's Trust". It seems the worst crime he was guilty of was having an affair with Camilla Parker Bowles whilst married to Diana. Now like most people I thought Diana was a wonderful and inspirational person, but Charles was clearly in love with Camilla before he ever married Diana, although sadly for him marrying Camilla would have been considered an inappropriate marriage, so, against his basic instincts he had to 'do his duty' and marry a virgin from an appropriate background. This was doomed to fail in a modern age, and I feel rather sorry for him because of the bad press he received as a result, (after all, a good chunk of the people throwing virtual 'stones' have had affairs themselves, or are divorced because they fell in love with other people).
I for one feel that Prince Charles does deserve his time as King, and that William will one day make an excellent King in his own right, but for now let him enjoy being young and married without such a huge burden of responsibility, and allow Charles to fulfil his right to the throne, a 'job' he was brought up to do from birth to now.
Thanks Nell and mistyhorizon for your informed comments. I feel if people are prepared to give Charles a chance he will make an excellent king, and I have to admire The Duchess of Cornwall as well. Despite all the sticks that get continually thrown at her she behaves with exemplary dignity, and gets on with the job. She will one day make quite a good queen.
I'm about to make a comment that will probably not be understood in the context that it is intended.
I've read that the reason prince Charles married Diana was because she was from the line of Jesus decendants and as I said, the unusual reason which will probably not be believed by most people and that is that he wanted his children to have the D.N.A. that Diana could provide to his children and that would give the monarchy more creedence as a ruling power.
someonewhoknows.
The only thing that really made Jesus so special is that he was The only Son of God. He would not have had decendants for that reason alone.
Thanks for the links I will look at them when I get the time.
Your final wish is also mine. Though I wonder if a monarchy is still relevant and effective in the 21st century?
Thanks Martie.
China, Russia,Germany, Roumania,Bulgaria,Vietnam,Hungary,Greece,Italy,Yugoslavia,Laos
These are a just few of the countries who lost their monarchies during the twentieth century. They all sank into either political chaos like Italy, or had to endure the hells of either fascism or communism as a direct result. Having a monarch may seem old fashioned, but a head of state that is above politics provides an invaluable bulwark against extremism. It is not all about riding in carriages, and launching ships. In Spain, when some soldiers mutinied and took over parliament, everyone panicked except King Juan Carlos. He was able to save democracy by going on television and ordering the top generals not to support the coup. The same thing could happen here in the UK. If it did, the value of a constitutional monarch would be immediately apparent.
It is sad when TV and newspaper polls get involved in deciding the political form of government of a country. I do consiedere monarchy to be rather obsolete for modern times and to serve only as a symbol of tradition (at a very high price I should add): however, if a country decides to keep it, than it should also follow the rules that have been in place for centuries.
Skiping Prince Charles as the rightful successor to the thron is hypocritical and will brake the tradition while adding nothing to the prestige of the monarchy
I understand that in Canada all political figures are required to take an "oath" to the Queen of England in order to take their positions in government.I always thought of Canada as an Independant nation before I heard that!
Hi Petra. Thanks for your,as always, sound comments. Much appreciated.
someonewhoknows.
Canada is an independent nation. The Queen is The Queen of Canada, as she is separately Queen of 15 other totally independent countries. And she does a good job for all of them, as well.
most men behave hierachically. women tend to treat everyone as equals. no wonder we have trouble communicating with each other.
Hi cathylynn99
Thanks for your comment.
In human society the heirarchical way of doing things always seems to work best. I'm not one hundred percent sure what the reasons are for that, but the facts of history back me up.
Heirarchy plus legitimacy. Works all the time.
nothing succeeds like legitimate authority. you would prefer hierarchy to sharing power. you're, after all, a guy. there are plusses and minuses to each leadership style. hierarchical helps if you need a quick decision. collaborative takes into account more factors and ideas and may come up with a better long-term solution.
There will always have to be collaboration, because even the most powerful human will need someone to carry out their directions. Hitler could not have conquered half of Europe without the collaboration of the german army, and he couldnt rule any countries without the collaboration of some of the locals.
I believe in the symbolic hierarchy of position rather than power. Thats why I consider constitutional monarchy to be the best form of government.
For a very good example of how this can work for the good of a people read
i would contend that hitler's army were not collaborators, they were followers.
i'm using the first definition of collaborators from merriam-webster's collegiate dictionary: to work with jointly. i am implying an equal status between collaborators.
Hi cathylynn99
I,m probably being a bit pedantic, in my definition of collaboration, but I stick to my belief in the utility of legitimate hierarchy.
These positions are almost entirely symbolic, and people feel involved, but the fact is, it has nothing to do with how the UK is actually run.
Hi deblipp.
The positions might be symbolic, but the actual work done by the individuals concerned is very real.
I think that if you love royalty and values, you have to accept that it is better for the Royals to skip a generation, since Charles has shown public lack of respect for his wife and the mother of his kids (fanmily values)by keeping a relationship with a married dwoman. If Edward VIII abdicated, Charles need to do the same and let his kid govern.
Hi Nohora.
Thanks for reading.
So far as can be known, Prince William doesnt want to take the throne instead of his father. He would much prefer to enjoy time with his new wife, than take on all that responsibility prematurely.
Let things proceed in their natural fashion. It is best for all.
This article is right on point. Let the Settlement Act of 1701 play out as intended. As a man of Charles' generation (I am a year older) I resent the notion of casting him aside and treating him as a throwaway. To pressure him into abdicating would be unfair to Charles and also to William, who would lose the honors of being Prince Of Wales and Duke of Cornwall only to assume a throne that will be his in due time anyway. It is true that Charles will have little impact as king because he will elderly when he takes the throne--his mother might well live into the 90's or longer--, but he should have his place in history. I don't doubt that the Queen sees the future of the monarch in William, but what grandparent who lives to great age and sees their grandchildren grow to admirable adulthood, doesn't see more of the future in them than in their own aging children?
Thanks Wordsmith for your very good comments.
Since the wedding, opinion seems to have went back the other way.
I am hoping now that people will all unite in celebration of The Queen's Diamond Jubilee next year, and all controversy will be forgotten.
I think Prince Charles should NOT be King.
Hi Amy.
Do you have any reasons to give as to why the lawful succession to the throne should be subverted?
I'm sure my view is useless here at best, but I can't help but agree with you.
Why the heck anyone would think William over Charles is beyond me. I honestly don't understand what the objection is to Prince Charles.
I guess you and I both are somewhat conservative on this issue - but no apologies on this end, just lots of questions.
I read that Charles is showing signs of dementia and they fear he may have Alzheimer's That was why I thought there was talk of bypassing him for the throne instead of his unpopularity or infidelity.
Hi Wesman.
Thanks for the comment. I value your opinion as you always talk sense. The people that say Prince Charles should be bypassed are missing the whole point of monarchy. If they want to pick and choose who is to succeed, they should go to America or France.
Hello Pamela.
Thanks for reading. I heard that rumour as well but I haven't given it any credit. There is a "dirty tricks" campaign against Prince Charles and his wife at the present time and that is just part of it. He couldn't perform his public duties if that were the case.
The Darwin Club. RSS Feeds for Fans.
- Darwin Fans, Theory of Evolution Club, Free Thinkers Unite!
Charles Darwin fans unite on this hub. - 17 months ago
- Where does our energy, soul, spirit, essence, conscience, life force, personality, spiritual being, etc. GO when we die?
What is death? - 18 months ago
- Atheists are not Satanists and other myths of Christianity
I was raised in a multi-religious and secular family. - 19 months ago
someonewhoknows 18 months ago
Why do people put give up their personal power to their leaders?
A public duty is one thing,but personal liberty is another.There needs to be a balance between the two.
I can understand giving your loyalty to someone you trust,but too many people put their leaders on such a high pedestle that their leaders often take undue liberties with their power over the people which often leads to corruption in high places.