Why Prince George will never be king (http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/10/why-prince-george-will-never-be-king)
QuoteBut have not the Cambridges rescued the monarchy's image? There is no evidence that William and Catherine have reconnected the royals with the people. The Cambridges are very much celebrities appealing to a younger generation. But there is only anecdotal evidence that they have improved the image of the monarchy. Clearly, the Queen has done that and there is nothing to suggest that the Prince of Wales will sustain that relationship. After his coronation, the polling history of the royals will be re-written.
After Charles will come the universally popular William and Catherine. Young, smiling, connecting as young parents openly preferring a night in with a fish supper. That's a now image. Given the longevity of the British royals, they will both be well into middle age by the time William is crowned and the pollsters will have quite different questions to ask.
On similar actuarial evidence, George could be well into his 60s before crowning – certainly 60 years from now. Here is the earth in the debate over royalty's future.
I wish they had a retirement age :hehe:
Yes, as sure as the sun comes up and the the next day changes to a new one, the BRF will long reign and Prince George will become King George.
I am not saying I am pro or anti monarchist because it really does not matter...my belief does not matter.
The British people can never and will never be alllowed or have another way to rid themselves of the BRF, the class system of the nobility and the whole sytem.
I'm starting to doubt that William with make it there, let alone George.
I don't think George will make it there, if William keeps being a decorative recluse, by the time he and the wife decide to work regularly to make themselves relevant through work instead of because they look good, they might be too old for people to care about people who are no longer attractive, it is their youth and looks that make people want to see them, neither has any other achievement unlike Charles, if that is gone by the time they decide to stop playing Greta Garbo and Howard Hughes,
I don't see the Monarchy existing happily ever after. Too many people underestimate how much of a deterrent of criticism and of a real debate on the value of the Monarchy HM is.
Charles is facing a very difficult time ahead unless William is already an asset. not a decorative asset but one with a visible, palpable and actionable purpose of his own before HM passes.
After she passes, anything he does will be received as bandages on a wounded Monarchy, the biggest wound of all being her death because Charles has many detractors and it will be impossible to muzzle them when HM is no longer here, too many are simply biding their time because they know when she passes, there will be no public outcry at their suggestions simply because Charles doesn't command the love and respect that HM does which makes debates on the Monarchy easily ended by the mention of how valuable she is.
William needs to have an agenda and a purpose that is real and that can be asset to Charles in defending the Monarchy after HM passes, otherwise George won't be King...
Once again - perfection :notworthy: :notworthy: :love6:
The child is three Months old for God sake !!! :loco:
Quote from: Limabeany on October 31, 2013, 11:05:49 PM
I don't think George will make it there, if William keeps being a decorative recluse, by the time he and the wife decide to work regularly to make themselves relevant through work instead of because they look good, they might be too old for people to care about people who are no longer attractive, it is their youth and looks that make people want to see them, neither has any other achievement unlike Charles, if that is gone by the time they decide to stop playing Greta Garbo and Howard Hughes,
I don't see the Monarchy existing happily ever after. Too many people underestimate how much of a deterrent of criticism and of a real debate on the value of the Monarchy HM is.
Charles is facing a very difficult time ahead unless William is already an asset. not a decorative asset but one with a visible, palpable and actionable purpose of his own before HM passes.
After she passes, anything he does will be received as bandages on a wounded Monarchy, the biggest wound of all being her death because Charles has many detractors and it will be impossible to muzzle them when HM is no longer here, too many are simply biding their time because they know when she passes, there will be no public outcry at their suggestions simply because Charles doesn't command the love and respect that HM does which makes debates on the Monarchy easily ended by the mention of how valuable she is.
William needs to have an agenda and a purpose that is real and that can be asset to Charles in defending the Monarchy after HM passes, otherwise George won't be King...
:goodpost: as usual
But I feel William doesn't want it he and kate would be fine living the highlife without any work and they have the inheritance to do it he's happy to be middleton and normal , my theory is after HM passes on we will see William walking away and passing it on to harry goal one knows if he's already is secretly being prepped for the job of King there are royal watchers who suggested that they were preparing harry
William CANNOT "pass it to Harry". He might abdicate, though I think it is unlikely. The monarchy MIGHT end in another 30 years, that's a possiblity but not I think likely. But if Will were to abdicate, he woudl have to do so in favour of his own son.
Why worry about it unless I have the same luck my grandmother had I doubt I will see it. She was born in 1884 and died in 1966 so she lived through the last years of Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, King George V, King Edward VIII, King George VI and part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.
The Monarchy will continue for centuries and centuries to come, just as it has done for the past few centuries. :windsor1:
Am I correct is thinking only an act of Parliament could end the monarchy? If so, George will be there regardless of the name he chooses.
However it ends, I don't think George will be King but if he is, he'll be the last. I don't see people hanging on to that for dear life in 50 years...
Quote from: Mike on November 01, 2013, 07:50:25 PM
Am I correct is thinking only an act of Parliament could end the monarchy? If so, George will be there regardless of the name he chooses.
Yes of course. The monarchy is established by law and can only be removed by law. George will be king, almost certainly because I think it is unlikely that people will want to get rid of it.
People are queuing at food banks the Red Cross are collecting for hungry families this year. Do you really believe the royals will be tolerated into the future? We have William and Kate (Greta and Howard) who seem beyond reluctant to do get their backsides into gear anytime soon.
The people at the palace(s) will have a job on their hands to convince the future generations that these "royals" are relevant in their liifetime.
I agree, times are changing and it is dellusional to think the Monarchy will be around forever. :shrug:
For centuries people have speculated about the end of the Monarchy, especially when there are plenty of living direct heirs to the throne. It was said the Monarchy would not survive after King George III, then again after Queen Victoria, and now of course after Queen Elizabeth II, or a future King George VII (Prince Charles) or a possible King George VIII (Prince George)
The Monarchy is the most stable of institutions and has kept these old islands secure and stable for almost two thousand years. Long may it continue.
For centuries the Monarchy had a real tangible purpose other than to wave at people and show up places for photo ops. The Monarchy may be a long-running institution but it is not the most stable institution because it is not a necessary or relevant institution.
Make of the Royal Family what you will, but the institution of Monarchy as such is still very relevant and important even in our Modern times. It is the guardian of our freedoms and liberties. It prevents greedy politicians from obtaining absolute power. It is the ultimate system of checks and balances in our political set up.
The Monarchy also opens many doors when it comes to international diplomacy, hence why members of the Royal Family are often asked to travel abroad on behalf of the Government. Another added benefit is the huge support to Charities the Royal Family provide, as well as the bonus of the increase in morale in our Armed Services, the Police and other sectors of our Public Services. Not to mention the tried and tested theory of the Monarchy being the beacon of absolute national stability.
On top of that, we have the most highly recognisably and respected Head of State in the world, which coincidently helps put Britain on the map.
It is entirely dependant on whether the heir to the position is qualified and capable of doing all that you attribute to him (which is nothing another institution that is based on merit and not on bloodline (qualified or not) can't do). If the heir is not capable the system of checks and balances will not work. So, it is a sketchy system of checks and balances as sketchy and dodgy as if politicians were running it and, ay least the politicians can be booted out.
Elizabeth will not live forever and she is the only person in the family, aside from Anne, about whom you can use the words respected, blah blah blah and not be sneered at by many.
So? I cant think of many heads of state who have plenty of people who don't respect them or think well of them. The fact is that the monarchy is at present the institution that the British people are accepting, to provide a head of state. If that changes, and the bulk of Brits DONT want it any more, it will be removed. for now, however I see no signs that it si not quite well accepted.
Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2013, 01:50:36 PM
So? I cant think of many heads of state who have plenty of people who don't respect them or think well of them.
But they can be booted out.
Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2013, 01:50:36 PMfor now, however I see no signs that it si not quite well accepted.
The Queen is still alive.
yes and so can the RF if the British public don't want a monarchy. If they were really hostile to the idea of the RF and to Charles or William succeeding whey wait for the Queen to die? there was a time when it did look as if Charles' marital woes were going to come against him, and that he might not be King but the fact that by the time he married Camilla, the public were indifferent, shows that he's accepted as the queen's heir...
When the Queen dies, the real future of the Monarchy will be evident, no one can claim that people will be as adoring of either heir.
I see no sign that they are "adoring"of the queen. She's respected by many people. Most people probably don't think of her form one year to the next. Some like her a lot, and admire her, on a personal level - others like the monarchy as an institution and prefer ti to a republic. The monarch does not have to be "adored" just accepted as king or queen.
And I don't see again why the "British republicans" are so shy about their cause that they are waiting for the Queen to die. If they want to end the monarchy it will be done properly and legally as indeed it must. So they would be setting up a political party, aiming at getting a majority in Parliament, and working towards this over the next few years. I see no signs of this. The Tories are in power with some Liberal Dems and probably will win the next Election. The Labour party is not particularly republican minded....
It is not about adoring but about respecting, the respect for the Queen is a buffer against openly criticizing the others. There will be no veiled criticism when she is gone, it will all be done in the open and it won't be as it is now. People who criticize are muted or shut up by a mere mention of the Queen now, there will be no such buffer in the future.
The queen gets and has had plenty of criticism. She's been attacked over the years for bad handling of her family, for Phil's gaffes, for just being rich and well born. Noone in British life escapes a lot of criticism. And again, if there are so many republicans, why aren't they in Parliament, working for an oficical end ot the monarchy?
Disclose all the exact costs of the Monarchy - no ifs or buts about it - then put it to the people of the UK and let them decide from the true facts and figures. Whils they hide behind the FOI and security costs - we have no true idea how much this nonsense really costs us. What are they hiding?
I dont have the costs.
Nor do I. That's the problem - they refuse to tell us!
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2013, 06:03:58 PM
The 60p/year nonsense is not true (only working adults pay that).
If the true costs were published it would be a whole different matter. For what to help the young ones on and off helicopters and shop.
Double post auto-merged: November 03, 2013, 09:00:00 PM
This nonsense about stability - she is living in the biggest house down the mall whilst others are living in cardboard boxes. This good Christian Lady should be opening her doors to the needy....No?
Once she has gone, Charles might scrap in by the skin of his teeth. William and George = na - aint going to happen - IMO
Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2013, 05:29:52 PM
The queen gets and has had plenty of criticism. She's been attacked over the years for bad handling of her family, for Phil's gaffes, for just being rich and well born. Noone in British life escapes a lot of criticism. And again, if there are so many republicans, why aren't they in Parliament, working for an oficical end ot the monarchy?
They will come out of the woodwork...
Quote from: Limabeany on November 03, 2013, 02:03:49 PM
When the Queen dies, the real future of the Monarchy will be evident, no one can claim that people will be as adoring of either heir.
:goodpost:.
well nothing to worry about then. the monarchy wont outlast the Queen's life.
Why is it that people keep bringing up the cost of the Monarchy? Is it their only argument? ... Everything in this world cost money, get over it!
The cost of supporting a Republic is a lot more than keeping the Monarchy. £95 million to support the French Presidency, and that excludes security, which by the way, figures are also NOT released! :thumbsup:
The Monarchy will cost the taxpayer just under £36 million for the next financial period. Over that of course there is the cost of security which is covered by the Government and figures are not released. That is the fault of the Government, and not the Monarchy! So to criticize the Queen for this is totally inappropriate. The cost of security will always be there, regardless of having a Queen or a President.
QuoteThis nonsense about stability - she is living in the biggest house down the mall whilst others are living in cardboard boxes. This good Christian Lady should be opening her doors to the needy....No?
That is for homeless shelter to attend to, not the residence of our Head of State. You don't see Obama or Hollande opening up their Palaces for the homeless either. So, lets keep it real! :P
QuoteDisclose all the exact costs of the Monarchy - no ifs or buts about it - then put it to the people of the UK and let them decide from the true facts and figures. Whils they hide behind the FOI and security costs - we have no true idea how much this nonsense really costs us. What are they hiding?
They already disclose all the information about their finances. Every penny spent to support the work of the Head of State is posted for the public to see. Security costs are not however released, and it wont ever be released, not for the Monarchy, not for Parliament, etc! That is government policy, not something the Monarchy puts forward.
Freedom of Information is a tool that can be used to dig deeper into the private lives of these people, hence why there are restrictions on the type of information available. You will find that these restrictions are only application for personal matters like correspondence and not financial matters, so really there is no issue here.
QuoteIt is not about adoring but about respecting, the respect for the Queen is a buffer against openly criticizing the others.
Plenty of people mock the Sovereign, plenty of people criticize the Queen. As Her Majesty the Queen once said in a speech:
Quote from: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II - Speech at the Guildhall, London 1992There can be no doubt, of course, that criticism is good for people and institutions that are part of public life. No institution - City, Monarchy, whatever - should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don't.
But we are all part of the same fabric of our national society and that scrutiny, by one part of another, can be just as effective if it is made with a touch of gentleness, good humour and understanding.
This sort of questioning can also act, and it should do so, as an effective engine for change.
She wouldn't be saying such a thing if she was universally adored, respected and not criticized one bit.
Quote from: Limabeany on November 03, 2013, 10:37:01 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 03, 2013, 05:29:52 PM
The queen gets and has had plenty of criticism. She's been attacked over the years for bad handling of her family, for Phil's gaffes, for just being rich and well born. Noone in British life escapes a lot of criticism. And again, if there are so many republicans, why aren't they in Parliament, working for an oficical end ot the monarchy?
They will come out of the woodwork...
why will they Wait till then? It takes time to prepare and put through legislation. It takes time ot get parliamentary and public support. Do you think that they are just going to say on the Queen's death "Oh that's the end of the monarchy." it does not work that way.
Of course not! They will begin to openly criticize and undermine Charles... That is how it will begin...
I agree! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.
I'm trying to avoid this thread - my blood pressure can not take it. :faint:
That okay, Charlie can be the last.
That way Diana will never be "king's mother". And the Spencer DNA will never be associated with a monarch, only as the DNA that destroyed the British Monarchy. :shemademe: :teehee:
??? Howe on earht can DNA destroy a monarchy? OK you don't like Diana. That's no reason why her son, who is heir to the throne, after his father, should be denied his rightful place. There are petny of cases where a royal partner has been unpopular, it does not mean that the hereditary principle is to be undermined.
Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 07:30:44 AM
Quote from: sophiechloe on November 04, 2013, 08:12:54 PM
I agree! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.
I'm trying to avoid this thread - my blood pressure can not take it. :faint:
Why is this all going to be so slow? If the monarch is as bad as you seem to think it, and if it is as unpopular, then surely it ought to be ended as soon as possible. And that there would be massive public support for it, a republican party in parliament etc. Given that C's reign is likely to be quite short, these very shy republicans will harldy have time to get their act togehter, literally, by the time its ended.
600 years ago Republicans were still claiming that they needed time to develop, and that their ideas would become reality 'in time' ... well, erm... 600 years later, and what happened? Only about 15% of the population actively claim to dislike the Monarchy, but aren't too bothered about it really as they lack organisation, for heavens sake they dont even have any representation in Parliament. :shrug:
Exactly Windsor. I've no objection to a republic per se, but I can see no sign that people really care, and the so called Republicans can't seem to get off their butts enough to organise anything.
Quote from: Queen Camilla on November 05, 2013, 03:14:35 AMThat way Diana will never be "king's mother".
That issue is so important to you? JEEZ! :huh:
QuoteAnd the Spencer DNA will never be associated with a monarch, only as the DNA that destroyed the British Monarchy.
On this issue, you might wish to reexamine the Windsor DNA more closely. Just a passing thought. :notamused:
Getting back on topic, as for George, as he matures I can't help but wonder what advice he will get from his uncle Harry.
Quote from: Queen Camilla on November 05, 2013, 03:14:35 AM
That okay, Charlie can be the last.
That way Diana will never be "king's mother". And the Spencer DNA will never be associated with a monarch, only as the DNA that destroyed the British Monarchy. :shemademe: :teehee:
HUH! Charles and Diana are both descended on several lines from Henry VII so maybe Charles can get rid of some of the "foul" Spencer DNA himself. They are related distantly. I think Charles did more than his share of destructive behavior. And then there were some of his ancestors as well...
Unless you can cross out the Spencers from all DNA charts, they are going to be on all the charts as ancestors.
And Winston Churchill was a Spencer too.
Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 03:44:02 PM
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2013, 07:28:54 AM
??? Howe on earht can DNA destroy a monarchy? OK you don't like Diana. That's no reason why her son, who is heir to the throne, after his father, should be denied his rightful place. There are petny of cases where a royal partner has been unpopular, it does not mean that the hereditary principle is to be undermined.
Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 07:30:44 AM
Quote from: sophiechloe on November 04, 2013, 08:12:54 PM
I agree! Slowly, slowly catchy monkey.
I'm trying to avoid this thread - my blood pressure can not take it. :faint:
Why is this all going to be so slow? If the monarch is as bad as you seem to think it, and if it is as unpopular, then surely it ought to be ended as soon as possible. And that there would be massive public support for it, a republican party in parliament etc. Given that C's reign is likely to be quite short, these very shy republicans will harldy have time to get their act togehter, literally, by the time its ended.
It is a given that not everybody agrees with QC on naming Diana the "unpopular partner." Some give that distinction to Charles.
He is just another baby his grandfather isn't King for God sake ... let the three Months old be a three Months old ...
I agree, but how long will the child be allowed to be a child before his royal instructions begin?
Remember the photo ops of Will and Harry as babies and toddlers. As cute as it was, it is just parading out/exploitation of children just to keep the media at bay as they bleat about the "public's right to know".
It isn't just that. Throughout history "the heir" needed to be seen otherwise the public might think there was something wrong with the child.
Don't agree with that in this day and age. Back when the very lives of the public depended on the health of the monarch, that was true. Today - if the child had health issues making him unsuitable for being in the line of succession then he would be removed.
It is just the public wanting to see the child and the media knowing that and how much money they make. There is no other reason for the kid to be photographed.
Knowing Willy he will keep baby Middleton from the public until he can't anymore due to bad press and people who would start to talk ... personally with Willy as a father to the future King the future seems pretty grim ... he will run the whole thing on the ground first ...
I think it's apparent that William and Kate want to have as much of a "normal" family life as possible, considering who they are. But I doubt they'll hide George away from the public. So far, we've gotten the two photos that Michael Middleton shot, and aside from the five formal photos that were taken after the christening, we were allowed to see video that was taken as family members (including the three Cambridges) arrived for it, as well. I think that's pretty generous.
Cindy
Quote from: Mike on November 05, 2013, 03:34:32 PM
Quote from: Queen Camilla on November 05, 2013, 03:14:35 AMThat way Diana will never be "king's mother".
That issue is so important to you? JEEZ! :huh:
Getting back on topic, as for George, as he matures I can't help but wonder what advice he will get from his uncle Harry.
Well Mike I don't really know what advice you think that harry is going to give him. Why would he give him any advice? What sort of advice is a guy like Harry likely to give anyone?
But in regard ot the other points yes I agree that remark about the DNA is unusual and I cannot understand such Strong feelings esp when they are so negative.
But then I can't understand the posters who have made remarks about the "ugly Shand genes" and how they are glad that Cam's offspring wont be on the throne.
Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 05:36:01 PM
Oh Cindy do you mean the photos taken by Mr Middleton which people attacked here IIRC for being bad photos?
^^ Amabel, yes. They weren't professional, but in my opinion, that made them even more special, because they were taken with love.
Cindy
Quote from: Macrobug on November 05, 2013, 04:46:16 PM
Don't agree with that in this day and age. Back when the very lives of the public depended on the health of the monarch, that was true. Today - if the child had health issues making him unsuitable for being in the line of succession then he would be removed.
It is just the public wanting to see the child and the media knowing that and how much money they make. There is no other reason for the kid to be photographed.
Not always. There were issues with Prince Eddy (the extent of which will never be known IMO) back then and no attempts were made to remove him from succession line.
Generally though the public likes to see the royals, especially the senior ones, and not have them hidden away. Victoria was unpopular when she retreated from view for a time.
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2013, 05:34:10 PM
What sort of advice is a guy like Harry likely to give anyone?
People who have been through pain and made mistakes and consider work a valuable endeavor have more life experience from where to draw to give advice than a mother who thinks work is something the people who pay for her lifestyle do and whose most painful experience in life seems to be doubting his father would propose and a father who hasn't shown he thinks there is dignity in earning what you are given but that he was born entitled to what he is given...
Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 06:17:03 PM
Quote from: cinrit on November 05, 2013, 06:01:59 PM
^^ Amabel, yes. They weren't professional, but in my opinion, that made them even more special, because they were taken with love.
Cindy
They were not taken for their family album. That was a historical photo.
^ well said.
They were awful photos. Sure, they were taken with Love but more so the Middleton's marking their territory, too - IMO.
Amabel : people are not "attacking" but giving their opinions. It is not a prerequisite to agree with everything they do. The photos deserved to be criticised - IMO.
This is not a Royal Fan Site :hug:
The tax payers paying for where they live is GENEROUS...
Quote from: Limabeany on November 05, 2013, 06:16:21 PM
Quote from: cinrit on November 05, 2013, 06:01:59 PM
^^ Amabel, yes. They weren't professional, but in my opinion, that made them even more special, because they were taken with love.
Cindy
They were not taken for their family album. That was a historical photo.
They were taken with love, and that was my point. Just my opinion, I think any photograph taken with love is special. Historical or not.
Cindy
I think if you know a photo will have historical significance and will be the only one released of a figure such as the future King, you should be considerate enough to take good ones, either yourself or by someone who knows about it, cute is for your own family album, for this photo it was not enough but it is the only thing they made available.
Quote from: amabel on November 05, 2013, 05:34:10 PMWell Mike I don't really know what advice you think that harry is going to give him. Why would he give him any advice? What sort of advice is a guy like Harry likely to give anyone?
I'm just curious when George is old enough to understand his position, what Harry might tell him. Harry lives his life much outside the Windsor correctness and is a more free spirit. Would he impart these attitudes into his nephew or allow him to be completely swallowed up by "The Firm?" I don't know. Just thinking out loud.
I see no sign that Harry's any different to any other Windsor, except that he is still playing the "rakish boy" at nearly 30 getting drunk and messing around in the nude with strangers.. is that very sensible or admirable behaviour?
I should not think that he cares tuppence about giving advice to anyone, he strikes me as a good natured but essentially selfish young man who still has not grown up. Were you thinking on the lines of "Don't get caught with girls in the nude if they have Mobile phones that can take pictures George"???
Double post auto-merged: November 05, 2013, 08:52:37 PM
Quote from: Macrobug on November 05, 2013, 04:30:23 PM
Remember the photo ops of Will and Harry as babies and toddlers. As cute as it was, it is just parading out/exploitation of children just to keep the media at bay as they bleat about the "public's right to know".
Of course there are going to be pictures of them as children. They are the children of public figures, and they Will in the course of time become public figures themselves. The RF try to keep their children away from the press as much as possible, during their school years, but there are going to be photo calls, every now and then. Its not going to harm anyone
Amabel when you say man like harry what do you mean exactly ? :eyes:
I mean a good natured but thoughtless and selfish young man, who is still very immature.
Idk why would a Apache helicopter pilot who serves his country be thoughtless or selfish :censored2: even his work with prince sessio for AIDs (sentabale) :shrug:
Quote from: amabel on November 06, 2013, 08:57:59 AM
I mean a good natured but thoughtless and selfish young man, who is still very immature.
:eyes: ...
Quote from: amabel on November 06, 2013, 08:57:59 AM
I mean a good natured but thoughtless and selfish young man, who is still very immature.
That would be a fitting description of his father...
I'm afraid my original post was misread/misinterpreted. I was answering the question.
If George nor William become King then Charles would be the last monarch. I was referencing what Diana said during the Panorama interview.
If William does not become King then Diana will never be "King's mother". That is what DNA was about.
She can hardly become "Kings Mother" after her death. And I don't see what the problem is, or why you would wish for the monarchy to end, just because you have a dislike of Diana. In any case,it is moot, since the likelihood is that Charles will become King, then William and then George. I don't see the monarchy ending..
We can't predict the future but a recent poll shows a large majority of people think Prince George will in fact be King one day:
Confidence in British monarchy at all-time high, poll shows - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10206708/Confidence-in-British-monarchy-at-all-time-high-poll-shows.html)
God Save the Queen, future kings and Prince George! Poll reveals confidence in the monarchy is at an all-time high | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2380322/God-Save-Queen-future-kings-Prince-George-Poll-reveals-confidence-monarchy-time-high.html)
Britain will be constitutional monarchy as long as the people want it, and all indicators show the people want it, and the monarchy is here to stay.
The same thing was said about many things that are no longer... :teehee:
I seriously doubt William would ever abdicate. He may not want the job, but they have presumably been preparing him for it his whole life. Abdicating would also be (IMO) incredibly disrespectful of his father and especially his grandmother and I don't think he would do that.
I think the monarchy will be around for a very long time yet. The royals may not all be well-liked by the public, but you can't deny what an important institution the monarchy is for that country.
I agree it won't be soon, it will take a few decades but if George gets to be King, he will be the last. I really don't see people holding on to the Monarchy for the romance of it all into the next century or even in 50 years.
I believe Prince George will be King George.
There is nothing wrong with Prince Charles using his own name and thus being King Charles III instead of King George VII.
Prince William would be King William V because there were four previous monarchs named William.
George would thus be King George VII.
It would be interesting to find out if those in the discussion who were unsure of George's chance of becoming King, still felt the same way now that eight years have passed? The original article that was linked, has long disappeared so I don't know what the author had to say about why he/she/they believed that George might not be king.
There are many republicans in 2022 Britain in all sorts of careers, including journalism. I don?t believe that most would have changed their minds in eight years. At least one of the themes underpinning republicanism is that the tide of history is against monarchies. Look at the countries that rid themselves of the monarchical trappings, have any returned to the fold. With the exception of Spain? No?
Britain is so changed from the country it was in 1953 as to be almost unrecognisable. In another fifty years it will be changed again. George may well have to wait until he is nearly sixty before he succeeds to the throne and no one can predict the future.
Agreed
@Curryong. Considering the family's history of long life expediencies or unless the future monarchs choose to adopt the abdication as retirement policy, then it might be a long time before George ascends to the throne.
By the time Prince George becomes King George VII, he could possibly be a great-grandfather.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 25, 2022, 08:23:11 PM
By the time Prince George becomes King George VII, he could possibly be a great-grandfather.
...and we will all be long gone, but I hope the Monarchy survives and that he does become king, however far away that may be.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 25, 2022, 08:23:11 PM
By the time Prince George becomes King George VII, he could possibly be a great-grandfather.
Or hopefully his father might choose to establish a tradition of abdication/retirement so George could have the opportunity to reign as a younger man.
Also, will George be King George VII or King George VIII?
Prince Charles could decide to have George VII for his regnal name.
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 31, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Also, will George be King George VII or King George VIII?
Prince Charles could decide to have George VII for his regnal name.
we dont know. We'll probably find out in a few years when Charles becomes King....
Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 31, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
Also, will George be King George VII or King George VIII?
Prince Charles could decide to have George VII for his regnal name.
The Prince of Wales has been known as Charles his entire life. If he decides to use Charles III as his regnal name, then his grandson would be
George VII.
@LouisFerdinand I learned something today! Thanks for the insight.
Quote from: Blue Clover on May 04, 2022, 10:30:11 PM
@LouisFerdinand I learned something today! Thanks for the insight.
Again we dont know. I dont think that Charles will use a different name.. and whehter he does or not, we dont know what regnal name George will choose
It seems so outdated to change a name, like the whole world (non royal watchers) know him as Charles.
2022: People who change their names, usually at age 18 because their parents...fudged it.
At least Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and Prince Philip did not fudge the name of Charles.