Posted on 09/04/2017 11:29:59 AM PDT by Eddie01
Queen Elizabeth II, 91, is the longest reigning monarch and allegedly held a meeting as recently as two weeks ago to begin the process.
Her Majesty is said to have decided that if she is still on the throne at the age of 95 then she will request the Regency Act to come into force.
The Regency Act would make Charles a Prince Regent and a King in all but name.
Under the Act, the Queen would remain head of state but would have reduced duties without abdicating the throne.
[snip]
More or less - she does have a wide range of powers but in most cases, they should only be exercised “on the advice of her Ministers” which basically means she rubber stamps what the government wants.
But if the system breaks down for any reason, she can step in resolve a crisis.
And it is far better that if she’s a potential crisis developing, she would warn her Prime Minister in private to not let it reach the stage that she might have to intervene.
And she must be ever mindful of the fact that the House of Commons could abolish the Monarchy by a simple vote. Her last act as Queen would be to sign that into law.
That means the ultimate power is also in a sense with the House of Commons. They can abolish the Monarchy. They’ve done so once before. They also took steps once to replace a King with another (James with William and Mary), and as recently as the 1930s it was made clear that if the government will not accept a King, he really has to abdicate and let the next in line take over.
The first DIVORCED monarch to be head of the Church of England since Henry VIII?
Figure the odds.
As far as Church of England canon law is concerned, he isn’t a divorcee, he’s a widower.
They were working out new ‘legal principles’ to try and handle the potential problem but when Diana died, they did not need to.
Depending on your view of the surviving evidence (which is certainly not conclusive) Edward II and James I might have beaten him to that particular title.
Quite right. Although a bizarre (and I’m sure never seriously considered) plan for Edward VIII’s successor was revealed in a note discovered in the National Archives.
The note was from Sir Maurice Gwyer, a parliamentary counsel, to Sir Horace Wilson, adviser to Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. Gwyer obviously had no faith in the talents of the Duke of York (later George VI) the shy, stammering Bertie, and proposed that Queen Mary act as Regent after the abdication, until her youngest son, Prince George, the Duke of Kent, would ascend the throne on her death. The fact that the Duke of Kent already had an heir was seen as a stabilising factor.
An utter nonsense of an idea, and one that seriously underestimated the talents and mettle of the man who served marvellously well as King George VI.
Totally get your username. Have you read the book? Not bad for a man his age.
I have indeed read the book. I think he was trying to emulate Benjamin Disraeli but didn’t really succeed, but, as you say, not bad at all for his age.
Fortunately his greatest works were ahead of him...
I’m sure she didn’t give it a lot of conscious thought at first-like any young woman, she had stars in her eyes-we’ve all been there...
As my neighbor pointed out-quite rightly, too-Brits are far more aware, proud of and into their very long recorded history than we are for obvious reasons-I’m sure Diana was no exception. I’m also sure she took more than a cursory glance at that history and saw that damn near all of the kings were horndogs at the very least-and there is no doubt that some well-meaning friend told her about the Cammie situation-she admitted many times that she knew what the deal was with her. It has also been customary for the wives of noblemen to look the other way as far as their husband’s mistresses for centuries-they are not like we are here...
I understand it was basically an arranged marriage, but that is no reason to not be prepared to deal with the obvious facts. You agree to the marriage without insisting on certain things, you agree to the status quo. I don’t know a 19 yr old woman-virgin or not-who would not give at least some consideration to glaring facts. I don’t think Diana was deliberately calculating-just someone wanting attention when she wasn’t able to get a king to go against centuries of royal privilege-that doesn’t qualify her for sainthood...
Nobody has nominated her for sainthood. But Charles acted badly, royal precedent or not. He had many years to sow his wild oats and then behave appropriately, or at least discreetly. His grandfather, Elizabeth’s father, did not dishonor the Queen Mother. His father Phillip has kept his rumored dalliances completely out of the limelight, and never has wavered in serving the Queen with distinction over 60+ years. And no queen has been beheaded for disappointing the King since Henry VIII. Charles was not “entitled” to humiliate a young girl and enter falsely into a non-committal union at the altar of the Church of England, as heir to the title Defender of the Faith. He has played the weasel at every level, including the Church.
I suppose there would be a lot to say about any of us, if we had had to make all of our personal mistakes on a spot-lighted world stage, under temptations that most of us can’t even imagine.
His friend has told us that, as he knows Charles today, the Prince is a good man. That’s enough for me. Past is done.
Such LOLs over here!
I’m no fan of Charles. But I’m a big fan of the red poppy, so thanks for indicating you were not disparaging it.
I agree, naturalman. But as I have written to you before, I think Charles and Camilla have no chance of majority acceptance unless Charles televises an apology to the British people for his past behavior. He should not wait until his mother dies or steps down, but do it soon. One has only to read the comment sections from the public in the wake of Diana's death anniversary to see that he endangers the monarchy by being too proud to repent publicly. Camilla, too, the witch. She had no excuse whatsoever, and boasted about being descended from a prior courtesan of a prior king.
I don’t like Charles, either-he is more in the mold of the less admirable royals of the past than he likes to think-just another royal who thinks he IS entitled to do anything he wants to anyone below him in rank-and I’m also convinced he is not playing with a full deck...
People-especially a lot of Brits-have all but canonized Diana-I find it annoying-she was not a totally unknowing victim in the situation though-she played the game, too after awhile-my neighbor pointed out that was endlessly published after the “squidgy” tapes of her phone conversations with some guy or another.
If Phillip, his grandfather, or any other royal had been subjected to the media coverage of today’s world, they wouldn’t have been able to keep mistresses or anything else out of the public eye unless they’d taken a private jet to a cabin in Siberia for their liaisons-and not even then if they’d texted the plan to anyone or left on the GPS of a cell phone...
It's his acceptance by his own resentful people that is at issue, and it's why he should publicly apologize for his past behavior in that particular instance that is still rankling so many ordinary Britons. Defending his adultery on the grounds that other kings got to do so (and now he's married to his adulterous mistress!) just throws royal "privilege" in the faces of the working stiffs who are already burdened with the escapades of the elites and the oppressions of the EU. Their nation has been infiltrated out from under them, and their sense of a culturally inherited Christian common decency is all many ethnic Britons have left.
Diana did not initiate the adultery phase of her marriage, Charles did; she unfortunately descended to it after her husband's liason became more or less permanent and was thrown in her face by both Charles and Camilla. Nor did she boast of her ancestor's behavior as a rationale.
The double standard is alive on FR.
And no, the people's feelings not only have not mellowed, but the calls for the end of the British monarchy are regularly linked to the prospect of Charles and Camilla on the throne.
Well, I’m not a Brit; but I think there has long been a faction wanting to end the Monarchy, with not much to do with Charles.
I doubt it will happen anytime soon.
Phillip may have had a few naughty flings, but no established mistress, and no arrogant claim to entitlement like his son. Phillip’s own mother and father broke up their marriage and he was homeless and penniless for part of his youth. Perhaps out of gratitude, he has stood up and taken his role as a husband with a great deal of grace.
That said, there are dark corners to many aspects of the Windsor-Mountbattens, and I’m not vouching for any of them across the board. Rather, I am hoping that William and Kate can try to uplift the tone and stay loyally and faithfully married. As you have noted, the persecutions by the press are a growing evil. The media are ruining not just Britain and the U.S., but the entire civilized world and the very concept of freedom.
If the anti-Royalists make common cause with the sharia lobby, it is only a matter of years, not decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.