Posted on 01/19/2014 10:33:59 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It is being dubbed the “gentle succession” – as the Queen gradually begins to relinquish some of her traditional duties as monarch.
As she approaches her 88th birthday in April after almost 62 years on the throne, she has agreed to hand over part of her workload in a historic “job-share” arrangement with Prince Charles.
In a royal first, he will be taking on more head of state-style responsibilities as the Palace starts to make tentative plans for his eventual succession.
Courtiers yesterday described the softly-softly move as “wise” – and “just plain common sense”.
The first sign of the partial power transfer will be the merging this week of the Queen and Charles’s press offices.
In future any announcements concerning the monarch and her 65-year-old eldest son will now come from the same source. Palace sources insist the switch will be entirely seamless.
Princes William and Harry will also play their part in the new set-up, with both assuming far more responsibility since they relinquished their military roles.
(Excerpt) Read more at mirror.co.uk ...
Well, I am not certain but it seems she served as as symbolic sovereign rather than take the allotted role in governance.
Even though there was a constitutional monarchy, The king can be king and have a voice
For the most part he doesn't. You just don't hear much about what he does most of the time. You don't hear much about his visits to British troops and veterans for example - which he does far more than he makes speeches about the environment.
If His Royal Highness was an American citizen, he would be an Obama-boosting liberal Democrat.
No, he most certainly would not be. I won't describe the exact political affiliations he has, because constitutionally he's supposed to avoid that becoming public knowledge. The only position he is allowed to take politically publically is to support Her Majesty's Government. Unfortunately in recent years that means supporting the policies of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron in public. That has nothing to do with his personal beliefs, but it is his public role, and his constitutional role.
If he ejects all the Muslims from Great Britain and stops calling himself Defender of the FAITHS, I might reconsider my opinion of him.
First of all, he has never called himself 'Defender of the Faiths'. He has, once, in an interview about twenty years ago, used the term Defender of Faith. That's not the same thing. Defender of Faith, in the context that he made the statement, means standing up for freedom of religion - which is what he does.
Secondly as Prince of Wales, and even as King, he has absolutely no power to expel all Muslims from Britain. The British monarch is not an absolute monarch, but a constitutional one. They have a few reserve powers that can only be used in very specific circumstances. Parliament could - at least theoretically - do what you're suggesting. But the King can not.
Certainly the Vatican didn't, but plenty of Catholic Priests in Ireland still did. I know that true Catholicism would never support murder - but all religious beliefs can be corrupted by fallible humans and when you are losing friends because of it, it takes quite a lot to understand the fact that it is a corruption. And, by the way, the Prince would also be the first to admit that the Anglican faith has been perverted in exactly the same way by a different group of terrorists in Ireland.
And, please, no more lectures on the wonders of Prince Charles. I have enough problems following American politics. If you want to talk about Queen Elizabeth, I’ll engage.
This is a thread about the Prince of Wales, in part, and I'm going to respond to that. As for Her Majesty, while I have met her, I do not know her well. I've met her through her sons and have talked to her a few times, but could claim nothing approaching an insight into her.
You're right, there is a difference, but even in US terms, the Prince is a conservative.
Except on environmental issues, and to some extent on the issue of Islam (although his position on that is far more nuanced than I think a lot of people here would realise - and he utterly despises Islamic extremism and terrorism with a ferocity that I think would stun a lot of people - when you and your entire family are a potential assassination target for terrorists trying to make a point, I think it gives you an interesting and unusual insight into it), he'd fit in extremely well here on Freerepublic - if he was allowed to.
I have to be very careful, because constitutionally his exact views need to stay private, and I don't want to betray confidence, otherwise I'd give a long list of positions where I know he would agree with the American conservative line. So I'll just point out that one of his favourite recreational activities is hunting, and allow you to draw your own conclusions about what he thinks of laws that limit the rights of people to own firearms, and that he has two sons who have recently served their nation in uniform, as he did himself, and that he attends Church almost every Sunday in a nation where it has become highly unfashionable to do so - this is all publically available information, so I think I can say it. There's a lot more I can't.
Bwahaha! We fought two wars to get rid of the British monarchy. Who cares what they think, say or believe. :-)
So when is it time for us to tell Elizabeth, Charles and the rest of them that their little pretend game of “royal family” is looking rather silly here in 2014. How long do we let the fantasy continue?
The succession is set by Acts of Parliament (The Bill of Rights of 1689, The Act of Settlement of 1701, the Act of Union of 1800, and His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act of 1936 - although this no longer has any practical purpose as Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, died without fathering children - and the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013).
In simple terms what these acts state is that succession passes from a Monarch to their descendants first, then to their siblings, and then to their siblings descendants - if necessary it can go on and on - the actual succession is known to somewhere around 4000 places at the moment, because the laws are so clear, it's not that hard to work out.
I'll just list the first 25 people in the current line of succession, because that's enough to give a fairly clear idea of how it works. (Names in brackets are the commonly known names of certain people, but may not be their actual official titles)
(1) (Prince Charles) The Prince of Wales (Son of the Queen)
(2) (Prince William) The Duke of Cambridge (Grandson of the Queen)
(3) Prince George of Cambridge (Great-Grandson of the Queen)
(4) Prince Henry of Wales (Grandson of the Queen)
(5) (Prince Andrew) The Duke of York (Son of the Queen)
(6) Princess Beatrice of York (Granddaughter of the Queen)
(7) Princess Eugenie of York (Granddaughter of the Queen)
(8) (Prince Edward) The Earl of Wessex (Son of the Queen)
(9) (Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor (technically Prince James of Wessex, though title is not used at parent's request)) Viscount Severn (Grandson of the Queen)
(10) (technically Princess Louise of Wessex, though title is not used at parent's request) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (Granddaughter of the Queen)
(11) (Princess Anne) The Princess Royal (Daughter of the Queen)
(12) Peter Phillips (Grandson of the Queen) (13) Savannah Phillips (Great-Granddaughter of the Queen)
(14) Isla Phillips (Great-Granddaughter of the Queen)
(15) Zara Tindall (Granddaughter of the Queen)
(16) (not named yet - only just born) Daughter of Zara Tindall (Great-Grandaughter of the Queen)
(17) (David Armstrong-Jones) Viscount Linley (Nephew of the Queen through her late sister, Princess Margaret)
(18) Charles Armstrong-Jones (Great-Nephew of the Queen)
(19) Margarita Armstrong-Jones (Great-Niece of the Queen)
(20) Lady Sarah Chatto (Niece of the Queen through her late sister, Princess Margaret)
(21) Samuel Chatto (Great-Nephew of the Queen)
(22) Arthur Chatto (Great-Nephew of the Queen)
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900–1974)1952 (23) (Prince Richard) The Duke of Gloucester (First Cousin, of the Queen (through her late Uncle, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, son of King George V)
(24) (Alexander Windsor) Earl of Ulster (First Cousin, once removed of the Queen)
(25) (Xan Windsor) Lord Culloden (First Cousin, twice removed of the Queen)
If any of these people die (or becomes Catholic due to the provisions of the Act of Settlement), everybody moves up a step. So if Charles dies before the Queen does, William instantly becomes the heir. For the succession (at present) to pass to Prince Andrew as Charles brother, Charles, William, George, and Harry would all have to die.
Parliament can change the laws of succession - and is currently in the process of doing so, slightly (up until now a boy always took precedence over his older sisters which is why Andrew and Edward are ahead of their older sister Anne - this remains the case with people already born to avoid changing the order but from now on, girls will have equal status - so the currently unnamed daughter of Zara Tindall will not be leapfrogged by any younger brothers) - but unless they do, this is how it works.
She can't. The Queen does not have the power to alter the succession. Parliament does, but the Queen does not.
She doesn't have to - and in fact she can't. The law of succession is not in the Queen's control. She doesn't say who becomes King after her - the line of succession is set by Acts of Parliament.
If he had had the power, King George V, would have probably stopped his son Edward becoming King. As it was, Edward did become King, even if circumstances did eventually lead to his abdication.
The Prince, as a young man at Cambridge, did ask his parents if he could join the Labour Union. He was denied that. So, from an early age, we know he may very well have leaned left. He may have changed, but I doubt it.
Of course, on the other hand, we also know that servants hold his urine specimans during examinations, he has 4 eggs prepared every morning to decide which one meets his specifications and Diana got fed up with him throwing things at his valet.
On the other hand, his Royal Duchy products are wonderful and I wish more were imported to this country.
So, I write in answer: So when is it time for Elizabeth, Charles and the "rest of them" to tell Americans that Obama's and Moochelle Antoinette's little pretend game of "royal family" is looking rather silly in 2014? How long do we let our own "royal family's fantasy" continue?
People with a glass White House Palace in their midst shouldn't throw stones at Buckingham.
Leni
you’re not really scotsman under a new name, are you?!
Thank you. That’s amazing and so sane of the Brits, to have a detailed process in place.
Even though there was a constitutional monarchy, The king can be king and have a voice
No, they can't. You misunderstand how it works. The Monarch is not allowed to have a voice separate from their government. This is why "The Queen's Speech" given at each State Opening of Parliament is written by the Prime Minister (or rather by the Prime Minister's Staff) and the Queen merely delivers it). That is her allotted role in government.
The Reserve Powers of the Crown do exist, but are only used in very defined circumstances, which rarely arise. The Queen has used her reserve powers on a few occasions in appropriate situations, but she has always acted according to the Constitution.
She has the right as monarch, to be kept informed, to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn. This is why she has a weekly private meeting with her Prime Minister. At those private meetings, the Queen is allowed to tell her Prime Minister whether she agrees with him or does not, to present her ideas, and to warn against policies she disagrees with - but this is done entirely in private, and the Prime Minister does not have to listen - and it should never be done in public.
I've never heard that - and a search for Labour Union at Cambridge reveals no organisation I can find of that name. He was, I believe, a member of the Cambridge Union, which is the oldest debating society in Britain, but that's hardly a left wing organisation - it takes in people from both sides of politics. But he may well have been left wing as a young man - I didn't really know him then. He certainly isn't now.
Of course, on the other hand, we also know that servants hold his urine specimans during examinations, he has 4 eggs prepared every morning to decide which one meets his specifications and Diana got fed up with him throwing things at his valet.
I've had breakfast with him more than once. He does not have four eggs prepared every morning. That story comes from Jeremy Paxman, a BBC journalist, who actually said it was seven eggs. I've never attended one of his medical examinations, but I doubt the other stories are true either.
I’ve been here for nearly 10 years now - but, no, I’m certainly not Scotsman. I do find myself agreeing with him on quite a few issues, having seen him in many threads, but I am Australian born, of English heritage (and a dual citizen of both Australia and the UK), without, as far as I know, a Scottish bone in my body.
A lot of what you said might be true, and he might well be your mate, but when it comes down to it, image is vital for the institution of monarchy to survive.
The way he treated Diana, the cringeworthy comment about wishing to become Camilla’s ‘tampon’ just make it far too difficult to treat Chuckles the Clown Prince very seriously.
Australia will probably the first to ditch the monarchy when the Queen dies, because whereas the Queen can be seen to have been selflessly devoted to her country in a quiet, dignified manner, Chuckles just doesn’t have that going for him. Having him on the throne will destroy the monarchy. If the throne is passed to Wills, the Monarchy will survive, at least until the next nutcase in line to the throne comes along in a succeeding generation.
I agree with you and also with myself. Let’s end the fantasy and throw the pretenders out of Buckingham Palace AND the White House!
Yes, that's true to some extent - but doing right is more important than seeming right. People do judge based on surface appearances - that's a reality, but it's also why when I see deeper than is common I say so.
The way he treated Diana,
You don't know how he treated the Princess. Nor do I - I did not know them well at the time. What we know is what the media - a media that has almost deified or canonised her - tries to tell us what happened. From what I know from people who did know them both at the time and from my own limited observations, the Princess was a good and loving mother - but in terms of their marriage, there was fault on both sides. But we don't know. We know what the media tells us unless we were there.
the cringeworthy comment about wishing to become Camilla’s ‘tampon’ just make it far too difficult to treat Chuckles the Clown Prince very seriously.
A couple of comments on that. First of all, a lot of British humour is rather crude - take a good look at Monty Python as a clear example (and the Prince, by the way, is a major fan of traditional British humour). Secondly that comment was meant to be entirely private between two people who understood each other intimately. It only became public because a vile and criminal violation of privacy.
Australia will probably the first to ditch the monarchy when the Queen dies, because whereas the Queen can be seen to have been selflessly devoted to her country in a quiet, dignified manner, Chuckles just doesn’t have that going for him. Having him on the throne will destroy the monarchy. If the throne is passed to Wills, the Monarchy will survive, at least until the next nutcase in line to the throne comes along in a succeeding generation.
Australia has already rejected the idea of a Republic once - and it wasn't because of who the Monarch is. It's because the Constitutional Monarchy gives us stable government, and the proposed alternatives wouldn't. If anybody ever comes up with an alternative that gives us the same stability and presents it at referendum it will pass even if the Queen is still on the throne. I probably won't vote for it myself, because I am actually a dedicated Constitutional Monarchist, but the key to Australia changing is a model Australia wants. The Referendum failed in 1999 even though there was majority support for the symbolic idea of a Republic because the model presented was seen as seriously flawed, not because of the Queen.
And the same is true in Britain. The personal popularity of the Monarch is not unimportant (but I actually believe Charles will be popular for a number of reasons) but far more important, is whether an alternative looks like a better choice in terms of good government and stability - and that's a hard sell.
Not exactly the same thing, but she sure hurts my eyes.
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.