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 ...
It would be interesting to know how much she did through back channels. Perhaps it wasn’t her style to be up front about things. None the less, I can see an argument for her doing things in the open, to make sure the perception you came away with, wasn’t the main take away from her years as Queen.
In retrospect she may fail on style points, referenced in this manner because that’s all it may wind up being when all is said and done, and the next leader’s style winds up being different.
Nothing has been canonized as for the King or Queen’s role, during her reign along these lines. At least, I’m not aware of it if it has been.
Perhaps the King to follow will be more outspoken. Ceremonial does have it’s advantages, not causing hostility. And I’m not sure butting heads would be all that productive. And if the King were to take strong public stands, that’s what it would ultimately lead to. And that could cause the King’s role to be diminished, him not being able to rule by edict, but to be subjected to an also ran position at the end of the day.
Perhaps the dignity of the court is thus strengthened by appearance, due to a non-confrontational stance. Admittedly it does cause the sovereign to be somewhat limited in power, but then that is by design is it not.
Thank you for your reply.
According to Wikipedia - through the Guardian, 2006: “The Prince has been known to steer clear of partisan involvement- allegedly ever since, as an undergraduate in the 1960s, he was warned off joining the Cambridge University Labour Club.” I well remember the flack at the time.
According to Paul Johnson, it was Diana who was upset with Charles’ treatment of his servants, particularly his valet.
Jeremy Paxman got his information about the eggs from a friend of Charles. Whether it is true or not, I don’t know. It just seems to fit with his imperial personality.
I was in England at the time the story broke that Charles had a servant hold his urine specimen during a routine doctor’s visit. It was carried by all the newspapers.
He’s not his mother.
Edward VIII's abdication speech may interest you - specifically the bits I have bolded.
At long last I am able to say a few words of my own. I have never wanted to withhold anything, but until now it has not been constitutionally possible for me to speak.
A few hours ago I discharged my last duty as King and Emperor, and now that I have been succeeded by my brother, the Duke of York, my first words must be to declare my allegiance to him. This I do with all my heart.
You all know the reasons which have impelled me to renounce the throne. But I want you to understand that in making up my mind I did not forget the country or the empire, which, as Prince of Wales and lately as King, I have for twenty-five years tried to serve.
But you must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love.
And I want you to know that the decision I have made has been mine and mine alone. This was a thing I had to judge entirely for myself. The other person most nearly concerned has tried up to the last to persuade me to take a different course.
I have made this, the most serious decision of my life, only upon the single thought of what would, in the end, be best for all.
This decision has been made less difficult to me by the sure knowledge that my brother, with his long training in the public affairs of this country and with his fine qualities, will be able to take my place forthwith without interruption or injury to the life and progress of the empire. And he has one matchless blessing, enjoyed by so many of you, and not bestowed on me - a happy home with his wife and children.
During these hard days I have been comforted by her majesty my mother and by my family. The ministers of the crown, and in particular, Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister, have always treated me with full consideration. There has never been any constitutional difference between me and them, and between me and Parliament. Bred in the constitutional tradition by my father, I should never have allowed any such issue to arise.
Ever since I was Prince of Wales, and later on when I occupied the throne, I have been treated with the greatest kindness by all classes of the people wherever I have lived or journeyed throughout the empire. For that I am very grateful.
I now quit altogether public affairs and I lay down my burden. It may be some time before I return to my native land, but I shall always follow the fortunes of the British race and empire with profound interest, and if at any time in the future I can be found of service to his majesty in a private station, I shall not fail.
And now, we all have a new King. I wish him and you, his people, happiness and prosperity with all my heart. God bless you all!
God save the King!
The King (or Queen) of the United Kingdom cannot publically speak in opposition to their government, constitutionally. In any case where opposition exists, they must withdraw from the confrontation. Edward VIII could only speak his mind after he had abdicated, and even then he was circumspect and denied any dispute had arisen while he was King.
There is one exception to this - described by King George V in letters he wrote to his Prime Minister in 1913 and 1914. I won't quote them in full, but it was made clear that the King should only do so in a case where there was "convincing evidence it would avert a national disaster" and that it would be a "constitutional catastrophe" if that ever had to happen.
In private, it's a different matter - and indeed the advice I've just mentioned was given to Prime Minister Asquith privately, and really should never have become public knowledge in an ideal world. But publically, that's how it works.
I have Irish Catholic ancestry (with which I identify), Irish or Scots-Irish Protestant ancestry and British ancestry (Saxon). I fervently wish that all sides, Protestant and Catholic, would give this ancient blood feud a permanent rest, Things in Ireland have degenerated to the point where the IRA not only assassinates fine and decent men like Mountbatten but has also developed into a bifurcated institution in which Maoists and Stalinists vie fior power internally. Lest there be any doubt, it is not possible to be a Maoist or Stalinist "Catholic."
Also, as I understand it, Henry VIII received the non-hereditary title of Defensor Fidei (Defender of THE Faith) from Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of a work issued in Henry VIII's name Assertio Septem Sancramentorum, which was a refutation of some of Luther's doctrinal assertions and a defense of the supremacy of the papacy itself (quite ironic given Henry VIII's subsequent history, marital misadventures and wild claims of being the head of something called "the Church of England"). Catherine of Aragon, Henry's legitimate wife, had for other reasons been designated Defensor Fidei, as had James V of Scotland, all by papal decree.
We are aware of no papal designation of ANY of Henry's royal successors as Defensor Fidei. Nonetheless, British coinage and postage stamps continue to refer to British monarchs as Defensor Fidei, a quite different "Fidei" or fides than the one which Henry had defended in 1521 or earlier, the one that was militantly and brutally persecuted by his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth I. If Rome should react in kind, the pope might be awarding British knighthoods or conferring the Order of the Garter.
In any event, if Charles assumes the throne and changes the title to Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the faith, that subtle change will be appreciated in some actually Catholic quarters.
I appreciate and accept your explanation of Charles's character and of the obligations of British royalty. I agree with some here that his expressions as to environmentalism and "global climate change" are disturbing and seem to be his personal opinions in addition to British government policy.
Finally, I had thought that, due to British law dating to the death of Henry VIII, the monarch cannot be divorced (perhaps rendered irrelevant by Princess Diana's untimely death) nor married to anyone who is divorced (re-enforced by Edward VIII's resignation in contemplation of his marriage to American twice divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson). IIRC, Camilla was formerly known as Camilla Parker Bowles and is a divorcee. Has Parliament changed the laws on royal eligibility?
Believe me, I do not see the members of the IRA or its offshoots as, in any way, shape or form, being 'real' Catholics. My point is that they have long claimed that their Catholicism is part of their motivation - I don't believe their claims are justified, but many of them have certainly made that claim. And if people expect somebody like the Prince of Wales to condemn people of genuine and decent faith because of the actions of terrorists who choose to claim a religious motivation for their hideous crimes, they need to consider the type of perspective seeing a close friend falling victim to terrorism from such people has. He won't condemn those who follow a religion and do no harm, simply because others do harm in the supposed name of that religion.
We are aware of no papal designation of ANY of Henry's royal successors as Defensor Fidei. Nonetheless, British coinage and postage stamps continue to refer to British monarchs as Defensor Fidei, a quite different "Fidei" or fides than the one which Henry had defended in 1521 or earlier, the one that was militantly and brutally persecuted by his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth I. If Rome should react in kind, the pope might be awarding British knighthoods or conferring the Order of the Garter.
Postage stamps do not carry any such claim (they simply carry an image of the Monarch) though coins certainly do. But in English and British law, the title of Fidei Defensor is explicitly separate from that once bestowed by the Pope. While it was certainly originally bestowed by the Parliament of England in 1544 as an act of defiance, it has become part of British tradition and is treated separately. And while there is no longer any significant 'political' conflict between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church (even though there are still political differences), Popes did do their share of politicising in the past (Regnans in Excelsis, for example). Since 1850 (some would say 1829, but I think the later date is more accurate), there's been reconciliation and part of that was the acceptance of the English/British use of the title as separate to that of Rome, without dispute (nobody wanted to derail Catholic Emancipation over such a thing).
Finally, I had thought that, due to British law dating to the death of Henry VIII, the monarch cannot be divorced (perhaps rendered irrelevant by Princess Diana's untimely death) nor married to anyone who is divorced (re-enforced by Edward VIII's resignation in contemplation of his marriage to American twice divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson). IIRC, Camilla was formerly known as Camilla Parker Bowles and is a divorcee. Has Parliament changed the laws on royal eligibility?
It's not Parliament that is relevant in this issue, but the Synod of the Church of England - there has never been an impediment in English (or more properly now, British) civil law towards the Monarch being a Divorcee, or married to a Divorcee - but their role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England means that if a Monarch was not acceptable to the Church of England, it would be very hard for him to rule.
Now, as far as Church of England law is concerned, the Prince of Wales is no longer a divorcee - he's a widower. He was a divorcee, but that's no longer an issue after the death of his former spouse. Church of England law would not have prevented him becoming King as a divorcee - but remarriage could have been an issue while Diana lived. Once she was deceased, it was not.
Now, as to Camilla - yes, she is a divorcee and that could have caused an issue prior to 2002. In 2002, the Synod of the Church of England, however, modified its teaching on divorce. While divorce is still regarded as something to be avoided, because marriage is meant to be for life, there are certain specific circumstances in which divorce is tolerable and remarriage is permitted. I won't go into all the details - but where the people have had only been married once before, and where they have a mature understanding of why their previous marriages failed, and where there are no significant 'wounds' remaining (in this case, whether Andrew Parker-Bowles or Camilla's children had objected would matter - objections by Princes William and Harry would not strictly be relevant under Church law, because of their fathers 'legal' status as a widower, but the fact that they did not object probably made things more straightforward), remarriage is permissable under Church law, and so does not create any impediments in terms of the Prince of Wales future position as Supreme Governor or King - nor of Camilla becoming Queen (although, at the moment, the intention still seems to be that she will not formally take that title).
Thank you. I’m going to come back to this. I’ve been sitting here too long.
I’ll respond later.
Why even bother responding to people whose intellectual depth expresses itself in calling others names, in defining them as this or that single word? We are the PEOPLE Magazine nation, obsessed with personalities, incapable of grasping ideas.
where the people have had only been married once before... remarriage is permissable under Church law
More than one previous marriage ending in divorce is not an absolute impediment to remarriage - I could have falsely given that impression - Church of England law would still allow remarriage in some cases - it is just much less likely than if there has only been one failed marriage.
(In the case of multiple divorces, the sheer complexity of relationships that may have developed will inevitably make any assessment by you more difficult. However, the Church witnesses to lifelong marriage, and should not find itself being a party to 'serial monogamy', hence neither of the parties should normally have been married and divorced more than once..)
(The underlining of normally appears in the currrent 'Advice to Clergy' on remarriage).
Because the Prince is not free to defend himself - and even if he was, would not do so (he once told me about wanting to pick up the phone and complain to a newspaper editor about a story about one of his sons - and then deciding he couldn't do that, because it wasn't impossible a British newspaper editor would simply obey him because he was their future King - and that would be the thin end of the wedge when it came to freedom of speech in Britain - a step towards a King censoring the press, so he couldn't even make the complaint any normal father might have felt free to make). I think it is up to his friends to defend him when we can, if we are truly his friends.
Added to that, how can people fairly assess him when all they have is the version - the caricature of him - they see in the press? I don't agree that the Prince is an 'idiot' but I find it all too easy to understand why somebody might, in good faith and honesty, think he is, when all they know of him is what they see in the media. Maybe I can convince some of them to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. Some will never change their mind - but many honest and decent people will at least be willing to consider the possibility they've been mislead.
Thanks nm.
It may look silly from your vantage point, but it has real validity in the UK and is not a fantasy.
The monarchy is a tremendous cash cow for the British economy. It not only circulates a great deal of money by its own expenditures, but the houses, sports, fashions, stud farms, gardens, and traditions of the monarchy and nobility attract tourists from all over the world, and those tourists bring in money that adds greatly to the British economy. Believe me, the Brits get their money's worth from the relatively small amount of money they spend on the royals.
There are entire industries driven by the monarchy--the vast British/Irish equestrian industry, which is the best in the world, or the hunting and fishing industry, or real estate. These interest areas employ millions. Prince Charles has been visionary in his advocacy of modern farming techniques and the preservation of British crafts, folkways, and exurban lifestyles.
Additionally, the Royal Family help to sustain and defend the traditions of English culture at a time when it is under the most serious attack. The Brits (and all English-speaking peoples) are having a hard time remembering what it is that has made us superior to all other cultures. The English are lucky to have a royal family who don't party all night with degenerates, and instead preserve a priceless historical heritage.
Anyway, it is not ever time for "us," as you put it, to tell Elizabeth and Charles anything. We are Americans and it is none of our business how the British choose to govern themselves.
Although I identify with my Irish Catholic ancestry, I do wish the British monarchy well. It is an ancient and essentially conservative traditional institution and, over its many centuries has produced some remarkable monarchs, among them Charles I and Charles II. Victoria served very long and very well. Conservatives should also admire George VI and his sainted wife who was such a heroine during the Blitz.
God bless you and yours.
“Charles reminds me of Edward VII. Too long without real employment. He will be pretty lackluster I think.”
The Edward VII comparison is a good one, but let it not be forgotten that the playboy Prince of Wales, whose long wait for the throne was marred by the Baccarat Scandal and society whispers of countless mistresses (some of which greatly exaggerated incidentally) actually became a very popular and effective king.
If Charles III’s reign (which may be of a similar length to that of his great-great grandfather) bears a favourable comparison with that of Edward VII, then the UK and the Commonwealth will have done very well indeed.
Maybe I misjudged the man.
Thank you for your courteous response.
Whether he will be, as you surmise, "lackluster," the fact is that he is not unemployed. He works.
When you look at Prince Charles, don’t you think that someone in the Royal family knew someone in the Royal family?
-Robin Williams
Why the dislike of the British?.
Bit rich coming from someone who named their child after a video game....
Hey the Queen has been around the block a few times...
Who knows what could happen. Charles visits her and oops he tripped over her cute little doggies and fell down the stairs...
18 times...
Sad really he was such a nice chap...
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.