Posted on 12/12/2009 4:02:00 PM PST by naturalman1975
The Queen is to hand over a substantial part of her public duties to Prince William to help him prepare for the day when he becomes King, according to a confidential document obtained by The Mail on Sunday.
Secret papers reveal that plans to ease the strain on the 83-year-old monarch and her 88-year-old husband, Prince Philip, are at an advanced stage.
The disclosures come despite months of denials from the Palace that the Queen was planning to step back from her official work in favour of her 27-year-old grandson.
The information is contained in a briefing note written by Chancellor Alistair Darling’s Treasury officials about new financial arrangements for Prince Charles and his sons.
Key paragraphs, disclosing the reason for the changes, are blacked out.
But this newspaper has obtained an uncensored version of the document which confirms that the Queen is grooming William as a ‘Shadow King’.
One blacked-out line states that ‘the Princes [William and Harry] will increasingly incur expenditure when undertaking engagements on behalf of The Queen’.
Another censored section, stressing the key role for William, says that ‘from next year, it is expected that HRH The Prince William will spend a significant part of his time on official engagements . . . we need to put the necessary provisions in place in anticipation of that’.
The leak will add to speculation that the Queen believes William, rather than Charles, represents the best long-term interests of the monarchy, and will raise new questions about the timing of William’s long-anticipated engagement to his girlfriend Kate Middleton.
The breach of secrecy caused alarm at the Palace last night, with a senior Royal source expressing concern that the private details had been leaked in ‘unredacted’ - the official term for uncensored - form.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I tend to agree with this point of view. Prince William will likely be King one day regardless of whether or not Prince Charles precedes him. Ergo, it hardly seems "unusual" that his grandmother Queen Elizabeth and his father Prince Charles would be grooming him at an early age for his future role as monarch.
Moreover, while I am not a big fan of Prince Charles, if reports I have read are to be believed, there seems to be a great deal of affection between Prince Charles and his sons. William and Harry seem like such nice young men. IMHO, neither one of them appears to be the sort of person who would do anything to disrespect or personally humiliate their father.
Some of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War.
As well as both sides of secession.
Weren't big on royalty then. Still not. Not yours, or our version that's lording it over us from DC.
Royalty wasn't the issue then; colonial policies were.
Once the break was made, a different form of government was appropriate to the different circumstances - remember that Washington was offered more than a presidency.
Note to the Founding Fathers: I hope y'all are spinning.
For what?
Relations between America and Britain became fairly amenable soon after the war based on trade and shared principles.
1812 was both a side show and a reaction to impressment / interference with trade - an argument that could have gone against either Britain or France.
Back on topic:
It seems to me that Charles rather enjoys his current role and clearly believes that he is doing good work. I wonder if that influences his thoughts and actions regarding the next coronation(?)
Unless I misunderstand succession, if Charles surrenders his claim to the throne, he surrenders it on behalf of his heirs — putting Andrew, not William, next in line, and Beatrice and Eugenie behind him.
You do mis misunderstand succession. If Charles abdicates his claim, William becomes the Heir. He cannot abrogate his claim for his successors.
Even if he renounces his claim before being crowned? I would assume that the throne passes to his heirs if he abdicates after the fact, but if Charles is Elizabeth's heir and William is Charles', is there an historical example of skipping a generation like that?
His father is a piece of islam loving trash. Good luck to Prince William though.
If the Prince of Wales was to become Catholic (or if he had married a Catholic) he would remove himself from the line of succession at that point. The legal mechanism by which he does this is that he is considered 'naturally dead' as far as the law of succession is concerned and therefore the succession occurs as if he was dead. His son (William, in this case) is still 'alive' and so becomes the heir (apparent in William's case).
An Act of Parliament can alter the succession in any way it likes, so it's possible that an Act could be written to remove Princes Charles, William, and Harry from the line of succession. But it would have to be expressly written to do that. This was done in the case of Edward VIII/the Duke of Windsor's abdication (though he had no children at the time he abdicated, the possibility of later children had to be considered), but the only reason it was done in that case, was because if it hadn't been, any non-Catholic child of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor would have been more senior in the line of succession to (then) Princess Elizabeth. They didn't want the title to jump back to an unborn son of Edward VIII (not to mention the potential for chaos if such a son tried to claim the throne on the grounds he was senior in succession to his Uncle, King George VI - because under the law he would be). None of this would be an issue in a case where an abdicating King has a son and heir in place.
Cases where this is relevant - both Mary II and Anne were the daughters of an abdicated King (James II) - and Anne became Queen on the death of her sister Mary, considerably after the date of her father's abdication, so his abdication certainly didn't remove her from the succession. But this was in 1702, so it predates two of three relevant laws, and so is not automatically relevant to the current situation, but it does show the context in which the laws were passed.
I suppose the best thing to do is to look at the current line of succession. This has been worked out in detail to a few thousand places (obviously births and deaths change it regularly).
You have to go down to 32nd in line to find the first relevant case. HRH Prince Michael of Kent (cousin to the Queen, grandson of George V) would be 32nd in line, except for the fact he removed himself from the succession by marrying a Catholic. The 32nd place therefore goes to his son, Lord Frederick Windsor, who was brought up in the Anglican Communion. His father's removal from the line of succession does not affect his son's claim, nor that of his sister Lady Gabriella. It's unlikely, of course, he'll ever become King but legally the situation is perfectly clear.
Got it. Reading his post, it sounded as though Ireland, Scotland and Wales would all become independent states when Elizabeth steps down.
In your earlier post, you said:
"As soon as he becomes King, every dominion except Britain itself will become a republic..."
When you said "Britain itself", I took you at your literal word that you meant England. I took "every dominion" to mean the other states(?) of their Kingdom, i.e., Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.
See where I misunderstood you?
I now know that you meant the Commonwealth countries.
There. Fixed it before you were set upon by a bunch of pissed-off, red-haired freckled people. Ireland (minus the Six Counties) has been independent since 1921 (or 1916, depending on whom you ask).
ping to post #1
DOH! Of course, I meant Northern Ireland!
(and to think that I even inherited freckles from my Irish great grandmother!)
Scotland, England and Wales are all part of Britain in the United Kingdom (along with Northern Ireland). England is just one country within Britain and the United Kingdom...
I never knew that there was an official distinction between Britain and England. I've always thought that they were simply two names for the same country.
Thanks for the clarity.
Unfortunately for Charles, longevity runs in the family. His reign, if Elizabeth should choose not to give up the balance of her royal duties, will be a short one. In that case, it is smart of her to enlist William sooner than later.
‘England’ and ‘Britain’ has often erroneously been used interchangeably because England is the core of the United Kingdom, containing about 80% of the Britain’s population, much to the irritation of the Scots and Welsh. Just to be more confusing, Northern Ireland technically isn’t part of Britain either, as Ireland is a seperate island to that of Great Britain, but NI is part of the UK.
Ironically, the Welsh probably are the ones who have the most right to call themselves British, as they are descended from the original Celtic inhabitants of Britannia, whereas the the English are descended from Germanic and Scandanavian invaders, and the Scots are descended from the Irish Scotti tribe who invaded Caledonia from Ulster.... :)
I've got Scot (and Irish) ancestry, and have studied their history. I went through a period of intense fascination with those roots some years back, and even learned some Scots Gaelic. Got the family clan badge tattooed on my shoulder, and a kilt in the family tartan in the closet.
I still have an affinity for all things Scottish, and plan on getting to some Highland Games next year.
According to the following article entitled LINE OF SUCCESSION TO THE BRITISH THRONE, Andrew is 4th in line to the British throne AFTER Charles and his two sons William and Harry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne
I am no expert, but it seems that in light of the aforementioned article, Andrew would be next in line to the British throne directly after Charles only if Charles had no children. Andrew is Elizabeth's heir, not Charles' heir. William and Harry are Charles' Heirs.
In that case, you have a heck of a lot in common with Chuckles and the other Royals...
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.