Your Head of State (your elected, term-limited, Monarch) often dons native head gear, when he ventures from his Washington DC palace, to mingle with his subjects.
Posted on 06/28/2014 12:47:51 PM PDT by Cecily
The Prince of Wales is determined that his campaigning and charity work will continue even after he becomes King, emphasising the importance of what he calls “sticking to your guns.
In a rare interview Prince Charles let it be known that he wants the trusts and charities he has set up – whose work covers a broad range of social and environmental concerns – to carry on when he assumes the role of Monarch.
That raises the prospect of a future King Charles III being seen as a supporter of causes, some of which may come into conflict with the views of the public or even the Government of the day – a scenario that could cause complications in Britain’s constitutional monarchy.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
He will destroy the monarchy.
He is an idiot. He could last 20 years or more bloviating about global warming and the religion of peace..
Not sure people will be willing to wait for William and George.
So does Prince Barak.
Liz will probably see if she can get Bill and Hillary to invite Chuck over for a “Vince Foster Tour” of their new digs.
Barry’s no prince.
He’s a queen.
Prince William is one of the #1 candidates for Antichrist. I would prefer him dead than king.
But King Charles 2 came back
The Royal Family ceased to have any legitimacy the day killing subjects of the Queen in the womb became “legal,” and the Queen did nothing. On that day, of course, Hitler won.
Hey Chuck - just go back to being Camilla’s tampon.
He's a perfect example of why in-breeding is now a good idea.
Didn’t He compete for the “Upper Class Twit of the Year”?
prince who???
....”He is not only missing a tool but his whole tool box is gone”....
I think your right!
Your Head of State (your elected, term-limited, Monarch) often dons native head gear, when he ventures from his Washington DC palace, to mingle with his subjects.
We’ll trade you 0bunghole for Price Charles any time who is amusing and harmless with his ditherings.
Yes, he has. First of all, he spent five years in the British Armed Forces - primarily the Royal Navy where he flew helicopters (rather like both his sons have recently).
Secondly, he runs a number of very successful businesses. The Prince of Wales isn't actually entitled to any personal government funding - instead he gets access to the revenues of lands and businesses belong to the Duchy of Cornwall (he is Duke of Cornwall, as well as Prince of Wales). This includes a lot of farms which people rent from him in the same way they would rent from any other landowner. He's used these revenues to set up companies (most publically visible 'Duchy Originals') that sell food in Waitrose supermarket's and some smaller stores as well all over Britain. He doesn't do a lot of the day to day work - he's more in the CEO role, but it does involve work.
And that's before he carries out the official duties that go with his role as Prince - which actually are a lot of work, when you do hundreds of public engagements a year.
The Prince would never act unconstitutionally, either as a Prince or as a King. But if you watch 'House of Cards', specifically 'To Play the King', you have to remember that the King in that series is opposing a Prime Minister who does murder people, and who violates British law and the Constitution at will. Yes, he beats the King in the end and forces his abdication. But he doesn't win because he's in the right - he wins because he's just so very good at winning.
In the novel on which 'To Play the King' is based - which, as it's a novel can go a lot more into the depths and intricacies of matters like constitutional law, the King actually comes out as the winner - although he still abdicates in order to personally lead the Opposition in the upcoming election. The BBC changed the ending (as they had in 'House of Cards' - again in the original novel, FU loses) because the program was doing so well, they wanted a sequel. It can be a bit of a surreal experience reading Dobb's novels, because each book ends with FU having lost, and then suddenly he's back at the start of the next one.
As I've said before, I know the Prince. On most issues he's a conservative. For this reason, the left wing press likes to caricature him as a fool. It amazes me this seems to work so well on people here at Freerepublic - I would have thought they'd be aware of these types of media tactics, as they are so often applied to conservative leaders in the US as well.
Environmentalism is one area where he agrees with the left. Almost the only one - so that's the one the left wing press praises him for, and promotes. They don't publicise the fact that he supports things like the right to own firearms, or the rights of people to be secure on their own properties. When he makes a speech pointing out the dangers faced by Christians in the Middle East, that gets largely ignored by the press. So does most of the work he does supporting British Forces, and British veterans.
The poor guy has been the longest Heir Apparent in British Royal history.
He is 65 and has been heir since he was 3 — what a task.
He was certainly sound until his middle age years, educated, service in the Navy etcetera. He had a fellow whose name escapes me that was kind of a guru as I recall in the 80s. He seemed to go off on tangents based upon things this guy and his charities would get him involved with.
I have somewhat had to pay attention to him as he and I are almost exactly the same age.
The Queen has done a wonderfully stable job at a tough time for monarchs. I imagine as long as she is able she will not be able to surrender the reins of power.
Laurens van der Post was the name of the guy that I was grasping for in my post above.
I'll give you a serious answer on the Constitutional point.
First of all, the Prince of Wales cannot avoid becoming King - he can't "waive his right" of his own accord. The instant the Queen dies, he becomes King. He does have the right to abdicate - and he could immediately announce his intention to do so. Theoretically he could even announce that was his intention before becoming King - but he would still be King from the instant of the Queen's death, until the Instrument of Abdication took effect.
Parliament has the power to alter the succession - and if, for example, the Queen reaches the age of over 100, and the Prince was nearly 80, and he came out and said in that situation, that he did not want to be King, Parliament might then be willing to pass an act removing him from the succession. But both he and the Queen would have to agree for that to happen, and it would have to be a compelling reason - such as his health not being up to it.
The Prince wouldn't do it lightly, because he wants his son, William, to have as long as possible, a chance of something approaching a normal life. He won't put this burden on William before he has to. He also sees this as his duty, as he's been raised to do it.
Now, having said all that, what if a King was 'severly and chronically incapacitated'. How would that be dealt with? Is there a mechanism for it?
Not formally, but there are ways it can be handled.
First of all, there is a precedent for Parliament taking action - when George III was judged in 1811 by his doctors to be permanently insane without realistic hope of recovery, his son, George, Prince of Wales (later George IV) was made Regent by an Act of Parliament. The King stayed on the throne, but all his powers were exercised by his son.
Secondly, there's a body in Britain referred to as the 'Council of State'. This body was created by King George V in 1911, and consists of five members of the Royal Family - the consort of the Monarch (if there is one) and the first four adults (over 21, unless they are the Prince of Wales, who only has to be over 18) in the line of succession - so the current Counsellors of State are Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge; Prince Harry of Wales; and Prince Andrew, Duke of York. Any two of these five, can exercise the powers of the Monarch in the Monarch's absence or incapacity (and do so if, for example, she's out of the country when state documents need to be signed).
Though they have no formal power to intervene, it's understood that if something happened (like the Queen went into a long term coma), if all five Counsellors of State agreed and advised, Parliament would act to appoint a Regent, and could go even further theoretically. Even a simple majority might be enough - Parliament would decide.
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.