Who thinks like me that Prince Charles should for the sake of his son, give up his right to be king of England

Question

I read in the magazine today that the Queen names Prince William as the future king. So why does Prince Charles not publicially acknowledge the fact, that he is finished?

Answer 1

You

Answer 2

When the Queen dies, Charles is king. That's all there is to it.

Answer 3

Why would Charles have trained his entier life to be King of England, if in the end he just has to step aside for his son.

     That's 60 years of nothing.

I do agree if Charles takes the thrown after his mother's death or less likely; her abdication. ( Both of which could be in 20 years considering her mother lived so long.)

The Queen is only 81 years young.

Just say, In 20 years she dies and Charles becomes King of England, he would be 80 years old! ( He could then die soon after his assumption to the thrown, or live to be 100 as well! )      At this stage Prince William would be 44 years old.

If William had to wait the 20 years for his father as well he would be 66 when he became King of England

And then the same cycle would start again!

If anything, upon the Queen’s death, Charles should reign for a year or there abouts, forfill some of his duties and then abdicates in favour of his eldest son.

If that happened William would become King before he turned 45, Which is a good 21 years before he would otherwise.

England need a monarchy that doesn’t act like its still 1750. They need a new outlook and style, that is what William is offering.

In conclusion, I hope Charles doesn’t rule for long, he should step back and watch his son change a nation; hopefully for the better, and marvel in what he has created, a great King of England.

THAT is his birthright; keep the line going.

Answer 4

Unless charles abdicates,charles will be king and after charles is william. If the queen reigns for her whole life, and I hope she does and lived to 110, than charles will only have a few yrs to reign unless he dies.

Answer 5

Why should he? he has waited his whole lifetime to become king, and just because he has a son who would be next in line, that means he should give up his lifelong pursuit to be king? In my opinion there's no reason why Prince Charles shouldn't be king. He has more life experience than his sons, and I doubt Prince William would be an experienced enough king to make decisions with Parliament. There has never been in the whole history of mankind of a father abdicating his right to the throne for the sake of his son. Prince Charles had to wait, so should the younger Princes.

Answer 6

they're figureheads.

It really doesn't matter at this point.

Answer 7

Here is the gist of a newspaper article I read a long time ago.  There is a group of influential people in England, and elsewhere, that wish the United Kingdom to be a republic.  This group has strong connections to the media, particularly the tabloid and trashy end.  Their strategy was to discredit the royal family.  No, I did not mention Rupert Murdoch.

They did not dare to attack the Queen as the English would not have stood for it, and there was no point in attacking the Duke as he would probably bite back.  So who was left?  The heir of course.  

Their character assassination of Charles began in the late 1970s, well before his marriage to Diana Spencer.  That marriage was a godsend to them as the late Diana was not particularly clever and she was slightly neurotic.  In addition she was too young for Charles.

They set about putting her on a pedestal while denigrating her husband at most opportunities.  Their propaganda has worked to the extent that now some people wish to have Charles abdicate in favor of his son on the passing of the present Queen.    

Whether this is true or not I don't actually know, however the behavior of the tabloid press over the past 25 some years does bear it out.

Answer 8

It's true that he wasn't a good husband to Diana.  But, this is HIS family and not her's.  He is human and makes mistakes (like marrying Diana in the first place).  I think he should be king.

Answer 9

I disagree, no matter what the article said. You never stated what magazine you read this in. If it was the Enquirer or a rag such as that, don't believe what you read.

At any rate, I believe that Prince Charles should be crowned King when Queen Elizabeth either dies or abdicates.

Charles has been raised and trained from birth to be King, he has great experienced being the Crown Prince of Wales and their land lord, and he has done a terrific job doing so.

He has had much experience being a Royal Ambassador around the world and served his county in the military on active duty. He has experience with Parliament; been a part of many delegations for numeral charities; met with heads of state of numerous countries and given sound advice when asked to assist in the re-development of same.

He may have made mistakes in his love life, caused embarrassment to his family and the crown, but then how many others have done so as well to their families and their station in life, yet are forgiven and done a bang up job of their lives after the fact?

Prince William, though also being trained from birth to be heir to the throne does not have the experience or exposure that his father has. Prince William will be a good King I'm sure, but all in good time.

Answer 10

Why should he?  I think Charles will make a good King.  He's been groomed for the job all his life so why shouldn't he have a crack at it.  He should only NOT become king if he doesn't want to.  I don't think the Queen can name her successor anyway.  Prince Charles is the next in line for the throne if the Queen abdicates or dies.  Prince William is the next in succession and then Harry is at number 3.

Answer 11

I question the authority of the magazine and their assumptions with regard royal ascendency.

Answer 12

It doesn't really matter who becomes the next British monarch. The royal family of today is only a symbolic figure with no real royal prerogatives. The real guy who holds all authority and power is the prime minister Gordon Brown. While prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch acting alone, and do not require parliamentary consent, they are now always exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, who is then accountable for the decision to Parliament.

Prince Charles is next in line and that decision was established the day he was born. Perhaps the Queen does show favoritism towards Prince William, but that will not change the line of succession. The Queen was only appointing Prince William as the "future king" not my "Successor." He will be Prince Charles "Successor."

Answer 13

That magazine had better have someone read the Act of Succession. The Queen has no power to name her successor at all - the succession is dictated by law, which has been set down by Parliament, an elected body which governs the country.

Prince Charles is the next king - that's it.

Answer 14

Prince Charles has no credability in this country.We have not had a leader in this country since I cannot remember when.If that wingeared pompous moron becomes king then I,m leaving."yessss well One dose you know yes well I zzzzzz....yes well I "etc.

Answer 15

The Queen can not pass the throne to anyone that she wants. Charles will become King unless he abdicates, or dies before his mother. Baring that, nothing short of an Act of Parliament can prevent Charles from becoming King. I do think that Charles will make a good King. He cares for his people deeply. And now that he has the woman he loves with him, he is happy, really happy..

Answer 16

I totally agree with you, i think the Queen should also hand over the reigns of empire to Prince William so he can get trained under her supervision.

Answer 17

Do you think he wants to give up the throne to Prince William? Even for his own son. Charles has waited his entire life to become king. Will can wait for a little while.

Answer 18

Prince Charles is heir to the throne of England.  That's all there is to it.  Prince William is next in line.

Answer 19

Ehh. I say all hail King William. And if the British people (whom I love dearly, thanks to Georgia Nicolson) are insane enough to let Camilla Parker-Bowles the dirty doormat come anywhere near being their queen, then they deserve to endure Chucky... oops, I mean Charles.

Answer 20

Don't believe everything you read in magazines. If the queen did that the monarchy would be finished. The right to succede would be broken and that is the most important element in the whole out-dated business.

Answer 21

I can't imagine this was a reputation magazine. Was it a tabloid in a grocery store check out line? Whoever wrote that piece hasn't a clue what they're talking about.

The terms of succession are set. The Queen would not dream, nor want, to tamper with it. And no magazine writer or editor knows what goes on in HM's mind.

For a long time, Charles seemed out-of-step. Now, people are coming to realize he was ahead of the curve on a vast number of issues, from dealing with disadvantaged youth to the value of organic foods, to building design.

Charles should and will be king. Kingship is not easy. And it is unkind to place it on a young man like William. Let him live his life, have fun, get married, start a family before burdening him and his wife the never-ending, till-death duties of King.

Answer 22

Doesn't much matter.  The Brits could post a holgram of the Queen Mum on the Tower for the next 100 years and people would still come to see the changing of the guard and whatnot.  UK could save major coin if they allowed the Windsors (Battenbergs?) to slink away to a summer place.