The "Prince Charles'" Speech

[AlterEgo]

I think once the jubilee year is over she will call it a day and we will have King Charles III or King George VI.

The Queen will not abdicate. She takes her role seriously and considers herself a vessel of the nation’s spirit. Monarchy should not be habitually abidcable.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

However, obviously Charles I is quite infamous, and Charles II was quite a party animal (the 'Merry Monarch') and slept around a lot, which is probably something he wouldn't want to be assosciated with, especially given how long its taken him to rebuild his post-Diana reputation.

King Charles Spaniels are good puppers though...

Yeah she has been anointed by God, she won't abdicate.

*citation needed.

The Queen will not abdicate. She takes her role seriously and considers herself a vessel of the nation’s spirit. Monarchy should not be habitually abidcable.

If/when she gets to a point where she can no longer perform her duties at all, it would be rather cruel to not let her step down, no?

 

[AlterEgo]

If/when she gets to a point where she can no longer perform her duties at all, it would be rather cruel to not let her step down, no?

it isn’t a question of preventing the Queen from doing things; the Queen herself will not abdicate.

Monarchy is not just “performing duties”.

 

[kristiang85]

If/when she gets to a point where she can no longer perform her duties at all, it would be rather cruel to not let her step down, no?

The most that will happen will that Charles will become 'Prince Regent' and he effectively takes over her duties, but the Queen will still be monarch.

 

[Busaholic]

Yeah she has been anointed by God, she won't abdicate.

Her mother lived to 101, but the gin may have helped!

 

[JamesT]

The most that will happen will that Charles will become 'Prince Regent' and he effectively takes over her duties, but the Queen will still be monarch.

Prince Regent? Like in Blackadder?

 

[dgl]

I always wonder if the Queen is waiting for Charles to pass before she allows herself to die, or that she has things arranged so that Charles has an unfortunate accident in the moments before she knows she is going to die?
Highly unlikely but would be a turn of events none the less!

 

[adc82140]

He might not take his first name when he is King - King George VII or King Philip anyone?

I think he should shake things up a bit.

King Dwayne
King Gary
King Brian
King Kong

 

[kristiang85]

Prince Regent? Like in Blackadder?

Yep, he was based on George VI, who was Prince Regent as his father George III was incapacitated with mental illness.

 

[Ediswan]

Yep, he was based on George VI, who was Prince Regent as his father George III was incapacitated with mental illness.

George IV.

 

[kristiang85]

George IV.

I'm not having much luck with my Roman numerals typos in this thread

 

[pemma]

I read somewhere ages ago that he will be King Something-that's-not-Charles. I can't remember what the chosen name would be, though (and it was so long ago he may have changed his mind).

He's been known as Charles for 73 years. I don't think the public will start calling him a new name. Changing the title Prince to the title King, no problem. Calling him George instead of Charles, no chance. People are reluctant to say Princess Catherine, opposed to Kate and she's been in the public eye for a relatively short time.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If/when she gets to a point where she can no longer perform her duties at all, it would be rather cruel to not let her step down, no?

I don't think it's comparable to what happened with John Paul II, who clearly wasn't mentally capable of carrying out his duties in the last few years of his life. If she can do everything by Zoom while enjoying semi-retirement, why not?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think he should shake things up a bit.

King Dwayne
King Gary
King Brian
King Kong

There's already the possibility of a King Archie... should some sort of unfortunate weather-related event afflict the UK-based royals, as seen in the 1991 movie "King Ralph".

 

[kristiang85]

There's already the possibility of a King Archie... should some sort of unfortunate weather-related event afflict the UK-based royals, as seen in the 1991 movie "King Ralph".

Do you remember this story?

'Ginger Extremist' guilty in plot to make Prince Harry king

Mark Colborne had ingredients to make enough cyanide to kill 2,500 people

www.theweek.co.uk

A 37-year-old dubbed the "Ginger Extremist", who fantasised about killing Prince Charles so that Prince Harry could be king, has been found guilty of plotting a terrorist attack.

In a retrial at the Old Bailey, Mark Colborne from Southampton was convicted of preparing terrorist acts, as well as possessing ingredients and recipes to make enough cyanide to kill 2,500 people. A previous jury failed to reach a verdict.

The contents of a diary and notes kept by Colborne included several damning entries, reports the BBC.

"I don't want to be a serial killer," he wrote. "I'm more of an Anders Breivik. I have left potential targets open. I was waiting for an opportunity to kill one of them. Let it be Prince Charles, which would be good."

Another diary entry said: "Take up a good position and put a bullet in Charles's head. He is protected but not too protected. I would sacrifice my life for that one shot. Kill Charles and William, and Harry [will] become king. Kill the tyrants."

The jury was also told that Colborne felt "belittled" for being white with ginger hair. According to prosecutor Annabel Darlow, his diary also included passages about his hatred for "non-Aryans", calling them "blacks and Caucasian idiots".

Colborne denied all the charges, telling the court that his diary entries were simply "angry rants" that he wrote during a time when he had stopped taking medication for depression.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Do you remember this story?

'Ginger Extremist' guilty in plot to make Prince Harry king

Mark Colborne had ingredients to make enough cyanide to kill 2,500 people

www.theweek.co.uk

That's a bit darker than a John Goodman comedy...

 

[WelshBluebird]

From what I have read about the queen she absolutely refuses to be seen using a wheelchair and detests being seen using a stick.

I do wish we didn't have this kind of attitude in this country. It causes much more harm than it does good and it also leads to some of the issues we have with how disabled people are treated and how poorly accessibility is taken into account in many buildings and the like. There is absolutely nothing wrong with needing some kind of mobility aid, whatever that may be. And stubbornly refusing to use one or be seen using one is simply causes problems for yourself that don't need to exist (indeed many of the falls that elderly people often has are purely down to refusing to use mobility aids). Infact, I think the Queen using one whilst still going about her usual duties could be a pretty powerful image (kind of like the 2012 Paralymics were).

 

[DelayRepay]

I think we'll see very little of Her Majesty now. She's been delegating to the younger royals for a while, but last year she was unable to attend the Cenotaph for Remembrance Sunday, and now she's had to delegate the State Opening of Parliament. These are surely the two most important events that she normally attends.

We will probably still see her deliver her Christmas message but I don't expect to see her carrying out any other public engagements. But at the same time I do not expect her to abdicate.

Constitutionally, is she allowed to delegate things like her weekly audience with the Prime Minister to the Prince of Wales?

 

[AlterEgo]

Constitutionally, is she allowed to delegate things like her weekly audience with the Prime Minister to the Prince of Wales?

Yes, she can appoint Counsellors of State to conduct her duties in her absence.

 

[Typhoon]

I think we'll see very little of Her Majesty now. She's been delegating to the younger royals for a while, but last year she was unable to attend the Cenotaph for Remembrance Sunday, and now she's had to delegate the State Opening of Parliament. These are surely the two most important events that she normally attends.

We will probably still see her deliver her Christmas message but I don't expect to see her carrying out any other public engagements. But at the same time I do not expect her to abdicate.

But we'll see enough, just to remind us that she is still about. There may even be more broadcasts as these don't reveal any mobility issues (say to mark her coronation next year). She must realise that she is an institution and the monarchy is in safe hands while she is in situ. As we get more and more used to seeing Charles and William carrying out regal duties, it should ensure an almost seamless transfer when the time comes. I am sure she is aware of that.

 

[pemma]

Yes, she can appoint Counsellors of State to conduct her duties in her absence.

One thing that gets overlooked is she's still officially the head of state for other countries like Canada and Australia. Obviously she doesn't fly to each of these every year to do things like the formal opening of parliament, so a local Governor General is appointed by the Queen, based on recommendations of the Prime Minister of that country. Then the Governor General does the work the Queen would undertake in the UK within their respective country.

 

[Typhoon]

The Queen is out and about today - Royal Windsor Horse show. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61437148

 

[brad465]

Oooooh dear:

Prince Charles accepted £1m from Osama Bin Laden's family - report

Clarence House says due diligence was conducted when a charitable donation was accepted in 2013.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Prince of Wales accepted a payment of £1m from the family of Osama Bin Laden, the Sunday Times reports.
Prince Charles accepted the money from two of Osama Bin Laden's half-brothers in 2013, two years after the al-Qaeda leader was killed, it adds.
The Prince of Wales's Charitable Fund (PWCF) received the donation.
Clarence House said it had been assured by PWCF that "thorough due diligence" had been conducted, and the decision to accept the money lay with the trustees.
"Any attempt to characterise it otherwise is false," it told the BBC.
Clarence House also said it disputed a number of points made in the newspaper's article.

According to the report, Prince Charles accepted the money from Bakr Bin Laden, who heads the wealthy Saudi family, and Bakr's brother Shafiq, following a meeting with Bakr at Clarence House.
The heir to the throne took the money despite objections from advisers at Clarence House and PWCF, the Sunday Times reports, citing multiple sources.
However, Sir Ian Cheshire, chairman of PWCF, told the newspaper that the 2013 donation was agreed "carefully considered" by the five trustees at the time.
"Due diligence was conducted, with information sought from a wide range of sources, including government," Sir Ian added.
"The decision to accept the donation was taken wholly by the trustees. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is misleading and inaccurate."
The PWCF awards grants to UK-registered non-profit organisations to deliver projects in the UK, Commonwealth and overseas.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not a fan of the Royal Family but this headline appears to be deliberately misleading and it appears to be a non-story.

Did he accept it or did the Trustees accept it for the charity?

The article also says:

Bin Laden was disowned by his family in 1994 and there is no suggestion that his half-brothers had links to his activities.

Presumably the gist of this article is that if a family member does something bad, no-one in that family should be able to do anything charitable, even if the family disowns that family member, or have I misunderstood?

 

[duncanp]

I'm not a fan of the Royal Family but this headline appears to be deliberately misleading and it appears to be a non-story.

Did he accept it or did the Trustees accept it for the charity?

The article also says:


Presumably the gist of this article is that if a family member does something bad, no-one in that family should be able to do anything charitable, even if the family disowns that family member, or have I misunderstood?

I think the real issue is whether the money was given unconditionally, with a philanthropic motive, or did the donor expect a "favour" in return.

As has been said, the fact that it was Bin Laden's family is irrelevant - if they disowned him in 1994 and had nothing to do with him since.