4 ms·

I really feel that Charles should at least consider passing on the Crown to his son William. William and Kate are immensely popular. It would be a good thing fo

I really feel that Charles should at least consider passing on the Crown to his son William. William and Kate are immensely popular. It would be a good thing for Great Britain, British people as well as for the Royal Family. Charles and Camilla are the opposite in terms of respect and popularity to William and Kate, as far as I understand. If Charles does that, he would write himself into the annals of British history. I am not from GB, so I may be misreading the situation.

bambataa 4y ago
I find this an interesting idea. Normally the response is “the whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that you don’t get to choose” and obviously Charles has been champing at the bit for years. However, there is also the historical idea of the monarch needing to be a good one and keep up their end of the bargain. Interesting times ahead!
- aeneasmackenzie 4y ago
  Edward 8 had to abdicate to marry outside of the church of England, and Charles is already married outside of the church of England. His abdication wouldn't be weird.
lostlogin 4y ago
It’s almost as though there could be a better system, one where ability could be judged and debated and voted on.
- charles_f 4y ago
  It's already the case though.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
  - xdennis 4y ago
    The queen of Britain is not elected. Many monarchies have been elective[1], and in some, the monarch is often picked from the same family. Even that is a better system than "first-born child". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
    - jononomo 4y ago
      He means that Great Britain already elects their government -- they are a democracy.
      - switch007 4y ago
        We didn’t elect this government!
- grumple 4y ago
  Democracies are equally as likely, if not more, to put horrendously unqualified and highly dislikable people into power. And I'm not just talking about the most recent president emeritus. Political debates in the US rarely have anything to do with reason, and popularity is both fickle and a poor measure of what is best for the nation. At least royals receive lifetimes of training for how to be a public figure and head of state.
madamelic 4y ago
Not to mention the actual cost. I believe it is in the tens of billions when a monarch dies (changes of money, ceremonies, etc). Dude is in his 70s. Save your country a bit of money unless you want to foot the bill for maybe 10 years of being King.
- Jabbles 4y ago
  > I believe it is in the tens of billions when a monarch dies (changes of money, ceremonies, etc). That doesn't sound right by an order of magnitude. The main "cost" would be the extra bank holiday, but that is difficult to quantify.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  Coins aren't changed. New ones will have Charles on, but the existing ones will remain in circulation until they wear out.
forrestthewoods 4y ago
It would be better if he abolished the crown and disbanded the monarchy. He would write himself in the annals of human history.
maptime 4y ago
William has a very young family, pushing him into becoming the monarch would be incredibly detrimental to their lives as a family. The queen was very against abdication in any form
- g42gregory 4y ago
  Very true. But I think what is also true, is that he is there to serve his country. And if his country needs him, he could make that decision. I have a feeling that Kate will support that.
OscarCunningham 4y ago
It wouldn't leave any safety margin though. The line of succession after William is a disaster.
- zokier 4y ago
  > The line of succession after William is a disaster. Isn't it without a doubt that Prince George is next in line? It would take quite a lot to displace him.
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    There is never a doubt about the line of succession, it is William, then his 3 children (aged 9, 7, 4). If there are any disasters, making a 9 year old next in line to the throne voluntarily sounds like it.
  - OscarCunningham 4y ago
    When the new monarch is too young the next suitable person in the line of succession is appointed Regent. But William's kids are too young, Harry doesn't want it, his kids are also too young, and Andrew is a pervert. So it would go all the way to Beatrice at number nine on the list. Most people don't even know who she is, so I think they'd probably call it quits.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

bambataa 4y ago

I find this an interesting idea. Normally the response is “the whole point of a hereditary monarchy is that you don’t get to choose” and obviously Charles has been champing at the bit for years. However, there is also the historical idea of the monarch needing to be a good one and keep up their end of the bargain. Interesting times ahead!

aeneasmackenzie 4y ago
Edward 8 had to abdicate to marry outside of the church of England, and Charles is already married outside of the church of England. His abdication wouldn't be weird.

lostlogin 4y ago

It’s almost as though there could be a better system, one where ability could be judged and debated and voted on.

charles_f 4y ago
It's already the case though.
- lostlogin 4y ago
- xdennis 4y ago
  The queen of Britain is not elected. Many monarchies have been elective[1], and in some, the monarch is often picked from the same family. Even that is a better system than "first-born child". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
  - jononomo 4y ago
    He means that Great Britain already elects their government -- they are a democracy.
    - switch007 4y ago
      We didn’t elect this government!
grumple 4y ago
Democracies are equally as likely, if not more, to put horrendously unqualified and highly dislikable people into power. And I'm not just talking about the most recent president emeritus. Political debates in the US rarely have anything to do with reason, and popularity is both fickle and a poor measure of what is best for the nation. At least royals receive lifetimes of training for how to be a public figure and head of state.

madamelic 4y ago

Not to mention the actual cost. I believe it is in the tens of billions when a monarch dies (changes of money, ceremonies, etc). Dude is in his 70s. Save your country a bit of money unless you want to foot the bill for maybe 10 years of being King.

Jabbles 4y ago
> I believe it is in the tens of billions when a monarch dies (changes of money, ceremonies, etc). That doesn't sound right by an order of magnitude. The main "cost" would be the extra bank holiday, but that is difficult to quantify.
Symbiote 4y ago
Coins aren't changed. New ones will have Charles on, but the existing ones will remain in circulation until they wear out.

forrestthewoods 4y ago

It would be better if he abolished the crown and disbanded the monarchy. He would write himself in the annals of human history.

maptime 4y ago

William has a very young family, pushing him into becoming the monarch would be incredibly detrimental to their lives as a family. The queen was very against abdication in any form

g42gregory 4y ago
Very true. But I think what is also true, is that he is there to serve his country. And if his country needs him, he could make that decision. I have a feeling that Kate will support that.

OscarCunningham 4y ago

It wouldn't leave any safety margin though. The line of succession after William is a disaster.

zokier 4y ago
> The line of succession after William is a disaster. Isn't it without a doubt that Prince George is next in line? It would take quite a lot to displace him.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  There is never a doubt about the line of succession, it is William, then his 3 children (aged 9, 7, 4). If there are any disasters, making a 9 year old next in line to the throne voluntarily sounds like it.
- OscarCunningham 4y ago
  When the new monarch is too young the next suitable person in the line of succession is appointed Regent. But William's kids are too young, Harry doesn't want it, his kids are also too young, and Andrew is a pervert. So it would go all the way to Beatrice at number nine on the list. Most people don't even know who she is, so I think they'd probably call it quits.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]