Skip to comments.Queen hands over the reigns to Prince Charles - historic step closer to a new king
Posted on 01/19/2014 10:33:59 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It is being dubbed the gentle succession as the Queen gradually begins to relinquish some of her traditional duties as monarch.
As she approaches her 88th birthday in April after almost 62 years on the throne, she has agreed to hand over part of her workload in a historic job-share arrangement with Prince Charles.
In a royal first, he will be taking on more head of state-style responsibilities as the Palace starts to make tentative plans for his eventual succession.
Courtiers yesterday described the softly-softly move as wise and just plain common sense.
The first sign of the partial power transfer will be the merging this week of the Queen and Charless press offices.
In future any announcements concerning the monarch and her 65-year-old eldest son will now come from the same source. Palace sources insist the switch will be entirely seamless.
Princes William and Harry will also play their part in the new set-up, with both assuming far more responsibility since they relinquished their military roles.
(Excerpt) Read more at mirror.co.uk ...
She had lived so long trying not to do this,sad for the UK.
It is really sad when you birth an idiot.
she has lost her last marble
he is depraved and an idiot
yes, but it is sadder she’s presided over her country being overtaken by muzzies and big brother and she couldn’t stop it, and maybe shares in the blame for it. only thatcher would have had a chance to prevent what’s happened to the uk.
I can’t respect Charles.
It was my hope she would skip a generation, and make Charles’ eldest son king.
Perhaps there’s no way to do that.
At least morons around the planet can gain peace knowing one of their own has finally been crowned.
UK Royal succession ping
He’s mind-numbingly aboard the global warming express. Things can only go downhill with him at the helm. His son may never see the throne if his idiocy removes the monarchy form of government due to his liberal agenda ideology.
Maybe we can bring back something like George III’s porphyria and have a Regency under William. It got England through Napoleon.
“It was my hope she would skip a generation, and make Charles eldest son king.”
“Perhaps theres no way to do that.”
Actually, there is a way to do that, but the London tabloids would be all over her for that.
I think William has a much more level head than his dad.
Even William would know better than to act like his dad did towards his mother.
It honestly makes me cringe every time I see Camilla at some event. No class whatsoever those two...
The tabloids can go... well nevermind.
Thanks for the mention BTW.
This could all be a feint.
Somehow, I get a feeling Charles will handle this change well. Part of the conditions for The Queen to abdicate might be that Charles must give his oldest son William and wife Kate a big role in the public eye. Everyone knows it is Will and Kate who excite and inspire the crowds in London. Kate may be expecting again.
Prince Dufus doesn’t deserve to be king.
Charles’ first official position is that of a Royal Tampon.
She never had any marbles to begin with. She has proclaimed: “Le Reyne le veult” to each and every Act of Parliament since She ascendented the Throne.
However, Liz is not dead yet, and he is no spring chicken either, and men dont live as long as women. It may be that he might die before her, or only be on the throne for a short time.
Charles reminds me of Edward VII. Too long without real employment. He will be pretty lackluster I think
“...she has agreed to hand over part of her workload in a historic job-share arrangement with Prince Charles.”
Which means one brainless twit handing over part of her non-existent “workload” over to another brainless twit.
Too bad they both can’t run for Congress. They would fit in well.
I am lucky enough to be a friend of the Prince of Wales, and he's not an idiot.
The Prince is, on most issues, a staunch conservative. Because of this significant sections of the mass media does its best to try and make him look a fool - as they typically try to do with most conservatives.
It surprises me to some extent to see people on Freerepublic falling for such tactics, because they seem all too aware of them when they are applied to American figures - and the British press is, if anything, for the most part even more left wing than the US press.
People also don't seem to understand that virtually every speech made by the Prince of Wales is written for him by British civil servants acting on the instructions of British politicians. The nature of the constitutional monarchy means that it is important the Prince is never seen to be in significant conflict with Her Majesty's Government on any major issue. One reasons the Prince has made so many speeches in recent years on environmental issues is because it represents one of the few areas where he does tend to agree with the 'progressive' line of British governments. They don't want him speaking on issues like gun rights (which he supports) or stronger sentences for criminals (which he also supports) or a wide range of other conservative issues.
The Press also tends to highlight these speeches, while paying much less attention to cases where he is meeting with and supporting troops and veterans (which he does regularly, and which is also largely supported by the current government - but not necessarily by the media).
He's a good and decent man, who is unfortunately not really in a position to defend himself. I'm his friend and I will do so. And when he becomes King - assuming he does - he will do his best and do his duty to his country, and to the Commonwealth - as he has all of his life.
I do - but I am lucky enough to know him, and not have to judge him just through how he is presented by the press.
It was my hope she would skip a generation, and make Charles eldest son king.
Perhaps theres no way to do that.
The Queen cannot do this. Parliament could - it has the power to pass a law altering the succession (as it is currently doing to give females the same right as males) but the Queen cannot do so.
But Parliament would only do it for extremely compelling reasons - or if both the Queen and the Prince of Wales asked them to (which might happen if she reaches 100 and he'd be nearly 80 but is unlikely to happen unless something like that takes place).
People should understand that being King is an immense responsibility - and so is being Heir Apparent. The Prince of Wales has been Heir Apparent since he was five years old - he has never really had a chance at much of a normal life, and when he becomes King that becomes even more true. Even if he didn't want to be King, he would take the Crown at this point partly just to keep that burden from falling on William - he is not going to force his son to give up his chance at something close to a normal life for as long as possible.
As a matter of fact, she hasn't. There are certain bills for which a different phrase is used (just mentioning that as a point of interest, given it's quite rare to encounter anybody who is even aware of the formal phrase). And the Queen doesn't proclaim it - the Clerk of the Parliaments does.
But she has to give consent. The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy and the Constitution gives the power to make laws to Parliament. The Monarch could only refuse assent in very extreme cases which are defined by the Lascelles Principles - and no such case has arisen during the reign of the current Queen. The last time a King even came close to refusing assent was in 1910. The last time it actually happened was in 1708.
The existence of the power prevents Parliament presenting such bills in the first place, because it would be used if it had to be.
Incidentally Her Majesty did refuse consent to a Bill in 1999 - a Bill that would have given Parliament the ability to overrule the Monarch in a dispute over whether Britain went to war or not - but that is different from refusing assent (refusal of consent stops Parliament from even debating a Bill and can only be used in the case of a few very specific royal perogatives.)
Interesting that you know the Prince of Wales. I know two people who know him (one is married to a famous actress) and neither of these two people like him.
Thanks for sharing this info. You would never know that by what you read in the press.
Being likable isn’t the top qualification for being good at one’s job. Plenty of people say that 0vomit and Clinton are very likable.
Well, not everybody who knows me, likes me either. I don’t know why - I’m charming :)
Seriously, people can know him and not like him. It happens that I do. What concerns me isn’t whether or not people like him or not - just whether or not, he’s judged fairly. And I think the media has made it very hard for people to judge him fairly. That’s a product of them being largely left wing and rarely being fair towards either conservatives or conservative ideas, and the virtual worship of much of the media of the late Diana, Princess of Wales (who I met a few times, but did not know well - she seemed to me like a lovely lady and a loving and devoted mother, but she certainly was not the near-deity that some elevated her to), which lead them to treat him as some sort of cartoon villain.
Skip all that.....go directly to Harry !
Well, this one friend continually refers to him as “a jerk.” I think Charles flirts with his wife too much. But he should be used to this - in England this woman is pretty much adored.
I have not liked a lot of Charles’ public statements which I’m sure - not withstanding who writes them - reflect his own values. Did he not say he wants to be “Defender of All Faiths”? or was that wrong?
The term is actually Latin - Fidei Defensor, which can be translated into English as either Defender of Faith, or Defender of the Faith. There are rumours - but they are completely unconfirmed - that when he is King, he wants the former to be used rather than the latter in his English language 'Style'. It could be true.
If it is, it reflects nothing more than his desire to be a King for all his people in both Britain and the Commonwealth. He wants to defend freedom of religion - including and especially freedom of religion.
Here is an extract from a speech he made last month:
For myself, I have for some time now been deeply troubled by the growing difficulties faced by Christian communities in various parts of the Middle East. It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants. Christianity was, literally, born in the Middle East and we must not forget our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters in Christ. Their church communities link us straight back to the early Church, as I was reminded by hearing Aramaic, Our Lord's own language, spoken and sung a few hours ago.
Yet, today, the Middle East and North Africa has the lowest concentration of Christians in the world just four per cent of the population and it is clear that the Christian population of the Middle East has dropped dramatically over the last century and is falling still further.
This has an effect on all of us, although, of course, primarily on those Christians who can no longer continue to live in the Middle East: we all lose something immensely and irreplaceably precious when such a rich tradition dating back two thousand years begins to disappear. It is, therefore, especially delightful to see such a rich panoply of church life here to-day, including the Antiochian, Greek, Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox Churches, the Melkite, Maronite, Syrian Catholic, Chaldean, and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as the Church of the East, and Churches established, dare I say it, somewhat more recently, including the Anglican Church!
In saying all this about the difficulties facing the Christian churches in the Middle East I am, of course, conscious that they are not the only faith community in this region suffering at the moment, nor is the Middle East the only part of the world in which Christians are suffering, but, given the particularly acute circumstances faced by the church communities in the Middle East to-day, I felt it worthwhile to draw attention to their current plight. It is important to note, above all, that the decline of Christians in the region represents a major blow to peace as Christians are part of the fabric of society, often acting as bridge-builders between other communities.
When he becomes King he wants to be a King for all Britons, for all citizens of the Commonwealth Realms, and he wants to Head of Commonwealth for the entire Commonwealth. He is Christian - and he will take his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England seriously - but he will defend the rights of all to worship freely. So yes, he may well prefer to be Defender of Faith, rather than limit that only to his own. But he makes the distinction very strongly between those who simply live a life of peaceful faith - and those who take an extremist view and use their religion as a justification or excuse for violence.
It's worth remembering that his mentor, the man he was closest to outside of his own family was brutally murdered by people who claimed their Roman Catholicism was part of their justification for killing people - and he saw the same group bomb his country repeatedly. He sees the difference between true religion and religion as an excuse for violence more clearly than most people - and treats those who simply want to worship as they wish with respect, while having nothing but contempt for those who practices the perversions of terrorism.
Plus, William has a very important credential....... he is young.
By force of vigor and personality he might restore the authority of King his grandmother threw away
Thanks for the history lesson.
I'm kind of the opposite...not everybody who knows me, hates me. I don't know why, I'm meaner than a snake....
The only really mean snake is the cotton moth.
Maybe you can be called cotton mouth from here on
The IRA is a left-wing terrorist organization and is not supported by the Catholic Church. I don’t remember the Vatican praising the butchering of Lord Mountbatten.
And, please, no more lectures on the wonders of Prince Charles. I have enough problems following American politics. If you want to talk about Queen Elizabeth, I’ll engage.
He will get to preside over the event where Buckingham Palace is turned into a Mooookus.
She should skip over him for William
If he is not an idiot, why does he act like one? If His Royal Highness was an American citizen, he would be an Obama-boosting liberal Democrat. If he ejects all the Muslims from Great Britain and stops calling himself Defender of the FAITHS, I might reconsider my opinion of him.
Izlamist King of England...Them English got to be proud...
Hmmm. Cyber “Cotton Mouth” liberty. Has a ring to it, but too much like “Big Mouth,” and everybody already knows that about me.
The miching buffoon is 66 years old. We can only hope that he ends up face first in a butt of Malmsey, or at least so frequently imbibes pomace brandy that he is numbered among those who have experienced spontaneous combustion.
When speaking in reference to other countries, an American is well advised to be cautious about the meaning of the term, conservative. this reply on an old thread is one of my favorites, on the topic of American conservatism and its relation to conservatism in other countries.Because of this significant sections of the mass media does its best to try and make him look a fool - as they typically try to do with most conservatives.
My take on American conservatism (which may be relevant to Britain) is that Theodore Roosevelt nailed it in his famous speech to the Sarbone in Paris in 1910:It surprises me to some extent to see people on Freerepublic falling for such tactics, because they seem all too aware of them when they are applied to American figures - and the British press is, if anything, for the most part even more left wing than the US press.There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement.Clearly, the press is guilty of functioning as the critic in TRs posited scenario. It is only natural that they should tend to do so; they dont do anything which makes them accountable for, you know, actual results - but they can criticize like nobodys business. And - crucial point - journalists behave precisely as Adam Smith predicted:
A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeatPeople of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Since all major journalists work for members of wire services, and since wire services function as virtual meetings of people of the same trade (of journalism), nothing else can be expected but that journalists will go along and get along with each other - to the detriment of the public. Especially do they do so by claiming that all journalists are objective, which in effect is a claim by each journalist that he himself is objective. Say what you will of the virtue of diligently trying to be objective, arguing from the assumption that you actually are objective serves the same function, and is no more justifiable, than claiming superior wisdom. Either amounts to mere arrogance in service to an attempt at censorship.
Considering how our journalists strain at gnats (in Chris Christies Bridgegate( and swallow camels (in reference to all things Benghazi, and ObamaCare, and Fast and Furious, and . . .) that is quite a strong claim you make about the British press.
But then, I can match your friend Charles Global Warming credulousnes with that of a friend who is legitimately a scientist but who claimed to me that the science (of global warming) is good. So why should we wonder that conservatives are sometimes gulled by press reports?It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments