Posted on 12/04/2014 7:11:53 PM PST by marshmallow
“Even Neville Chamberlain is rolling his eyes in his grave”./ Only if he has some good eye drops and had a great undertaker.
Just forward planning. Plans are always underway at some level for these ceremonials even if they are not anticipated for a long time - but as the Queen is 88, it is considered quite reasonable to think it might happen in the relatively near future. They're not sentimental about this. "The Queen is dead. Long live the King" is a constitutional fact to be faced whenever it happens. And even if the Coronation isn't that of Prince Charles, there would be a Coronation.
But this change is not going to happen - the form of the Coronation, which is a Sacrament of the Church of England, and was a Sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church before it, has been more or less fixed without major change since 1307. It's a Christian service and it cannot incorporate readings from a non-Christian faith. Lord Harries is simply spouting off in the Lords.
I know almost nothing about royal succession, but Charles should step aside and allow his son to become king when the time comes. He should never ascend to the throne.
He can't completely avoid it. Constitutionally he becomes King the instant his mother dies and he has no power not to do so (Parliament can alter the succession - nobody in the Royal Family can do it.) He could abdicate in favour of his son before Coronation, but he would still be King from the moment of his mother's death until the Instrument of Abdication took effect.
And he won't do this for a number of reasons. Not unless he was physically too old, sick, or infirm to take the crown - which at the moment he certainly isn't - he's getting older but he's still perfectly healthy. The main reasons he won't do it though is that he has a duty to his country to take the crown. Whatever people may think of the idea of monarchy, he doesn't get a choice. It's a duty under his nation's constitutional law, and he has spent his entire life doing his duty under that law. This is not the life he would have chosen - but he's done what he's supposed to all the same. Secondly, and almost as importantly, he won't drop the responsibility onto William. He decided a long time ago that he wanted his sons to have closer to a normal life than he ever managed. Their duty means they can't have entirely normal lives, but they have managed it to a great extent and every day that Charles sits on the throne is one more day that William does not have to.
I'm lucky enough to know the Prince personally. He's a good, decent man, with very little resemblance to the caricature of him people get from the media. He's just a man - flawed like any other - nothing special in any way except an accident of birth, but he is dedicated to his country and to the Commonwealth and to doing his duty. His motto as Prince of Wales (which like so much in his life he didn't choose) is "Ich Dien" - 'I Serve' and he has taken it as a personal motto. When the Crown falls to him, he will do his duty, and I really see no reason for anyone to think he won't be a good King.
He is a Christian as it happens, and takes it quite seriously. He's made a recent speech where he's one of the few major western leaders to speak out about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. People have a very warped idea of the man from the media. He believes in good will to all men of good will, regardless of faith, but his own faith is Christian.
Yes, I understand that the King is supposed to be the head of the Church of England, but the Church of England has abandoned Christianity also — so in the famous words of our former Secretary of State and erstwhile Commodity Trading Savant, ‘What Difference does it Make?’
It makes a lot of difference to a lot of people. Prince William's recent marriage in a traditional Church service at Westminster Abbey is quite possibly the most watched Christian service around the world in the last decade. The Coronation as a Christian service (and it is) would be even more watched. I agree that the Church of England has lost its way to a large extent, which is one reason I've left it myself (an option far less available to the Prince of Wales, otherwise - that's as far as I can go with that thought!), looking for a better way - but despite the failures of some of the leadership, there's a lot of devout Christians still within it. And these big national services help to remind people of what the Church should be - and to remind Britain of what it should be.
I used to be an admirer of Prince Charles, but have become disillusioned by some of his pronouncements about global warming and other issues. At the same time I admire his commitment to historic preservation and his military service. You are correct, of course, there is no real reason why he should not be king.
Reading your profile, I salute your service and, as a Vietnam veteran myself, especially your father's service.
Something that isn't always clear to people is that the Prince only has a very limited ability to speak his own mind. Constitutionally the Monarch cannot speak against the policies of HMG (His or Her Majesty's Government) and the Prince of Wales has to be aware at all times that he could be the Monarch at any time.
The reason you've heard so many environmental speeches from the Prince over the last twenty years is that it's been one of the very few major areas where he has agreed with the policies of HMG. It is an issue that is fairly important to him - and it's an issue I think he's wrong on (although to be fair, I have to admit he really has studied it a lot more than me, and when I've discussed it with him, he normally beats me!) but it's nowhere near as important as people think it is. One example - he's a keen hunter and shooter who believes people should have better rights to own firearms than they do. He can't make speeches like that - and I'm only willing to mention it, because of the fact that there's been a recent leak in the press about his shooting so I feel comfortable mentioning it.
On most of his personal politics, he'd actually fit in quite well here - if he had that type of freedom. He's actually a pretty conservative person on most issues.
Environmentalism is an exception - but he's also been an environmentalist since well before it became a major left wing issue.
Muslims won’t feel “embraced” by stupid symbolic gestures like these. They will take it as a sign of weakness and civilizational decline.
Shall there always be an England?
I always felt a little sorry for Charles. Kind of like Edward VII he has been under employed standing in the shadow of his mothers long reign
...and the sun then finally set on the British Empire.
Just asinine enough of a proposal that Prince Chuckles would likely accede.
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.