|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Should Charles take over ruling the Country |
 |
11-02-2005
|
#1
|
|
Top Dog
News Hound is
Offline:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,298
|
Should Charles take over ruling the Country
Should Prince Charles, our future King take over control of this County in place of the Politicians ?
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country |
|
|
11-02-2005
|
#2
|
|
Registered Member
nutcracker is
Offline:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 147
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country
Not a bad idea but the problem comes when you get a bad King how do you vote him out ?
After all what's the point of voting if you can only vote for the King, it gets more and more like a dictatorship, at least with politicians you can vote someone else in, it's just a shame they are all crap.  |
|
|
|
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country |
|
|
12-02-2005
|
#3
|
|
Top Dog
News Hound is
Offline:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,298
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country
nutcracker,
That's a valid point, I decided to post the Poll because a viewer asked if I would.
I agree with you that a good King would do the Country a lot of good, sweeping the current bunch of Politicians into the scrap bin.
BUT as you quite rightly say, a bad King would have dire consequences for the Country.
I don't know what to suggest as regards the current system. None of the current Politicians seem to be able to provide a good service.
Blair seems to be going the same way as Bush with the blatent spending.
The babies and helicopter trip yesterday was astonishing, no doubt funded by the general public, and we have to watch this abuse of spending day in day out, whilst our taxes seem to be continually climbing whilst the services offered seem to be declining.
Add in the ever increasing legislation.
We need a new Political party, and a new broom, to rid the Country of the excess Political Fat.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country |
|
|
22-12-2005
|
#4
|
|
Top Dog
News Hound is
Offline:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,298
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country
Having warched both Tony and Cherie Blair with their continual squandering of both taxpaying and private funds and bullshit whilst Tony acts as our Prime minister, plus the utterly useless ability of his Labour party to control crime in the UK I would vote our monarchy into power any time they ask.
As to the power struggle between the politicians and the British monarchy - The army are after all sworn in to protect the Queen and Country - And I for one would protect our Queen or King rather than any bullshit politicians
As to good or bad monarch, look at the current political labour, conservative and liberal political examples - All the politicial partys are robbing us UK taxpayers blind and this just has to stop.
The UK needs a change from the current fat political p*gs.
I just hope that one day Charles will go live on BBC1 and announce that he is totally fed up with the current bunch of political idiots - dissolve parliament and create a genuine party to look over the UK.
Shove the current political system - Lets vote for Charles, he doesn't suffer crap or political bullshit...
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country |
|
|
24-12-2005
|
#5
|
|
Registered Member
Geoff is
Offline:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Age: 54
Posts: 206
|
Re: Should Charles take over ruling the Country
Call me George, suggests Charles
THE Prince of Wales has discussed rejecting the title Charles III when he becomes King to avoid unhappy associations with some of the bloodiest periods in the monarchy’s history.
The Prince’s favourite alternative name is George VII, in honour of his grandfather — one of the best-loved monarchs of the past century.
The Times has spoken to two trusted friends of the Prince, who both said that the change to George has been considered seriously. One said: “There have been many conversations with the Prince about this. It is an assumption among us all that it will happen.
“The name Charles is tinged with so much sadness.”
The other source said: “They [the Royal Family] will decide at the time, but he has talked about George.”
The name Charles is regarded as jinxed in some royal circles. Charles I was the only monarch to be executed. His beheading in 1649, after the English Civil War, brought about the short-lived republic under Oliver Cromwell.
Charles II, the son of Charles I, returned to the throne at the Restoration in 1660, after spending 18 years in exile overseas, but was mocked as the Merry Monarch because he had a string of mistresses, including the orange-seller Nell Gwyn.
There is sensitivity in royal circles about Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender, who was known as Charles III by his supporters. Despite his defeat at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, he is still seen as a Scottish romantic figure.
The Prince of Wales, who was christened Charles Philip Arthur George, is a passionate supporter of the Union and spends most of his holidays in Scotland.
A Clarence House spokesman said that there had been long-term thinking about the Coronation, but that nothing had been discussed officially about changing the Prince’s title. He added: “One of the questions that we have asked is what he will be known as. The decision will be taken at the time.”
When he ascends the throne the new King will convene an Accession Council — a meeting of the full Privy Council.
It is the only time that the full Privy Council, which includes ministers and senior bishops, meets. It will then be decreed by the council what title the new King will take.
Were the Prince to change his formal, or regnal, title he would be following a tradition begun by Queen Victoria in 1837, who was born Alexandrina. Four of the past six monarchs have changed their name, including George VI, the father of the Queen, who was christened Prince Albert.
Prince Charles was only 4 when his grandfather died but he was very close to his grandmother, the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
The issue of changing the regnal title has been raised at Clarence House but the name is not yet part of any formal planning for the sucession.
One senior Royal official said that there had been an assumption in informal talks about the accession that the Prince would keep the name Charles.
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, a genealogist from Cracroft’s Peerage, said: “There has been a tradition over the last century for the regnal title to be different to the christian name. The change would make sense.
“Monarchs called Charles have not had much luck. One was beheaded, one was in exile, and one was a pretender to the throne.
“While the Prince of Wales is known throughout the world as Charles, there is enormous goodwill to the name George. George VI was an outstanding and popular King who took over in the immediate aftermath of the abdication crisis and rallied his people during the war. King George and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother were wonderful. I think George VII and Queen Camilla sound wonderful, too.”
When the marriage was announced of the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles, Clarence House said that she would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall after the marriage and that it was “intended” that she would be known as Princess Consort when the Prince of Wales succeeds his mother to the throne.
If, however, public opinion were amenable, she could yet become Queen Camilla. Significantly, there was no such announcement about the title by which her husband would be known.
Source
By Andrew Pierce
timesonline.co.uk
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32 PM. |
|
|
|
|
