Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing against the Queen: she had a role chosen for, and thrust upon her at an early age, and has carried it extrememly well.
But if an institution as staid as the Papacy can accept that a ceremonial role as to adapt to changes within a mature, post-industrial society, then obviously, the House of Windsor should do the same and "streamline" its role in a manner similar to other respected constitutional monarchies; just common sense.
Isnt it my opinion who I choose to like..I like the Queen and most of the Royal family.. not all but most..just my preference as yours is the opposite..
Isnt it my opinion who I choose to like..I like the Queen and most of the Royal family.. not all but most..just my preference as yours is the opposite..
that's fine. doesn't change the fact that it doesn't affect you (in any tangible way).
I think and hope Charles gets it at least for a few years. He's a good person, he has been groomed for this job all his life, he sacrificed (by not getting to marry for love) and it would allow William a few more years of relative freedom.
The current queen only ascended to the throne at such a tender age because of the death of her father--there are no age limits. If Charles wants to do it, let him have it. The downside is that a coronation would be quite expensive and then, if he only lasts a few years, another expensive coronation would be in store.
I think and hope Charles gets it at least for a few years. He's a good person, he has been groomed for this job all his life, he sacrificed (by not getting to marry for love) and it would allow William a few more years of relative freedom.
The current queen only ascended to the throne at such a tender age because of the death of her father--there are no age limits. If Charles wants to do it, let him have it. The downside is that a coronation would be quite expensive and then, if he only lasts a few years, another expensive coronation would be in store.
You can go back to arguing now.
Honestly we have no way to know whether he is a good person or not. And what makes us think Charles is NOT a good person, because he sought love? I respect him for this choice, despite the tremendous social pressure. Maybe the British Royal Family needs something like this, instead of the eternal fake smile and fake happiness?
I have nothing against William, it is just I don't like how people treat Charles as if he doesn't deserve the throne. Honestly is it a sin to divorce?
Charles seems to be in good health. And there is no reason to assume he will be there for only a few years.
I think and hope Charles gets it at least for a few years. He's a good person, he has been groomed for this job all his life, he sacrificed (by not getting to marry for love) and it would allow William a few more years of relative freedom.
The current queen only ascended to the throne at such a tender age because of the death of her father--there are no age limits. If Charles wants to do it, let him have it. The downside is that a coronation would be quite expensive and then, if he only lasts a few years, another expensive coronation would be in store.
You can go back to arguing now.
Well, on the plus side, a coronation of Charles and then his son would also result in a large anoint of spending from visiting dignitaries and celebrities, commercial air time for covering the coronations, as well as souvenir sales. Though the coronation is technically one day, it'll be at least a week or two of events (flights into London, hotels booked up across the region, high end restaurants booked with reservations from rich customers, quick mass production of coronation products, taxis, limousines, and many other businesses).
I think and hope Charles gets it at least for a few years. He's a good person, he has been groomed for this job all his life, he sacrificed (by not getting to marry for love) and it would allow William a few more years of relative freedom.
The current queen only ascended to the throne at such a tender age because of the death of her father--there are no age limits. If Charles wants to do it, let him have it. The downside is that a coronation would be quite expensive and then, if he only lasts a few years, another expensive coronation would be in store.
I think and hope Charles gets it at least for a few years. He's a good person, he has been groomed for this job all his life, he sacrificed (by not getting to marry for love) and it would allow William a few more years of relative freedom.
The current queen only ascended to the throne at such a tender age because of the death of her father--there are no age limits. If Charles wants to do it, let him have it. The downside is that a coronation would be quite expensive and then, if he only lasts a few years, another expensive coronation would be in store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli
Honestly we have no way to know whether he is a good person or not. And what makes us think Charles is NOT a good person, because he sought love? I respect him for this choice, despite the tremendous social pressure. Maybe the British Royal Family needs something like this, instead of the eternal fake smile and fake happiness?
I have nothing against William, it is just I don't like how people treat Charles as if he doesn't deserve the throne. Honestly is it a sin to divorce?
Charles seems to be in good health. And there is no reason to assume he will be there for only a few years.
Well, technically we have no absolute way to determine whether Charles is a good person but I still have always liked him and I agree with his ideas on the environment, and the nondescript architecture that he spoke out on. I think he got bad press when he married Diana. He tried to be a good father--and I think he was--but the Powers That Be didn't really want him to stay home and bathe the baby. He had duties to attend to, and against his own wishes, he upheld his responsibilities.
He suffered from fallout from the abdication. To assure that no one would ever disgrace the family that way again, Charles was advised to "sow his wild oats" because later on, he would have to marry someone suitable, whether he loved her or not. He dutifully took that advice and when it came time to marry, there wasn't a suitable virgin left, lol, so he didn't have much choice than to marry Diana. Diana was too young and too unstable so a mess resulted that was even worse than could have been predicted.
Charles has been a good father. We can see that by the relationship with his sons. He's made sacrifices all his life. I think he's mentioned jobs that he would have rather had, jobs that really interested him, but he's sacrificed and done what he was supposed to do. I don't care if he got divorced--they ALL got divorced--and it mirrors our society today.
I'd like to see him become king. Queen Camilla? Well, I think people could get used to it. Does he still want it? Maybe that's the question. Maybe at this point he'd rather stay home and paint or garden. But if he still wants to fulfill his birthright, then why not? As someone said, even though a coronation would be expensive it certainly would bring money in--tourists, hotels, souvenirs, restaurants. (I still have a scarf that my grandmother brought back from Queen Elizabeth's coronation, lol.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
