Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Will Prince Charles ever ascend to the throne?

13

Comments

  • #62
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,069 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    I'd forgotten she was 90.

    Ten of fifteen years ... then hopefully Willian & Kate.


  • #63
    Pickpocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭Pickpocket


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Charles is too old to take up the role.

    It's all about symbolism and public perception. They/he could decide that House Windsor would be served best by having him ascend, or alternatively that King William (or whatever name he chooses) has a better ring to it.

    Personally I think he'd give his right arm for it and always will. He's lived in either scandal or near irrelevance for a lot of his adult life. I'd say he gets hard just thinking about it.


  • #64
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    I'd love to see Harry get the crown. It'd put an end to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bloodline. The British Royal Family only changed their name to Windsor during WW1 because of anti-German sentiment.


  • #65
    Pickpocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭Pickpocket


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I'd love to see Harry get the crown. It'd put an end to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bloodline.

    How?


  • #66
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,499 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Pickpocket wrote: »
    It's all about symbolism and public perception. They/he could decide that House Windsor would be served best by having him ascend, or alternatively that King William (or whatever name he chooses) has a better ring to it.

    Personally I think he'd give his right arm for it and always will. He's lived in either scandal or near irrelevance for a lot of his adult life. I'd say he gets hard just thinking about it.

    I know, the man has been waiting all life to become the King. I think for the future of the monarchy though that he should step aside once the queen dies and see his son become the King of England.

    It's a whole fresh perspective, a young King and commoner wife will do wonders for Great Britain on the global stage..


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Pickpocket wrote: »
    How?

    Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.


  • #68
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,026 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I didn't know QEII or even the House of Windsor was "profoundly anti-Catholic", what has she said or done? Didn't her granddaughter, Anne's daughter, marry a Catholic?

    It's one of the ways you can lose your place in the que in line for the British throne. The king/queen of Britain is the head of the Church of England.


  • #69
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,026 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    LordSutch wrote: »
    I'd forgotten she was 90.

    Ten of fifteen years ... then hopefully Willian & Kate.

    Well Charles will become king if he's alive when his mother clocks off.


  • #70
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,026 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.

    Wasn't Diana a cousin of Charles ? So not Windsor but she wasn't coming from common stock.


  • #71
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,499 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.

    Interesting Fact.

    Diana Spencer was a cousin of American screen legend Humphrey DeForest Bogart.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Interesting Fact.

    Diana Spencer was a cousin of American screen legend Humphrey DeForest Bogart.

    Amazing that there were 2 American Screen legends with first name Humphrey and last name Bogart.


  • #73
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,499 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    Amazing that there were 2 American Screen legends with first name Humphrey and last name Bogart.

    Wha?

    Explain your post sir.


  • #74
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 31,693 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    That's just patronizing nonsense.There hasn't been much issue between Irish and British people in a long while.

    I am not sure how it is patronising, but it is my experience of living here for 45 years since I was 25. There were certainly more significant political events in that time, I am simply saying that in my experience (and the experience of a few other Brits that I know) by a year after her visit, attitudes had changed considerably.

    If it does not fit in with your preferred view, well I can't help that. I have no doubt that other events played a more significant part, but her visit provided a completion of the other events. Since we are dealing with perception here there is little point in your disputing my perception unless you are starting from exactly the same place.


  • #75
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    looksee wrote: »
    I am not sure how it is patronising, but it is my experience of living here for 45 years since I was 25. There were certainly more significant political events in that time, I am simply saying that in my experience (and the experience of a few other Brits that I know) by a year after her visit, attitudes had changed considerably.

    If it does not fit in with your preferred view, well I can't help that. I have no doubt that other events played a more significant part, but her visit provided a completion of the other events. Since we are dealing with perception here there is little point in your disputing my perception unless you are starting from exactly the same place.

    It's patronizing to think that just one event and suddenly the whole country's attitude changed as if we were spitting at brits on the street if we heard and english accent before her visit and we needed a visit from the queen to respect people form the UK and couldn't possibly have had respect for british people without her visit.I don't remember my attitude or the attitude of anyone else I know changing because of the visit so I suspect you are simply reading too much into an event and mistakenly using it as a turning point when it really wasn't.

    The same thing gets trotted out about the use of Croke Park for soccer and rugby and the media claiming it was the day we "matured as a nation" which of course wasn't the case at all and similarly any over analyzing the queens visit .The media love over analyzing single events and interpreting them as a turning point when of course life is much more complex but it suits a particular narrative to tell us one event made a much bigger difference than it did and think the general public are gob****es and will fall for that line and buy into their bull**** theory.


  • #76
    Widdershins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

    All the monarchs sons guard the coffin all night long.

    Like that episode where Father Jack wasn't really dead..


  • #77
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,964 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    The president of Ireland probably says more profound things every time he needs to excuse himself to the bathroom.

    The only thing that comes to mind whenever Higgins opens his mouth is "who is he supposed to be representing?". His speech lauding Castro recently certainly didn't seem to go down too well with most people.

    Champagne socialist who only got the job because the then favorite Gallagher caught caught out/setup (depending on your viewpoint) by RTE and whoever was behind that agenda.


  • #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,740 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Like that episode where Father Jack wasn't really dead..

    :pac:


  • #79
    Pickpocket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭Pickpocket


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.


    And if such a thing were ever confirmed/admitted then Harry would have no claim on the throne whatsoever. A pointless thought exercise.


  • #80
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Pickpocket wrote: »
    And if such a thing were ever confirmed/admitted then Harry would have no claim on the throne whatsoever. A pointless thought exercise.

    The royals would never confirm/admit it. You can be sure as hell that Lizzy knows though.


  • #81
    Skommando
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 618 ✭✭✭Skommando


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well, perhaps you should read a few current British laws and ask yourself questions like: would your one be on the British throne if, say, she had become a Roman Catholic?

    Go for it and tell us about this non-sectarian British monarchy.

    well as 'Roman' Catholics are now equally despised in Ireland as well, it kinda takes the wind out of your argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 21,740 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I admit to having a strange fascination with the British Royals. I have no strong political opinions about them or their impact on us, I'm more curious as to what type of people they are.

    Do William and Kate sit down together of an evening and chat away like any other couple. Do they read bedtime stories to their babies. Would the queen ever say "Phil my dodgy knees are acting up".

    Then there are the more crazy ones like Andrew. There were lots of rumours about his friendship with that Jeffrey Epstein dude. Any truth I wonder.


  • #83
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 29,964 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I admit to having a strange fascination with the British Royals. I have no strong political opinions about them or their impact on us, I'm more curious as to what type of people they are.

    Do William and Kate sit down together of an evening and chat away like any other couple. Do they read bedtime stories to their babies. Would the queen ever say "Phil my dodgy knees are acting up".

    Ah you'd have to think so. They are still people at the end of it all and away from their "day job" I'm sure they do the same things as the rest of us.


  • #84
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,026 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    Ah you'd have to think so. They are still people at the end of it all and away from their "day job" I'm sure they do the same things as the rest of us.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe1PsVGUSaw


    They seem a normal enough bunch from this video. Well as normal as you can be being the queen of England.


  • #85
    Widdershins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    William and Cate are very into wildlife conservation. A bit contradictory since they are into hunting. Like all overprivileged knobs, they justify it by saying it's about population control.


  • #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Teyla Emmagan wrote: »
    Best health care in the world. They do seem to have good genes to be fair. And Prince Philip only married in and he's incredible for 95.

    Queen Victoria Was The great great grandmother of both the queen & prince Philip.


  • #87
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,026 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETc8VutRflk


  • #88
    twill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 587 ✭✭✭twill


    _Kaiser_ wrote: »
    The only thing that comes to mind whenever Higgins opens his mouth is "who is he supposed to be representing?". His speech lauding Castro recently certainly didn't seem to go down too well with most people.

    Champagne socialist who only got the job because the then favorite Gallagher caught caught out/setup (depending on your viewpoint) by RTE and whoever was behind that agenda.
    I'm no fan, but champagne socialist? His father was on the anti-treaty side in the civil war and suffered for it, so his socialism came the hard way.

    His views on Castro may not have gone down well - allegedly for Castro's lack of democratic credentials - with those who look to the US for their politics, but the US has murdered or unseated nearly every left-wing or democratic leader in South or Central America since the 1950s. Castro didn't make Allende's mistakes.*

    As to the thread title, he will ascend to the throne someday and also live frustratingly long. I'm fascinated by the amazing P.R. campaign waged by the British monarchy to get from the lows of the 1990s-2000s, when many supported the disestablishment of the monarchy, to the huge success of the "William and Kate" nonsense of today. Crafty beggars. And stupendously rich, too.

    *Sorry for the tangent.


  • #89
    entropi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,731 ✭✭✭✭entropi


    I don't think she'll ever abdicate the throne. I think it was done in Belgium or Netherlands this/last year though, which was pretty sound of their monarch.


  • #90
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 10,056 ✭✭✭✭SeanW


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Even as trolling goes your interest in, and admiration of, the blood-based, blood-soaked, profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish, anti-democratic British monarchy is always disturbing.
    Huh? Did "the monarchy" ever do anything, to anyone alive in modern times? "The monarchy" has been only a figurehead in the UK for a very long time.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ah, the "good Nazi" defence: the institution may be iniquitous but he/she personally was not even if they benefit directly from it. Although you appear to be denying the explicit legal reality of anti-Catholicism upon which the British monarchy, and the British state, rests today in 2016. Nothing much anybody can do about that denial in the face of reality, though.
    Something ... something ... something NAZIS ... something.
    Oh, so now she's responsible for initiating legislation. Very good then. You mean that legislation in 2013, 60 years after she became Queen of England? 60 years - yes, she sounds positively brimming in love for Catholics. And the same 2013 legislation which reiterated, clearly, that Catholics could not become head of the British state? Curious how you missed that part of your lovebombing of your supposedly non-sectarian British monarchy.

    Act of Settlement 1701

    Succession to the Crown Act 2013
    Umm ... the Monarchy does not make laws. Parliament makes laws. I think His/Her Majesty can delay the passage of laws a short time, but has no power beyond that. Their role is ceremonial.
    knucklehead6 wrote: »
    Eh....Pardon?

    What Nazi's are you talking about?
    That was my question ...

    There seems to be some misunderstanding of what a Constitutional Monarchy actually is: a monarchy whose powers are limited, in European cases (and Japan etc), limited to the point of irrelevance. Many modern monarchies expect the personage of their monarchies to stay out of politics entirely. It is also not uncommon for monarchs to have a position in the religious affairs of the State, so that also imposes certain requirements, e.g. that the monarch be a part of that faith.

    A good example of both requirements is in Japan, whose Imperial Family has an ecclesiastical role in the Shinto faith, and who are so limited in terms of politics that even as the current Emperor Akihito is aging, of failing health and feels he's not up to the job for much longer, and wishes to abdicate (which he cannot under Japanese law, made solely by their Parliament, the Diet), the speech he made some time back had to be so couched in cautious wording that if you weren't aware of the context of it, you might not be aware that in his heart the poor guy was screaming "get me out of here"... had he spoken any more strongly about the matter, it would have been a violation of an important principle that the monarch stays out of politics, because whether he can abdicate or not is a matter for democratically elected politicians.

    By all means, bash monarchies if you consider them outmoded, their members privileged or whatever, but at least do so based on facts.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    Unless Charles dies before his mother, he will succeed her. That's how the monarchy works, however much people want William and Kate to jump the queue. Ideally, the death of the current Queen will actually open up the debate on the Monarchy's future. I'm a lifelong republican from a largely republican family. When I was a kid, we were pretty much alone in our beliefs while most others were indifferent (or at least supporting the status quo). But as the years have passed, the republican movement has grown rapidly. We're much more organised and we're pushing ahead on many key issues.

    EDIT: I should clarify, I'm English myself and grew up in England. When I say "republican from a republican family" I mean we're all anti-monarchy.


Advertisement
Advertisement