[Batsy]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

well India, Zimbabwe and Pakistan are members too, but I don't know if I'd refer to them as allies.

I would say that India - the world's largest democracy - is a close ally of Britain but I wouldn't say that Zimbabwe and Pakistan are. Especially Zimbabwe.

Anyway, Zimbabwe isn't a part of the Commonwealth. It was suspended in 2002 over concerns with the electoral and land reform policies of Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF government, before it withdrew from the organisation in 2003 because the Commonwealth refused to lift its suspension.

Pakistan was suspended for a second time, for six months, from 22 November 2007.

The Commonwealth cannot expel members. The only way members leave the Commonwealth is if they leave voluntary, which they can do whenever they like.

[GreenTiger]

Batsy wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

We all know the monarchy will die with Elizabeth II anyways.

No, it won't. Not in Britain anyway. I can't see the British getting rid of the monarchy and replacing it with a President Cameron or a President Miliband anytime soon.

What about the thought of President Andy Chowdry? Long live the Monarchy.

[EyeBrock]

I agree with Batsy. The Brits will keep the monarchy. William and Kate have really boosted the Windsors in the UK, for better or worse. Bloody Germans!

[Batsy]

GreenTiger wrote:

What about the thought of President Andy Chowdry? Long live the Monarchy.

That's a terrifying thought.

With the monarchy, though, people like him can never become our Head of State.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock wrote:

I agree with Batsy. The Brits will keep the monarchy. William and Kate have really boosted the Windsors in the UK, for better or worse. Bloody Germans!

I think it all depends on Charlie - if he abdicates in favour of William, the monarchy will survive, if he doesn't, then I could see a lot of Commonwealth countries becoming republics due to their citizens dislike/hatred of Charlie.

I fully expect Charlie to make the sacrifice, but his past history (like abandoning Diana 30 seconds after William was born to run back to Camilla) leaves me a tad wary of the future.

[ShepherdsDog]

Like all our former monarchs were such fine examples of loyal spouses and good parents. They haven't changed, it's the media that has.

[EyeBrock]

I think its all a load of bollocks myself. Sod the lot of 'em. But the Brits seem to dig it.

[Curtman]

raydan wrote:

This is like U2 telling the fans in every city that they play that they are the best.

Yeah, Queen hasn't had a hit in years either.

[SprCForr]

You here all week?

[Batsy]

bootlegga wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

I agree with Batsy. The Brits will keep the monarchy. William and Kate have really boosted the Windsors in the UK, for better or worse. Bloody Germans!

I think it all depends on Charlie - if he abdicates in favour of William, the monarchy will survive, if he doesn't, then I could see a lot of Commonwealth countries becoming republics due to their citizens dislike/hatred of Charlie.

I fully expect Charlie to make the sacrifice, but his past history (like abandoning Diana 30 seconds after William was born to run back to Camilla) leaves me a tad wary of the future.

Even if Charles becomes King next, I think Britain will remain a monarchy. Other countries in the Commonwealth can become republics if they like but I can't see Britain becoming a republic anytime soon. Most Commonwealth countries are republics anyway. Of the 54 members states of the Commonwealth, only 21 of them - 39% - are monarchies.

And I'm almost certain that we will get King Charles III after Queen Elizabeth II's death. We will almost certainly continue to follow the line of succession, the way we should. The line of succession is governed by the 1701 Act of Succession and the Queen or any other member of the Royal Family cannot override that law.

And the English (and then British) people have got angry in the past at the line of succession not being followed, even if it means a more popular person coming to the Throne. A famous example occurred in 1553 when Lady Jane Grey came to the Throne of England following the death of her cousin King Edward VI. Edward VI's father, Henry VIII, stipulated in his will that, after Edward died, his half-sister Mary was to become Queen, and then upon Mary's death her half-sister Elizabeth was to ascend the Throne. But Edward didn't want Mary coming to the Throne as she was a Catholic and he was Protestant. She was also a woman and he thought women should not be allowed to be Monarch. So he arranged one of his Protestant male Grey cousins to be king after him. But someone pointed out that all of his Grey cousins are female, so he settled on Lady Jane Grey and she became Queen. But the English people were angry. Even though Lady Jane was a Protestant and they would have preferred her to the Catholic Mary, they still thought Mary should be Queen as the Throne was lawfully hers and not Lady Jane's. They didn't want a usurper on the Throne. In the end, Mary grabbed the Throne off Lady Jane and became Queen Mary I (aka Bloody Mary for her persecution and burning at the stake of thousands of Protestants during her five year reign). Lady Jane was beheaded at the Tower of London, aged just 16, after being Queen of England for just nine days. After Mary her Protestant half-sister became Queen Elizabeth I, and she got revenge for her sister's persecution of Protestants by making Catholicism illegal in England, and anyone found practising that religion would be brutally and bloodily executed. Catholics didn't get equality until the 1820s.

However, Prince Charles could decide that he wants to not become king and pass the Throne on to his son. But he would need consent to do so as he, not William, is legally the next in line. The decision would have to be approved by Parliament and the Prime Minister. I think it would also have to be approved by ALL the sixteen nations of which he will become King.

But the chance of Charles, who has been waiting for 60-odd years to become King, suddenly deciding that he doesn't want to become King and therefore deciding to pass the Throne on to William is almost nil.

Also, when Charles becomes King he'll be the oldest person ever to ascend the Throne in Britain.

I can't see the next in line to the succession not becoming monarch.

[martin14]

Batsy wrote:

However, Prince Charles could decide that he wants to not become king and pass the Throne on to his son. But he would need to consent to do so as he, not William, is legally the next in line. The decision would have to be approved by the Parliament and Prime Minister. I think it would also have to be approved by ALL the sixteen nations of which he will become King.

Can't see where any of that would be a problem. Edward 8th abdicated without
much trouble.


If Charles is smart he won't take the crown, but immediately pass it to William.

William is old enough now, Charles is tainted by Diana, and other stuff.

If William becomes King, the Monarchy will be in good shape.

[Batsy]

martin14 wrote:

Can't see where any of that would be a problem. Edward 8th abdicated without
much trouble.

There's a difference between abdicating and passing the Crown on to someone else before you ascend the Throne. In order to abdicate you have to become Monarch first. King Edward VIII actually became king, in 1936, and then decided that he didn't want to be King anymore, so his brother (and the current Queen's father) became King George VI.

Abdicating is no problem. However, problems start when someone attempts to pass the Crown on to someone else BEFORE they have even become monarch. That means that they are actually breaking the law. The 1701 Act of Succession decides who become King or Queen next, not any member of the Royal Family.

It would be utterly pointless to have an act governing the line of succession if the Royals are able to ignore the line of succession.

Quote:

If Charles is smart he won't take the crown, but immediately pass it to William.

Charles can be as smart as he likes and may wish to pass the Crown straight on to William but, if he doesn't get the consent of Parliament to do so, then he won't be able to. Parliament, and the 1701 Act of Succession, decides who become the next monarch, not any of the Royals. If parliament tells Charles he will become King in accordance with the 1701 Act of Succession then he'll have to become King.

Quote:

If William becomes King, the Monarchy will be in good shape.

William will become King, but it's almost certain he will not become King until after his father.

[Psudo]

I don't see Britain abandoning the monarchy no matter how obnoxious the person wearing the crown. Abandoning the monarchy would take all this unsavory political reform without any major improvement in the subjects' daily routine. Unless the crown starts plotting existential reforms ala Johnny English, what's the point?

[Nuggets]

DanSC wrote:

Quote:

In her speech, the Queen hailed the US as Britain's “most important ally.”

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 03970.html

I'm all for a strong relationship between the USA and the UK, but isn't calling the USA Britain's "most important ally" a bit insulting to the commonwealth monarchies?

No, not insulting because the commonwealth nations are already more than just allies. USA is only an ally but of all the non-commonwealth allies it's probably the most important because of it's military strength.

.

[bootlegga]

Batsy wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

I agree with Batsy. The Brits will keep the monarchy. William and Kate have really boosted the Windsors in the UK, for better or worse. Bloody Germans!

I think it all depends on Charlie - if he abdicates in favour of William, the monarchy will survive, if he doesn't, then I could see a lot of Commonwealth countries becoming republics due to their citizens dislike/hatred of Charlie.

I fully expect Charlie to make the sacrifice, but his past history (like abandoning Diana 30 seconds after William was born to run back to Camilla) leaves me a tad wary of the future.

Even if Charles becomes King next, I think Britain will remain a monarchy. Other countries in the Commonwealth can become republics if they like but I can't see Britain becoming a republic anytime soon. Most Commonwealth countries are republics anyway. Of the 54 members states of the Commonwealth, only 21 of them - 39% - are monarchies.

And I'm almost certain that we will get King Charles III after Queen Elizabeth II's death. We will almost certainly continue to follow the line of succession, the way we should. The line of succession is governed by the 1701 Act of Succession and the Queen or any other member of the Royal Family cannot override that law.

And the English (and then British) people have got angry in the past at the line of succession not being followed, even if it means a more popular person coming to the Throne. A famous example occurred in 1553 when Lady Jane Grey came to the Throne of England following the death of her cousin King Edward VI. Edward VI's father, Henry VIII, stipulated in his will that, after Edward died, his half-sister Mary was to become Queen, and then upon Mary's death her half-sister Elizabeth was to ascend the Throne. But Edward didn't want Mary coming to the Throne as she was a Catholic and he was Protestant. She was also a woman and he thought women should not be allowed to be Monarch. So he arranged one of his Protestant male Grey cousins to be king after him. But someone pointed out that all of his Grey cousins are female, so he settled on Lady Jane Grey and she became Queen. But the English people were angry. Even though Lady Jane was a Protestant and they would have preferred her to the Catholic Mary, they still thought Mary should be Queen as the Throne was lawfully hers and not Lady Jane's. They didn't want a usurper on the Throne. In the end, Mary grabbed the Throne off Lady Jane and became Queen Mary I (aka Bloody Mary for her persecution and burning at the stake of thousands of Protestants during her five year reign). Lady Jane was beheaded at the Tower of London, aged just 16, after being Queen of England for just nine days. After Mary her Protestant half-sister became Queen Elizabeth I, and she got revenge for her sister's persecution of Protestants by making Catholicism illegal in England, and anyone found practising that religion would be brutally and bloodily executed. Catholics didn't get equality until the 1820s.

However, Prince Charles could decide that he wants to not become king and pass the Throne on to his son. But he would need consent to do so as he, not William, is legally the next in line. The decision would have to be approved by Parliament and the Prime Minister. I think it would also have to be approved by ALL the sixteen nations of which he will become King.

But the chance of Charles, who has been waiting for 60-odd years to become King, suddenly deciding that he doesn't want to become King and therefore deciding to pass the Throne on to William is almost nil.

Also, when Charles becomes King he'll be the oldest person ever to ascend the Throne in Britain.

I can't see the next in line to the succession not becoming monarch.

I don't doubt that Britain will remain a monarchy, but I see countries on the bubble (like say Australia) ditching the monarchy if Charles takes the throne. Canada would probably retain the monarcy, but given the tremendous success of Will & Kate's recent visit, it might even inspire republicans here to convince Canadians to dump Charlie.

Like I said, I foresee Charlie doing the right thing and abdicating the throne for William, but who knows. As you point out, he's been dying to be King of England his whole life.