Will Charles be king?

[celedhring]

The Spanish Royals (and the heir) can't even fart in public without going through the government first.

[Agelastus]

Or his belief that overpopulation should be dealt with by any means necessary and, when asked what animal he would like to be, he answered "a deadly virus".

Apparently, that was Prince Philip...

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh

Ninth quote down. It has made me mildly curious to learn what the other 99 "celebrities" said in the book in question.

He just seems erratic, in a creepy way.

I'll admit that some ear-related plastic surgery would not be amiss in his case.

[Drakken]

I - couldn't speak English
II - Let Walpole run the country
III - insane and lost the Thirteen Colonies (no civil war or revolution though.)
IV - wastrel (but actually politically astute, so so what?)

I - Myth. He could write and speak Latin and French, and so yes he could communicate with his ministers. He was astute enough to understand he was not the master in his own house, but a borrowed monarch that had to rule through Parliament. Was a bit of an asshole-san, however.
II - And this was bad... how? If you wanted Kings who wouldn'l let Parliament run the country you should have sticked with the Stuarts.
III - Insane only in his late reign, and he wasn't commanding the war, Parliament was. And when their amateurism and lack of competence lost the war, the first thing he did was to encourage good relations with its former colony. He also encouraged agriculture, presided over the start of the Industrial Revolution, and was a rock of morality, frugality and simplicity when his surrounding sons were being drunkards, rakes, and wastrels.
IV - Okey, this one is a dud. But he gave you magnificent buildings, and made Buckingham Palace what it is today.

[Agelastus]

I - couldn't speak English
II - Let Walpole run the country
III - insane and lost the Thirteen Colonies (no civil war or revolution though.)
IV - wastrel (but actually politically astute, so so what?)

I - Myth. He could speak Latin and French, and so yes he could speak with his ministers. He was astute enough to understand he was not the master in his own house, but a borrowed monarch that had to rule through Parliament. Was a bit of an asshole-san, however.

I don't understand how that contradicts what I said. How does being able to speak Latin (the language of educated people) and French (the language of diplomacy) make his inability to speak English a myth?

Also - see below. If that's all I could come up with compared to the Henries it's hardly particularly negative.

II - And this was bad... how? If you wanted Kings who wouldn'l let Parliament run the country you should have sticked with the Stuarts.

Why do you think I was claiming this was bad? After all, the point of the list was to dispute that the first four Georges had produced as much negative baggage for the Royal name "George" as the eight Henries had for "Henry". Just because I didn't leave a blank doesn't mean the comment I made was intended as a "bad point". Only that it was a notable point.

I could have listed him spending 12 years in Hannover as "the point", for example, but that'd be rather unfair given that "Richard" as a monarch's name hasn't gathered anywhere like as much negative baggage despite the exemplar, Richard I, spending only six months in England.

And I've always had a sneaking admiration for George II, our last monarch to personally lead an army into battle.

III - Insane only in his late reign, and he wasn't commanding the war, Parliament was. He also encouraged agriculture, had a stunning knowledge on British countryside, and presided over the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Losing the Colonies and the insanity is still baggage attached to the name though, no matter how you spin it.

IV - Okey, this one is a dud. But he gave you magnificent buildings, and made Buckingham Palace what it is today.

Yeah...er...I was praising him, you know...I was saying that because he was politically astute he wasn't a dud, as you put it, despite being a wastrel.

[Josquius]

Could easily be wrong of course, the position of Pope seems to have just become another job in recent years; could well happen to the British monarchy.

True. But it still seems more or less inconceivable with the Queen.

Why? The Queen of the Netherlands has recently abdicated. Why would the Queen of The UK be different?

Anglicanism.
She's not just the head of state, she's god's lady in England.

[Sheilbh]

Why? The Queen of the Netherlands has recently abdicated. Why would the Queen of The UK be different?

Her personality as much as anything.

He holds a number of rather unorthodox views and has been rumoured to voice them in letters trying to put pressure on the government, I understand.

His views are pretty mainstream really. He's into things like environmentalism and organic farming and hideous architecture. His most outlandish views are that he's pro-hunting and into alternative medicine (but so's the Secretary for Health ).

It is a stark contrast to E2 who has been very careful not to express her views, especially on divisive or controversial matters.

Yeah he writes letters. The Monarch has a weekly meeting with the PM and can ask for briefings from any minister. The difference is that the press have got word of Charles's opinions.

That has happened in the past, though it's now forgotten it was a huge scandal in the 80s when the Sunday Times had a story that the Queen was unhappy with Thatcher's divisive approach to government and worried it was splitting the country - precisely because until then there'd never been a story on the Queen's political opinons, no-one knew. Mrs Thatcher used to watch the Queen's speech at Christmas with reverent silence but would then often sum it up with something like 'oh dear, she's going to feel sorry for the poor again.'

In a way I think it's more a function of the change in press over the past 50 years, rather than a huge difference in approach.

IV - Okey, this one is a dud. But he gave you magnificent buildings, and made Buckingham Palace what it is today.

The most hideous building in the South-East?

[mongers]

IV - Okey, this one is a dud. But he gave you magnificent buildings, and made Buckingham Palace what it is today.

The most hideous building in the South-East?

I think that's a bit much.

How about the ugliest palace, historic castle, mansion in all of the UK? 

[Viking]

I think QE2 loves her son and wouldn't do anything to disinherit him. From what I gather she takes the monarchy thing quite seriously and that's why she'd never retire. Goes against the basic principle of the whole thing. I also think, for the benefit of her grandchildren and the monarchy itself she won't agree and will oppose any attempt to have the inheritance decided by a popularity contest. I also think that she knows very well that as soon as she herself croaks the attitude towards Charles will immediately change.

Charles' fault, if any, is that he isn't charming or populistic, he was bullied into marrying a woman he didn't love for popularity and he has since then suffered immensely from the combination of Diana's popularity and his own conflict with her.

He will not be skipped, though, his mother might outlive him.

[Josquius]

Most working palaces tend to be a bit crap.
The ones in the Netherlands and Sweden are really rather meh.

[HVC]

His views are pretty mainstream really. He's into things like environmentalism and organic farming and hideous architecture. His most outlandish views are that he's pro-hunting and into alternative medicine (but so's the Secretary for Health ).

You're one to talk

And why does everyone think Charles will crook before his mother? he's healthy and both his parents have been long lived.

[Admiral Yi]

crook

[HVC]

crook

think of it as a late Christmas gift to you.

[Eddie Teach]

crook

think of it as a late Christmas gift to you.

So stingy.

[Josquius]

His views are pretty mainstream really. He's into things like environmentalism and organic farming and hideous architecture. His most outlandish views are that he's pro-hunting and into alternative medicine (but so's the Secretary for Health ).

You're one to talk

And why does everyone think Charles will crook before his mother? he's healthy and both his parents have been long lived.

His grandad wasn't.
His grandmother lived beyond 100.

[Agelastus]

His views are pretty mainstream really. He's into things like environmentalism and organic farming and hideous architecture. His most outlandish views are that he's pro-hunting and into alternative medicine (but so's the Secretary for Health ).

You're one to talk

And why does everyone think Charles will crook before his mother? he's healthy and both his parents have been long lived.

Everyone doesn't.

But the possibility is there - he comes from a lineage where the women have had long lives compared to the average for their class. The men...not so much.

His paternal grandfather made 62, his paternal grandmother made 84.
His maternal grandfather made 56, his maternal grandmother made 101.

Going back along the Windsor line his great grandfather did reach 70; however his great grandmother reached 84. And the trend goes back farther than that.

Of course, his father is bucking the trend, making 93 and counting (breaking several records on the way.) I actually think Charles will outlive his mother, but not by very many years.