Poll
Question:
Will the Charles, POW, ever become King?
Option 1: Yes. The queen will abdicate
votes: 1
Option 2: Yes. The queen can't live forever
votes: 28
Option 3: No. The Queen will outlive him.
votes: 7
Option 4: No. It will skip him and go to William
votes: 7
Option 5: No. There will be a republic
votes: 3
A weird conversation derived from the queens speech leads to this
He's to ugly to be King.
What do the rules of succession say? Can the crown skip a generation while kids are alive? Or does he formally have to be a 15 min king?
A this time Sean Connery has a greater chance of becoming king.
Eventually the truth will come out, that Charles is actually a giant rodent dressed as a man.
Bertie became Edward VII. Why wouldn't Charles become the king (unless he predeceases his mother)? He'd have to renounce the throne, and I don't think there is any reason to believe that he would. He'd have a short reign, in all probability, but that wouldn't be a first.
Well no, he'd be the third.
Will the UK have to redesign and turn in all their currency? :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 25, 2014, 07:04:23 PM
Will the UK have to redesign and turn in all their currency? :P
Probs :lol:
All the QCs become KCs too.
I think she's got another 20 years or so and then we'll get Charles :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2014, 07:30:38 PM
I think she's got another 20 years or so and then we'll get Charles :)
I'll take the under.
Que?
Ah. Yeah that's probably overegging it. But she's pretty well-preserved for near enough 90 and her mum lasted till 101 (though she was pickled in gin).
Quote from: 11B4V on December 25, 2014, 04:58:58 PM
He's to ugly to be King.
No - his horse of a wife is too ugly to become queen.
G.
I guess we will have 10 more years of QEII an then a few years from Charles before William takes over.
The currency keeps on circulating but new coins will have the new monarch on them. Prior to decimalisation in 1971 there were coins from several reigns in circulation, with late Victorian coins being very common.
I give her 6 to 8.
Quote from: Grallon on December 25, 2014, 07:55:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on December 25, 2014, 04:58:58 PM
He's to ugly to be King.
No - his horse of a wife is too ugly to become queen.
G.
I'm not sure she will be given the title, she is currently just Duchess of Cornwall, not Princess of Wales after all.
Quote from: The Brain on December 25, 2014, 05:22:15 PM
What do the rules of succession say? Can the crown skip a generation while kids are alive? Or does he formally have to be a 15 min king?
Not sure, any of the Brits here know for sure?
Though it's probably academic--I don't think he has any intention of renouncing the throne. OTOH, it is possible that his mom will outlive him. Again, I'm not 100% sure about British succession law in that situation--does William then become the heir apparent, or does it go to Andrew?
It goes Charles, William, then George.
I'd be very surprised if there is an abdication or renouncement. If the Queen goes gaga then I suspect that Charles will simply become Regent.
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 25, 2014, 08:20:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2014, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 25, 2014, 08:20:37 PM
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.
Yes, I think so, she is old school and will do the right thing. I'm far less confident of Charles, he may balk at defending the Church of England for example.
The Queen is like Castro. Someone who will never die.
I agree the queen will not abdicate and it is just the wishful thinking of many saying it will slip Charles, he is desperate to be king.
However I do really think there is a very strong chance his mother will outlive him.
what will it change, William instead of Charles? More tabloid press reports?
Preach, viper, preach. :lol:
Quote from: Tyr on December 25, 2014, 11:20:55 PM
I agree the queen will not abdicate and it is just the wishful thinking of many saying it will slip Charles, he is desperate to be king.
However I do really think there is a very strong chance his mother will outlive him.
I think Lizzy the Deuce would skip Charles, not because he's desperate or she will outlive him, but because she has a fundamental and concrete philosophy of the monarchy, and how a monarch should carry oneself--and I don't believe she will ever forgive him for the years of bad press and embarrassments surrounding him, Diana and that god-awful Rottweiler, Camilla. That's simply not how a regent behaves.
It'll skip to William. It's what the pheasants want anyway.
Charles will be King. He has waiting for his turn far, far, far too long to be bumped just like that. Plus, as the whole Diana affair has shown, the Queen hates being forced into untraditional solutions by the passions of the mob.
If the Queen had ever a chance to legitimately and constitutionally petition Charles to step aside it was when he married Camilla Parker-Boyles. Her uncle was asked to abdicate for doing the exact same thing (marrying a divorced woman everybody except him was loathing), so there was a precedent. That she didn't, despite her own misgivings about Camilla, says it all that she does intend Charles to succeed her.
Is Camilla generally loathed? I don't have that impression.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 26, 2014, 02:22:46 PM
I think Lizzy the Deuce would skip Charles, not because he's desperate or she will outlive him, but because she has a fundamental and concrete philosophy of the monarchy, and how a monarch should carry oneself--and I don't believe she will ever forgive him for the years of bad press and embarrassments surrounding him, Diana and that god-awful Rottweiler, Camilla. That's simply not how a regent behaves.
They're family and it's the British press. The Windsors have massively upped their PR game lately.
It may just be a UK thing but now most people are generally happy that Charles got to marry Camilla and like them both. I think maybe 20 years ago you were right, but a lot's changed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2014, 04:27:09 PM
Is Camilla generally loathed? I don't have that impression.
She used to be. Now she's relatively popular in the UK people even want her to be Queen now:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.yougov.com%2Fcumulus_uploads%2Finlineimage%2F2014-06-10%2FUntitled.png&hash=cc11906ab37eea3fafd584872a8f578d75b2a909)
I think her and Charles are both seen as victims, as is Diana, of the old establishment. He couldn't marry someone he actually loved because she was a divorcee. Now everyone's far happier.
I wonder how different that poll would be if you removed the mention of Diana. I imagine the emotional pull just from mentioning the name probably gains that option several points.
Agreed. It would be more neutral to phrase it "should Camilla be given a different title, because she and Charles were fucking while he was married to a different woman."
Should people shut the fuck up and not judge their betters? Yes/No/Maybe
As long as they pay up, my bettors can do as they like. Otherwise, they get the clamps.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmimg.ugo.com%2F201109%2F8%2F5%2F9%2F207958%2Fcuts%2F4-clamps_480_poster.png&hash=c6b27d4683fab06c8a02d1fdd35315286cd02f07)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2014, 05:30:25 PM
Agreed. It would be more neutral to phrase it "should Camilla be given a different title, because she and Charles were fucking while he was married to a different woman."
For what reason though? Public opinion against Camilla is because of Diana, not some purely abstract affair.
Quote from: The Brain on December 26, 2014, 05:31:37 PM
Should people shut the fuck up and not judge their betters? Yes/No/Maybe
We'll cross that bridge when some come along.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2014, 05:41:04 PM
For what reason though? Public opinion against Camilla is because of Diana, not some purely abstract affair.
I was goofin' bro.
Is there something generally wrong with Charles? I know he looks goofy and all that, but is he some sort of moron? If not, what real difference would it make if he's king for a few years after Elizabeth kicks it? Hell, even if he is a moron, does it really matter any more?
William and Kate would look better on Franklin Mint commemorative plates than Turner and Hooch.
I would pay 19.95 for a plate with Kate's ass on it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 26, 2014, 08:31:00 PM
I would pay 19.95 for a plate with Kate's ass on it.
Hear, hear
We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.
Get the matching Pippa asscup and saucer set.
I'll glaze those too.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 26, 2014, 09:13:36 PM
We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.
He won't be Chuck when he is king though. George VII instead.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 26, 2014, 07:29:16 PM
Is there something generally wrong with Charles? I know he looks goofy and all that, but is he some sort of moron? If not, what real difference would it make if he's king for a few years after Elizabeth kicks it? Hell, even if he is a moron, does it really matter any more?
He has opinions, which is annoying in a monarch. But maybe he's mellowed in the past 20 years I have no idea.
Quote from: PJL on December 27, 2014, 07:42:00 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 26, 2014, 09:13:36 PM
We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.
He won't be Chuck when he is king though. George VII instead.
Heh, the British monarchy is seriously running out of names to use. No more Johns, Henries, or Charleses?
Quote from: Solmyr on December 27, 2014, 10:37:14 AM
Quote from: PJL on December 27, 2014, 07:42:00 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 26, 2014, 09:13:36 PM
We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.
He won't be Chuck when he is king though. George VII instead.
Heh, the British monarchy is seriously running out of names to use. No more Johns, Henries, or Charleses?
Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.
As for Charles, Charles I and II managed to make that name pretty much "persona non grata" for a monarch, albeit for different reasons.
As for Henry...well, I guess it has just dropped out of favour. Although, if you look at the records...
I - left no acceptable heir resulting in a civil war.
II - failed to control his sons resulting in civil war.
III - was weak and governed unwisely, resulting in civil war.
IV - Usurper
V - Managed to blot his copybook by dying before his rival French monarch.
VI - Lost Hundred Years War, weak, went insane resulting in civil war
VII - Usurper (not that that wasn't unusual for that century, but still...)
VIII - "Controversial" to say the least...[do I have to go into detail about the most famous Henry of them all?]
George, by the above standards, is relatively safe.
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 12:05:41 PM
George, by the above standards, is relatively safe.
Only in the 20th century. :P
I'd say he should stick with Charles.
Or he could just pick Arthur as his regnal name.
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 12:05:41 PM
Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.
That's a shame.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 27, 2014, 12:35:21 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 12:05:41 PM
Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.
That's a shame.
John's rep was blackened by the barons, he was probably a better king than his brother (though that wasn't difficult). :( He at least managed to secure succession and his grandson later kicked all kinds of arse.
Its rather annoying how Charles will change his name if he becomes king. It shouldn't be allowed.
I don't want the roll call of future monarchs to be an endless succession of Georges, Williams and Elizabeths.
Quote from: Tyr on December 27, 2014, 12:41:48 PM
Its rather annoying how Charles will change his name if he becomes king. It shouldn't be allowed.
I don't want the roll call of future monarchs to be an endless succession of Georges, Williams and Elizabeths.
They could throw a Victoria in the mix. Or go to their Norman roots and have some Richards and Roberts.
I demand an Aethelstan
Why do they take a different regnal name?
Because they like to think of their monarch as their own Pope. :P
Though QE2 didn't change her name. :mad:
Quote from: sbr on December 27, 2014, 02:15:57 PM
Why do they take a different regnal name?
Sometimes they want to. Edward VII and George VI were both Alberts.
Charles might not change though.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 27, 2014, 12:16:44 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 12:05:41 PM
George, by the above standards, is relatively safe.
Only in the 20th century. :P
:hmm:
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?)
No, nowhere near as troublesome a legacy as that associated with the name "Henry".
Quote from: Solmyr on December 27, 2014, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 27, 2014, 12:35:21 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 12:05:41 PM
Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.
That's a shame.
John's rep was blackened by the barons, he was probably a better king than his brother (though that wasn't difficult). :( He at least managed to secure succession and his grandson later kicked all kinds of arse.
I love the military historians who try to argue that he was the greatest strategist of the era despite the fact that his strategy first lost north-western France and then failed to retake it!
Actually, given the general lack of historical knowledge among the average Briton, probably the real issue with reusing his name these days is his association with the legend of Robin Hood.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 27, 2014, 02:44:25 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 27, 2014, 02:15:57 PM
Why do they take a different regnal name?
Sometimes they want to. Edward VII and George VI were both Alberts.
Charles might not change though.
I thought Charles has actually said he will, or at least has floated the idea with a carefully leaked letter?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2014, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 25, 2014, 08:20:37 PM
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?
Ours did, too.
Probably QE2 thinks it's unseemly. A king dies on the job.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 26, 2014, 07:29:16 PM
Is there something generally wrong with Charles? I know he looks goofy and all that, but is he some sort of moron? If not, what real difference would it make if he's king for a few years after Elizabeth kicks it? Hell, even if he is a moron, does it really matter any more?
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.
It is a stark contrast to E2 who has been very careful not to express her views, especially on divisive or controversial matters.
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 12:05:41 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 27, 2014, 10:37:14 AM
Quote from: PJL on December 27, 2014, 07:42:00 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 26, 2014, 09:13:36 PM
We will have King Chuck. We deserve it.
He won't be Chuck when he is king though. George VII instead.
Heh, the British monarchy is seriously running out of names to use. No more Johns, Henries, or Charleses?
Well, no British monarch is going to be called John after "Lackland" and his dismal performance.
As for Charles, Charles I and II managed to make that name pretty much "persona non grata" for a monarch, albeit for different reasons.
As for Henry...well, I guess it has just dropped out of favour. Although, if you look at the records...
I - left no acceptable heir resulting in a civil war.
II - failed to control his sons resulting in civil war.
III - was weak and governed unwisely, resulting in civil war.
IV - Usurper
V - Managed to blot his copybook by dying before his rival French monarch.
VI - Lost Hundred Years War, weak, went insane resulting in civil war
VII - Usurper (not that that wasn't unusual for that century, but still...)
VIII - "Controversial" to say the least...[do I have to go into detail about the most famous Henry of them all?]
George, by the above standards, is relatively safe.
If going insane and/or starting a civil war is anything to go by, I can't see how George is safer than Henry. I think only William holds up. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:16:14 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 26, 2014, 07:29:16 PM
Is there something generally wrong with Charles? I know he looks goofy and all that, but is he some sort of moron? If not, what real difference would it make if he's king for a few years after Elizabeth kicks it? Hell, even if he is a moron, does it really matter any more?
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.
It is a stark contrast to E2 who has been very careful not to express her views, especially on divisive or controversial matters.
Which views? You made me curious.
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
III - insane and lost the Thirteen Colonies (no civil war or revolution though.)
:hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:20:08 PM
If going insane and/or starting a civil war is anything to go by, I can't see how George is safer than Henry. I think only William holds up. :P
Tainted by Mel Gibson and William Wallace. :P
Quote from: celedhring on December 27, 2014, 04:21:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:16:14 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 26, 2014, 07:29:16 PM
Is there something generally wrong with Charles? I know he looks goofy and all that, but is he some sort of moron? If not, what real difference would it make if he's king for a few years after Elizabeth kicks it? Hell, even if he is a moron, does it really matter any more?
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.
It is a stark contrast to E2 who has been very careful not to express her views, especially on divisive or controversial matters.
Which views? You made me curious.
Well, the British media seem quite circumspect on it - I suppose the mere meddling is already a scandal. But one view he holds is a belief in homeopathy apparently. And allegedly there is more. :P
Like this. :P
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11305882/Prince-Charles-reclaim-the-streets-from-cars.html
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". :P
He just seems erratic, in a creepy way.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
III - insane and lost the Thirteen Colonies (no civil war or revolution though.)
:hmm:
I very nearly did write that the loss of the Thirteen Colonies could be classed as a civil war, then thought better of it. :hmm:
Given the British governmental form survived throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars relatively unchanged while he was King (albeit he had a regent for a chunk of the period) and there was no fighting on mainland Britain I don't think it's fair to class him with the large numbers of Henrys who ended up fighting civil wars in their homelands.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:26:51 PM
Or this. :P
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11305882/Prince-Charles-reclaim-the-streets-from-cars.html
He's not allowed to talk about politics so he expresses his views on architecture; so what? An interest in architecture is something of a Royal Tradition, after all.
He's been doing it since 1984 anyway, so it's both old news and not a sign of being erratic.
Have you read his "ten points" in full?
http://www.dezeen.com/2014/12/21/prince-charles-reveals-10-principles-for-more-mature-view-of-urban-design/
The Spanish Royals (and the heir) can't even fart in public without going through the government first.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:30:50 PM
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". :P
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.
QuoteHe just seems erratic, in a creepy way.
I'll admit that some ear-related plastic surgery would not be amiss in his case. :)
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
:hmm:
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.
Quote from: Drakken on December 27, 2014, 05:08:36 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on December 27, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
:hmm:
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.
:hmm:
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.
QuoteII - And this was bad... how? If you wanted Kings who wouldn'l let Parliament run the country you should have sticked with the Stuarts.
:huh:
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.
QuoteIII - 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.
QuoteIV - 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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:12:26 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 25, 2014, 08:25:51 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 25, 2014, 08:20:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2014, 04:12:26 PM
Why? The Queen of the Netherlands has recently abdicated. Why would the Queen of The UK be different?
Her personality as much as anything.
QuoteHe 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 :bleeding:).
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteIV - 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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 27, 2014, 06:21:58 PM
QuoteIV - 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? :P
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.
Most working palaces tend to be a bit crap.
The ones in the Netherlands and Sweden are really rather meh.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 27, 2014, 06:21:58 PM
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 :bleeding:).
You're one to talk :lol:
And why does everyone think Charles will crook before his mother? he's healthy and both his parents have been long lived.
Quote from: HVC on December 27, 2014, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 27, 2014, 06:21:58 PM
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 :bleeding:).
You're one to talk :lol:
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.
Quote from: HVC on December 27, 2014, 11:43:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 27, 2014, 06:21:58 PM
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 :bleeding:).
You're one to talk :lol:
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.
Quote from: Tyr on December 28, 2014, 04:45:53 AM
His grandad wasn't.
Yeah, but George VI had a truly 1940s smoking habit and then died of lung cancer.
QuoteYou're one to talk :lol:
My mum and dad live near Charles's 'model estate' in Dorset. It's like the Daily Mail in architectural form:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoundbury.org.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2FShops_in_Poundbury.jpg&hash=dbcf0bb02adccb708bbfced169382aadb99aa48f)
And the fire station which he designed himself:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fstatic%2Fw-620%2Fh--%2Fq-95%2Fsys-images%2FArts%2FArts_%2FPictures%2F2009%2F3%2F31%2F1238500700742%2FPrince-Charless-fire-stat-001.jpg&hash=c516fef0b295e63d3818b28a162723876e62fe02)
:bleeding: :weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2014, 08:31:46 AM
My mum and dad live near Charles's 'model estate' in Dorset. It's like the Daily Mail in architectural form:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoundbury.org.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2FShops_in_Poundbury.jpg&hash=dbcf0bb02adccb708bbfced169382aadb99aa48f)
It's a tad overdone Sheilbh, I agree, but I do note that he's using terraced housing - I thought you were in favour of that?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2014, 08:31:46 AMAnd the fire station which he designed himself:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fstatic%2Fw-620%2Fh--%2Fq-95%2Fsys-images%2FArts%2FArts_%2FPictures%2F2009%2F3%2F31%2F1238500700742%2FPrince-Charless-fire-stat-001.jpg&hash=c516fef0b295e63d3818b28a162723876e62fe02)
:bleeding: :weep:
Yeah, I have to agree that he's not a skilled designer. Too overblown and with an overemphasis on symmetry on the main building.
They have buildings designed with bricked up windows (because lots of old British buildings have bricked up windows dating from 18th century window taxes) :bleeding:
Aside from affectation here's no reason terraced housing should necessarily look Georgian (the most boring and worthless of periods, that Charles' loves it is a black mark on his name) or 19th century.
It does look rather artificial
That looks awful.
Poundbury is a rather large carbuncle, severely at odd with what remains of the earthworks on the gentle hill and the Roman aqueduct snaking up that little valley.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2014, 08:42:59 AM
They have buildings designed with bricked up windows (because lots of old British buildings have bricked up windows dating from 18th century window taxes) :bleeding:
Aside from affectation here's no reason terraced housing should necessarily look Georgian (the most boring and worthless of periods, that Charles' loves it is a black mark on his name) or 19th century.
I'd stay away from Cheltenham if I were you then, as it's essentially a Georgian New Town, even to the point where new flats are built it has to be in the Georgian style in certain 'conservation' areas.
I don't entirely mind it in a conservation area. Trouble is Poundbury's entirely new. There's no original it's trying to conserve outside of Charles's head.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2014, 08:31:46 AM
And the fire station which he designed himself:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.guim.co.uk%2Fstatic%2Fw-620%2Fh--%2Fq-95%2Fsys-images%2FArts%2FArts_%2FPictures%2F2009%2F3%2F31%2F1238500700742%2FPrince-Charless-fire-stat-001.jpg&hash=c516fef0b295e63d3818b28a162723876e62fe02)
:bleeding: :weep:
It's meh, but I've seen worse. For example, Goldsboro's old main fire station, which is actually vaguely similar, except it's smaller, and the big doors for the fire trucks to use are in the front.
The entrance is ridiculous.