Talk Elections

There has been much discussion over the past few years that Prince Charles should renounce his rights as next in line to the throne and that his son Prince William should become the immediate heir.

My own view is that Prince Charles has been preparing his entire life to succeed his mother as monarch, and that when Queen Elizabeth dies Prince Charles should become King.

Please vote and discuss.

No, Charles should Reign for a few years at least.

Yes, if only because it would be fun to have two very long-serving monarchs in a row. :P

The great thing about monarchs is that they don't have to give a sh**t what you think of them or how they're replaced. Public opinion doesn't count for anything. What a charming system.

I voted no, but I don't really care.  It's up to Charles...as it should be.

No.

The Queen is old. The number of official duties she can perform will lessen over time and Charles will essentially act as Prince Regent (though that title won't be conferred on him officially). There is however a chance she could live to be 101 like her mother (by which time it will be 2027!). Charles himself would be 79...if he is still alive. Under those circumstances he would step aside and William ( himself aged 45) would surely become the King.

I don't care, abolish the monarchy

Couldn't care less.

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with you two.

As the leaked diplomatic cables show, the monarchy is still an important source of soft power for Britain: heads of state in other countries attach great value to a visit from the Queen or Prince Charles, or a hunting trip with one of the other princes. Having girls all over the world drool over Princes William and Harry can't hurt either. Thus if I were British, I would support retaining the monarchy for this purpose. I would be a staunch republican if I lived in Canada or Australia, however.

Charles could end up as Prince Regent if his mother were to suffer a stroke or other serious condition that left her alive but unable to perform even the minimal set of duties expected of a British monarch.

However it also possible that Charles will pass on before Elizabeth.  I think that is far likelier than Charles choosing to not reign.

I care about abolishing the monarchy. It should have been a done deal by now.

Or Britannia could restore the rightful monarch to her throne: King Francis II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria).

The Monarchy serves as a good national focus and person of the Monarch has sufficient emergency powers to be useful in a crisis.

Yes -if they want the monarchy to survive, the Windsors would be well-advised to have Charles step aside in favor of his son.  

The vile attacks on the monarchy made in this thread are truly disturbing.

Why? The monarchy has survived much worse, and Charles likely wouldn't reign very long anyway.

The constitutional monarchy is a good system of government, I wouldn't vote for a Republic in Australia... don't see the point. It wouldn't change much.

Charles will have been waiting a BLOODY long time for the throne... happy to let him have it for 10 years.

Why do you all assume a short lifespan? NHS should solve all the problems, I mean, it's free healthcare!

No, let Charles have his time if he so wants it. William can have it after him.

No, just better health outcomes overall.

If HM lasts another 10 years - she'll be 94, making Charles 72... he'll probably live as long as his father... so around another 20 years on top of that - making William 58.

Give Charles have his time, and let Kate and William have as normal a life with their family as they can.