Poll: Should Charles renounce rights to the throne so William becomes the heir?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:57:39 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Poll: Should Charles renounce rights to the throne so William becomes the heir?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Should Charles renounce rights to the throne so William becomes the heir?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 25

Author Topic: Poll: Should Charles renounce rights to the throne so William becomes the heir?  (Read 7424 times)
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 03, 2010, 12:17:07 AM »

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.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2010, 12:35:01 AM »

No, Charles should Reign for a few years at least.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2010, 12:37:26 AM »

Yes, if only because it would be fun to have two very long-serving monarchs in a row. Tongue
Logged
Јas
Jas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,705
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2010, 07:24:16 AM »

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.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2010, 07:36:45 AM »

I voted no, but I don't really care.  It's up to Charles...as it should be.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2010, 07:41:54 AM »

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.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2010, 07:47:14 AM »

I don't care, abolish the monarchy
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2010, 08:40:14 AM »

Couldn't care less.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2010, 08:48:07 AM »

Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2010, 09:06:05 AM »


I can't believe I find myself agreeing with you two.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2010, 09:06:30 AM »

Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2010, 10:10:17 AM »


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.

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2010, 10:24:43 AM »

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.


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.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2010, 03:50:33 PM »

Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2010, 07:10:13 PM »

I care about abolishing the monarchy. It should have been a done deal by now.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2010, 09:09:10 PM »

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2010, 09:38:01 PM »

Or Britannia could restore the rightful monarch to her throne: King Francis II.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2010, 11:31:10 PM »

The Monarchy serves as a good national focus and person of the Monarch has sufficient emergency powers to be useful in a crisis.
Logged
Sewer
SpaceCommunistMutant
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,236
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2010, 01:41:56 AM »

Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2010, 01:48:02 AM »

Yes -if they want the monarchy to survive, the Windsors would be well-advised to have Charles step aside in favor of his son.  
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2010, 05:08:08 PM »

The vile attacks on the monarchy made in this thread are truly disturbing.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2010, 06:05:39 PM »

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

Why? The monarchy has survived much worse, and Charles likely wouldn't reign very long anyway.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2010, 06:19:18 PM »

Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2010, 07:38:30 PM »

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.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2010, 07:41:32 PM »

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!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.