So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Which one? Edward or Andrew?

Edward wants the Duke of Edinburg title. It’s Charles to grant or not grant.

When Edward dies does he title fo back to the crown or to Edward’s son or daughter?

It will be inherited by his son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

+1. It might be too soon after Philip’s death.

The title automatically passed to Charles upon Philip's death, as his eldest son, now that the title has merged with the Crown, Charles can create the title again, and pass it on.

I don’t think he’ll give it to Edward. He doesn’t like Edward and it goes against his long standing position of slimming down the extra royals. Sophie was trying so hard to get close to the Queen in hopes that she would intervene. I’m guessing that this won’t sway Charles. I think he will not fill it and leave it for William to give to his second son instead.

I think they should fight for Royal positions. Like MMA style fights. They can wear their silly costumes.

My money is on Anne for all of it

Me too. She was Prince Philip's Alpha daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anne would be a great choice. My guess though is that Charles will put it in abeyance.

Charles is very insecure regarding his fathers rejection of him as not being strong. Philip wanting to give it to Edward someone perceived as weaker than Charles must have pissed him off. There were a bunch of articles last year that Charles had no intention of giving it to the Wessexes. There was one saying he even inquired whether he should use it himself.

Charles also doesn’t like his brothers trying to wedge in in any way. Sophie’s interviews about how touched and stunned they were when Philip offered it probably pissed him off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

+1. It might be too soon after Philip’s death.

The title automatically passed to Charles upon Philip's death, as his eldest son, now that the title has merged with the Crown, Charles can create the title again, and pass it on.

I don’t think he’ll give it to Edward. He doesn’t like Edward and it goes against his long standing position of slimming down the extra royals. Sophie was trying so hard to get close to the Queen in hopes that she would intervene. I’m guessing that this won’t sway Charles. I think he will not fill it and leave it for William to give to his second son instead.

I think they should fight for Royal positions. Like MMA style fights. They can wear their silly costumes.

My money is on Anne for all of it

Me too. She was Prince Philip's Alpha daughter.

Wasn’t she his only daughter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anne would be a great choice. My guess though is that Charles will put it in abeyance.

Charles is very insecure regarding his fathers rejection of him as not being strong. Philip wanting to give it to Edward someone perceived as weaker than Charles must have pissed him off. There were a bunch of articles last year that Charles had no intention of giving it to the Wessexes. There was one saying he even inquired whether he should use it himself.

Charles also doesn’t like his brothers trying to wedge in in any way. Sophie’s interviews about how touched and stunned they were when Philip offered it probably pissed him off.

If it was going to Edward the Queen would have already given it to him. I don’t think he wants it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anne would be a great choice. My guess though is that Charles will put it in abeyance.

Charles is very insecure regarding his fathers rejection of him as not being strong. Philip wanting to give it to Edward someone perceived as weaker than Charles must have pissed him off. There were a bunch of articles last year that Charles had no intention of giving it to the Wessexes. There was one saying he even inquired whether he should use it himself.

Charles also doesn’t like his brothers trying to wedge in in any way. Sophie’s interviews about how touched and stunned they were when Philip offered it probably pissed him off.

If it was going to Edward the Queen would have already given it to him. I don’t think he wants it.

The Queen could not give it to him, Charles as the oldest son, inherited it from his father upon his fathers death. Now that Charles is King that title has merged with the crown, meaning it’s not in use. They wanted Edward to inherit it because Scotland was a very special place for the Queen and Philip and they did not want the title to die with Philip. Edward will inherit it, it’s only a matter of when.

[Anonymous]

The title didn’t “die with Philip.” It merged with the crown when Charles ascended and any future monarch could create it at any time if they desire. I’m not saying Charles will or he won’t. I honestly don’t see what it matters - it will change nothing for Edward.

[Anonymous]

He inherited three from his father.

The titles of The Duke of Edinburgh, The Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich were inherited by Prince Charles upon the death of Prince Philip as he is his eldest son

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The title didn’t “die with Philip.” It merged with the crown when Charles ascended and any future monarch could create it at any time if they desire. I’m not saying Charles will or he won’t. I honestly don’t see what it matters - it will change nothing for Edward.

Who else would he bestow it upon, the only one left is Louis and he wouldn’t even be eligible until he gets married, decades from now. You are right, it changes nothing for Edward, it’s simply a symbolic way to honor his father’s legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The title didn’t “die with Philip.” It merged with the crown when Charles ascended and any future monarch could create it at any time if they desire. I’m not saying Charles will or he won’t. I honestly don’t see what it matters - it will change nothing for Edward.

Who else would he bestow it upon, the only one left is Louis and he wouldn’t even be eligible until he gets married, decades from now. You are right, it changes nothing for Edward, it’s simply a symbolic way to honor his father’s legacy.

It’s gone many years without being it being assigned to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles is going to be terrible. It’s a shame because I think he is much more competent and intelligent than his sons. But his people skills are terrible and he has already gotten in trouble for being political with those letters mentioning Israel.

How so?

The sons seem way more emotionally intelligent, socially skilled and articulate to me in what ways do you think they they lack intelligence and competence?

Charles is better educated, more intelligent, hardworking and shrewd businessman than his sons. You are right that he has little self awareness, but he is basically the poster boy for complex childhood trauma and attachment issues. There is a picture of his parents returning from an extended tour shaking little Charles hand, as the queen then goes on to embraces her mother. Heartbreaking and humiliating for a young boy to experience.

I think he will be an eccentric king and will do things his way.

Ok thanks … so much of the lead royal job seems to be pageantry PR, social skills and appealing character - William definitely seems better suited to it EQ wise.

To your point though, capacity for intellectual intelligence is allegedly passed down through the mother (according to science I have read). I wonder whether Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was markedly more intelligent than Princess Diana? That would be a wonder given royal inbreeding….

Diana was intelligent?

I thought she had some kind of undiagnosed learning disorder and that's why she didn't do great in school???

Much more is known about learning differences these days - they often come with great strengths outside the classroom (creativity, lateral thinking, out of the box problem solving but also greater difficulties with emotional regulation/ anxiety and depression). I think we saw that with Diana / highly sensitive but also gifted with connecting with people in deeply human ways).

The Diana worship on this board is so odd. I think she seemed like a really nice person and also one who genuinely liked and got along with kids and had good fashion sense. I feel like the first of those two describes at least half of the women I know. The fact that it was relatively unique in British royals is what is striking. She was not smart and had bad judgment in a lot of ways. That’s okay.

DP. Is it Diana worship to suggest that the Queen who Jackie O basically described as dumb isn’t any smarter than she was? I just see two dumb ladies but one that grew up in a loving home.

Are we really using Jackie O as the arbiter of who is dumb?

I mean we’re using anonymous posters as the arbiter of Diana being dumb. I personally think Camilla, QEII, and Diana are poorly educated and not too bright. But it’s weird how Diana is the only one to be called out about it.

I don’t know about poorly educated, but Camilla is reported to be very bright and charismatic, and a good conversationalist. She also comes from a heritage of royal mistresses. There’s a reason Charles fell in love with her and stayed in love with her.

Imagine thinking this is a good thing. Absolutely classless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shall we place bets on who Charles gives new titles to? I think Edward will be named Duke of edinborough, but Archie and Lili will not be named prince or princess due to “slimming down the monarchy. Going forward George’s children will have titles but not Charlotte or Louis’s children.

The Sussex children became prince and princess as soon as their grandfather became king.

Theoretically. But not officially. Check the Royal website. The Wales were updated but not Archie and Lili.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

It’s possible it’s not going to happen.

There’s nothing official. They are prince and princess, providing their parents want to call them that. The only question is whether they get the HRH.

If they are going to be Prince and Princess, that sight will be updated. Someone has made a conscious choice not to do it (yet.) I’d be surprised if they are given HRH being that their parents are not allowed to use HRH.

I have to admit it would irritate me to no end that there's a Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and my kids didn't get the same title. And I understand there is protocol and minutiae and differentiation between HRH and Prince/Princess, but it's these little digs that continue to drive gossip and create more ill will. If I was Charles, that would be my primary concern with my family legacy. Because there's no mistake about it, if God forbid a plague wipes out everyone from Charles to Louis, Harry is the monarch. Everyone knows that. Don't create an artificial distinction under the guise of slimming down the Royal family. It can be decided/implemented in William's generation.

You say you do and then say to change it. If everyone is killed by a plague who is the king will be the last thing people worry about.

But Beatrice and Eugenia are grand kids, not great grand kids. Do their children have titles?

Harry's children are the grandchildren of the current King. I'm saying if you are going to cut grandkids out of titles, start it in a generation where it's expected. Like put it into policy (or whatever) now that after Charles only the children and grandchildren of the direct descendant/first in line to the throne will receive the title Prince and Princess, restricting it to George's children when William is King and then George's firstborn child's children when George is King.

Seems like a streamlined process that everyone understand like 20-25 years in advance so we don't have to read endless stories about it being a shock or whatever.

+1, this makes better sense from the perspective of public perception (which is everything for the monarchy at this point) because if there is a clear rule that is applied across the board, it feels formal and fair (or at least as fair as titles that are literally handed down based on what family you were born to can be, but anyway). When these things are left to the discretion of the monarch AND the monarch seems to hedge on them and dole them out on her favorites or when she is in a good mood, the whole thing looks petty and corrupt and dumb.

Elizabeth was very good at certain aspects of her job but one of her weaknesses was that she 100% played favorites and when that played out in a public way (such as when doling out titles), it only gave people opposed to the monarchy on principle ammunition. Charles wants to take that ammunition away -- he wants to streamline everything so that when people look at who represents the royal family and where money is spent, they can explicitly say "these are the formal duties and charitable activities of this person, and here is how their hard work supports England and is to the benefit of its people." Or at least that's where he is reportedly leaning. And I think it's shrewd. If he wants to protect his sons and their children and the institution to which he has dedicated his entire life, he needs to think critically like this.

They would not give them a christening at Windsor or a public photo with the Queen, you think they will give them princely titles? Charles will want to repair the personal relationship but never at the expense of the institution or the legacy of the family. Harry was given an awesome start in life and tens of millions dollars of seed money, time to make his own way in life. The Royal family has let them be and moved on with their lives and jobs.

His seed money came from Diana. I wonder if he got more than William.

No, most came from Queen Mother who did in fact leave the bulk to Harry because William would be king and a billionaire. Also, Charles cut them a large check when they left the Royal Family. Plus Diana's money. Plus the money from the book deal. Harry left the Royal Family a very wealthy man. He wants billionaire status and lifestyle. I don't think that will materialize, but it's not because he did not start out with a shit ton of money, connections and privilege's.

Why would the QM put Harry above all her other great grandchildren?[/quote

Harry is a granchild not great granchild fyi

Oh my actual God. QM means Queen Mother (not Elizabeth) and Harry was indeed her great-grandchild. FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charles promoted William to PoW the second the Queen passed. It’s petty of him to hold out on the Edinburgh title for his brother who by all accounts has served loyally.

Why didn’t the Queen give it away after Prince Philip died?

As the eldest son of Prince Phillip, Charles inherited the Duke of Edinburgh title. Now he’s King, he can give it to Edward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The title didn’t “die with Philip.” It merged with the crown when Charles ascended and any future monarch could create it at any time if they desire. I’m not saying Charles will or he won’t. I honestly don’t see what it matters - it will change nothing for Edward.

Who else would he bestow it upon, the only one left is Louis and he wouldn’t even be eligible until he gets married, decades from now. You are right, it changes nothing for Edward, it’s simply a symbolic way to honor his father’s legacy.

I agree it’s an option for Louis, if he gets married before Andrew dies. If he gets married after Andrew dies he will likely be Duke of York, as is traditional for the second son of the monarch/younger brother to the Prince of Wales. Elizabeth’s father was the Duke of York before the abdication.

[Anonymous]

“For decades, Charles has been one of Britain’s most prominent environmental voices, blasting the ills of pollution. Now that he’s monarch, he is bound to be more careful with his words and must stay out of politics and government policy in accordance with the traditions of Britain’s constitutional monarchy.

“Charles will have very little freedom of maneuver now that he is King,” said Robert Hazell, an expert on British constitutional affairs at University College London.”