So what kind of King will Charles be?

[Anonymous]

Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

They are still in line for throne so what does the title change really do? Why can’t they keep the titles, not perform royal,duties and not get money from the crown. Seems much simpler to stop the pay checks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

They are still in line for throne so what does the title change really do? Why can’t they keep the titles, not perform royal,duties and not get money from the crown. Seems much simpler to stop the pay checks.

Technically everyone in Denmark is in line for the throne, it just depends on what one's number is. It is an acknowledgement, that they currently play no role in the monarchy as an institution, and never will.

Princely titles should only be conferred to those who have devoted a majority, or all of their life, to the institution in acknowledgement of their contribution. Their father is not losing his title.

[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: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.

DP. He could have before too. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t like either of his brothers.

Guess again. He couldn’t give away the title until it merged with the crown (i.e., he became King). A Duke doesn’t get to unilaterally decide who inherits his title.

?

But it has merged and he still hasn’t given it despite elevating William and Kate to PoW

Earl of Wessex is 13th in line. PoW is 1st. Are you still confused? Where's the fire? It makes no difference if it happens tomorrow or in 2 years.

Makes no difference to Charles. Of course it makes a difference to Edward and Sophie.

Why the obsession about Edward and Sophie? They are irrelevant.

The Overseas relatives have a bone to pick with them

Apparently. I guess if Charles sets the tone that brothers don't need favors bestowed upon them in a slimmed down monarchy, that doesn't bode well for future brothers of kings. But given how angry people are about geriatric cousins of the queen getting special treatment, isn't this what most people want?

As i said, the brother has been promoted, he features prominently on the RF website. The tone will be with titles come great responsibilities and promotions will need to be earned.

The other brother is much closer to the throne. But you just don't want to acknowledge the difference. In a slimmed down monarchy there will be winners and losers.

Being "closer" to the throne is completely meaningless, especially so if your chance of ever becoming a monarch is slim to none. The ONLY thing that matters is being close, loyal and trustworthy to the monarch. Basic rules of power in any organization.

What does that have to do with Edward? He's not going be leapfrogging over anyone by sucking up to his brother. As it is he can't even get a better title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

The king of Sweden already did this years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

They are still in line for throne so what does the title change really do? Why can’t they keep the titles, not perform royal,duties and not get money from the crown. Seems much simpler to stop the pay checks.

The titles may confer certain rights and privileges. Easier to do away with them if they want to shrink the royal footprint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boring.

But Camilla is popular so people won’t hate him too much.

Well, anyone who could get behind that immoral human (Camilla) does not have my respect anyway.

+1 home wrecker.

But, not Charlie boy? Is he not a bigger home wrecker, you misogynists harpies?

They are both homewreckers, because they both cheated on spouses to continue their relationship.

2 slimes, now being treated like royalty.

There is no justice.

Camilla's husband was a serial cheater while Camilla just cheated with King Charles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expect to see this in the next few years in the UK, it's inevitable.

https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/

They are still in line for throne so what does the title change really do? Why can’t they keep the titles, not perform royal,duties and not get money from the crown. Seems much simpler to stop the pay checks.

Will anyone think of the young, wide eyed ingenues in Hallmark Christmas movies who need a secret prince to fall in love with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boring.

But Camilla is popular so people won’t hate him too much.

Well, anyone who could get behind that immoral human (Camilla) does not have my respect anyway.

+1 home wrecker.

But, not Charlie boy? Is he not a bigger home wrecker, you misogynists harpies?

They are both homewreckers, because they both cheated on spouses to continue their relationship.

2 slimes, now being treated like royalty.

There is no justice.

Camilla's husband was a serial cheater while Camilla just cheated with King Charles.

Charles’ wife was also a serial cheater, usually married men.

[Anonymous]

At least it's easy for the grandkids to figure out who grandma's favorites are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boring.

But Camilla is popular so people won’t hate him too much.

Well, anyone who could get behind that immoral human (Camilla) does not have my respect anyway.

+1 home wrecker.

But, not Charlie boy? Is he not a bigger home wrecker, you misogynists harpies?

They are both homewreckers, because they both cheated on spouses to continue their relationship.

2 slimes, now being treated like royalty.

There is no justice.

Camilla's husband was a serial cheater while Camilla just cheated with King Charles.

Charles’ wife was also a serial cheater, usually married men.

and Charles cheated with more than his current wife. All in the past for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least it's easy for the grandkids to figure out who grandma's favorites are

It's always been better to be the children of the oldest son or daughter. This goes back centuries. I guess the uneducated will think it's simple favoritism. Their grandparents aren't like your grandparents doling out candy and toys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least it's easy for the grandkids to figure out who grandma's favorites are

It's always been better to be the children of the oldest son or daughter. This goes back centuries. I guess the uneducated will think it's simple favoritism. Their grandparents aren't like your grandparents doling out candy and toys.

primogeniture could be argued to be a historical blip. I guess we cant have the kids fighting it out for the crown like in the good old days although for institutions so devoted to tradition a good old Witan to pick the next king would at least be entertaining

[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: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.

DP. He could have before too. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t like either of his brothers.

Guess again. He couldn’t give away the title until it merged with the crown (i.e., he became King). A Duke doesn’t get to unilaterally decide who inherits his title.

?

But it has merged and he still hasn’t given it despite elevating William and Kate to PoW

Earl of Wessex is 13th in line. PoW is 1st. Are you still confused? Where's the fire? It makes no difference if it happens tomorrow or in 2 years.

Makes no difference to Charles. Of course it makes a difference to Edward and Sophie.

Why the obsession about Edward and Sophie? They are irrelevant.

The Overseas relatives have a bone to pick with them

Apparently. I guess if Charles sets the tone that brothers don't need favors bestowed upon them in a slimmed down monarchy, that doesn't bode well for future brothers of kings. But given how angry people are about geriatric cousins of the queen getting special treatment, isn't this what most people want?

As i said, the brother has been promoted, he features prominently on the RF website. The tone will be with titles come great responsibilities and promotions will need to be earned.

The other brother is much closer to the throne. But you just don't want to acknowledge the difference. In a slimmed down monarchy there will be winners and losers.

Being "closer" to the throne is completely meaningless, especially so if your chance of ever becoming a monarch is slim to none. The ONLY thing that matters is being close, loyal and trustworthy to the monarch. Basic rules of power in any organization.

What does that have to do with Edward? He's not going be leapfrogging over anyone by sucking up to his brother. As it is he can't even get a better title.

He cares about getting paid, getting higher profile assignments and strengthening his network. That’s what being closer to the monarch means. Although he will definitely get the Edinburgh title too. It’s everything in it’s time with the British Royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least it's easy for the grandkids to figure out who grandma's favorites are

It's always been better to be the children of the oldest son or daughter. This goes back centuries. I guess the uneducated will think it's simple favoritism. Their grandparents aren't like your grandparents doling out candy and toys.

primogeniture could be argued to be a historical blip. I guess we cant have the kids fighting it out for the crown like in the good old days although for institutions so devoted to tradition a good old Witan to pick the next king would at least be entertaining

It was much easier to make your brother's kids go missing, back in the good old days, to put you within reach of the crown. Can't get away with that these days.