Why Britons more eager to see Prince William as heir?

Post Reply New Topic

There was no shortage of torture of political dissidents before Cromwell. The straw the broke the camel's back was after a long an bloody civil war, the populous was subjected to illiberal puritanical rule. Something that didn't represent the majority of the English. Cromwell believed in religious war, and his victories were divinely guided.

Not all Roundheads were Puritans, there were lot of different groups that you wouldn't expect cooperate under different circumstances, which is typical of revolutions, and usually you get a power vacuum and instability.

AV would be the best option for a Presidential election as you can't elect proportions of a President. It would also be much better than FPTP - ideally I'd like to see a German-style AV+ system where maybe 400 MPs are elected on AV and the rest using STV. Agree that we don't need a Presidential election at all though.

As for Lords reform, I'm not a fan of any undemocratic system. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure the second chamber is necessary. In theory, I'd like to see people elected by smaller peer groups so that we still get all the necessary expertise that appointments give us, but I'm not sure that's practical. A simpler alternative would be to just make it elected on STV using the European constituencies, maybe even giving non-nationals a vote.

Mostly because Prince Charles is actually unlikely to be the next king due the fact that he divorced his first wife. Since the British monarch is also supposed to be the head of the Anglican Church, which opposes divorce, the king or queen of England cannot therefore be seen to be someone who has previously divorced. Now, since Prince William is next in line to the throne, most likely his father will immediately give up his title to him after receiving it and thus will probably not be king of England for any extended length of time while his son will. That's why they are more interested in Prince William as heir than his father.

This is completely inaccurate. The whole founding of the Church of England was so a King could have a divorce.

https://www.churchofengland.org/our-vie ... vorce.aspx

Why do you call a lottery undemocratic (I presume that is what you are implying)? You realise that although voting is the most scalable form of democracy, it far the be and end all for democracy. Voting is necessary at a large scale but for a second chamber a lottery could work fine and in my view preferable.

However a vote, and no sessions is not a great democracy.

Mathematically speaking you cannot model "voter will", or "representation" at ay given time through a tick in a box. All voting system have their flaws. It is generally a fair system because it has a track record turning over. It is a way of generating a result that is fair in that context. Lords is somewhat different, is a counter balance.

Lottery not voting was actually the system employed by the Athenians, which is considered to one of the first states to develop democratic ideas. Political service was compulsory, like a civic duty. I'm not advocating compulsory civic duty, but I do think a lottery of willing participants is fair.

The second chamber is important. Part of its role is to scrutinize bills, and prevent rushed legislation.

AV is a system, not even the Lib Dems wanted. As I said you are combining general elections with presidential elections. If a president is necessary this is a separate issue IMO.

I've heard talk that Charles should abdicate in favor of his son, but I don't know how likely that is.

Jono, you are right Henry VIII had two annulments.

However this is not a barrier for Charles being King. There some connection between the CeE and Parliament particularly in the Lords, much diminished these days. However being King is a constitutional matter.

Whether he is fit to lead the CoE, is a matter for the CoE.

There is no suggestion that he would have to step aside becuase of this. It was the Queen that requested he divorced.

I understand but I thought that there was some controversy surrounding it. I have spoken about with my mom and other members of my family. That's what they seem to think.

Sorry I didn't notice to you had deleted your post.

Some views of the monarch in Commonwealth counties, tend to have a more traditional perpective. However I don't think there is much pressure in that area from the general public in Britain. I do expect pressure groups like Republic to pick up on it.

Personally I'm anti-monarchy, but I am unconcerned about private life. I do wish to see CoE de-coupled from government officially. This is an issue beyond one monarch, and they don't have the power to change it anyway.

Some people may not be aware, but the Catholic Reform Acts are incomplete. I'm an Atheist, but from Catholic family. For instance where a legal marriage can be registered, place, and who can preside still technically discriminates against Catholics or non-Protestant Christians. Most people aren't aware becuase they just go tot he town hall anyway.

I strongly believe that private life, marriage, divorce, relationships, etc is not the business of the state. So it would be better not to have legal marriage.

I'm not British, but I think that Prince Charles should, in the event that the queen died, swallow pride and renounce the crown in favor of his son Prince William, from what I could observe, the Brits more like him than his dad.

They ware already have been such cases

But you probably Prince Charles as a thoroughbred aristocrat, has give a s**t to a will of simple people the PR and will not

The actual hierarchy and roles aren't as important as the story.

The story is more interesting, if doing something like flying air ambulances, or search and rescue helicopters.

Being the monarch is fairly boring day to day.

I once watched an interview with Prince Harry, he said that he was happy with the fact that it was his brother and he is not heir to the throne (after their father, of course), I wonder why he enjoyed from this, is that so unpleasant to be king?

^ I cant see how anyone could envy the position of a British monarch in the present era.

For example, the present queen, in her role as Head Of State, has to meet other Heads Of State and make speeches (written by other people) praising them, even if it's someone she has never heard of or can't stand the sight of.

Or, if she wanted to take a stroll in St James's Park, which is only about 100 metres from her 'front door' in Buckingham Palace, she would have to inform the Metropolitan Police Commissioner for security reasons. They would then have to remove members of the public from the park, divert traffic on the surrounding roads, put officers in and around the park and even perhaps have a helicopter in the air above. Needless to say, in practice she couldn't do this.

Likewise she is not free to do such simple things as going shopping in a local supermarket, for similar reasons.

Could you live like this?

That seems to be the most common view. Genuine hardcore royalists are almost certainly a minority, but they face no real opposition.



It's hard to know exactly how much real power Her Madge actually wields. She's exempt from FOI, so there's not much information on how often she's exercised her powers. What is known, though, is that she vetoed a bill that would have removed her sole right as CIC to authorise military strikes against foreign powers and handed it to the House of Commons.



Well it'd require something of a political reformation, but the simplest option would be the current PM.

The British Monarchs still have reserve powers under their constitution.


From Wikipedia:

So the reigning Queen or King still has actual constitutional powers for the time being.

The reason why no one likes Charles is due to the following:

1) He is dull to the point of insulting
2) He doesn't care for the people
3) He is very unnatural at interacting with the people
4) He doesn't like being in public that much
5) He doesn't relate to the people
6) He was educated in the palace instead of being at school
7) He just doesn't get people
He is stiff in this appearance
9) He conforms to the stereotypical royal fashion
10) He married the Diana, who became the most popular Princess in the past few hundred years, largely in part because she loved mingling and helping the people.
11) He was a bad husband to Diana
12) He cheated on Diana
13) He divorced Diana to marry that Camilla (who he was cheating with)
14) He was a distant father to his kids
15) He wasn't seen with them too often
16) He regularly was seen correcting Diana and his kids in front of the press, to make sure they were acting all royal
17) He didn't seem phased by Diana's sudden death and wasn't comforting his kids even on camera
18) He married Camilla, after his mother finally relented begrudgingly
19) He is gaffe prone
20) Despite the best of intentions, he screwed up hugely

The Queen:

1) She was/is very independent minded
2) She was a good big sister even on camera
3) She was a good princess to her father, who unexpectedly became Crown Prince and then King
4) She stayed in London against her father's wishes during WWII including the Bombing of London
5) She was regularly on air talking to her fellow kids during WWII
6) She literally raised funds and aid during WWII
7) She literally stayed in the Subway during the bombings of WWII with her fellow citizens.
She literally served them food and blankets during WWII
9) She was an actual mechanic during WWII, fixing actual vehicles for the military.
10) She was openly seen with her friends in public
11) She enjoys seeing her fellow citizens
12) She actively engaged in politics, even choosing a different Prime Minister against the will of Westminster
13) She openly dismissed a government
14) She enjoys going out in public and sneaking into other people's pictures, surprising them
15) She allows people to tweet pictures of her
16) Many other things

William:

1) He went to private school with non royal and noble kids
2) He engaged his fellow students
3) Him and his brother regularly helped their mother do charity work
4) He loves going out and engaging the people
5) He actually has personality
6) He isn't gaffe prone like his dad
7) He went to public university
He actually did real military work
9) He did real work
10) He regularly does charity work
11) He aslo engages in politics
12) He engages in protests alongside commoners
13) He literally spent a whole day and night on a street in London with other protesters protesting something hurting the poor. He nearly was ran over by street cleaner doing it.
14) He's a decent speaker
15) He isn't rigid like his dad
16) He acts like real person, not as royal
17) He does normal people stuff including playing video games and posting on Facebook.
18) He has a twitter account where he actually talks to people
19) He married a woman, who shares his values and love of people
20) He lost his mother as a child, devastating him and his brother.
21) He came from parents who had a broken marriage and divorced, they also all lived in the same palace.
22) He has two young kids
23) HE LITERALLY IS A REAL PARENT AND IS NOT AFRAID TO BE THAT WAY IN PUBLIC
24) He is open about everything
25) He is himself in front of the public
26) He isn't ashamed to kiss his own son in public
27) His wife had their kids in real hospital were real people were also having kids
28) He had some trouble getting his newborn son in the car properly while press filmed it.
29) He let his son be a kid on camera instead of making him all proper
30) He plans to send his son to real preschool and school instead of keeping him in the palace.

yeah.. who wouldn't want a real person being the king?