Charles to be King?!

[Jeneral2885]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25798969

What happen to the calls for him to be bypassed in favour of his son?

[yeoman6987]

1. I would rather William as King of England

However, we are going to be stuck with Charles and that "lady" as Queen. England will not skip over anyone. Don't worry, William will be King someday. I know majority of Americans would rather England change their rules, but that won't happen. Hopefully the Queen will stay in place for awhile and perhaps Charles will become King around 72 years old.

[BlueStreak]

2. "A major of Americans" think this is an absurdity

An anachronism that should have disappeared 300 years ago.

[Historic NY]

3. Perhaps, but its the United Kingdoms absurdity

and they seem to cherish it. With that our opinion doesn't count..."say what".

[BlueStreak]

5. That's my point

The OP said the majority of Americans wish the riles would change. I say the majority of Americans think the who think is rather pointless and silly.

We did fight a revolution to get away from that, after all.

[aquart]

4. So what? Not our bloody business.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Calls for him to be 'bypassed' were never realistic

There's no point in saying "we have a monarch because of tradition" and then throwing a thousand years of tradition in the bin, and doing something unprecedented like skipping over the heir to the throne because some people think his son is a nicer person. The nearest equivalent I can think of since 1066 is when Matilda was rejected in favour of her cousin Stephen and then son Henry II. And that was because she was a woman. "Let's go back 9 centuries" is hardly a call people can rally around. And even then, we had to have a civil war about it (like the Wars of the Roses, or the deposition of James II). If people are calling for a civil war to prevent Charles ascending the throne, I'd rather go the whole hog and form a Republic. I can think of many people I'd rather have as head of state than William or Charles.

The monarch isn't there to be liked. It's to tell us that the country has rules that we're not allowed to change.

[Ghost Dog]

9. Would you go for a French-style Republic?

ie. with an all-but plenipotentiary President?

Or for more of an Italian, say, model, where the President merely attempts to maintain some kind of order?

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I think the Irish seem to have done best

a president elected by the people, but who is relatively above partisan politics.

[LeftishBrit]

12. I agree.

I think the separation of the ceremonial head-of-state role from the political leader role is a good thing; but it doesn't follow that either needs to be hereditary!

As it happens, Lizzie Windsor has been IMO a rather good (if decidedly overpaid) figurehead president; but that doesn't mean that her descendants should have an automatic right to it.

The Irish system does seem to work reasonably well.

[Ghost Dog]

14. Nice one. Thank you both.

You're both basically happy with the current parliamentary system, then, with a figurehead institutional placeholder in the Monarch/Presidential position, but we'd prefer one elected by and representing the People in general rather than the ('old school') 'Establishment' as at present?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Scrap the monarchy

Give the Windsors the same chance to stand for the presidency in the British Republic just like everyone else.

[Ghost Dog]

8. He wouldn't be bypassed. Abdication would then

be his way to hand over to his son, were they to so wish.

... And assuming the institution somehow survives the coming turmoil...

[MisterP]

10. well, that's what monarchy's for, isn't it?

on a seriouser note, Britpickers do note that it offers "separation of politics and patriotism"

[Jeneral2885]

13. how much money will be saved

by merging their press offices anyway?

[dipsydoodle]

15. This appears to be a case of the media making mountains out of mole skins.

.