Diana Spencer

[Phil H]

has Charles always served his mother as she would have liked?

I'm not a huge admirer of Charles, but I will say this about him. From his youth he has done everything that has been asked of him - going to a harsh boarding school; then to Australia; he commanded a ship; jumped out of planes to gain his parachute wings; etc etc

The heir to the throne in Britain has no set role, so each prince of wales has to find his own approach. Charles has pursued some causes that, while "fringe" in many cases when he took them up, have become more main-stream: architecture; ecology etc.

The Prince's trust is a highly innovative and successful charity doing much good work among deprived youth. He seems to have managed his estates well.

there has been recent comment on his lobbying Ministers and of Blair's annoyance at his persistence, but it could be argued that for the better part of a decade there was no real opposition to Blair (given dissension in Conservative ranks and the scale of labour's majority) and thus Charles' questioning was by no means without purpose or merit.

So while he may not always have acted in The Queen herself would have done, I think she may be quite proud of his achievements.

There will always be tension between heir and Sovereign, especially in a long reign - Charles may NEVER succeed, yet he has to be ready. Edward VII led a pretty disipated life until he ascended the throne, then became a much admired, popular and successful King. Edward VIII was an astoundingly successful and popular Prince of Wales but had no appetite it seems for the role of King.

Charles may have a very short reign, but I don't think he will let anyone down, or has. The motto of the Prince of Wales is "I Serve" (Ich Dein) and I think Charles has lived up to that pretty well.

Phil

[kensei]

I hope, as an American, that I can ask about a few things I have heard from various sources concerning Diana and her family without taking too much heat for it. I am not saying these are my opinions, they are just things I have heard and I don't have the perspective of living in Britain so I'm just wondering what others might have to say.

There is a feeling among some that when Elizabeth dies, Charles will abdicate to William. When I was on vacation in England in 2008 I asked a British tour guide I had in the Glastonbury area about that and she thought it was likely, and that the reason that would be given would be that Charles didn't think it proper that someone married to a woman who has been divorced should become king, but that the real reason would be that he is just plain exhausted and doesn't really want to do it.

This one borders on conspiracy theory, but here goes- I saw a very speculative documentary on t.v. once that went into detail about Diana's affairs after she found out about Camilla, including one with a London surgeon. (I think she met him through doing charity work for his hospital or somesuch?) It talked about how she had to pursue him quite relentlessly before he acquiesced to a relationship with her, how he would be smuggled to her in the backs of cars for their trysts, how she was actually very much in love with him for a time, and how- again, NOT my own theory- he just might have been Harry's father. Yikes, that one is definitely controversial.

A made for t.v. movie aired at some point in America that focused on William and Harry, with actors portraying them. And there was a scene in it that I've remembered ever since and wondered if it really happened- William confronting Elizabeth and demanding, "You give my mother a royal funeral or I won't be king!" Could that or would that have happened, or did the writers have one heck of an imagination? I remember the movie ending with a scene with the brothers in a "we've always got each other" moment, and Harry handing William a CD and saying, "I thought you might like this, she's new out of America, her name's Britney Spears." And speaking of movies, what does everyone think about Hellen Mirren's "The Queen"? How accurate was it?

One more- my girlfriend is a historian who loves Britain and British history, and she is very firm in the belief that when the day comes that William becomes king, one of his very first acts will be to restore Diana's title of "Her Royal Highness."

Comments?

[Phil H]

kensei

There is a feeling among some that when Elizabeth dies, Charles will abdicate to William.

An interesting question with no possible definitive answer. Such a thing has never happened - though the Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria's father abdicated in favour of his son in 1848 - but the father was mad. In Britain, in similar circumstances, George III remained king, but his son served as Regent.

Abdication in the UK/England is legally possible - Edward VIII did it in 1936, but I don't think the parallel is appropriate to your question. He wanted to marry a woman unacceptable to his Governments. Edward II and Richard II both abdicated in the Middle Ages but those were forced as a result of misrule.

So, to turn to your specific question: I think the major consideration from the Royal Family/Government perspective would be one of precedent. If the heir apparent abdicates in favour of someone else, then it could be done/insisted upon in future. Would that be desirable?

One of the principal advatages of an hereditary monarchy is that a hitler or other dictator annot seize the supreme position (as happened in Germany in in the 1930s when hitler replaced Hindenburg as President as well as being Chancellor). In the UK no one can usurp the law of succession. But imagine in 1940 if Hitler had invaded and made George VI abdicate in favour of the ex-King Edward VIII (I recognise that my example does not cover all the complexities).

Another consideration: Edward VII reigned for 10 years after coming to the throne aged 60 after his mother's (Victoria's) long reign.

The question is also academic, as Charles might pre-decease his mother if she lives as long as her mother did (102!). Then William would be heir apparent and accede automatically.

My answer to your question would be that even if Charles were very aged or even senile, the rules would be observed and Charles would reign for the remainder of his natural life but with William as Regent. There might be no coronation depending on Charles' state of health.

Incidentally, if Charles does not believe someone who is married to a divorced woman should become King - what about his own state - he too is divorced? But it was established in 1936 (at the time of the abdication of Edward VIII) that the wife of the King is Queen. Charles is legally married to Camilla - I see no problem constitutionally.

If Harry's father is other that Charles, the most likely candidate would be Major James Hewitt with whom Diana had an acknowledged affair. But the question is irrelevant. William is now married and highly likely to have children, they (male or female) would take precedence over Harry in the line of succession. harry will just get moved further down the list (as the Duke of York has been.


On William confronting the Queen, who knows. But given his age at the time it seems unlikely. What is a royal funeral? Diana would never I think of been given less than she had, which (I believe at her intigation/wish) was less than the level of pagentry afforded the Queen Mother a few years later.

What would "I won't be King!" have meant? You cannot reign/abdicate an office you do not hold, and his views might change as he grew up and matured over years. If it happned there is no evidence that his then sentiment is still valid - he is doing a sterling job.

Further, I see no sign of dissention between the Queen and William - all reports I have heard are that they are close and he admires and respects his grandmother.

And speaking of movies, what does everyone think about Hellen Mirren's "The Queen"? How accurate was it?

Beautiful performance, and so good that Elizabeth II's integrity shone through despite the anti-monarchy intent of the film makers (listen to the commentaries). The events were simplified (for insyance the Queen has a Private Secretary (it was Diana's brother-in-law at the time) and several assistant Private secretaries only one was shown in the film). But most of their details were I think verified.

...when the day comes that William becomes king, one of his very first acts will be to restore Diana's title of "Her Royal Highness.

Who can say and what would it mean? My understanding is that William perceives his mother's down side.

Monarchs rarely go in for empty gestures and it could be a quarter century before he has the power. It would open his reign with an insult to his father and grandmother. Would you do that?

Sorry to have gone on at such length, but I thought your post deserved a serious response.

Phil

[kensei]

Phil,
Many thanks for your concise and voluminous response.
Kensei

[Phil H]

kensei

At the risk of boring you, there was one point in your earlier post that I did not address:

...Diana's affairs ... including one with a London surgeon. (I think she met him through doing charity work for his hospital or somesuch?) It talked about how she had to pursue him quite relentlessly before he acquiesced to a relationship with her, how he would be smuggled to her in the backs of cars for their trysts, how she was actually very much in love with him for a time...

While the surgeon would be unlikely to be a candidate as Harry's father (I believe he was an Asian gentleman), I believe the general facts you state are true.

On Diana's affairs, one was (I seem to recall) with Will Carling (an English rugby player). At the time I used to use an Indian restaurant in a south London suburb, and a friend and I having a meal in the early evening, spotted Carling in a Range Rover parked just outside the window. He was on a mobile phone for quite a long time and it seemed a little odd somehow in terms of location and length of call. Later - when the news came out about them - we wondered if he had parked in a secluded side street to have a chat with the Princess.

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

k


Abdication in the UK/England is legally possible -

Phil

I believe it is possible, provided you haven't been crowned, this is why all those calls for Elizabeth to abdicate in favour of Charles and Diana were nonsense - she couldn't.

After you have been crowned you're it for life - that's why when George III was clearly incapable of running the country due to illness he couldn't abdicate in favour of his son, so they made him Prince Regent instead.

[Bob Hinton]

This one borders on conspiracy theory, but here goes- I saw a very speculative documentary on t.v. once that went into detail about Diana's affairs after she found out about Camilla, including one with a London surgeon. (I think she met him through doing charity work for his hospital or somesuch?) It talked about how she had to pursue him quite relentlessly before he acquiesced to a relationship with her, how he would be smuggled to her in the backs of cars for their trysts, how she was actually very much in love with him for a time, and how- again, NOT my own theory- he just might have been Harry's father. Yikes, that one is definitely controversial.

And speaking of movies, what does everyone think about Hellen Mirren's "The Queen"? How accurate was it?

One more- my girlfriend is a historian who loves Britain and British history, and she is very firm in the belief that when the day comes that William becomes king, one of his very first acts will be to restore Diana's title of "Her Royal Highness."

Comments?

First off the film The Queen. Accurate – not very, but then it is entertainment.

Diana’s affair with the surgeon, I believe his name was Hasnat Khan, makes a mockery of Al Fayed assertion she was ‘murdered’ because of her association with a Muslim. She did indeed carry on this affair in secret but was one day spotted leaving the hospital by a reporter. She struck a deal with the press saying that if they kept quiet about it she would give them a front page picture. The infamous picture of her in operating scrubs attending an operation on a child appeared as a result.

As for Diana’s title, what the conspiracy theorists overlook in their haste to paint the Royal Family as blackly as possible was the Queen did ask Diana if she wanted to retain her title, and with it her Royal Protection bodyguards. Diana turned down the offer.

One might speculate what would have happened if she had her own bodyguard with her that day.

[Bob Hinton]

has Charles always served his mother as she would have liked?

I'm not a huge admirer of Charles, but I will say this about him. From his youth he has done everything that has been asked of him - going to a harsh boarding school; then to Australia; he commanded a ship; jumped out of planes to gain his parachute wings; etc etc


Charles may have a very short reign, but I don't think he will let anyone down, or has. The motto of the Prince of Wales is "I Serve" (Ich Dein) and I think Charles has lived up to that pretty well.

Phil

I knew Prince Charles when he was in the Navy and personally witnessed many acts of incredible kindness to complete strangers. He also has a really wicked sense of humour.

[Phil H]

Bob

I think the principle you state is one the Royal Family would endorse. Even uncrowned Edward VIII was deemed to have let the side down.

But I don't think there is any constitutional bar to abdication by a crowned and anointed sovereign. The difference is simply the changed sensibility of the incumbent - hence Edward VII being reluctant to be crowned with his matrimonial issue unresolved. But that he COULD have abdicated after may 1937 - the date set for his coronation - I do not doubt, it would have beeb a "voluntary" act.

I think the issue with George III was that, as he was not in his right mind after 1810/11 he could not abdicate voluntarily, and would have to have been deposed somehow. That would not have been seen as appropriate, and in any case in his previous lapses into mental impairment, he had always recovered eventually.

Edward II and Richard II were both crowned kings, but were deemed to be able to adbicate/resign the throne, Edward II to his son and heir, Edward II; Richard II to Henry Bolingbroke (a cousin and not his heir).

Since then, the only events close to an abdication I can think of (leaving aside death in battle) are: Henry VI - deposed by Edward IV and Parliament, re-adepted (sic) in 1471, then set aside and murdered.

Edward V - set aside by Parliament under the Act "Titulus Regius" (the Title of King) in 1483, on the grounds of illegitimacy.

Lady Jane Grey - resigned the crown after 9 days, but her accession was of doubtful legitimacy, as it was an act of personal will by Edward VI and had no Parliamentary sanction.

Charles I - tried and executed by Parliamant 1649.

James II - went into exile after a rebellion and invasion brought William of Orange (married to James' daughter Mary) to the throne. James never abdicated but Parliament decreed that the sovereign must henceforth be a protestant - James' catholicism had in part brought about his fall.

None of these in my view (though I am no lawyer) provide a precedent - which given that our constitution is unwritten is what matters - for a crowned king being prevented from being able to abdicate. I could be wrong.

A parallel is the Papacy where, although there is provision for abdication - it was discussed in relation to John-Paul II's increasing debility - the job is seen as one for life.

The issue i think there, maybe in Britain too, is that if a Pope can be made to abdicate at any point, pressure could be brought to bear on an unpopular Pontiff to step aside. The Vatican prefers murder (as with John-Paul I) - half-joke.

Happy to discuss further.

Phil

[louisa]

Hello. I am new to these boards.

My opinion is that the death of Diana was just a horrible accident. Because she was who she was - the most photographed and possibly the most glamorous figure of our time, people just cannot accept that she died in an ordinary way, in a seedy tunnel in Paris.

As for the conspiracy theory. If somebody wanted to kill Diana then all they had to do was hire a hit man - possibly with an accomplice riding pillion, on a motor bike.

On the night of Diana's death there were just too many variables. Nobody knew that she and Dodi were not staying at the Ritz for the night. It was a last minute change of plans that made them call for their car to take them to Dodi's apartment.

Then....they could have taken a number of routes but the driver decided to take the one that led through the tunnel.

And (sorry to begin a sentence with 'And') but then we are meant to believe that a car was waiting, and so expertly driven, that it was to clip the end of Diana's armoured car and cause it to crash.

As I've said, there are just too many variables and too many things that could have gone wrong. According to the conspiracy theorists - everything went perfectly that night!