Could William & Kate skip over Prince Charles?

a reply to: shooterbrody

A fair point but there are pro's and con's, we however are not really a Monarchy don't be fooled we are actually a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY, we have two houses in Parliament - the House of Common's were the MP's (elected representative's sit) and the House of Lord's (traditionally hereditary lords would sit in the house of lord's but these day's most are former members of the house of common's).
The house of Lord's has very limited powers but can delay the enactment of policy's by the house of commons', recently there has been much debate about abolishing the house of Lord's and replacing it with a lifetime elected members house were former MP's and prime ministers elected by there part's would sit but that will not happen yet because it would be too much of a shake up for the establishment in the UK.

Basically our parliament is the model that most other parliament's around the world are based upon including the US government's system, think of the common's as the house of representative's and the house of lord's (though this one is less democratic) as the Senate.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

what kind of backwards ass third world bs countries still have kings and queens?

We could say the same about countries that put idiots like Trump in charge....

Just saying....

I can't find this anywhere. One article from four years ago.
File this with kate is pregnant stories. Every few months they run a story saying she's expecting again, it's twins etc.
I doubt this is true.

It's not on any news station either and this would be a big deal.

a reply to: Meldionne1

Camilla. Not Camille.
Any who...
Or as we call her the bitch that kept Charles from committing to Diana.

a reply to: markosity1973

This subject would make a much better thread.


It's twins..lol

This story categorically is not true. The idea of skipping Charles and going straight to William has been floating around since the mid-1990s.

It would take an Act of Parliament to remove Charles from the succession. It's never happened before, but similar Acts made George IV the Prince Regent (while his father was mentally incapacitated), and removed Edward VIII in 1936.

Technically, I'm not even sure that it's possible to remove someone from the succession, since they don't hold any constitutional position until they are already on the throne.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If this means the end of the royal family in the UK then the better for it !

apart from that I couldnt give a # who the queen or king was

a reply to: Sillyolme

wasnt camilla just to break charles in so he wasnt # at sex with his actual wife

It wouldn't surprise me if Kate and Wills were promoted ahead of Charles to save the Monarchy:

1. People are growing discontented with The Royals. Much of the UK press push stories about how much the Queen is paid, how much the taxpayers have spent on the royals, where the royals are holidaying.
2. The younger generations are only interested in the Royals via the cool, young W+K and their adorable kids. Charles is an old fuddy duddy compared to them. The young royals engage with the citizens on their level via social media


I believe if the queen carks it and Charles was promoted; it would cause many countries within the Commonwealth to vote to become a republic. It would cause British youth to question why they even need a King in the first place. If Wills was made king then it may bring Millennials onside

Not seeing anything on the regular news sites. And this isn't something where you would expect the MSM to sweep it under the rug (like a pedo ring being busted, or misconduct by the Clintons).

I'm calling it fake.

As far as I'm aware, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (Not England), has no powers to do such a thing, it's up to Parliament. She does not have absolute power meaning that she and her family must obey every common law and statue created by the British Parliament, so it would be unconstitutional, even though our constitution is unwritten and therefore relatively fluid, when it comes to the Royals, powers, Parliament etc, it is pretty solid. The succession is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701.

She's no longer Kate Middleton either, she's Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, unless he pops his clogs before Liz, Charles will be king before William. An unlikely scenario, but worth mentioning, Charles could be could forced to abdicate, like Edward VIII did, when crowned King, because he's divorced and so is Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, however, attitudes toward divorce in the Church of England are less strict than they were in the 30's. I personally believe that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate because of his affection for Hitler and the Nazis though....well....it is a conspiracy site :-)

The link to your source doesn't work for me, but I'm sure it's just made up nonsense to be honest, lot's of Royalists want Kate & Wills to be King and Queen, as they are more popular than Charles, who would probably be a disaster for the Monarchy, as he very famously 'Gets Political" when he's not supposed to, which puts the whole institution in jeopardy, I for one am a Republican and would like to see a peaceful and democratic end to the monarchy, but each to their own :-)

a reply to: Xcathdra

a reply to: Shminkee Pinkee

I heard she was giving it over to kate and will so she could tour in her new post punk band Lizzie and the fetus eaters

originally posted by: Nyiah
The source for Yahoo is SheKnows (IMO, s# reading anyway)
THEIR source is some magazine called "Closer Weekly".
That rag's source is some magazine called "Life & Style".

I have yet to find anything on "Life and Style" saying this. Methinks "Closer Weekly" is full of BS.

I've scoured L&S too and the only mention is that Kate wants another kid but William doesn't.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DISRAELI

I came across it on yahoo news page. Im not familiar with the source they are citing though. The comments seem to suggest this is fake news as no official royal announcement exists on their website.

Yahoo has not proofreading or fact-checking at all. I die a bit each time I read something there.

There are quiet rumors that this will happen, but I'd take this with a grain of salt.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Meldionne1

Camilla. Not Camille.
Any who...
Or as we call her the bitch that kept Charles from committing to Diana.

Yes you are correct ...it's Camilla ......lack of sleep , and spell check = Camille . Sorry for that. ....either way, I'm not a fan of her .

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Xcathdra

If this means the end of the royal family in the UK then the better for it !

apart from that I couldnt give a # who the queen or king was

You would if it was Piers Morgan and Katie Hopkins!

a reply to: PheonixReborn

hahah then i'd be in open rebellion and march on Windsor / buckingham and personally put their heads on spikes outside Edinburgh Castle

Job Done , plus I love guillotines

a reply to: Xcathdra

I've seen no official announcement and hardly think Life & Style magazine would be the channel she would choose to inform the nation of her decision.

I think it's nonsense.

originally posted by: Kalixi
1. People are growing discontented with The Royals.

Yet the opinion polls show that a the vast majority of people want to maintain the monarchy.

originally posted by: paraphi
Yet the opinion polls show that a the vast majority of people want to maintain the monarchy.

Yup. Support for the monarchy is at around 80 per cent and has been for years.

Republican sentiment comes and goes, and the last big peak was in the 1990s. It'll be back, but it's not around at the moment. Even Queen Victoria had to deal with anti-monarchism. It's a sign of a healthy democracy, and the monarchy is well-used to riding it out when it erupts.