General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOh my, would his mama be proud. Prince William British GQ Cover
https://www.yahoo.com/style/prince-william-looks-quite-dapper-195146294.htmlhttps://www.instagram.com/p/BUq-RCvg2DP/
The main focus of the interview, however, isnt the prince himself; its his new mental health initiative, Heads Together.
The initiative was set up by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as well as Williams brother, Prince Harry.
Smashing the taboo is our biggest aim, said Prince William in the interview. We cannot go anywhere much until that is done.
People cant access services till they feel less ashamed, so we must tackle the taboo, the stigma, for goodness sake, this is the 21st century.
In promoting the new initiative, Prince William gave one of the most personal and intimate interviews of his life.
He spoke candidly not only about the sudden death of his mother, Princess Diana, but also on how her death impacted him and his younger brother.
He revealed that the loss of his mother continues to affect him every day, saying:
I am in a better place about it than I have been for a long time, where I can talk about her more openly, talk about her more honestly, and I can remember her better, and publicly talk about her better. It has taken me almost 20 years to get to that stage.
I still find it difficult now because at the time it was so raw.
sandensea
(21,526 posts)To your knowledge, is the rumor that Queen Elizabeth has decided to bypass Charles and bequeath the throne directly to William true?
I have no opinion either way.
Thanks!
sarge43
(28,939 posts)the monarch has no control over the order of succession. It's entirely up to Parliament.
WoonTars
(694 posts)Whether he goes through with a coronation is another matter entirely.
sarge43
(28,939 posts)She can't. Unless Charles steps down or dies before Elizabeth, he will of course be king.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but Henry VIII put in his will what he wanted - probably changed since then. No fighting about Protestant vs. Catholic.
sarge43
(28,939 posts)Until son Eddie showed up Henry even considered making his illegitimate son his heir, but that was a bridge too far even for a terrorized parliament and aristocracy.
Starting with the Act of Settlement (1701) parliament decided who would follow Anne (she had no living children) and it wouldn't be her half brother because, wait for it, he was Catholic. Parliament flipped it back three generations to a daughter of James I, Sophia Electress of Hanover, who was solidly Protestant. Her son became George I. The Act also decreed that if anyone in the succession married a Catholic or was Catholic, they no longer would be.
The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) change the line from male primogeniture to strict birth order. It also dropped the Catholic prohibition, but the monarch still has to be Church of England.
So yeah, parliament calls the shots about who can wear the gold hat.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Which is how they got a king who didn't even speak good English, coming from Germany.
The birth order Act is neat - Charlotte won't get kicked out of line by any younger brothers, like Princess Anne was.
sarge43
(28,939 posts)The history of the British monarchy is a real life Dynasty and, sometimes, House of Cards.
George I couldn't speak English and didn't bother to learn. Because he never was interested, another reason parliament took over. Part of power plays is hearing what isn't said. This also explains why the Founders put in the Constitution presidential restrictions on residency and natural citizenship. They didn't want a half ass European royal pulling a Sneaky Pete and taking over.
Correction: Sophia was a granddaughter of James I.
The British have usually done well with a queen regnant. Why limit the possibility?
sandensea
(21,526 posts)Thank you, and to WoonTars as well.
FailureToCommunicate
(13,989 posts)sandensea
(21,526 posts)But his feudalist kind of governance is making a serious comeback.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)I've never understood why the Queen has left her son a Prince for so long
tells us something about her, I suppose
HipChick
(25,485 posts)When she has Charles for a son, I can understand why..
Merlot
(9,696 posts)politicat
(9,808 posts)And that's good, I think, if one takes her perspective on monarchy -- that the monarch exists as the societal airbag against a collision with a terrible but popular movement. Most of the time, she and the whole family exerts that power softly, via encouragement and endorsement, and by working outside of electoral politics. If she sets the precedent that the monarchy is not for life, then the monarchy becomes political again. In times of disaster -- which is when the monarchy is most useful -- it is strongest when it is not politicized.
From a pure historian's perspective, regencies have never, ever gone well for that monarchy, and the one attempted monarch-heir joint reign was such a disaster that it's never been tried since (Henry II and Young Henry*).
She knows that if she abdicates or resigns, then her successors will likely be pressured to do the same, and likely for less reason. She has very good reasons to see the succession while she's alive -- she's had a long, mostly successful reign and she has every right to consider a retirement. But once she sets the precedent, it exists. She'll die in harness. That's what she's been taught since she was a very little girl and she probably can't shake the idea that abdication is shameful and an admission of failure. That context matters for her.
* okay, so that family was so completely dysfunctional that it's the soap opera version of a train wreck, but still. It didn't work at all well, and that was before the imprisoning of the spouse and the battles and dysentery in France.
sarge43
(28,939 posts)Re the Fitzempress gang: That many strong personalities and power players in the same castle and things are bound to go sideways.
politicat
(9,808 posts)arthritisR_US
(7,269 posts)that succession is given to the next in the bloodline. Given Charles age, by the time he ascends to the throne his reign won't be long, probably in the ballpark of his grandfathers.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)still alive at 96 and his mother is 91, he'll likely have a reign of some thirty years or so...
arthritisR_US
(7,269 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Oddly enough (and tangentially relevant), Charles III played on local PBS last weekend. The BBC film (originally a play) opens with the death of the Queen and, resting almost entirely on open verse, gives us a version of the royal family that was Shakespearean in both sinister tragedy and selfish ambition, and whose plots rests on the line of succession.
It was a new twist on our view of the modern royal family. If you like classical dialogue, open verse and Shakespearean meter placed atop the contemporary, I think you'll dig this.
Preview...
sandensea
(21,526 posts)Another masterful creation by the BBC. Every high school should have a complete BBC video library for the faculty to use and refer to, I think.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)He is happy doing what he is doing with his green farming and villages. I understand that he and Al Gore get along famously.
Also, Charles and Camilla remain unpopular, at least according to my British and expat friends. He may want to abdicate in favor of his younger and more popular son.
arthritisR_US
(7,269 posts)of respect for his Mum and her adherence to tradition.
niyad
(112,426 posts)mhw
(678 posts)Thanks
Our President!
Ya just cant look at that & feel so proud of President Obama & Prince Harry.
Handsome & then some..
BumRushDaShow
(127,280 posts)mhw
(678 posts)There's so much sorrow in that humble man.
He & young Prince Harry carried it forever & yet remain kind thoughtful & true.
Beautiful.
Why can't we have Prince William .
BumRushDaShow
(127,280 posts)and they brought him out to the public. Geez... so long ago!