Prince Harry for King

[Luv2play]

If it was based on looks, personality and sex appeal, my vote would be for Prince Harry to succeed Charles as king. But of course it isn’t but rather that old custom and law of first born( now including girls). 
William has not aged well and now in his 40’s lacks the charisma of his younger brother. 
Of course Harry looks nothing like a Windsor and his paternity may be an issue  if he ever came to be eligible to ascend the throne. But that’s pure speculation on my part. I just think his line will inject some sexiness to the Royal family line, like Princess Diana did. 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

52 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

If it was based on looks, personality and sex appeal, my vote would be for Prince Harry to succeed Charles as king. But of course it isn’t but rather that old custom and law of first born( now including girls). 
William has not aged well and now in his 40’s lacks the charisma of his younger brother. 
Of course Harry looks nothing like a Windsor and his paternity may be an issue  if he ever came to be eligible to ascend the throne. But that’s pure speculation on my part. I just think his line will inject some sexiness to the Royal family line, like Princess Diana did. 

This makes me long for the days before photography when the voters had to rely on printed speeches, party platforms, and the track records of candidates to decide for whom to cast their vote rather than on one's looks or charisma.

[+ sniper]

Eh I used to believe the rumors about Harry but I can see Charles's features in him more so than that other guy.

[jeezifonly]

The "mystery" of the Crown and Royal Family has changed so dramatically in my lifetime.

The combo of visual documentary record of real events, and fictionalization of the lives of these extraordinary mortal humans over the last 70 yrs, has broken through the wall of The Divine Right.

Elizabeth will be the last truly duty-driven monarch Britain, perhaps the world, will ever know.

Imagine being a young prince, like George in 2025, knowing as a young child that you will one day have to take a job you probably don't want. Having instant access to understanding of suffering around the world without a means to act to help. Knowing that your grandmother who tried to help the less fortunate, was tragically killed escaping the hunt of people who needed more from her. Knowing that because of your birth, everything you do until you die, will be scrutinized, picked apart, and compared against all the other dead kings before you - And suspecting that, if left alone in a private comfortable flat with a beautiful, fully-stocked kitchen, you'd probably starve for not having learned how to do the simplest of tasks to take care of yourself. 

William has the brains and guts to take on what's ahead. I wish him well, and hope Kate has a grounding influence on their kids, for the twenty-fold pressures ahead.

And for God's sake, somebody get these kids subscriptions to America's Test Kitchen. 👑

 

[TonyDown]

I respect Prince William.   Also Catherine.

[mike carey]

Her late Majesty had the benefit of a childhood that Charles, William and George could never have. Not the seclusion and privilege that wealth afforded, they all share that, or shared, even though the weight of that privilege has lifted somewhat. Until she was 10 years old, her future was that of a minor princess with a life that promised comfort and the freedom to do much as she wished. At 10 her life suddenly changed to presage the one she became destined to live, she became the heir apparent and had to prepare for a different life to the one she may have thought awaited her. Her heirs were destined to the future they now have from the moment they were born.

For many years, Charles knew, or at least hoped, that his reign was in the distant future so was able to combine his preparation for it with the freedom to develop his own ideas and values. As his time approached he adjusted to the strictures that would then face, one which he now seems to have grown into and carried out with a sense of duty.

Willaim and Harry grew up with different futures, roles that came to be confirmed when William and Catherine had children, William the duty that he would assume, tempered by the years he has and would have before that time came, and Harry with the relative freedom that Elizabeth had in her early years. That has shaped the men that they today are. If the unthinkable happened and he were to ascend to the throne, from a distance I can see a man who would understand the new weight of his position and be able to meet its demands.

[+ Jamie21]

I think the succession is secured for the next 100 years or so. Charles is proving to be a good King, he’s well liked and very well supported by the Queen. They clearly were meant for each other. William is like the late Queen Elizabeth, dutiful and fully aware of the role he’s destined to play. This model has worked more or less for over a thousand years (with a short break while we checked out Republicanism - which didn’t work here) so I think the institution will adapt and survive. It’s not good looks, charisma, eloquence or popularity that is needed to do the role, it’s a sense of destiny, determination and humility. William has those. Harry doesn’t. 

[Luv2play]

I would like to think that William has all the qualities that @Jamie21 ascribes to him but frankly I haven’t seen them on display to any great degree. Since he married his wife appears to have been the more popular figure. Unlike his father he does not appear to have carved out any independent role for himself that distinguishes his talents. If he is playing it safe then good for him. But if someone asked me what he stood for, I would be hard pressed to say. 

[+ Pensant]

I’m not sure the monarchy will survive. If it does, I expect it will be in a more diminished role, similar to the Nordic countries. The UK itself has changed dramatically since ER ascended the throne in 1952. But what do I know? I’m not a follower of the royal family nor am I an Anglophile.

[Luv2play]

If the monarchy is to survive I think they will need a drastic slimming down. That means dropping all the hangers on from the Royal list. Just keep the immediate family on the payroll. 
Also scale back massively on the real estate. Too many palaces and castles. The majority would make very nice museums. People would pay to go see them. 
And a future government should make rejoining the EU a platform to get elected on. Brexit was a colossal mistake. 

[Lotus-eater]

18 hours ago, Luv2play said:

If it was based on looks, personality and sex appeal, my vote would be for Prince Harry to succeed Charles as king. But of course it isn’t but rather that old custom and law of first born( now including girls). 
William has not aged well and now in his 40’s lacks the charisma of his younger brother. 
Of course Harry looks nothing like a Windsor and his paternity may be an issue  if he ever came to be eligible to ascend the throne. But that’s pure speculation on my part. I just think his line will inject some sexiness to the Royal family line, like Princess Diana did. 

I don't find male gingers appealing at all, nor do I find Harry's personality attractive either (much less Harry's wife who seems a lot like Fergie). I agree that William is much better suited for the role.

[Luv2play]

6 minutes ago, Lotus-eater said:

I don't find male gingers appealing at all, nor do I find Harry's personality attractive either (much less Harry's wife who seems a lot like Fergie). I agree that William is much better suited for the role.

If you don’t like male gingers that prejudices you right from the start. 😆

[+ Jamie21]

1 hour ago, Luv2play said:

Brexit was a colossal mistake. 

😱. Please don’t re-open that wound. It must never be mentioned here. Never!!! 

[mike carey]

7 hours ago, Jamie21 said:

😱. Please don’t re-open that wound. It must never be mentioned here. Never!!! 

Jamais! Oops, I meant 'never'.

But it's something else that, to paraphrase, 'I see no reason ... should ever be forgot'.

[+ Jamie21]

4 hours ago, mike carey said:

Jamais! Oops, I meant 'never'.

But it's something else that, to paraphrase, 'I see no reason ... should ever be forgot'.

I know of no reason…. 😉

 

[mike carey]

26 minutes ago, Jamie21 said:

I know of no reason…. 😉

 

Guilty! I checked to see if I had the wording right, 'wordsforlife.org.uk' with the National Literacy Trust in its page header, no less. I had started with 'never' in final bit rather than the negative being in the first part, and took their wording as accurate, but seeing your post, I knew that I had already known that it was 'I know of' not 'I see'.

Idiot! 

There goes my carefully crafted illusion of having some pretence at being literate.

[+ Jamie21]

1 hour ago, mike carey said:

There goes my carefully crafted illusion of having some pretence at being literate.

You were close enough to have me recognise the allusion! 👏

[mike carey]

@Jamie21, more allusions and illusions than we've seen in weeks!

[+ PhileasFogg]

I don’t think Harry has the disposition to accept decisions from the popularly elected government that could differ from his own belief system.   An important attribute in a sovereign with no power.  He’d definately bring the end to the monarchy.  

[EZEtoGRU]

On 9/12/2025 at 5:26 AM, Luv2play said:

I would like to think that William has all the qualities that @Jamie21 ascribes to him but frankly I haven’t seen them on display to any great degree. Since he married his wife appears to have been the more popular figure. Unlike his father he does not appear to have carved out any independent role for himself that distinguishes his talents. If he is playing it safe then good for him. But if someone asked me what he stood for, I would be hard pressed to say. 

Nor have I seen those qualities in William.  I find him quite dull actually.  I agree that it would be hard to identify something he stands for...well...other than being anti-Harry/Meghan.

Having said this, I don't see Harry ever becoming King.  He has been vilified in the UK (unfairly in my view) and his popularity is unlikely to recover there.

 

 

[EZEtoGRU]

On 9/12/2025 at 8:52 AM, Pensant said:

I’m not sure the monarchy will survive. If it does, I expect it will be in a more diminished role, similar to the Nordic countries. 

I concur with this view.  The monarchy shall become smaller...and King Charles wants it to become smaller.  I believe William shares this view as well.  

The connections with the Commonwealth of Nations are on shaky ground as well.  A royal visit to a Commonwealth country used to be a moment of celebration/adoration of the visiting royal family members.  Parades...State dinners...people lining up to see them...British flags waving.    Compare that to the William/Kate visit to Belize/Jamaica/Bahamas in 2022.  The couple were greeted with protests/boos/anti-Commonwealth chants.  Some events had to be cancelled due to the protests.  William seemed stunned.   It's a different world today than 50-100 years ago.  The masses in the Commonwealth outside of the UK no longer adore nor automatically respect the royals.  They see little connection between their two worlds.    The Monarchy's role/impact outside of the UK will diminish substantially.  

[Luv2play]

The role of the monarchy in Canada, the largest and oldest of the British former colonies that became “independent” in 1867, is embedded in its constitution. This was last revised in 1982, when the government of Pierre Trudeau, “repatriated” it to Canada from being a British piece of legislation. 
It retained the British monarch as Canada’s head of state.

All Canadian legislation today is therefore done in the monarch’s name. 
Symbolic of this, Charles recently opened parliament and read the speech from the throne. To remove the monarchy from Canada’s government would require a constitutional amendment which the reformed constitution of 1982 made extremely difficult politically. The provinces would have a major say in such a decision. 
While not impossible to conceive, it would open a Pandora’s box of issues, not least Quebec sovereignty. 
Charles’ and his successor’s security on the Canadian throne thus looks fairly secure at this point in history. 

[mike carey]

Australia doesn't have the sort of constitutional issues that Canada has in Québec, but it does have a similar degree of difficulty in changing its constitution, as demonstrated in our 1999 referendum on becoming a republic. Constitutional change can only be achieved by referendum, and the record of success since federation is dismal. We need a majority vote across the country, and a majority in a majority of states (ie at leas four of the six). The future of our monarchy is secure, I believe, whoever is on the throne.