Charles may have inherited genes of longevity - if he takes after his parents, he may well have another good 20 years to reign! 
Maybe they were all partially culpable for what happened, but in my opinion Charlie-boy must take the most responsibility, he being the heir apparent.
As my mother used to say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”!
1 Like
Or, in this case, four wrongs! 
3 Likes
Talking of genes…aren’t they all distantly related anyway? I’m sure Charles & Di shared some cousin stuff - a few times removed, granted, but I don’t think he had much of a choice of…marriage material.
Diana and Charles were 16th cousins once removed.
They are both descendants of King Henry VII.
They are also said to be 7th cousins once removed through William Cavendish, the 3rd Duke of Devonshire.
Camilla’s great-grandmother was Prince Charles’s great-grandfather, King Edward VII’s mistress but they actually have another common connection. Their shared ancestry reportedly dates back to the 17th century via Henry Cavendish, 2nd Duke of Newcastle, making them ninth cousins once removed.
Those Cavendishes get about, don’t they?!
I guess if we go back far enough, we can all find some surprising connections.
I remember how surprised my brother was when I did a bit of digging into our family history and we discovered that his wife was a distant cousin of ours!
2 Likes
Inbreeding!
Wow that’s quite fascinating about your sister in law 
Maybe there is something to that six degrees of separation thing…
2 Likes
I am all in favour of her becoming queen if, as it appears, it will generate a lot of antipathy and maybe rock the whole sorry edifice. I may, after all, see a republic in my lifetime…hopefully.
2 Likes
Don’t you be threatening us, Boot! 
And what difference will that make to us?
A lot.
Is there any discussion behind the scenes about potential effect of C&C on Anglophilic tourism dollars?
I am a Republican and would be happy to see the Royal family scraped once the Queen dies
2 Likes
What would you replace them with though?
Mr and Mrs Boris? 
I have never heard of any such discussions - why would there be?
1 Like
I am with you on that one. Our problem is that it would involve changing the constitution which is not easy, then then there is the question is how would we select the replacement for the Governor General. Would it be by a popular vote or by the consent of Parliament as it is now? Challenging questions.
Willie Hamilton was a hero in the UK
Just wondering because I have read more than once that the general ambivalence to C & C might not inspire as many people to visit, which could take a nick out of tourism revenues. That was a bit of a surprise, because what appeals me is the natural beauty, architecture, historical sights, and museum, not royal figures.
2 Likes
Oh, I see. I haven’t seen / heard any talk about it.
I guess maybe some tourists will not bother to travel to UK for a particular Royal event, such as a Coronation or a Jubilee Celebration when Charles is King, if they don’t hold him in the same high esteem as Elizabeth II is held around the world, but I can’t see it making much of a dent in the number of tourists who want to come for general tours for the history and culture, the Royal Palaces etc - the Covid pandemic has already scuppered visitor numbers so much, it would be difficult to make comparisons for quite a few years to come until things settle down a bit, though.
I used to live in a tourist town and used to serve and chat to many tourists from around the world. I got the impression that most of the appeal to tourists was the things you have listed.
The sights that visitors see at the Tower of London, Windsor and Buckingham Palace are more about the traditions, history, pomp and ceremony surrounding the Royal Family than about the individual person of the current monarch.
From what I have read, Charles has confirmed that he will use Buckingham Palace as a home and the hub of the Royal Court, in much the same way as the Queen has always done and it sounds as if he wishes to carry on a lot of the time-honoured traditions, so I don’t think much of what tourists come to see will change.
There was a similar situation when Queen Victoria had a very long reign and her son kicked his heels as the Prince of Wales until he was nearly 60.
Victoria had become Queen so young, she never had time to put a foot wrong before she became the monarch and it’s easier for an attractive young Queen to gain popularity with the public - and she gained a reputation for being “morally upright” and synonymous with the “glory of the Empire”.
Her son was left with little to do but enjoy life and anything he did wrong was gossiped about over the years, so by the time he got to throne, he was a bit of an old roué and had a lot of “bad press” to overcome.
Many people doubted his ability to be a decent King, including his own Mother, but when his turn finally came, he turned out to be a successful and popular King and left some good legacies behind after his short 9 year reign.
1 Like
A very good post, Boot, and a most interesting read on Edward the VII. Thank you!
1 Like
The obvious answer to that would be whoever the populace wanted not who the populace had foisted on them by genetics and privilege born of history and having better weapons…
1 Like