Gillard sees Charles as next Commonwealth head

[observer]

Australian Prime Minister, an avowed republican, has paid tribute to Queen Elizabeth's "distinguished" service as head of the Commonwealth over many decades. She sees the institution of head as standing above politics, and stated ""For Australia's part, I am sure the Queen's successor as monarch will one day serve as head of the Commonwealth with the same distinction as her Majesty has done."

This is the latest in a series of similar comments from distinguished persons. So, while some countries may become republics when the Queen dies, it seems more than likely Charles will succeed her as head of the Commonwealth.

[Edward_IX]

I think people are a little unfair to Charles. Yes, He did Diana wrong, both in their marriage, and marrying Camilla. But give him credit on Camilla, he stuck to his guns. He was indecisive as a youth, and it cost him huge.

But a lot of people were worried about Edward VII when he succeeded Queen Victoria, and he turned out to revolutionize the monarchy into what it is today.

Can we expect Charles to do the same. Is that not the beauty of the Prince or Princess of Wales, to be different from the previous monarch?

I would go so far to say, and being from the USA no less, that the monarch should have more influence, and added powers. Mind you, the monarch has to give a good reason for Parliament not to override a veto.

Think about it, you have someone in the monarch who is duty bound, and really would rather not be where they are, but accept it, and revel in it.

The parliament is made up of politicians willing to sacrifice the ideals that a voter sent them with to make a deal, or to gain power, but a monarch does not have that drive, and in a limited use, could use the veto powers, and influence for the good of the people.

It's a good balance. As long as there is public support for the monarchs actions, why not? If the parliament feel's he or she is overstepping the bounds, and the public complains, then they sanction the monarch.

Good example, the Apartheid issue in South Africa back in the 80's that threatened to break up the Commonwealth, that the Queen, the Commonwealth, and the majority of the British People were in favor of sanctions, but Margaret Thatcher wasn't. The Queen, knowing the mood of the people, and the threat of CW break up, should have had the right to put Mrs. Thatcher in her place. Especially a monarch like the Queen who has years and years of experience, and knowledge.

Let the monarch have veto power, that could be overridden by law by 2/3 majority if the parliament feels the Monarchs actions are uncalled for.

Let the Monarch have the ability to help in military strategy if Parliament gives the ok for war or military action should the sitting monarch wish.

I'm willing to give Charles a chance. He might shock everyone. Or he might ruin the monarchy, it shall give us a lot to talk about, let's hope The Queen has another good decade in her before we talk about that