by Arena on Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:29 pm
Yes I am assuming that Charles has been given ultimatums when he decided to marry Camilla, his mistress. All the scandals about his treatment of Princess Diana that the world loved still live in the minds of people. I am assuming that the Queen actually told him and his son that Charles should abdicate and let William be king. I am also assuming that Charles might actually know that the public does not love him, but they love William and Kate.
So, yes I am assuming that William will be king rather than his father, also seeing from media that the Queen has asked the couple to "step up their royal duties".
But good to know about the one year, which is of course also a smart move, to let a little time pass between death of one and coronation of another.
Would be interesting to know how his 2018 SSR looks like then.
Do you agree with me that these do seem like times that could be of paramount importance in his life, towards becoming king?
Arena
Postby Jim Eshelman on Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:41 pm
They don't strike me as particularly indicative of kingship (and his natal suggests that he will take being king very seriously); however, Jupiter-Pluto, under its "fortunate separation" theme, does mean an inheritance in general, so... maybe.
I'm more attentive to recent concern of Elizabeth's health, and some indications that England is, as a nation, primed to "lose a female relative" soon. (I forget what the pattern was, but I remember noticing this over the next year or maybe two.)
Look up Elizabeth II in Wikipedia. It lists dates of her reign and, separately, her coronation date. Click to show her predecessor, and you'll see the same - you can walk it back through prior monarchs. Even George VI waited six months after the abdication. Edward VIII never had a formal coronation (he wasn't king a year). George V went 13 months. Edward VII was 19 months (planned for earlier, but neither his health nor the solar ingresses would cooperate). Victoria waited a year and a week, her father William IV 15 months, George IV a year and a half, George III just under a year, but George II no time at all - same day. George I only took a couple of months to organize the party.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Postby Jim Eshelman on Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:55 pm
On Charles BTW, not sure if you remember, but I predicted back in the '70s that he'd never sit on the throne, or do so only briefly. He is almost unique in the lineage for not having an angular Jupiter.
More fully, in the Houses of Hanover and Windsor, for the nine monarchs (out of 11) for whom we have birth times, Jupiter was only background 1 time (for Edward VIII, who abdicated). - Charles has Jupiter in the immediate background.
Another former crown prince, Victoria's son Prince Albert Victor, also had a background Jupiter. He died (under suspicious if not scandalous conditions) before he had the opportunity to become king. His brother, who became Edward VII, had Jupiter rising. Similarly, George VI, who succeeded the abdicated Edward VIII, had Jupiter in its exaltation degree on Midheaven. Elizabeth has Jupiter exactly on Eastpoint with Mars.
And, of course, William, like his great-grandfather, has Jupiter closely conjunct Midheaven.(His son is quite another matter.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Postby Jupiter Sets At Dawn on Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:51 pm
Arena wrote:
Yes I am assuming that Charles has been given ultimatums when he decided to marry Camilla, his mistress. All the scandals about his treatment of Princess Diana that the world loved still live in the minds of people. I am assuming that the Queen actually told him and his son that Charles should abdicate and let William be king. I am also assuming that Charles might actually know that the public does not love him, but they love William and Kate.
I think the Queen will have told Charles she's sorry she made him give up Camilla before and that's the end of that. The idea she cares who the public loves, as opposed to tradition, to who would make a good king and to who should be allowed time to raise his children without putting them in the middle of all that the way she was, is pretty out there. The Queen believes in duty, honor and tradition. As more has come out about Diana and her lovers, and Charles has shown himself to be a very good father, and he's so clearly happy with Camilla, who is no beauty, I think the idea he will have to step down because of some "public opinion" is pretty out there unless you're writing stories to sell tabloid newspapers.
I could see him choosing to step down if he got sick or if William would like to take over while he's still in his prime. But that's the only reason I think Charles would step down. If Jim is right, he'll probably a couple years into office. But abdicate? That would be entirely against everything his mother believes, and likely he believes as well. The oath - "I dedicate my whole life..." rings very true in that family.
Jupiter Sets At Dawn
Postby Arena on Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:11 pm
Yes this is indeed very interesting, and I remember reading some time back about your thoughts on Charles' background Jupiter.
The fact that William's children do not have angular Jupiter either might mean that he will live for a very very long time and his grandchild will succeed him.
Well, JSAD, I must admit that I think neither of us are any good at knowing what goes on behind the scenes in that family
Yes it has been revealed and Diana also admitted to have had lovers after Charles had already put her out in the cold - left for Camilla.
The royals are not supposed to be getting divorce and they are not to marry divorcees. This is not thought to be appropriate for a king or queen, although it has happened in history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
*Let´s throw Prince Edward in here as well. He abdicated because he wanted to marry his love, who was a double divorcee. It is not acceptable for a king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII
*And maybe also throw in here the fact that Charles was not allowed to marry again unless his first wife was dead. This is why many believe that Diana was assassinated, and she is said to have written a letter of concern about exactly that just before she died. He married Camilla in a civil ceremony although it had been noted at the time the law was set, that royals could not do that. He probably also did that not to cause controversy within the Church.
And maybe it is exactly that tradition that the Queen also holds dear and her son respects as well.
He chose the same path as Edward, marrying a divorcee who's ex is still alive, therefore he will not be king. As soon as he chose to marry Camilla, he was out of the picture.
The reasons Charles will not be king will maybe never be known to us, even though there will be some kind of public announcement. We can only guess, and this is my guess.
It might be that William is just more fit to do it, Charles is 68 yrs old and we do not know his health condition.
But I am pretty sure that he is not going to be king.
Arena
Postby Arena on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:08 am
Jim Eshelman wrote:
I'm more attentive to recent concern of Elizabeth's health, and some indications that England is, as a nation, primed to "lose a female relative" soon. (I forget what the pattern was, but I remember noticing this over the next year or maybe two.)
I think this is from the discussion in here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4466
The upcoming Moon-Saturn symbolism.
Arena
Postby Jupiter Sets At Dawn on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:22 am
Arena wrote:
The royals are not supposed to be getting divorce and they are not to marry divorcees. This is not thought to be appropriate for a king or queen, although it has happened in history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
Yeah, that's the whole reason there's a Church of England...
You may be right.
Times change, and what used to be "not allowed" changes. It used to be against British law for "royals" to marry divorced people. It used to be against Virginia law for white people to marry black people. Neither is true any longer.
Time will tell.
Jupiter Sets At Dawn
Postby Arena on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:34 am
Well you are right about one of those, it not being like that anymore for whites and black. But you are wrong about the royals to divorcees. If they do, it is not considered appropriate to be crowned. And the royals that divorce are not supposed to marry again until their ex has died. I've not seen any proof of that having changed (but may have missed it - do you have proof of those changes?).
I think maybe the royals take a bit longer to change than us others
traditions rule over them. We might not like it or agree, but that is what they have to live with I guess.
Arena
Postby Jim Eshelman on Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:41 am
I think the marriage issue threads back to the fact that the British monarch is also pope, i.e., formal head of the Church of England, and expected to follow Anglican doctrine precisely. What is the current Anglican stand on the issue?
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Postby Jupiter Sets At Dawn on Thu Mar 30, 2017 1:30 am
Jim Eshelman wrote:
I think the marriage issue threads back to the fact that the British monarch is also pope, i.e., formal head of the Church of England, and expected to follow Anglican doctrine precisely. What is the current Anglican stand on the issue?
The church says marriage is for life, but sometimes stuff happens. The ability to remarry is left to the discretion of the Priest in the parrish.
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-vie ... vorce.aspx
Jupiter Sets At Dawn
Re: Prince William crowned king soon?
Postby Arena on Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:33 pm
Yes, those are guidelines for "the commoners". But the royals have different sets of rules and traditions (according to my understanding) and one of them is that you are not to be king or queen if you are divorced or married to a divorcee.
Although it is indeed worthy mentioning that it was questioned whether Prince Charles would be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony. The royals are not expected to do that, but as I stated above he probably wanted to choose that path because he was a divorcee marrying a divorcee (as in not really fully acceptable). But it was found that it was a human right issue, so it was allowed. I do think this is indeed the main reason and maybe the only reason that he will abdicate or has already done so.
