Yes, why not. Now that Prince Charles and HRH Princess Camila are to be wedded, should'nt the next obvious milestone be a child for both of them. Ah ! ofcourse I know that she is too old for a baby ! But remember this is the 21st century. And it is scientifically possible for them to have a child. So now that we have that part sorted out, lets move on to the next interesting part.
When Prince Charles becomes King, Prince William will be crown prince or the first in line to the throne. Or will he. Lets assume that Prince Charles becomes King in another 10 yrs. By that time HRH Princess Camila would have had enough time to win the hearts and minds of the people (the spin doctors are working overtime on that) which would pave the way for her to graduate from Princess-consort Camila to Queen Camila.
So 10 years from now UK would have a HM King Charles and HM Queen Camila with a child, but s/he wouldnt be the heir apparent, it would be Prince William. Now I am a bit confused. Do we mean that a reigning monarch's child would not have the first claim to the throne ? Would Queen Camila take that kindly ?
Well, looks like we could have a battle for the throne coming up later not sooner though.
Remember the Ramayana, the great Indian epic. The third queen of King Dasharatha cunningly tries to make her son the crown prince by banishing away the eldest son and heir apparent to exile for 14 years. Well its another thing that Bharatha, the queen's son refuses to supersede his beloved elder brother and holds fort until his return from 14 years in exile.
Its too much to expect this from the members of today's royal family.
So folks hold on, the soap opera has just begun........again !!
4 comments:
Dear Eswar,
I have kept myself out of the blogworld for a number of reasons.. but looks like I can do it no more :)
I cant seem to understand what is the big attraction towards monarchs/kings/queens etc., in these times. While I consider most of the world democracies are just different variations of monarchies, still this level obsession of monarchy is always surprising.
The Royal family of Great Britain - the Queen, Queen Mother, the Prince of Wales, Late Lady Diana Spencer, Princess Anne and the entire bunch are real life characters from a play card set. The family occupies news-slot in every issue in every possible topic that you can think of - adultery, craziness, stupidity, sex - what not !! So it is somewhat NOT surprising that they are in the news on a herdity issue that can possibly never occur.
Whether it is Prince William or a new kid to be born is a topic that is of no consequence !! It is still a pack of cards. And if still Prince William doesnt get the kingdom, so what - maybe King Gyanendra can tip him some good tricks ;)
As of the comparison between the characters of the Ramayana and Royal British family - Rama and Bharatha and others were ROLE MODELS; - hell, the Royal British family are made of MODELS !!
Siva,
We, the common man - proletariat - hoi polloi, whichever way u want to call us have always been obsessed with monarchy. Is it Awe, Jealousy, Sadness at not being born with blue blood! I don't know. But, just like we are infatuated towards the showbiz folks and politicians, we are hooked towards the British monarchy.
Comparing the British royal family to Rama and Bharatha is a typical case of Oranges and Apples. Rama is a God and no God can ever do any wrong. Even his slaying of Vali from hiding is considered as granting punishment for a sin.
A better comparison would possibly be with the tyrannical rulers that Indian provinces have had over the years. As a simple example - most of them rulers, indulged in polygamy and that in turn meant cruel, gory succession wars between half-brothers. In fact, someone as chaste as Raja Ranjit Singh in punjab had nearly 10 wives. They say he married some muslim wives to promote Sikh-Muslim harmony. But, that's a load of crap.
The British conquered India not because they were stronger, but because we let them to rule us! I wouldn't crib about what the media writing about the monarchy, because that's what we want to hear from the media. It's simple economics - 'You don't like it, you don't watch/hear/read it, they don't show/air/print it!'.
As the noted historian Christopher Lasch once said, The job of the press is to encourage debate, not to supply the public with information.! :)
Raman,
The reference to the Ramayana was just to illustrate an episode in history on succession battles. The Ramayana is a classic case of a succession battle between the various queens of the King. Kaikayee who is believed to be of Greek origin, obviously wanted her son to ascend the throne but unfortunately it was not to be since her son (according to the epic) looked upon his elder brother with respect and reverence.
Point being, today's royals are mere mortals with all the trappings of power unlike the extraordinary mortals of ancient times and so something like the above may not come about.
You may want to note that the present Queen Elizabeth's father King George VI ascended the throne when his brother King Edward VIII after reigning for 325 days, executed an Instrument of Abdication to the throne. The reason he did that - he wanted to marry Mrs Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced american woman !!
Bottom Line, Conspiracy theorists have a field day.....
Post a Comment