Resource help on British politics?

[nyxelestia]

Setting: modern day UK
Searches: um, kind of what I need help with

Basically, I plan to write a modern AU fanfic, including a Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister's son. (This is Merlin fic to be exact, Prince!Arthur and PM's-Son!Merlin, with, obviously, King Uther, and less obviously, PM Hunith, Merlin's mother

Comments

[melannen]

Okay, this is going to sound really terrible? But if you want a good, non-politicized primer on modern British politics, join uk_lolitics, follow it, and backread; the community only dates to this May. (It's the RPF/fannish discussion community for modern British politics, and they discuss relationships and recent history and how things actually work, and follow and explain all the press coverage and Parliamentary debates and reshuffles of power, but with no serious partisan business allowed, and it doesn't assume that everybody joining up for the rpf will already understand how the government works.) Although admittedly, uk_lolitics' main opinion on the Queen is that she 'ships it. :D

[naath]

I think that One might find Oneself short a head (OK, we probably wouldn't do THAT again) if it were to become common knowledge that One were doing that.

There was a BIG hooha over something Charles did a while back... hummm, can I find it? Here we are; some planning stuff
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/25/prince-charles-chelsea-barracks-planning

[melannen]

Well, I did say it would require patience and finesse, which are things that Prince Charles seems to only very rarely be accused of. ^_^ I can see a case where a King like Uther could start from where Charles currently is, and with more subtlety than that, just weather the early objections until people are used to dealing with it? But it wouldn't be easy. It will certainly be interesting to watch, from a safe ocean away, what happens when ya'll do get a new King who may have Opinions.

(The Royals are British citizens, aren't they? That article implied that Charles should have registered his discontent through the same bureaucratic channels as any other citizen. Which. Um. Would have been fun. ^_^)

[naath]

I'm actually not sure on that last point. Possibly permitted but against tradition, but possibly still "OMG YOU DID WHUT?".

When Charles is King we will all RUN AND HIDE. Or maybe decide we're bored of being a Monarchy ;-) I doubt "letting him be in charge" will ever happen. Uther of course might be more subtle and careful and, er, stuff. Also magic might help? It is possible to imagine us tending more towards the Monarch running things but as of Right Now with the current bunch of Royals it seems Very Very Unlikely.

[tsubaki_ny]

I thought they were officially skipping Charles and going straight to William. ^___^

[nineveh_uk]

As a republican, I very much look forward to the reaction of a certain sort of sentimental monarchist when the Queen dies and that doesn't happen ;-)

[criccieth]

Even if they could, which i'm pretty sure they can't what with laws of primogeniture and such, there's no way that would ever be declared. IF anything was decided, it would Charles "deciding" to abdicate in favour of his son on his mother's death on the grounds that by then he;s likely to be pushing 70 himself and therefore not likely to be on the throne terribly long.

Me, I'm for a Republic.

[reapermum]

He's talking today about Camilla being queen when he becomes king. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11800849

[tsubaki_ny]

I was being a bit facetious with the word "officially," (and I really should have come back here and cleared that up much earlier today, apologies to all) but I did think that there was some talk about Queen Elizabeth being against him becoming king? Hearsay, I know, and that hearsay itself probably more than a decade old. :-)

Jeeze, I don't even remember where I first heard it. Definitely with connotations of "by hook or by crook" on the part of the queen. But the family -- I think, from here on the other side of the Atlantic and very far removed -- that the family has settled down a bit since those days...

[nineveh_uk]

She will be queen - she's the wife of the king, and there's no UK tradition of morganatic marriage. The only question is whether he/advisers feel that 'people will stand for' her actually being called that, although there could be an argument for the routine use of Prince/Princess Consort as the title, with Queen left for queens regnant.

[criccieth]

but we;ve NEVER used Princess Consort, which is the problem - the wife of the King has ALWAYS been the Queen. Looking back, William was King because he was co-regnant with Mary. Phillip, husband of Bloody Mary was never King because Parliament decided the populace wouldn't stand for it. Albert and the current Philip were both Prince - but "Consort" as a title has no tradition in this country.

But most of the press will scream about the "insult" to Diana if Camilla took the title of Queen, despite the fact that she'd not have been Queen to his King even if she was still alive.

wonder what title William's wife will get - there's no Princess of Wales at the moment but they can't give her that when William's not Prince of Wales.

[marycatelli]

Well, until you get back into Anglo-Saxon times. She wouldn't have been the Princess Consort then, though; she would have been the king's wife. And their sons would not be princes but the king's sons; the daughters would not be princesses but the king's daughters. . . . the royal family was not big on titles back then.

[criccieth]

exctly - princess consort wouldn't have been used in Anglo-Saxon times or earlier, as the title was pretty much "king" and that was it. After all, when anyone could take the throne if they proved themselves strong and powerful enough, why bother adding titles to the offspring and wife of the king? then with 1066 we got hold of the Norman idea of primogeniture and titles truly became important but still no Princess Consort.

BUT - it turns out that tradition is no bar to public pressure! (rolls eyes).
According to the royal.gov.uk website, the current plan IS indeed to give Princess Consort to Camilla when Charlie takes the throne.

wonder if he'll keep to that. Because although Diana, poor daft girl, is the eternal darling of some sections of the media, those same sections are also die-hard traditionalists - I can see fuss about the "shame to the country" if the King is accompanied by a "mere" Princess Consort.

Bring on the Republic.

[nineveh_uk]

Even Diana of Blessed Memory was never, ever referred to as Princess Charles, because it was felt the population would consider this too ridiculous!

[demi_de_melee]

there's no Princess of Wales at the moment

Camilla is the current Princess of Wales. As the wife of the Prince of Wales, she is the Princess, whatever she calls herself.

[criccieth]

i must be remembering all the fuss about "how dare she take The Great Diana's Title" - but yes you're right of course. She IS the Princess of Wales but for all her Royal appointments she#s styled Duchess of Cornwall - even to the extent that when they both go to something together Ive seen it given as "the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall" as opposed to the more technically correct "the Prince and Princess of Wales". Have seen them refered to as "the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall" but not often to my memory - probably because it's so clumsy.