Prince Charles Waiting For Mother to Die for 60 Years

Prince Charles has been waiting for his mom to die for a very long time.

Prince Charles has been waiting for his mom to die for a very long time.

Telegraph (“Prince Charles: ‘I’m running out of time’“):

In a series of remarkably candid comments, Prince Charles hinted that he feared his legacy as king would be cut short.

During a visit to Dumfries House, the stately home in East Ayrshire which the Prince helped save for the nation, he joked about his reputation for pursuing projects with notorious vigour but made a poignant reference to his mortality.

He said: “Impatient? Me? What a thing to suggest! Yes of course I am.” He added: “I’ll run out of time soon. I shall have snuffed it if I’m not careful.”

The comments, which were recorded for a film on the Clarence House website about the Prince’s involvement with Dumfries House, will fuel ongoing speculation that Prince Charles, 64, is more eager than ever to take the throne after 60 years of waiting.

In 2008, he became the longest-waiting heir to the throne in British history, overtaking his great-great grandfather, Edward VII.


With a history of longevity in his family – the Queen is 86 and in good health while Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother lived to the age of 101 – Prince Charles may yet have a while to wait until he succeeds his mother.


In 2004, in conversation with a Guards officer at Wellington Barracks who congratulated him on his 56th birthday, the Prince is reported to have replied: “I’m now at the age at which my grandfather died.”


Prince Charles may also feel sidelined by the surge of affection displayed for his mother during her Diamond Jubilee and the soaring popularity of younger members of the Royal family.

In an Ipsos Mori poll conducted earlier this month, the Duke of Cambridge was named as the most popular member of the Royal family with an approval rating of 62 per cent – the highest since Ipsos Mori began is royal poll in 1984. Prince Charles’s approval rating was 21 per cent, behind the Queen, Prince Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge.


Professor Robert Hazell, the director of University College London’s constitution unit, said: “He is an age when most people are starting to contemplate retirement, yet he’s not actually started the job he has spent his adult life preparing for. That is burdensome.”

It’s a very weird thing, indeed, to have to wait around for your mother to die in order to begin your life’s work.

FILED UNDER: Europe, World Politics, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Hal 10000 says:

    You know, we fought a whole entire war … two of them actually … so we wouldn’t have to give a rat’s backside about the royal family.

  2. Franklin says:

    How does this whole thing work? For some reason I thought the Queen could choose which heir replaced her. (I know, I know, the Internet is my friend …)

  3. John H says:

    I thought we fought them for the right to irritate people that think their interests are the only ones worth pursuing…

  4. Liberal Capitalist says:

    “I’m now at the age at which my grandfather died.”


    Wealthy beyond means, moderately rich, or dirt poor, the milestones in life are there.

    Having recently passed my father’s passing age (52) it just makes one think of all that never happened.

    No message here. Just that.

  5. cd6 says:

    It must be very frustrating, to be trapped in a ceremonial position without any real political clout, when your whole goal in life is to have a slightly different ceremonial position without any real political clout.

    Of course, the less time he spends as King, the less money Britain will waste on homeopathy, so maybe its a good thing the Queen keeps hanging on

  6. Bill says:

    QE II has about 3 more years to go to pass Queen Victoria as England’s longest reigning monarch.

    Rama IX of Thailand is the longest currently serving monarch in the world.

  7. Dave Schuler says:


    Under the common law the British succession is by male-preference cognative primogeniture. In other words the eldest son of the monarch succeeds, then his offspring, followed by the second oldest (and his offspring) through remaining male offspring, then to the eldest daughter, etc.

    However, the succession is also governed by law which means that, at least in theory, Parliament has veto power.

  8. MBunge says:

    This is a reminder of the practical problems with non-democratic systems. It’s not just that democracy is morally superior. It’s also a more flexible and adaptable governing principle. Imagine the temptation for mischief if Charles had spent all this time knowing his mother was the only thing separating him from real political power.


  9. That Other Mike says:

    @Dave Schuler: Nothing theoretical about it; Parliament has controlled who may inherit the throne for centuries.

    The only real stumbling block would be the Commonwealth realms; as a technical matter, the reigning monarch is King/Queen not only of the UK, but also of each distinct county for which s/he is head of state.

    So, for example, in Canada, the current Queen is not recognized as Queen of England, Scotland etc, but as Queen of Canada. Ditto Australia, Jamaica etc. As it stands, any changes to the rules of inheritance, like those proposed in 2011, must be made legislatively in all independent Commonwealth realms. If Parliament made changes and the respective other countries did not, you could theoretically have someone with a claim to be monarch of these other countries but not the UK.

  10. JKB says:

    It’s a very weird thing, indeed, to have to wait around for your mother to die in order to begin your life’s work.

    Especially, in those 60 years waiting, he’s shown no aptitude for the work and becomes an easy mark for whatever fad that comes along, such as global warming alarmism.

    Britain would do quite well if Prince Charles lost the game and did not assume the throne even as a bobblehead.

  11. Ron Beasley says:

    The Prince Albert syndrome.

  12. Tillman says:

    Too bad women live longer, eh? And rich women just never die.

    Can’t believe he’s that bitter, though. You’d think having all the perks of royalty without *most* of the trouble would be enviable.

  13. PogueMahone says:

    @Tillman: Can’t believe he’s that bitter, though. You’d think having all the perks of royalty without *most* of the trouble would be enviable.

    I know, right. It must be a rich and powerful thing. If you are rich and powerful you only want to be more rich and more powerful.

    People like me, who are not rich and powerful, can only imagine that if we were, we would retire to blissful luxury and the rest of the world can piss off.

    In America, we call it the “Romney Syndrome.”


  14. Dave Schuler says:

    @That Other Mike:

    The reason I wrote “in theory” was not whether Parliament could act to alter the succession but whether it would. To the best of my knowledge the last time Parliament did that was to prevent James II’s son, James, Prince of Wales and his children from participating in the succession in favor of Queen Mary and her husband, William.

    The context of this is the idea that one encounters, particularly here in the States, of William succeeding to the throne rather than his father, Charles. IMO the only way that would happen would be for Charles to predecease him.

  15. That Other Mike says:

    @Dave Schuler: Oh, OK. My mistake 🙂

  16. John D'Geek says:

    Also recall that the succession rules have to be changed before the reigning Monarch dies. Once the Monarch dies, the heir is automatically the new Monarch. Thus the phrase: “The King is Dead! Long live the King!”

  17. Charlie WindSore is an extremely bitter, petty, spiteful, jealous, intolerable, narcissistic, meddlesome, immature, complicit, spoilt prat. Firstly, he was jealous and resentful of his legitimate wife, Princess Diana, for her beauty inwardly and outwardly and her popularity. If he had been proud of her and was not afraid to admit how proud he was of her and saying “sorry chaps, she’s all mine”, we Brits would have found that encouraging and he would have curried our favour. Secondly, he is jealous and resentful of Princess Diana and his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry and Prince William’s wife, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, for the same reasons he was of Princess Diana. This article tells much that he feels the same jealousy and resentment toward both his parents, particularly his mum. I have the feeling there is no love lost between his dad and he. Charles continues to put both of his feet in his mouth with the inane pontificating about various innumerable issues, thus explaining the ever-widening bald spot on the back of his head.
    Princess Diana, hers and Charles’ sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge have breathed new life into the monarchy just as Princess Diana did. Charles is the world’s eldest toddler. A vast majority of us Brits do NOT want him as our next monarch and we most certainly do NOT want his still mistress and illegitimate wife, CamZilla Porker-Bowels, as queen consort or princess consort.
    We want Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge to be our next king and queen consort.
    Princess Diana was the true, genuine, and authentic royal due to her several direct ancestors who were kings and queens. Just as she said in her Panorama interview in November 1995, “I was needed for my genes”. Charles, his parents, siblings, and other elder members of “The Firm” are false foreign German ‘royals’ whose ancestors usurped the British throne upon the death of Queen Anne (Stewart/Stuart). Those listed above are British by birth but not by origin. Prince William and Prince Harry are the first true, genuine, and authentic British blood royals in well over three-hundred (300) years due to their mum, Princess Diana.
    God save ‘Queen’ Elizabeth II for as long as possible, at least another twenty years, and then God save King William V and Queen Consort Catherine. Long lives and brilliant health to them. We wish the same for Prince Harry. Thankfully, the British throne will then be restored to actual Britons!

  18. That Other Mike says:

    Oh, look, a crazy royalist. Is there any other kind?

  19. @That Other Mike: That’s mature! Are you an American friend of Charles? Certainly sounds like it. You display your small-mindedness by your unimaginative and empty comment. I just spoke THE TRUTH and if you would like to continue to debate this further, then I would be willing for you to join my relevant group and then you could debate with me and the other members. How’s that sound? Are you confident and strong and brave enough to take us on? If so provide your e-mail address or a link where I can contact you? In turn, if you provide a legitimate link or an e-mail address where I can contact you directly then I’ll provide you with an e-mail address where you can contact me. It’s time to put up or shut up your cake hole. Cheers!

  20. That Other Mike says:

    @Anne Eversley: Your comment exhibits maximum FAIL.

    I’m English, born and bred. I’m also a republican, but I don’t debate royalists, for the same reason I don’t debate creationists; engaging your kind only gives you respectability and attention which you don’t deserve. You, madam, are a cretin with a Diana fetish; why should I waste my time?

  21. @That Other Mike: I’m English born and bred as well. Good on you that you are a republican. There is a difference being a royalist and a monarchist and I’m not a royalist, therefore you are wrong as I knew you would be. If you don’t know the difference between the two, then research it. I am NOT going to waste my time debating you, therefore any response you give from this point on will go UNheeded. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I have much better things to do with my time then to waste it on you.
    I am most definitely NOT a creationist. You have no right to judge me, particularly as you don’t know me and I am truly blessed by that fact. Judge not and you will not be judged.
    So you are into fetishes. How revolting! I do NOT have a Diana fetish, I just know my English history which includes the facts which I presented in my original message.

  22. That Other Mike says:

    @Anne Eversley: Yeah, you just kind of proved everything I said.