Prince Charles has a little more to do these days, but The Queen is still real sound of mind and able to handle her part. She is just letting Prince Charles have a little more responsibility now a days.
We don't know this. In terms of 'evidence' there is none.
It is more reasonable to suspect (going by visual observation) that she is failing than that she is not. Her grandfather's true condition was kept from the British public way past his death, in fact, if I have my facts right. I cannot see the BRF saying anything to dissuade the public that the Queen is anything but capably handling her job. If they didn't, they would not being doing their job imo.
"Little more"? I think the Prince of Wales is an extremely busy man and holds a lots of reins in his hand. I think he is already functioning as shadow master behind the visibly ageing Queen and more and more frail Duke.
I agree.
Anyone who has had to deal with aging parents knows how much one has to step into the breach. How much more for Charles vis-a-vis the monarch, his mother.
Let us keep things in perspective. It is not that they have to work from 8.00 to 17.00 o'clock in a factory.
The Queen and/or the Duke are transported in the most luxury limousines to the engagement they are attending. They are welcomed by dignitaries and then are given the Very Royal & Important Person-treatment, all and everyone making absolutely sure that Her Majesty and/or His Royal Highness are doing and feeling well. Their stamina is beyond belief but let us keep anything relative, it is incomparable with a "common" ninety-year old, of course.
A good summation of how it must go.
Your reply to Duc_et_Pair's comment that he sees Charles as
"already functioning as shadow master behind the visibly ageing Queen and more and more frail Duke." Why would you object to this summation? What about it strikes you as either untrue, or not possible? Just wondering.
Don't underestimate the power and the influence of the Prince of Wales. His achievements and his nose for business (the Duchy of Cornwall) are impressive. He has proven that he can initiate and lead succesful projects (implementing and booming organic food, the expansion of The Prince's Trust, the development of the Poundbury project, the complete make-over of Highgrove Estate into a sustainable House-with-Park, the immense restoration of Dumfries House as a project to re-integrate jobless youngsters into durable work with skills and craftmanship, etc.)
I have read that the Prince of Wales already gets the notes from the board and management meetings of the Queen's estates, like Balmoral, the Duchy of Lancaster, Windsor Great Park. Her Majesty remains Her Majesty, the only and one Queen. But the interests of the monarchy and the "business of the Firm" are more and more co-steered by the Prince of Wales. That is a token of responsible and forward thinking, ensuring a smooth "hand over". I feel that many posters underestimate the Prince of Wales and think he is only nipping tea with Camilla, the whole day long, awaiting the kingship.
I agree wholeheartedly with you.
For some reason, Charles has always been under-estimated. I've never understood it. I think his mother must be exceedingly proud of the son that has turned out to be her heir. Can't imagine anything else.
I think what some people (his own future subjects, in fact) are not aware of is that Charles is held in considerable high and serious regard in various strata of the world politic, both high and low. That I think would startle some British folks given how relentless he is given a negative spin in the British tabloids. It's a real curiosity how much (some) British disrespect their heir to the throne.
I admit he has been a successful businessman and a successful philantropist. I have misgivings though about his performance as an heir apparent specifically, especially compared to some of his continental counterparts. He has repeatedly caused embarassment to the RF and the monarchy both in his personal life (being for example openly adulterous when he was married) and, most significantlly, in his public life (e.g. violating the political neutrality of the Crown several times, trying to influence government policy in areas where he could potentially personally profit, etc.). William, with a much lower profile, has been a much better model prince.
Charles' performance as heir has been one of utter dedication to his role as Britain's heir. I can only guess that his mother the Queen must feel he is exemplary in that regard. His dedication to duty is akin to her own.
Every step of the way he did what was expected/required of him, and got a pretty nasty experience into the bargain. When he finally said on some deeply personal level 'Enough!' and made an important decision for himself, he has been skewered for that. I'm not sure this man could have ever won after he misjudged the character of the woman who became his first wife.
BTW Charles was never 'openly adulterous'.
Also, since Charles is not the monarch he has never violated any political neutrality standards. At least, that's how I understand it. If I'm wrong, please say.
As for William's 'lower profile', let's be honest, William is simply not as intellectually adroit as Charles. He does not appear to be 'into' things in an intellectual way. Hence, William is non-threatening to the establishment, or the powers in office at any given time. Charles is definitely a thinker and viewed as a threat, I think, which is why those same people in power make sure he is skewered in the press from time to time. Let's Charles know who's boss perhaps?
Fact is, if Mr Future King does not behave himself, the PTB will let him know who pulls the strings. Sadly, there is an ever willing public eager to see the strings pulled.
But in all this, I am reminded of Charles' Uncle David who had pro-Nazi leanings. As King would he have really been a problem for Britain? Totally off-topic but a consideration. Is Charles comparable to that? Off-topic.
