The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 10-09-2010, 08:11 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.
That is exactly my point. Being the Prince of Wales he stood on issues and wrote a lot of letters and voiced an opinion and gave ideas. As King he'd of course defer his opinions on UK political matters to the PM but do you really think he'd put what he believes in strongly aside?

My thought was he'd be more concerned about the global issues rather than taking sides with the UK political parties. Something along the lines that any political party wouldn't find fault with and that's not an easy road.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 10-09-2010, 08:21 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.
Off the wall question. what happens to the Prince's Trust when Charles does become King? He can no longer be the patron right? Or.. does it become the King's Trust?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 10-09-2010, 08:59 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.
I quite agree. The system has lasted thing long because of it's fundamental obligation to refrain from interfering.

Change that, and they'll find themselves in a most precarious set of circumstances.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 10-09-2010, 09:42 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Off the wall question. what happens to the Prince's Trust when Charles does become King? He can no longer be the patron right? Or.. does it become the King's Trust?
The Queen has patronages, and I don't see why The Prince's Trust cannot carry on.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 10-09-2010, 10:00 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
The Queen has patronages, and I don't see why The Prince's Trust cannot carry on.
That's true too.. just wondered if it'd be renamed the King's trust.

With all that's been said lately do you all think there is a real possibility that Charles will try and enact Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 10-09-2010, 10:15 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
That's true too.. just wondered if it'd be renamed the King's trust.

With all that's been said lately do you all think there is a real possibility that Charles will try and enact Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith?
I think it's a definete possibility and he'll cling to it with the edges of his teeth until someone gives the definete No.
It may do, or Charles may choose to pass it onto one of his sons.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 10-09-2010, 10:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
I think it rather rediculous myself. Unless church and state are seperated, it's entirely unlikley that Charles shall not be known as Deffender of the Faith.

Let him set an example of religious tolerance, showing initiative to be educated and understand faiths' that are not his own, but let us not underestimate his insignificance when it comes to the matter of religion overall. To be called Deffender of Faith? I mean seriously, what would be next? Mother Earth's Deffender of 'Harmony'?

It's all just so unconstitutionally sound.

Essentially, I wouldn't be straying too far from mummy's example if Charles is serious about attaining the throne and keeping it.

He has a lot to offer I think, but there's ways of doing things and theres ways of not doing things. Here's hoping he gets it right.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 10-09-2010, 11:30 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

I totally agree that King Charles needs to publically keep his mouth shut and his opinions to himself... He should only give speeches approved by the government and Parliament!!!

The Monarch has the power (perogative) 'to advise' the Prime Minister; and that is done in private with their weekly meeting(s)...

He would be well advised to follow "Mummy's" example, as she is exemplary as a Constitutional Monarch and she has not put a foot wrong in 58 years!!!

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 10-09-2010, 12:01 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Hi,

I totally agree that King Charles needs to publically keep his mouth shut and his opinions to himself... He should only give speeches approved by the government and Parliament!!!

The Monarch has the power (perogative) 'to advise' the Prime Minister; and that is done in private with their weekly meeting(s)...

He would be well advised to follow "Mummy's" example, as she is exemplary as a Constitutional Monarch and she has not put a foot wrong in 58 years!!!

Larry
She's got Philip that opens mouth and inserts foot.. But seriously here...

I don't see Charles as being so naive that he'd be hollering "save the squirrel" from Buckingham balcony and he's probably wise enough to know what is expected as a constitutional monarch and will do it to perfection. But.... as a King and meeting other influential personas of state and countries, in private I don't think they're going to be talking about mulch and how fast tomatoes grow (unless they're at Highgrove).

I do see him staying well away from being opinionated on political matters and perhaps doing a quip or two ala Philip to insinuate but as a monarch, he will be very much like his mum. He'll also be wishing he could be at Highgrove and just diggin in the dirt and having dirty fingernails. .. just as HM loves her time at rest.

I do hope he does not ever lose his passion for what he believes in and I do think as King, it may not be official but what he knows, he will share with those that wish to listen and it won't be over the fence as we are doing now. Over a good wine in waterfod crystal maybe in his study. There is a lot of passion in Charles and I really hope it doesn't stop when a crown hits his head. I think that's what he was trying to say in the VF article.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 10-14-2010, 08:33 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
Charles needs to recast his image once he becomes king, and there will be no better opportunity then when he does ascend the throne.
Why does he need to re-cast his image?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
You forget Prince Arthur, first husband of Catherine of Aragon. And also Arthur, Duke of Brittany who was supposed to be king before King John.

Im sure there are many more not listed on Wiki.
Those two named people were not Monarchs.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 10-14-2010, 01:01 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia, United States
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
There have been comments by some friends that he might take George VII certainly but not in any of the biographies that I have. Can you please identfy which biographer?
I don't remember exactly who it was, it was statements he was making during Charles' marriage to Camilla as a guest commentator on CNN and MSNBC, and I think I saw him on ABC too. Either way, it was his idea for which I wholey subscribe to for the points he had made (the one's appearently not popular here, lol)
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The Welsh nationalistic movement is pretty muted, bit I can't see a relevant linkage between the arugument for and against a separate Welsh nation, and the reign of Charles / George VII / .....
There is no relevant linkage between the argument for an independent Wales and Charles, except that you had asked…
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Why do you support separate kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland?
On a passing statement that I had made at the end of the post outlining why I thought he would chose George over Charles, in which I had stated: “I would restore a Welsh monarchy for Wales, and for Scotland a restored Stewart dynast. Otherwise, I would Wales and Scotland were independent republics.”

To your comment asking why do I support Welsh independence I replied …
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
I don't want to derail the topic but I guess I opened the door, eh? lol

As for Wales, I guess I've never gotten over the 1284 Edwardian Conquest of my homeland? From my perspective, the English crown acquired Wales in a similar manner as Iraq tried to take Kuwait in the First Gulf War, or any aggressive country conquers another. Only...the the UN of the day (Catholic Church) acquiesced to it. I feel robbed of my history. I believe the Welsh would be better off economically had we been able to develop our own interests and keep investments within the country rather then siphoned off elsewhere. I believe Wales would be in a comparable position today as Denmark is next to Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The Welsh nationalistic movement is pretty muted, bit I can't see a relevant linkage between the arugument for and against a separate Welsh nation, and the reign of Charles / George VII / .....
The "Welsh Independence Movement" is far from muted! It is the second largest political party in the Welsh Assembly and forms the junior partner in the current Welsh government. From a UK parliamentary perspective, one could drive from the mouth of the Tywi estauary on the Severn Sea (Bristol Channel) and head northbound to Caernarfon in Gwynedd on the Irish Sea and still not leave "Plaid Cymru country". Read up on it’s history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Why does he need to re-cast his image?
I don't really need to go into this do I? Not amongst us? But, really Charles is known as an eccentric philanderer, despite his hard word for charities. Nothing like his coronation to better recast his image from the dithering playboy prince to one of a serious constitutional monarch and leader.

Trust me, its all about managing one’s image. The press has always been brutal for Charles, it will not stop once he become’s king and he enacts his agenda (once for which I am supportive of). A “Charles III” with the precedents of the other two and Prince Charles own personal life will be the end of the English monarchy in my opinion. And believe me, the press will associate a “Charles III” with the other two and all the machinations and philandering of Charles III’s life will be associated in the public mind with the other two.

A “George VII” has all the advantages of linking Charles with the rule of his grandfather and great grandfather. It’s simply a rebranding of his image, if done right. A benefit of this would be clearly George VI’s performance during WWII, and the nostalgia that comes along with it.

Ultimately, it’s all about word association, rather then anything like superstition. Rightly or wrongly, the name Charles is linked with baggage for him both historically and in his younger years. George VII offers a clear, definitive, masculine break from all of that. One which I support.

I would bet my best luggage on the fact that he will take George as his regal name, as much as I would bet that Camilla will be queen!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 10-14-2010, 02:49 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
I don't really need to go into this do I? Not amongst us? But, really Charles is known as an eccentric philanderer, despite his hard word for charities. Nothing like his coronation to better recast his image from the dithering playboy prince to one of a serious constitutional monarch and leader.


This is the thread about the Monarchy under Charles, your saying he needs to change when he becomes King. So why not discuss it? If you didn't want to be challenged, why say it?
"Dithering playboy Prince" he's been married to one woman for 5 years, and when he was married previously, he only cheated on Diana with only one woman, and that was Camilla. He may have been as playboy when he was in his 20's but I don't think anyone, no newspaper has called him that?
I coronation, isn't going to change who he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
Trust me, its all about managing one’s image. The press has always been brutal for Charles, it will not stop once he become’s king and he enacts his agenda (once for which I am supportive of). A “Charles III” with the precedents of the other two and Prince Charles own personal life will be the end of the English monarchy in my opinion. And believe me, the press will associate a “Charles III” with the other two and all the machinations and philandering of Charles III’s life will be associated in the public mind with the other two.
Brutal I think is the wrong word, they have been critical of him, especially when Diana died.
I doubt in this day and age, people will remember or even know who Charles I and II were, let alone what happened in their reign. Unless you follow royalty, and follow it very very closely, they won't know about Charles two named ancestors.
The press will not even know Charles I and II, they won't compare them to Prince Charles at all, Queen Elizabeth II has never been compared to Queen Elizabeth I has she? Or has any other Monarch been compared to someone else who shared the same name?
I know the press of this country, and they will be interested in the here and now, not the past.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
A “George VII” has all the advantages of linking Charles with the rule of his grandfather and great grandfather. It’s simply a rebranding of his image, if done right. A benefit of this would be clearly George VI’s performance during WWII, and the nostalgia that comes along with it.
Why does he want to link to his grandfather and great-grandfathers reign, he should carve out his own reign, show the world, as you put it, that he isn't a "philandering eccentric".
The people who remember WWII and George VI are Monarchists, and people who fought in the war. The war isn't taught in British Schools anymore, and certainly not in reference to George VI's involvement. Nobody lower than the age of 75 perhaps will remember. So what would be the point?
Also, Charles could only be like George VI was in the war, if we have another war.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post
Ultimately, it’s all about word association, rather then anything like superstition. Rightly or wrongly, the name Charles is linked with baggage for him both historically and in his younger years. George VII offers a clear, definitive, masculine break from all of that. One which I support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone View Post

I would bet my best luggage on the fact that he will take George as his regal name, as much as I would bet that Camilla will be queen!
I completely disagree, no one remembers the baggage of the name Charles, and when he becomes King the old stories of his affair with Camilla, death of Diana and possible the talking to plants. But nothing that won't go away.
A name does not change a person, and as you've said doesn't forget the past.
If Elizabeth and Phillip had wanted Charles to become King George VII, then i'm sure they would have named him George.
Camilla will be his Queen, and Charles will be King Charles III.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 10-15-2010, 09:50 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,336
It will be interesting to see how they word his coronation. A New Charlian Age perhaps.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 10-18-2010, 12:05 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
It will be interesting to see how they word his coronation. A New Charlian Age perhaps.
There would definitely be a new need for a source to describe what the reign under Charles will be. I don't think in any way it could or can be related to past history.

I do think thought that as a regnant, it'd be best if he does use the name he's carried for almost 62 years now. Charles III. I really can't see him being bothered at all with whatever past history Charles' reigns have done nor do I think he'd really hide his own self under a different name just for public opinion.

I do think what we're going to see with Charles as a king is one that follows his mother's example yet along with that incorporates his own passions where he can.

Perhaps in 300 years from now as we delve into ancient myths and legends and learn about the Green Man that the druids worshiped, there will also be a mention of a Green King?

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Green-Ma...-The-Green-Man
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 10-18-2010, 04:08 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,829
Just a word to all the Republican-leaning posters. Should you become a republic, you will never see any of the money allocated to things "royal" about which everyone crabs. It will be absorbed by the giant, grinding political machine. . .and you will no longer have anything special. Think twice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 11-19-2010, 05:19 PM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,305
The POW crossed the bridge today:

BBC News - Prince Charles says Camilla 'may become Queen'

More discussions and troubles to come i guess...bad timing Charly, really bad timing...

A preview of the inteview from msnbc :

Today Show Video Player

And here we are :

Camilla could be Queen: Charles breaks five-year silence on future role of his second wife | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 11-19-2010, 06:22 PM
Thena's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 419
Without having seen the interview, it sounds like Charles needs to prepare better for those unexpected questions. There was a script that his PR people stick to on that question, but in the heat of the moment, it seems Charles forgot the script!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 11-19-2010, 07:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,445
He really didn't say anything different to what has already been said either publicly or privately. We will have to wait and see.

The wording at the time was 'intended' but we all know intentions can change. Even at the time Tony Blair said that she would be Queen Camilla when asked in parliament.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 11-19-2010, 08:22 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 180
I totally agree with you. This interview was actually given over 3 months ago (in early August). It has only now been dug up by the Daily Mail & Nicholas Whitchell (neither of them fans of Prince Charles & Camilla) to try to manufacture controversy where there is none. The latest opinion poll has shown that fewer than a quarter of those polled want Prince William to succeed to the throne in place of Prince Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 11-19-2010, 10:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 2,039
Camilla will be Queen when Charles ascends the throne. The past is now of no consequence. She is the rightful queen and should be titled as such.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 287 08-24-2014 07:56 AM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 327 06-12-2014 06:11 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 04:06 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]