The Monarchy under Charles

[PrincessKaimi]

That's why I said ancestors.

 

[shari-aree]

Then it is up to us, loyal subjects (& those outside the Nations or Commonwealths that have their own Royal Family), to support them and help them continue.

It would be very sad to lose such a strong link to the past, and such a strong representation of good for the future.

 

[Osipi]

And I look forward to the reign of Charles when it's time. He's someone that I admire more and more as I learn about his interests and what he's accomplished.

Although I'm hoping it won't be for years to come yet, I am looking forward to the reign of Charles the Green (as I like to think of him). He has accomplished a lot over his years as PoW and has worked tirelessly to better benefit his country and his people along with passionately addressing global issues that affect us all.

Although I do see his reign as being perhaps a shorter one than many British monarchs, when Charles' biography is read in the future, I think we'll see that of all 2nd in line to the throne, Charles' accomplishments as PoW will probably far surpass any other PoW in history.

What better example for William to follow as heir to the throne eh?

 

[olebabs]

Charles the Green??? Good name

 

[Kataryn]

Let's keep in mind... the Hanovers (and by extension) the Windsors didn't "rise to the top", they were landed at the top and not because of merit and hard work but because George I was the closest protestant relative of Queen Anne.

One should not forget that the "Hanoverans" as a dynasty are the "Welfs" - and thus the oldest and one of the most prominent dynasties of Europe. Oldest insofar as they are the House that can prove they already reigned in 790 as souverain counts. The granddaughter Judith of this first Count married the son of Charlemagne (the emperor Ludwig) and her sister Hemma Charlesmagne's grandson (king Ludwig II.), so their lineage was considered to be most noble back then. Welf' princesses were wifes and mothers of emperors and kings while the male Welfs have several German emperors in pre-Habsburg times in their family.

To raise steadily to the position of one of the most influential families of Europe needed merit and hard work for war and peace. Compared to that it was rather by chance that the youngest daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, the princess Sophia of the Palatinate married the heir to the headship of the House of Welfs and became the heiress of the UK...

 

[Aliza]

This post just beautifully expressed exactly how I feel about the monarchy. Thank you.

And I look forward to the reign of Charles when it's time. He's someone that I admire more and more as I learn about his interests and what he's accomplished.

One of his "accomplishments" that will be well remembered into his reign will be his desire to be reincarnated as a tampax or anything else that would "allow him to live in *Camilla's* knickers.

I just don't see how he can possibly be regarded as a serious king, given what we know about him and not all of that information was published under unfair circumstances. Dimbleby's 25th anniversary biography was all Charles' own doing. If I didn't personally believe the principles of hereditary Monarchy (and the Monarchy itself) would be dealt serious blows by removing Charles from the line of succession, then I would earnestly argue that the PoW has removed himself, by virtue of his actions.

Since that can not be the case, I can only hope he will take after his mother and will follow as closely in HM's footsteps as HM has followed in the footsteps of her father, George VI.

I realise this is a controversial position, but I do believe his reign will be affected by all that has gone before, and not for the better.

 

[Osipi]

I realise this is a controversial position, but I do believe his reign will be affected by all that has gone before, and not for the better.

Unfortunately, for the most part what is remembered about Charles stems from the tabloid fodder that has plagued him in his private life and most of the important things that he has accomplished and is still trying to accomplish are overshadowed by this. I adamantly refuse to let the incident of the "tampax conversation" to color my views of the PoW as IMO that conversation was a very private one and should have never have been published for all and sundry to cackle over.

Just yesterday I let my fingers do the walking browsing for a good book to read. For some reason, the book I was looking for was "Harmony, A New Way of Looking at Our World" written by Charles. I have not purchased the book as of yet, but it will definitely be my next purchased. What totally amazed me is that wherever I looked for book reviews, readers from all over the world have given this book a 5 star rating with glowing feedback. I am looking forward to reading this as it will give a good look at things through the eyes of Charles himself.

Has anyone read this book already?

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Aliza, with the leniency of today's treatment of infidelities, multiple marriages and divorces, children born out of wedlock, etc., etc., etc., how could you possibly fault Charles? He is merely human, made more human by his mistakes. I don't think his personal history has any bearing on what kind of King he will be.

 

[Aliza]

Unfortunately, for the most part what is remembered about Charles stems from the tabloid fodder that has plagued him in his private life and most of the important things that he has accomplished and is still trying to accomplish are overshadowed by this. I adamantly refuse to let the incident of the "tampax conversation" to color my views of the PoW as IMO that conversation was a very private one and should have never have been published for all and sundry to cackle over.

Just yesterday I let my fingers do the walking browsing for a good book to read. For some reason, the book I was looking for was "Harmony, A New Way of Looking at Our World" written by Charles. I have not purchased the book as of yet, but it will definitely be my next purchased. What totally amazed me is that wherever I looked for book reviews, readers from all over the world have given this book a 5 star rating with glowing feedback. I am looking forward to reading this as it will give a good look at things through the eyes of Charles himself.

Has anyone read this book already?

I also mentioned the Dimbleby book and interview, which was entirely self-inflicted and which led to the divorce of Andrew and Camilla. I agree the tampax conversation should not have been published; but it was, and this has an effect on how the general public (not monarchists or royal watchers) view Charles and IMHO, it will therefore colour his reign.

 

[Aliza]

Aliza, with the leniency of today's treatment of infidelities, multiple marriages and divorces, children born out of wedlock, etc., etc., etc., how could you possibly fault Charles? He is merely human, made more human by his mistakes. I don't think his personal history has any bearing on what kind of King he will be.

I don't believe in the leniency of today. And I think many people are appalled by it, they just tend to be more quiet than the "liberal" (in the American definition) crowd.

Of course, he is human. But a King is elevated by society and should therefore attempt to elevate his behaviour to match IMHO. It's not the time of the Abdication Crisis, but that time is not SO far away, either.

I think his personal history will colour peoples views of his reign, as I posted above, I'm not speaking of monarchists nor of royalty watchers, just the average person who doesn't pay much attention to these things. IMHO, anyone literate in the 90's will forever associate Charles with the Camillagate conversation. (I really don't want to write that "t" word, again!)

Perhaps this would be a good reason for him to reign as George VII, as has been suggested by many, though not for this reason.

 

[Renata4711]

Yes, but it has already coloured many people's view of Charles for the worse.

I'm afraid I'm still praying for the Queen to live as long as her mother, so that we won't have to have Charles as king for a looooong time to come !

 

[HRHHermione]

I don't believe in the leniency of today. And I think many people are appalled by it, they just tend to be more quiet than the "liberal" (in the American definition) crowd.

Of course, he is human. But a King is elevated by society and should therefore attempt to elevate his behaviour to match IMHO. It's not the time of the Abdication Crisis, but that time is not SO far away, either.

I think his personal history will colour peoples views of his reign, as I posted above, I'm not speaking of monarchists nor of royalty watchers, just the average person who doesn't pay much attention to these things. IMHO, anyone literate in the 90's will forever associate Charles with the Camillagate conversation. (I really don't want to write that "t" word, again!)

Perhaps this would be a good reason for him to reign as George VII, as has been suggested by many, though not for this reason.

I don't find it at all appalling that society has evolved to recognize that human relationships are complex and that love can exist in a lot of different ways. I actually find it a bit appalling that people are still willing to pass judgment on someone for leaving an unhappy marriage. A lot of ugly things happened in the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana but I think it's pretty well recognized at this point that both people contributed to that unhappiness and that casting blame on one person or the other is really unfair. Prince Charles made a lot of mistakes during that time period, but I think it just shows that he's a regular human being, and I don't think it's fair to expect him to be anything else.

And his professional achievements really are astounding. And I love the nickname "Charles the Green"!

(Also, the "t" word? As I read that, I had a vision of a Victorian schoolmarm, pursed lips and all.)

 

[Aliza]

I don't find it at all appalling that society has evolved to recognize that human relationships are complex and that love can exist in a lot of different ways. I actually find it a bit appalling that people are still willing to pass judgment on someone for leaving an unhappy marriage. A lot of ugly things happened in the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana but I think it's pretty well recognized at this point that both people contributed to that unhappiness and that casting blame on one person or the other is really unfair. Prince Charles made a lot of mistakes during that time period, but I think it just shows that he's a regular human being, and I don't think it's fair to expect him to be anything else.

And his professional achievements really are astounding. And I love the nickname "Charles the Green"!

(Also, the "t" word? As I read that, I had a vision of a Victorian schoolmarm, pursed lips and all.)

The "Victorian schoolmarm" just made my day!

And BTW - please point out to me exactly where I judged Charles for leaving a "bad marriage"?

Some of us, regardless of age, still have a liking for a sense of decorum. While I don't try and foist it on anyone else, I still maintain that some decorum leads to a more civilised society and more civilised debate, in particular.

I'm glad you think Charles will make a good King. I, personally hope he makes a good king, too. No monarchist wants to see that institution damaged, no matter personal feelings about the characters of those involved.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

There is always luck involved, for sure. But, I for one, enjoy watching that process play itself out - with historical documentation and the historical commentary of contemporaries (we on the Royal Forums are now part of that documentation).

Just to stay even, with the rest of society, is an amazing accomplishment (speaking historically). So many nations have discarded their royals (killed them, actually - and of course, it's not true that England has always spared its monarchs). But the surviving ones have had to adapt and I learn from that process. Anyone who follows royals/nobility learns from that process.

I for one want to hang on to what I have, as well - and leave it to my children. It's a very strong human impulse. I do not feel as strongly about my cousin's children - and it will be interesting to see Charles enact his own policies regarding royals (but I hope we wait as long as possible to see what he will do - because HM is an amazing model, right in front of us).

 

[PrincessKaimi]

P.S. as to Charles and Diana: they may have each had their part in it, but so did the erst of the world, I believe. We people (some more than others) had our part in making their marriage a very hard one. Mostly, the technological changes of the time made it hard - but there are real human actors behind those changes. Our insatiable and very human desire for more knowledge didn't help those two, at all.

If my husband had an affair, it would be one thing. If that affair was hacked into by tabloids, that would make it oh so much worse.

 

[Aliza]

P.S. as to Charles and Diana: they may have each had their part in it, but so did the erst of the world, I believe. We people (some more than others) had our part in making their marriage a very hard one. Mostly, the technological changes of the time made it hard - but there are real human actors behind those changes. Our insatiable and very human desire for more knowledge didn't help those two, at all.

If my husband had an affair, it would be one thing. If that affair was hacked into by tabloids, that would make it oh so much worse.

I think you have posted a very worthwhile and true reflection on the roles the media and those who used the media outlets to sate their desire for knowledge on the PoW and Diana.

In the Panorama interview, Diana herself mentioned the press as one of the two major reasons the relationship didn't work.

Unfortunately, it all led to that scene in Paris in 1997. Since then, I give no one a pass who purchases or views intrusive media into anyone's private lives. But most people have learned nothing from Diana's death or the destruction of her and Charles' marriage. Just check out the threads on the new Princely couple of Monaco; they are rife with speculation about beds, hotels, nighties, manners of possible conceptions, etc. Some things should be kept private, private, private.

Charles as King would have had a more easy task if there had not been such intrusive media into his life. It is not fair to him that the media has given him such a handicap when almost every other PoW behaved as he did and nothing was printed. It would be nice if all that could be forgotten and he could assume the Throne with a "fresh slate". Unfortunately, human nature doesn't work that way.

I hope he surmounts these difficulties and I believe both of William's parents' experience with the media will help William become a very good king. I hope Charles has enough time on the Throne (but not soon; I want the Queen to reign as long as possible and pray HM outlives her mother!) to demonstrate to William how to incorporate these experiences as a king, which will be different in the "Top Job", as Diana called it, than it was and is as a Prince and a Royal Duke.

 

[Tyger]

I don't believe in the leniency of today. And I think many people are appalled by it, they just tend to be more quiet than the "liberal" (in the American definition) crowd.

I think his personal history will colour peoples views of his reign, as I posted above, I'm not speaking of monarchists nor of royalty watchers, just the average person who doesn't pay much attention to these things. IMHO, anyone literate in the 90's will forever associate Charles with the Camillagate conversation.

In many ways, Charles will be the first modern monarch, given his personal history - while at the same time being the last of the old order - it seems to me that he carries the sensibilities of the 'way it was'. He is positioned between two worlds and beholds them both.

The conversation with Camilla was a conversation between lovers - we all say our little things to each other - would any of our 'little nothings' sustain international broadcast? Probably not. There is nothing peculiar about what they were saying - they were having a joke with each other - a little bit of 'phone sex' - you can hear them smiling and laughing - that's it - we've all done it - we all know those little things we say - its no big deal. Its embarrassing to have these things broadcast but that's as far as it goes. The content was not really 'appalling'. It has its own little charm, in fact. Every man knows what Charles was talking about - its not a big deal and will not impact his reign.

 

[Aliza]

In many ways, Charles will be the first modern monarch, given his personal history - while at the same time being the last of the old order - it seems to me that he carries the sensibilities of the 'way it was'. He is positioned between two worlds and beholds them both.

The conversation with Camilla was a conversation between lovers - we all say our little things to each other - would any of our 'little nothings' sustain international broadcast? Probably not. There is nothing peculiar about what they were saying - they were having a joke with each other - a little bit of 'phone sex' - you can hear them smiling and laughing - that's it - we've all done it - we all know those little things we say - its no big deal. Its embarrassing to have these things broadcast but that's as far as it goes. The content was not really 'appalling'. It has its own little charm, in fact. Every man knows what Charles was talking about - its not a big deal and will not impact his reign.

I fully agree with you on almost all your points. Where I disagree is this: It will impact his reign only because it will impact the perception of his reign. I don't think that's fair, but I do believe it's human nature. Just like most jurors make up their minds during opening arguments, so too do most of the general public form their opinions on people like Charles based on those items that stand out in their minds, via the media which is often biased and unfair.

I would be happy to be proven wrong. Whilst I may be the "old fashioned" type, I don't seek to impose my views on others and I do believe people are entitled to second chances; plenty of second chances in this arena, for sure! (The arena of criminal acts is somewhat different and of course, doesn't apply here.)

Some of it depends on when he ascends the throne and how much of the generation that remembers the "war of the Waleses" is still around and influential.

Again, I hope Charles gets a fresh slate to begin with as king and I hope that the "sins of the past", to use an old expression, are not held against him in any way, shape or form. I do not have a "black and white" opinion about Charles, Camilla, Diana or anyone else. I think sometimes people read the gist of the posts but not the "fine print" and oftentimes misconstrue what is being said. (I"m not referring to you, here - just mean it generally speaking)

 

[Tyger]

I fully agree with you on almost all your points. Where I disagree is this: It will impact his reign only because it will impact the perception of his reign. I don't think that's fair, but I do believe it's human nature.

I'm not sure I'm really getting your point. For example: the Queen had sex - we know that because she had 4 children. Did her having sex and having an intimate life with chit-chat impact the perception of her reign? No.

I don't get it. The Charles and Camilla tape was no one's business and I think most people get that - and feel sympathy for them - for any 'celebrity' who has their sex life dragged into the public eye for scrutiny and - I like the work - cackle. Voyeurism!

I don't think anyone judges anyone for sex stuff. Is the public like children who hear about sex for the first time and cannot believe their parents 'did that'? Do you really believe people in general are that 'innocent' these days? I really do not think most people give it a second thought.

 

[MARG]

Some of us, regardless of age, still have a liking for a sense of decorum. While I don't try and foist it on anyone else, I still maintain that some decorum leads to a more civilised society and more civilised debate, in particular.

Whatever else was happening in the world, the mere idea that the meltdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana would have been allowed any degree of decorum whatsoever is much akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden!

The media was too invested, literally, to leave it alone. The demise of NOTW proved nothing if not that people generally and the law in particular, are no longer willing to tolerate illegal intrusions into anyone's life once it impacted on "innocent bystanders".

These activities may lead to a more private and decent world for everyone if the penalty for crossing the line is jail. We never know, maybe there'll be an outbreak of actual news! Perhaps the wide-reaching and significant accomplishments of the heir to the throne will actually make it into print.

I'm glad you think Charles will make a good King. I, personally hope he makes a good king, too. No monarchist wants to see that institution damaged, no matter personal feelings about the characters of those involved.

Being a reasonable adult and allowing for the passage of time I look back on the excesses of the media and cringe. Charles will make a wonderful King. Why should he not? He has worked incredibly hard to make the world a better place as Prince of Wales which is more than many of us can say of ourselves.

 

[Aliza]

I'm not sure I'm really getting your point. For example: the Queen had sex - we know that because she had 4 children. Did her having sex and having an intimate life with chit-chat impact the perception of her reign? No.

I don't get it. The Charles and Camilla tape was no one's business and I think most people get that - and feel sympathy for them - for any 'celebrity' who has their sex life dragged into the public eye for scrutiny and - I like the work - cackle. Voyeurism!

I don't think anyone judges anyone for sex stuff. Is the public like children who hear about sex for the first time and cannot believe their parents 'did that'? Do you really believe people in general are that 'innocent' these days? I really do not think most people give it a second thought.

I'm not sure I'm really getting your point. For example: the Queen had sex - we know that because she had 4 children. Did her having sex and having an intimate life with chit-chat impact the perception of her reign? No.

I don't get it. The Charles and Camilla tape was no one's business and I think most people get that - and feel sympathy for them - for any 'celebrity' who has their sex life dragged into the public eye for scrutiny and - I like the work - cackle. Voyeurism!

I don't think anyone judges anyone for sex stuff. Is the public like children who hear about sex for the first time and cannot believe their parents 'did that'? Do you really believe people in general are that 'innocent' these days? I really do not think most people give it a second thought.

The difference between HM and the PoW is that the PoW was engaged in an adulterous affair at the time of his "chit chat" with his also-married mistress, while the Queen was married, took her vows to heart and indeed has never had even a breath of scandal around her intimate life. It will be sixty-five years this November since she married the DoE and I don't believe HM ever engaged in salacious chatting with any man who was not her husband. (Actually, I can't imagine HM engaging in any sort of that phone chat with even Philip, )

I must disagree with you on the perception that the public "does not give a second thought" about what you term "sex stuff". Remember Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton? Again, the adultery word and the privileges of high office figure into that scenario. The public claimed not to be outraged over most of it, but they certainly spent plenty of extra time watching programmes about it and buying newspapers, magazines, and books about the Oval Office goings-on.

I believe I've already averred that I concur that the "Camillagate" tapes were not the public's business; the point, however, is that they were put in the public domain, read avidly, joked about avidly (and continue to be so, look at YouTube, for instance) and now they form a rather large part of the image people of an age to remember have of the PoW.

As I pointed out in a previous post, one only has to go to the threads on this very forum that deal with Prince Albert and Princess Chalrlene of Monaco to see that interest in voyeurism has not declined, to put it mildly. Several times, I personally posted that it needed to stop. Whatever goes on in private between the two of them is none of their business, but people are merrily posting about contracts to conceive children, methods to conceive, nighties, which one is staying at which hotel, etc. That situation actually convinced me that the PoW will carry this baggage with him to the beginning of his reign; it is up to him and the media - as well as the public - to see the issue relegated to the past, as indeed it should be.

You chose a great word, and loved the *cackle* but I do think, IMHO, that voyeurism is rather like gossip on steroids and therefore is part of human nature in its less nice characteristics.

I also think that much of the world, especially less-developed areas of the Commonwealth, is not as jaundiced as the western-style (I'm Israeli, so while not technically "western", in reality we're a little America. nations. For example, some of the African countries or Muslim countries will have quite a different take on all of this than we did and do.

Of course, this assumes he will become Head of the Commonwealth, which is not an automatic hereditary office.

Australian politicians, in particular, have been surprisingly blunt about where they stand on another slightly related issue: Keeping the Monarch of the UK as the Australian Head of State. Several have said they will use the ascension to the Throne of Charles to "break the bond" as they do not have the love for him that they do for his mother. One reason often cited is the "Charles/Diana/Camilla debacle" and "that tape with Camilla" (remember it was first published in Australia). Perhaps they are using those reasons as political flummery, I don't know.

Again, I agree with you in principle, that it should not affect Charles as king, but where we differ is that I think human nature will assure it has some affect on the perception of both Charles and Camilla, particularly at the beginning of his reign. I hope I am wrong.

I hope I have clarified what I didn't explain in my last post; it is GMT+2 here and I still haven't been to bed. Hope you have a better night.

 

[Charlotte1]

Australian politicians, in particular, have been surprisingly blunt about where they stand on another slightly related issue: Keeping the Monarch of the UK as the Australian Head of State. Several have said they will use the ascension to the Throne of Charles to "break the bond" as they do not have the love for him that they do for his mother. One reason often cited is the "Charles/Diana/Camilla debacle" and "that tape with Camilla" (remember it was first published in Australia). Perhaps they are using those reasons as political flummery, I don't know.

Australian republicans want an Australian based Head of State, whether it's the Queen or one of her heirs is immaterial. The reason given for now waiting for the Queen's death is the fact that that republican support has been consistently dropping in Australia and currently it's at it's lowest in 16 years. An Australian republic is not seen as vital when there are far more important issues affecting Australia. Republicans hope that with the death of the Queen, the new era would affect Australians by having a republic, since the whole republican debate has died. Even the Australian Prime Minister who is a republican, has said there is no push for a republic now so perhaps there will be one when the Queen dies.

As someone who actually lives in Australia I can tell you quite adamantly that the reason NEVER given as to why Australia should become a republic is the Charles/Camilla/Diana triangle and the taped conversation is pretty much forgotten here. People do have lives that don't revolve around tabloid trash. Australians are also not moralistic we've had Prime Ministers who have cheated on their wives, the current Prime Minister is unmarried, lives with her (male) partner in the official residence, is a self pronounced atheist. (She's not popular but that's because of her government's policies not her personal life!) The personal lives of royals are immaterial as to whether or not they remain Australia's Head of State.

Charles is actually quite popular in Australia due to the time he spent here as a teenager.

The Camillagate tapes were first released and published by an Australian magazine to get around British privacy laws. The press could not publish them in the UK so, they were given to an Australian magazine who published the transcript (few Australians would even remember!) and then the British media could report the story 'tapes published in Australian magazine'.

You make the assumption that people generally are moralistic, they are not. Charles would not be the only current in the modern era to have cheated on his (first) wife. King Albert of Belgium fathered an illegitimate daughter, King Juan Carlos of Spain had a 16 year affair (now finished) Even King Carl Gustav of Sweden it emerged this year had an affair in the 1990s. Kings Albert and Juan Carlos are VERY well respected in their countries, it's still early days from the last lot of disclosures on Carl Gustav to see whether he gets back the respect he lost.

 

[Aliza]

Australian republicans want an Australian based Head of State, whether it's the Queen or one of her heirs is immaterial. The reason given for now waiting for the Queen's death is the fact that that republican support has been consistently dropping in Australia and currently it's at it's lowest in 16 years. An Australian republic is not seen as vital when there are far more important issues affecting Australia. Republicans hope that with the death of the Queen, the new era would affect Australians by having a republic, since the whole republican debate has died. Even the Australian Prime Minister who is a republican, has said there is no push for a republic now so perhaps there will be one when the Queen dies.

As someone who actually lives in Australia I can tell you quite adamantly that the reason NEVER given as to why Australia should become a republic is the Charles/Camilla/Diana triangle and the taped conversation is pretty much forgotten here. People do have lives that don't revolve around tabloid trash. Australians are also not moralistic we've had Prime Ministers who have cheated on their wives, the current Prime Minister is unmarried, lives with her (male) partner in the official residence, is a self pronounced atheist. (She's not popular but that's because of her government's policies not her personal life!) The personal lives of royals are immaterial as to whether or not they remain Australia's Head of State.

Charles is actually quite popular in Australia due to the time he spent here as a teenager.

The Camillagate tapes were first released and published by an Australian magazine to get around British privacy laws. The press could not publish them in the UK so, they were given to an Australian magazine who published the transcript (few Australians would even remember!) and then the British media could report the story 'tapes published in Australian magazine'.

You make the assumption that people generally are moralistic, they are not. Charles would not be the only current in the modern era to have cheated on his (first) wife. King Albert of Belgium fathered an illegitimate daughter, King Juan Carlos of Spain had a 16 year affair (now finished) Even King Carl Gustav of Sweden it emerged this year had an affair in the 1990s. Kings Albert and Juan Carlos are VERY well respected in their countries, it's still early days from the last lot of disclosures on Carl Gustav to see whether he gets back the respect he lost.

I must ask your understanding until tomorrow evening for me to provide the links and names for the assertions I made about Australian politicians. I assure you I did not invent this out of thin air. I can't seem to access the books I was using a week or two ago when I came across this, but I have been up for almost twenty four hours straight!

My husband and I lived in Sydney for five years and honestly, I never heard too much pro or con about any of the BRF; seemed like a non subject in our circles, anyway.

If you read my post carefully, you'll see I make a distinction between developed countries and non westernized or non developed countries. Members of the Commonwealth with strong Muslim populations and/or strong Christian populations are possibly inclined to view matters differently and are more moralistic than Europeans, for certain. For that matter, I find Americans much more moralistic than Canadians and definitely more than Europeans.

Again, I hope Charles gets his fresh start. Diana is dead and life is meant to be lived. He is now happily married and deserves a chance to make what he will out of his reign when it comes. I guess I'm not expressing myself clearly because I am not expressing my personal views on the perception "problem" or "non problem" when he ascends the Throne. I am commenting on human nature and IMHO, it is voyeuristic and it will be remembered in a negative context. Particularly by the over forty generation. (I'm in my thirties, have been a teacher for many years and see quite clearly how moralism and morality itself have both declined in the "western world", IMHO - to our detriment.

Have a wonderful day; Australia is an amazing country and we absolutely adored our time there. In fact, my husband prefers it to the United States, where we have also been stationed.

In your opinion, will Charles be maintained as Head of State of Australia and do you think he will become Head of the Commonwealth? I think the second question in particular will have great influence in whether his reign will be seen to have great beginnings or not. I do hope it's the former case.

 

[Kataryn]

One of his "accomplishments" that will be well remembered into his reign will be his desire to be reincarnated as a tampax or anything else that would "allow him to live in *Camilla's* knickers.

I personally think it is grossly unfair to accuse Charles because of information which comes from some sort of hacking into a very private phone call. I'm not interested in Charles' erotic fantasies because they are not something I should know about. And to reduce this man who has done so much for his country to this very private wish tells a lot about what one wishes for in a king: not a good monarch but one who is erotically "mainstream". What criteria!

 

[Aliza]

I personally think it is grossly unfair to accuse Charles because of information which comes from some sort of hacking into a very private phone call. I'm not interested in Charles' erotic fantasies because they are not something I should know about. And to reduce this man who has done so much for his country to this very private wish tells a lot about what one wishes for in a king: not a good monarch but one who is erotically "mainstream". What criteria!

Once more; this is not my opinion. I think it is human nature that this memory of Camillagate will be a hindrance to his reputation at the start of his reign. That is very different from using it as my criterion for what makes a good king. Over and over I have repeated that I think it is wrong that transcript was published, that it should not be held against him and that I hope he will be given the chance to start his reign without any of that hanging round his neck like an albatross.

But the fact remains that this conversation was published and many people remember and it influences, rightly or wrongly, their opinions about Charles. I do not happen to belong to that group of people as I have amply made clear in several posts on this thread.

While I wish HM The Queen to have an extremely long life and reign (same thing in HM's case, I believe), I do not want Charles passed over for William like some people do; I firmly believe he can be a good king depending on the decisions he makes. A good PoW does not necessarily make a good king as can be seen with Edward VIII. But Charles has done much good and deserves a chance to continue to do so as King.

I don't mean to be offensive to anyone, including you - but I sincerely hope this makes my position clear and anyone doubting my word should read all of my posts on this subject prior to jumping all over me for an opinion I don't even hold. And if I did hold that opinion, it would be my right and this could be a civilized debate; isn't that the whole point of forums? To exchange different opinions?

 

[PrincessKaimi]

It will be interesting to see if there's any revival of Camillagate upon Charles's accession (if we all live so long). No way to know (I sort of doubt it, because in the time that has passed, people have gotten used to scandal - and they want fresh scandal, not old scandal).

My two daughters have absolutely no recollection of the event, and if they found out about it now, I think it would occupy a nanosecond of their thinking about the BRF.

 

[MARG]

But the fact remains that this conversation was published and many people remember and it influences, rightly or wrongly, their opinions about Charles. I do not happen to belong to that group of people as I have amply made clear in several posts on this thread.

And if, heaven forfend, memories fade with the passing of more than twenty years, there will be many people just like you to remind us of every sordid little detail. With good will to all and malice to none!

 

[olebabs]

We each have our past and nothing can change that. Upon his succesion to the throne, his life will be displayed in various documentaries. One hopes they don't bring up ALL the sordid detailes, but never the less it is part of who he is.

 

[Kataryn]

We each have our past and nothing can change that. Upon his succesion to the throne, his life will be displayed in various documentaries. One hopes they don't bring up ALL the sordid detailes, but never the less it is part of who he is.

It was a story which made headlines because he was not married to Camilla back then, but now he is and I believe the reaction of lots of people here is an example of how these old intimacies between an elderly and now happily married couple are being viewed: old news and of no relevance to today's situation. And I doubt anyone will bring these "memories" back from the past once Charles is king because I do believe (or at least hope) that the media has respect of the office of the king, even if not for the man who holds this office.

 

[Sam20045]

When The Prince of Wales becomes King at the passing of Her Majesty. I hope at his Coronation he uses the Grand Robes and of course St Edward's Crown and not just uses his military uniform. For there has been talk of just his uniform. I also hope that the Duchess of Cornwall upon becoming Queen Consort...becomes Queen Consort and not Princess Consort and uses the Crown of Mary (Charles's great grandmother). I dont particularly like the Crown of the Queen Mother. And I hope he retains the traditional elements and customs of monarchy like Her Majesty The Queen.