The Monarchy under Charles

[olebabs]

I think you are right, Renata. While I'm sure he is a very nice man, he hasn't got "statesmanship" like his mother. He has done many good things a PoW, but I doubt many see him as a "Father of the Nation" which a Monarch should be, but perhaps more like an excentric uncle. Even though I support his succetion right, a part of me wish for him to be left alone to do the things he enjoys and are good at. He could be a true support for his son behind the curtains

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think you are right, Renata. While I'm sure he is a very nice man, he hasn't got "statesmanship" like his mother. He has done many good things a PoW, but I doubt many see him as a "Father of the Nation" which a Monarch should be, but perhaps more like an excentric uncle. Even though I support his succetion right, a part of me wish for him to be left alone to do the things he enjoys and are good at. He could be a true support for his son behind the curtains

Did his mother have 'statemanship' when she became Queen? No.

Did George VI have statesmanship when he became King? No.

They both grew into that side of the job and Charles will as well - when he is given the chance.

Edward VII was written off by many people when he was Prince of Wales with very similar arguments - he knew about how to wear clothes but not how to talk to leaders - he proved them wrong.

Charles will as well - unless his mother has failed in a major part of her role - that of training her heir. As she has failed in very few areas in her reign I don't think she will have failed in this one either.

 

[Bundtrock]

I just do not understand WHY some people expect the Royal Family to be super human, above it all. When all is said and done, they go to the bathroom just like everyone else, they eat food just like everyone else, they get sick just like everyone else and GASP, they are sexual beings just like everyone else.

This hypocrisy amazes me, some people expect them to be above reproach, at least in the public arena and yet they readily accept for example that both Monarchs and their children have illicit relationships throughout their lives. I have read that it is considered a "royal preogative?"

This as long as it is not in my face and appearances are kept up is tiresome, especially when the public pushes their way into their most private lives and laps it up like dogs.

 

[fearghas]

I think you are right, Renata. While I'm sure he is a very nice man, he hasn't got "statesmanship" like his mother. He has done many good things a PoW, but I doubt many see him as a "Father of the Nation" which a Monarch should be, but perhaps more like an excentric uncle. Even though I support his succetion right, a part of me wish for him to be left alone to do the things he enjoys and are good at. He could be a true support for his son behind the curtains

I don't quite know what you mean by statemanship. After personally watching him at a couple of events here in Australia he comes across as someone who knows what he is doing, who is approachable, willing to listen. He is very dignified and yet can let his guard down and actually have fun. He knows how to speak to people of all walks of life, political leaders and the homeless.
Yes he sounds a little fuddy duddy but he is a good orator. I think overall that I find dignified the best word to describe him. I think that he is eminatly suitable to be King.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't quite know what you mean by statemanship. After personally watching him at a couple of events here in Australia he comes across as someone who knows what he is doing, who is approachable, willing to listen. He is very dignified and yet can let his guard down and actually have fun. He knows how to speak to people of all walks of life, political leaders and the homeless.
Yes he sounds a little fuddy duddy but he is a good orator. I think overall that I find dignified the best word to describe him. I think that he is eminatly suitable to be King.

That post is exactly how I feel - he is approachable, knowledgeable, can speak to anyone of any level and will make a fine king.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I just do not understand WHY some people expect the Royal Family to be super human, above it all. When all is said and done, they go to the bathroom just like everyone else, they eat food just like everyone else, they get sick just like everyone else and GASP, they are sexual beings just like everyone else.

This hypocrisy amazes me, some people expect them to be above reproach, at least in the public arena and yet they readily accept for example that both Monarchs and their children have illicit relationships throughout their lives. I have read that it is considered a "royal preogative?"

This as long as it is not in my face and appearances are kept up is tiresome, especially when the public pushes their way into their most private lives and laps it up like dogs.

I rather feel that when someone has a relatively public job (I do) that one has to be mindful of the duties that come with it. The royals do as much pushing themselves out on the public (who else makes so many unpaid public appearances - that is all they do) as we do "lapping it up." I do not feel that I go and look for information about royals, it is out there, circulating and it's the coin of their realm - without it, they would be diminished in status and in wealth.

I do not expect them to be perfect (I do not care about their moral foibles, but I do notice them, as I would with anyone). We are not required to like any individual royal, either. When one of them becomes monarch, it is rather like having a job, though, isn't it? Taxpayers are paying them - and there's a job to be done, as I understand it.

Before that, they can do pretty much as they please. If they wanted to completely stay out of the public eye, they could do what others have done who want to be completely private. This is not what they want.

 

[Bundtrock]

I rather feel that when someone has a relatively public job (I do) that one has to be mindful of the duties that come with it. The royals do as much pushing themselves out on the public (who else makes so many unpaid public appearances - that is all they do) as we do "lapping it up." I do not feel that I go and look for information about royals, it is out there, circulating and it's the coin of their realm - without it, they would be diminished in status and in wealth.

I do not expect them to be perfect (I do not care about their moral foibles, but I do notice them, as I would with anyone). We are not required to like any individual royal, either. When one of them becomes monarch, it is rather like having a job, though, isn't it? Taxpayers are paying them - and there's a job to be done, as I understand it.

Before that, they can do pretty much as they please. If they wanted to completely stay out of the public eye, they could do what others have done who want to be completely private. This is not what they want.

Where has any Royal stated that they were inviting the general public into their private life? Most of us are public in our work life, but we do get off work and we do have private lives that we lead. I don't know about anyone else, but whom I sleep with, I consider no one else business except my husband, that includes the people I work for. I also have set work hours, when I am off, I am off and engaged in leading my private life. Why are members of the royal family not entitled to a private life as well?

If I remember correctly, each British subject (taxpayer) pays the equivalent of two postage stamps per year for the Monarchy as a whole, to what extent do you believe that entitles such people to have intimate knowledge about the private affairs and business of the royal family?

Those unpaid appearances, I highly doubt if each royal family member who does such really thrives on it and would be disappointed if their public appearances were significantly diminished, do you? It is my understanding that they consider doing that work? That it is expected that they will do such activities?

 

[MRSJ]

Which then begs the question if the Royals are just like you and me , having on/off the clock hours and such, then why are they so special and Royal and seen and treated as such? (just asking for discussions sake)

 

[Tyger]

But we can't really have a king who will still be known for the Camillagate incident.

It would make the British Monarchy a global laughing stock - all over again.

He's not known for it - your British press is known for it. If something as banal as that conversation prohibits Charles from becoming king - well it will be Britain that will be the laughingstock of the world - certainly not Charles.

 

[Bundtrock]

Which then begs the question if the Royals are just like you and me , having on/off the clock hours and such, then why are they so special and Royal and seen and treated as such? (just asking for discussions sake)

History, tradition, custom for spans hundreds and hundreds of years, I would think.

We KNOW that past members of the Royal family have had their follibles, in the early part of last century, the King had a mistress that was very well known, I believe the current Duchess of Cornwall's either grand or great grandmother? Many if not most Princes of Wales have likewise had mistresses. We know this is not limited to just male members, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne both have had relationships outside of marriage, at least that is my understanding?

My point being, for the discussion of this thread, Prince Charles, his "Camillagate" tapes, etc are certainly not anything new and unique and past people who have become Monarch were not denied because of such.

I will be perfectly honest here, as someone who loves history, I am beyond fascinated with the British Royal Family in particular. I have spent countless hours in study of them. But I personally do not find them to be anything other than nice, ordinary human beings whom others have attributed some kind of almost saintly aura to.

The Monarch is the Head of State of the UK and The Commonwealth of Nations. Certain duties and responsibilities are ascribed to that person because of that status. Actually from what I have read, most are mainly interested if they can someday, somehow marry into the family OR get placed on the Honors List, besides loving to read juicy tidbits of royal sins that they can gossip about.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Monarch is the Head of State of the UK and The Commonwealth of Nations. Certain duties and responsibilities are ascribed to that person because of that status. Actually from what I have read, most are mainly interested if they can someday, somehow marry into the family OR get placed on the Honors List, besides loving to read juicy tidbits of royal sins that they can gossip about.

I know what you mean by your first sentence here but there is no state called The Commonwealth of Nations. The the monarch isn't the Head of State - she is the Head of the Commonwealth but that isn't necessarily going to continue with Charles as some of the other nations of the Commonwealth have indicated that they don't see a need for the monarch of one country to have that position and have suggested that it rotate through the member nations - to show that they are now all equal rather than subservient to one - as was the case when there was the Empire.

 

[Royal Newbie]

I know what you mean by your first sentence here but there is no state called The Commonwealth of Nations. The the monarch isn't the Head of State - she is the Head of the Commonwealth but that isn't necessarily going to continue with Charles as some of the other nations of the Commonwealth have indicated that they don't see a need for the monarch of one country to have that position and have suggested that it rotate through the member nations - to show that they are now all equal rather than subservient to one - as was the case when there was the Empire.

Thank you iluvbertie. I did not know of this. It sounds reasonable to me to rotate the position. Would this cause any political/social upheaval? (not really sure upheaval is the word I want to use)

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Where has any Royal stated that they were inviting the general public into their private life? Most of us are public in our work life, but we do get off work and we do have private lives that we lead. I don't know about anyone else, but whom I sleep with, I consider no one else business except my husband, that includes the people I work for. I also have set work hours, when I am off, I am off and engaged in leading my private life. Why are members of the royal family not entitled to a private life as well?

If I remember correctly, each British subject (taxpayer) pays the equivalent of two postage stamps per year for the Monarchy as a whole, to what extent do you believe that entitles such people to have intimate knowledge about the private affairs and business of the royal family?

Those unpaid appearances, I highly doubt if each royal family member who does such really thrives on it and would be disappointed if their public appearances were significantly diminished, do you? It is my understanding that they consider doing that work? That it is expected that they will do such activities?

Yes, that's why I was calling it "public" and "work." If I understand correctly, a royal could decide to abdicate or otherwise refuse these duties/work (just as I could quit my job). But, as I decide to stay in my job, I have to also stay within the job description, so to speak, which has many implicit moral components to it.

That's all I was trying to say - is that many people have to watch what is said or learned about their private lives, or they can have consequences in the workplace. It's not that different from many other jobs.

Where did I say that the public has a right to now about their (or my) life - only that if I were to allow parts of my life to be public, I might experience consequences. If I were to take an even more high profile job than the one I have, I'm well aware that there would be even more attempts for some people to find out about what my private life might be like.

For this reason, I have thought long and hard about being in politics or in a more public role than the one I have - I would expect others to do the same. That's all. It doesn't matter how much the public pays per capita (I'm sure it's less than 2 cents per American for the jobs that firemen or teachers or cops do - but public image still matters, as it does in most places). If the monarchy wants to continue to be limited in these tough financial days, they can of course ignore my point of view.

Which is just a point of view and not a statement on the rights of anyone.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Thank you iluvbertie. I did not know of this. It sounds reasonable to me to rotate the position. Would this cause any political/social upheaval? (not really sure upheaval is the word I want to use)

On another thread, some are arguing that such changes as having female equal rights of succession should never occur because it is wrong to breach tradition. I'm guessing that if Canada and Australia (for example) decide upon the death of HM to change their relationship to the Commonwealth, that would be sen by many as a bad thing (although what the non-moral consequences would be, I do not know enough to begin to say).

 

[Madame Royale]

Charles will be a King who I believe won't truly be appreciated for all his good works until he's gone. I don't envisage a particulary long reign, but given that the man is already 63 and may very well not succeed until he's in his 70th decade, that's hardly surprising.

 

[fascinator]

Charles will be a King who I believe won't truly be appreciated for all his good works until he's gone. I don't envisage a particulary long reign, but given that the man is already 63 and may very well not succeed until he's in his 70th decade, that's hardly surprising.

I think he will be adored by the public very late in life. I have surprisingly warm feelings towards him, and I think the public will appreciate him more and more as time goes by.

I imagine a pairing w Jaimie Oliver to champion organic foods in state run schools would be popular

People will be awed by him once he is king and the public will embrace him.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles will be a King who I believe won't truly be appreciated for all his good works until he's gone. I don't envisage a particulary long reign, but given that the man is already 63 and may very well not succeed until he's in his 70th decade, that's hardly surprising.

If he is to make his 70th decade then I don't think many of use here will live to see it - I am only in my 6th now.

 

[Iluvbertie]

On another thread, some are arguing that such changes as having female equal rights of succession should never occur because it is wrong to breach tradition. I'm guessing that if Canada and Australia (for example) decide upon the death of HM to change their relationship to the Commonwealth, that would be sen by many as a bad thing (although what the non-moral consequences would be, I do not know enough to begin to say).

I really don't see any country giving up their membership of the Commonwealth on the death of HM. I don't know what benefits we get from membership - other than dominating the Commonwealth Games every four years and any chance to crow over the Poms etc is a good one - but I am sure there are good reasons for membership.

Being a member of the Commonwealth has nothing to do with changing our relationship to the Crown, of course.

 

[Madame Royale]

If he is to make his 70th decade then I don't think many of use here will live to see it - I am only in my 6th now.

Evidently I had his prospective age in mind when I posted. Correction, 7th decade

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I've said it before, that Charles would be more appreciated if people took the time to dig a little beyond the headlines. To see how intelligent and hard working he really is. He is far more than a few minute recording with his mistress.

 

[princess-royal]

I've said it before, that Charles would be more appreciated if people took the time to dig a little beyond the headlines. To see how intelligent and hard working he really is. He is far more than a few minute recording with his mistress.

I'm really not a fan of Charles's meddling with politics. He hasn't put out a good public image for himself. HM on the other hand is clear about her role as representative and ambassador rather than as an intervenor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I'm really not a fan of Charles's meddling with politics. He hasn't put out a good public image for himself. HM on the other hand is clear about her role as representative and ambassador rather than as an intervenor.

Charles doesn't 'meddle in politics'. He, like every other citizen with the exception of his mother, has the right to contact a minister of the crown and express his opinion about issues.

As the heir to the throne he also has the right to be kept up to date with government business in preparation for the day when he becomes King - at which time he will have the right 'to be consulted, to advise and to warn' the government of the day.

The government also has to be in contact with him to brief him on matters about which he is about to speak etc. No doubt the relevant ministers have kept him in the loop about the riots and approved his comments before they were made.

 

[princess-royal]

Charles doesn't 'meddle in politics'. He, like every other citizen with the exception of his mother, has the right to contact a minister of the crown and express his opinion about issues.

As the heir to the throne he also has the right to be kept up to date with government business in preparation for the day when he becomes King - at which time he will have the right 'to be consulted, to advise and to warn' the government of the day.

The government also has to be in contact with him to brief him on matters about which he is about to speak etc. No doubt the relevant ministers have kept him in the loop about the riots and approved his comments before they were made.

He's wielded disproportionate influence because of his royal status, which is something that's not supposed to happen. Royals are also encouraged to show neutrality over controversial issues. One day he will be king, and this meddling won't be forgotten. So in this way he is not like every other citizen. Check out his interference in architecture as an example.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He's wielded disproportionate influence because of his royal status, which is something that's not supposed to happen. Royals are also encouraged to show neutrality over controversial issues. One day he will be king, and this meddling won't be forgotten. So in this way he is not like every other citizen. Check out his interference in architecture as an example.

I am fully aware of his views on architecture - but he didn't do anything outside what he is allowed to do.

It was more a matter that other people think that as a royal he shouldn't be allowed to have any basic rights - including the right to express an opinion. He actually is allowed to do so and allowed to ask his friends to also express their opinions - that isn't political meddling but simple expressing of a human right. He has few enough of those compared to the rest of the population but he does have the right to express his opinion on non-politicial matters and architecture is just that - non-political.

If he comes out and says - 'the Lib-Dems should be supported over the Labour party' - that is political meddling and he can't do that (although you and I can). He can't make a comment on a political issue e.g. he can't comment on the government's attitude to university costs but he can express an opinion on what he likes aesthetically - that isn't politics.

Can you please point to political meddling as opposed to expressing a public opinion on a non-political matter - architecture isn't a political issue - the military, the economy, foreign affairs, taxation etc is.

He was ahead of the political parties with regard to the environment, expressing opinions on that matter before it became politicised so he is still able to express his opinion on that because it was in the public domain before most of the rest of the world cared.

What you want is for him to live in a coccoon and not express an opinion on anything as you are saying that him expressing an opinion is political.

 

[COUNTESS]

I write as an American, who realizes that your royals should not have political views. The queen has never expressed a view on anything that wasn't written for her. Charles is more assertive, which to my way of thinking is fine, but who asked him. If you want show piece heads of state, that is what they should be. Otherwise, mum's the word. Architecture affects people who design public buildings, so that is overstepping that concept. Organic is nice, but often a ruse and overpriced, so put your money where your mouth is and defer the expense while prattling on.

 

[MARG]

I write as an American, who realises that your royals should not have political views. The queen has never expressed a view on anything that wasn't written for her.

Her Majesty has been Queen since she was Crowned at the ripe old age of 25! Hardly time to make any "political" statements. On her ascension she even lost the right to vote let alone politic!

Charles is more assertive, which to my way of thinking is fine, but who asked him.

I don't know that he is any more assertive, he has just had decades to voice his opinion.

If you want show piece heads of state, that is what they should be. Otherwise, mum's the word.

Charles is not yet a "Head of State" and, until he is, is has the same rights as any other citizen.

Architecture affects people who design public buildings, so that is overstepping that concept.

You are joking aren't you? Charles shouldn't speak about anything that affects people . . . . . OK, that takes care of all of the over 400 organisations of which he is either Patron or President as you had better believe he has an opinion about each and every one of them!!!!! Never mind the Prince's Trust . . . . . .

Organic is nice, but often a ruse and overpriced, so put your money where your mouth is and defer the expense while prattling on.

I really think you would have been well advised to "bone up" on your subject before spouting rubbish.

The Prince of Wales - Home Farm

Duchy of Cornwall - Design and Development - The Official Website for the Duchy of Cornwall

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/Poundbury%20media%20pack_2009.pdf

I think he has done a damn sight more than put his money where his mouth is when it comes to both architecture and organics.

 

[COUNTESS]

Her Majesty has been Queen since she was Crowned at the ripe old age of 25! Hardly time to make any "political" statements. On her ascension she even lost the right to vote let alone politic!

I don't know that he is any more assertive, he has just had decades to voice his opinion.

Charles is not yet a "Head of State" and, until he is, is has the same rights as any other citizen.

You are joking aren't you? Charles shouldn't speak about anything that affects people . . . . . OK, that takes care of all of the over 400 organisations of which he is either Patron or President as you had better believe he has an opinion about each and every one of them!!!!! Never mind the Prince's Trust . . . . . .

I really think you would have been well advised to "bone up" on your subject before spouting rubbish.

The Prince of Wales - Home Farm

Duchy of Cornwall - Design and Development - The Official Website for the Duchy of Cornwall

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/Poundbury media pack_2009.pdf

I think he has done a damn sight more than put his money where his mouth is when it comes to both architecture and organics.

There is nothing bad about organics. It just isn't working for the masses of people who need to be fed. I don't know about New Zealand, but here "organic" is a title that you have to be leary of shopping, as it often refers to limited things and it is often twice as expensive as the "other stuff".

If he has the same rights as other citzens to speak his mind, why he he critisized? That is an honest question.

As for his ideas of architechure, that is his opinion, not some experts revelation. Of course, he is entitle to his opinion.


Charles, as you state, has his right to his opinions. Since he will, probably, be a very old man when he becomes king, he can use this time, as it seems to be permissable. I have no idea what he allowed to say or not.

Organics is a great idea, except, it doesn't seem to be great feeding a huge masses of people, unless everyone gets involved. Here, often, organic, is less than one would expect and costs more than twice as much. Some of the largest outbreaks of E-coli have come from organic produce. This is not rubbish.

Architecture, is a personal view. Otherwise nothing would have evolved. We would all have thatched huts or caves. He, certainly, can have his concept, but those who espouse more modern styles are entitled to theirs. Especially, as they are the ones who do the designs.

How a prince of England, speaks is really of no interest to most, I just commented on the site.

 

[Madame Royale]

It just isn't working for the masses of people who need to be fed. I don't know about New Zealand, but here "organic" is a title that you have to be leary of shopping, as it often refers to limited things and it is often twice as expensive as the "other stuff".

I buy organic but then again, I only have to shop for one so can afford too. Though I'd largely have to agree with the above statement.

Organics are great and it would be wonderful if it was widely available (by that I mean cost effective) to most people and most homes but the reality is that it comes at a higher cost and a cost that most people generally can't afford. Certainly not in the current economic climate.

As for Charles' involvement with organics, I've always thought it terrific and he's invested alot of thought, time and money into this sector. It's wonderful, imo. I admire his passion.

 

[MARG]

There is nothing bad about organics. It just isn't working for the masses of people who need to be fed. I don't know about New Zealand, but here "organic" is a title that you have to be leary of shopping, as it often refers to limited things and it is often twice as expensive as the "other stuff".

But you referred only to Charles stance and said he should put his money where his mouth is. He did. Link provided!

If he has the same rights as other citzens to speak his mind, why he he critisized? That is an honest question.

Because while he, and everyone else, has a right to speak, everyone else has the right to agree, ignore or actively disagree. That's democracy at work!

As for his ideas of architechure, that is his opinion, not some experts revelation. Of course, he is entitle to his opinion.

Precisely, although unlike many with opinions, he put his money where his mouth is. He did. Link provided!

Charles, as you state, has his right to his opinions. Since he will, probably, be a very old man when he becomes king, he can use this time, as it seems to be permissable. I have no idea what he allowed to say or not.

He is allowed to say exactly the same as everyone else is, although wisdom dictates that he shoulc not.

Organics is a great idea, except, it doesn't seem to be great feeding a huge masses of people, unless everyone gets involved. Here, often, organic, is less than one would expect and costs more than twice as much. Some of the largest outbreaks of E-coli have come from organic produce. This is not rubbish.

You specifically referred to Charles stance on organics and that he should put his money where his mouth is. He did. Link provided!

Architecture, is a personal view. Otherwise nothing would have evolved. We would all have thatched huts or caves. He, certainly, can have his concept, but those who espouse more modern styles are entitled to theirs. Especially, as they are the ones who do the designs.

I don't know about you but I am not a fan of modern glass and steel construction and am in favour of "liveable spaces".

I don't like mass "housing projects" as they are unhealthy for those (usually low income) people to grow and thrive in.

I agree with the ethos that Charles, and a large number of architects and town planners propose to facilitate liveable spaces.

That being said, I very much doubt that any "architect" was involved in the evolutionary move from cave to thatched hut!

How a prince of England, speaks is really of no interest to most, I just commented on the site.

This is a thread is called The Monarchy under Charles so it begs the question of why you felt the need to comment at all if you believe it is of no interest to most how a prince of England speaks?

Lastly, when your argument is provided with rebuttal and links, why do you not bother to read them and just go off on a general tangent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Well said - to both your posts - spot on.

Many people assume that no royal has a right to say anything and they are wrong.

The Queen has her private audience with the PM to express her views. The rest of the family have the same rights as any other citizen to express their opinions but most choose to steer clear of political matters.

Charles knows where the line is. Most people in the general public - and it seems on this board - do not.