The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are always questions about what the new reign will be like and how the heir can never be as good or as capable as their parent but somehow people get over it and carry on.
In business terms it is like when a long term executive retires and someone new takes over. Employees miss the old guy and worry about what things will change but eventually everyone settles down and a new norm is created.
 
:previous: I agree and a poll taken over the summer showed a majority of Britons expect the monarchy to be around in 100 years from now so it isn't going anywhere that's for sure .
 
Duke-of-Earl said:
I just wonder with people who are passive supporters of the monarchy, will HMs popularity transfer over to Charles.

Very little. Charles will have to do A LOT if he's to have the same support as his mother. He just won't have the time as a monarch to carve out the image he needs.
I too think he'll be a fantastic monarch, but people will always see him as the guy who talks to plants.
 
Very little. Charles will have to do A LOT if he's to have the same support as his mother. He just won't have the time as a monarch to carve out the image he needs.
I too think he'll be a fantastic monarch, but people will always see him as the guy who talks to plants.

Sometimes the best accomplishment a monarch or any leader can do is to build bridges and pave roads into the future.

I see Charles very much being a transitional monarch. The bridge builder between Elizabeth II and William IV. The world has changed drastically since HM's ascension in 1952 and I think it will be during Charles' reign that we will see a careful modernization of the monarchy while also preserving the rich history and traditions that make the British monarchy so unique.
 
Sometimes the best accomplishment a monarch or any leader can do is to build bridges and pave roads into the future.

I see Charles very much being a transitional monarch. The bridge builder between Elizabeth II and William IV. The world has changed drastically since HM's ascension in 1952 and I think it will be during Charles' reign that we will see a careful modernization of the monarchy while also preserving the rich history and traditions that make the British monarchy so unique.

Yes. This.

I made a similar post (in the wrong thread) a few days ago - I also believe Charles' greatest role (and it is an important one) will be to be the "Arbiter of Change", so to speak. And I think he will do this well and with careful thought and bring to it the personal integrity that I associate with his character.
 
Last edited:
Step One: To be coronated the high unction must be bestowed on Charles and he is divorced.They did not bestow this previously to divorced Princes- this having been a factor for Edward marrying Wallis.
However times have changed and they may revise whatever was to accomodate.
CHarles always has some fascinating ideas for the lands he reigns over. He would a make a good king.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes the best accomplishment a monarch or any leader can do is to build bridges and pave roads into the future.

I see Charles very much being a transitional monarch. The bridge builder between Elizabeth II and William IV. The world has changed drastically since HM's ascension in 1952 and I think it will be during Charles' reign that we will see a careful modernization of the monarchy while also preserving the rich history and traditions that make the British monarchy so unique.
William V actually.
 
Very little. Charles will have to do A LOT if he's to have the same support as his mother. He just won't have the time as a monarch to carve out the image he needs.
I too think he'll be a fantastic monarch, but people will always see him as the guy who talks to plants.
That's usually true, but sometimes there are exceptions. Think of Edward VII: no one expected much of him, especially since he succeeded the great Queen Victoria. And yet he is now remembered as the Peacemaker King, and (in my opinion) one of the best Britain has ever had.

Sometimes a reign, however short, is defined by the personality of the ruler and how it matches the needs of his country at that particular time. Despite being called old-fashioned, redundant even, I believe Prince Charles is actually one of the most forward-thinking royals of our time. If he has as little as a decade to reign, I'm quite certain he will leave his trace in the history books.
 
It will become 6 soon..and then 10..and then one more cycle of slimming..then again only 6 will remain..and it goes on and on..
 
Very little. Charles will have to do A LOT if he's to have the same support as his mother. He just won't have the time as a monarch to carve out the image he needs.
I too think he'll be a fantastic monarch, but people will always see him as the guy who talks to plants.

Oh what can he do? There is no way he can do more than what he is doing now..Tell me what exactly HM has "done" in all these decades? Monarchs are never ever supposed to have active roles..
And to hell with those who say he talks to plants..If people can talk to and cry for animals..why cant someone attach himself with plants..which are more important for mankind than fancy pups..
 
Victoria's uncle was William IV and that will make this William the V-Fifth.
 
That's usually true, but sometimes there are exceptions. Think of Edward VII: no one expected much of him, especially since he succeeded the great Queen Victoria. And yet he is now remembered as the Peacemaker King, and (in my opinion) one of the best Britain has ever had.

Sometimes a reign, however short, is defined by the personality of the ruler and how it matches the needs of his country at that particular time. Despite being called old-fashioned, redundant even, I believe Prince Charles is actually one of the most forward-thinking royals of our time. If he has as little as a decade to reign, I'm quite certain he will leave his trace in the history books.

Artemisia, I seriously do not understand what to expect from Prince Charles as King that will keep him in history forever..He cannot do anything revolutionary or overboard and still remain popular, atleast in his lifetime..Infact, dont you appreciate the fact the HM The Queen is this popular just because she has not done anything on her own..all these decades..She just walked, smiled, shook hands and read speeches..as was told to her..and simply retreated to the background..And thats the only acceptable role of a constitutional monarch in today's world..
And we just cannot compare him with Edard VII..He has hardly anything to his credit during his long tenure as Prince of Wales, expect standing in for his "forever-in-mourning" mother..Prince Charles has redefined the role of a heir and of course media and people wanting something "awe"some and dazzling will never appreciate it..And about Edward the Peacemaker and all..Things are totally different today..and for a king poking his finger into even environment policy, leave alone foreign and economic policies..will spell doom..
We will only be able to enjoy his reign if we cherish his work as Prince of Wales, love him as a father-figure and identify him with his "ever-lamented (at that time)" mother's legacy..
 
Last edited:
Look, if not by accident of birth, he would, probabaly, be in some middle management job. He is hardly, a "leader". No great intellect or drive. Most of his accomplishments are because he had a great fortune, time and unlimited access to mentors and funds. He is wise to like his position, which has given him great latitude. Since, being king, requires nothing more than what he is, he will be a fine monarch for as long as he is in the position. Who is against him? He will be king, because of his birth, not because he has any particular qualifications. It is not a merit job.

Then there is no point in talking about monarchy itself..Would you agree that if not for her marriage, Diana would just be a kindergarden teacher..even a nanny..
Why do you go this personal I dont understand
 
Oh what can he do? There is no way he can do more than what he is doing now..Tell me what exactly HM has "done" in all these decades? Monarchs are never ever supposed to have active roles..
And to hell with those who say he talks to plants..If people can talk to and cry for animals..why cant someone attach himself with plants..which are more important for mankind than fancy pups..

Did you read the part of my post where I clearly stated that I thought Charles would a fantastic monarch?
Please don't attack me for writing about the general opinion of this country. Charles will always have the image of a slight odd ball. The Queen comes from a different age, she's earnt the respect of her subjects by her 6 decades of tireless dedication to this country. Whilst Charles has shown his devotion, there are times when he hasn't.

Would you agree that if not for her marriage, Diana would just be a kindergarden teacher..even a nanny..
Why do you go this personal I dont understand

I don't see how this is personal. It's fact. The royal family of any country have done nothing to earn there place, they are simple born into their role and that is that. If Diana hadn't married Charles, she would have worked with children. If Sarah hadn't married Andrew, she probably would have done some kind of PR. If Sophie hadn't married Edward, she had her own company to run in television I think. Philip would have continued life as a navy officer. It is pure luck or chance that when you meet a royal, they fall for you or find an attribute appealing.

Infact, dont you appreciate the fact the HM The Queen is this popular just because she has not done anything on her own..all these decades..She just walked, smiled, shook hands and read speeches..as was told to her..and simply retreated to the background..And thats the only acceptable role of a constitutional monarch in today's world..

The Queen is respected in the countries she reigns over because she has done this for so long and with the highest regard for her country men and each individual country. She has never put a foot out of line. Elizabeth comes from another age, she became Queen when the monarchy was revered. I bet half this country respects Elizabeth because they feel they have to.


Prince Charles has redefined the role of a heir and of course media and people wanting something "awe"some and dazzling will never appreciate it.

I disagree, Charles has not redefined the role as heir, he's done exactly what he should have done in his 60 or so years as heir.


Charles will not be a great monarch, he will be a good one.
 
I disagree, Charles has not redefined the role as heir, he's done exactly what he should have done in his 60 or so years as heir.


He has defined the role of the heir - he has actually given the heir a role - something that didn't happen before.

Elizabeth - didn't really have time to define her role as heir but she didn't do much.

Edward VIII - did as little as possible to support his father and only did what was asked of him by his father e.g. some tours after WWI and not a great deal else - no charity drives etc.

George V spent his time as heir shooting and stamp collecting with the occasional tour as his father's representative e.g. Australia in 1901 to open the first Australian Parliament.

Edward VII - nothing as heir - not allowed to do anything except lead the party loving society and very very occasionally stand in for his mother.

George IV, except when Regent - anything to have fun but nothing for the nation or his father - a typical Hanoverian attitude actually - the heir does nothing except lead the opposition to the King.
 
He has defined the role of the heir - he has actually given the heir a role - something that didn't happen before.


I agree with you here. Charles has proven, time and again, that he is more than the guy waiting to be King. In fact, this is one of the ways in which HMtQ has changed HER role, as well.

I think, in fact, that Charles will be one of the most influential Monarchs in history, in the fullness of time, if for no other reason than he will arrive on the throne as the first Monarch of the "information age". His reign will, to a great degree, establish the viability of the Monarchy going forward.

And I think we could not ask for a more qualified individual. As a long serving PoW he has had time to learn and observe, to mature and establish his own ideas and beliefs.

With all respect to HMtQ, I am quite looking forward to it.
 
Did you have any specific examples to elucidate your point?
There have certainly been occasions (about 20 years worth) where Charles put his 'wants and needs' above his duty to the Crown. Do you really need me to spell it out?

Should Charles outlive his mother, given the fact that the Windsor men of the last century have not lived to old age this is not a certainty (George IV 67, William IV 71, Edward VII 68, George V 70, Edward VIII 77, George VI 56), I think his biggest problem is going to be that he seems unable to stay out of controversial topics. QEII knows that she cant publicly have strong opinions, especially those contrary to what the present government espouses. I am not sure Charles has the self control to hold his opinions in.
 
There have certainly been occasions (about 20 years worth) where Charles put his 'wants and needs' above his duty to the Crown. Do you really need me to spell it out?

I am still waiting to hear how having to work thorugh an unfortunate and difficult marriage in any way compromised his duty to the crown, if that is what you are alluding to. Shocking as it might appear, divorce unfortunately is not uncommon, and even the CoE appears to be reconciling with British society at large.


QEII knows that she cant publicly have strong opinions, especially those contrary to what the present government espouses. I am not sure Charles has the self control to hold his opinions in.

Charles is not the monarch, and is entitled to put forth his views in the ways thst he has. He does not get involved in party political issues. Once he is King, I suspect he will be far more reticent than he has been in the last 3 decades.
 
I am still waiting to hear how having to work thorugh an unfortunate and difficult marriage in any way compromised his duty to the crown, if that is what you are alluding to. Shocking as it might appear, divorce unfortunately is not uncommon, and even the CoE appears to be reconciling with British society at large.

Charles is not the monarch, and is entitled to put forth his views in the ways thst he has. He does not get involved in party political issues. Once he is King, I suspect he will be far more reticent than he has been in the last 3 decades.
Well, it's not always divorce which is questionable.

I - personally - am a bit sceptical when I think of the treatment of Edzard Ernst, former professor at the University of Exeter, who performed research on alternative curing methods. Several years ago a panel - initiated by the PoW - examined the benefit of alternative medicine. Edzard Ernst was part of this panel. However, during the review of the final paper he was shocked and withdrew his backing only to find himself in the line of fire. Remember the TIMES-article questioning if the PoW exceed his constitutional rights?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a big fan of the Prince of Wales and think he will make a great king. I do feel one of his biggest challenges as king will be to protect the existing royal prerogatives. There are more than a few MPs who feel Charles 'talks too much' on certain government policies and these MPs may have revenge on their mind when Charles is king. I know the Labour party want the royals to be seen and not heard.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's not always divorce which is questionable.

I - personally - am a bit sceptical when I think of the treatment of Edzard Ernst, former professor at the University of Exeter, who performed research on alternative curing methods. Several years ago a panel - initiated by the PoW - examined the benefit of alternative medicine. Edzard Ernst was part of this panel. However, during the review of the final paper he was shocked and withdrew his backing only to find himself in the line of fire. Remember the TIMES-article questioning if the PoW exceed his constitutional rights?

Does that constiture dereliction of duty or compromise his dedication or commitment to crown and country?
 
Charles has not done anything, as far as I can recall, that casts any doubts on his ability to be a good Monarch. Certainly nothing that the public could lay down as a water-holding concern, in my opinion.

HMtQ survived the aftermath of Diana's death and the mass hysteria that went with it - which has to count as the only really large blip on the royal radar during her reign. If she can survive that craziness, Charles can survive what remains of the aftermath of a broken marriage and an adulterous affair.

I think most people, in the fullness of time, have come around to accepting that Charles, while not strictly "the good guy" is, by the same token, not "the bad guy" vis a vis his relationship with Diana.

One of the ways in which public opinion is formed, in this modern, post-war age, is based upon the perception of a person's character as evidenced by their family relationships. Most people seem to feel that Charles was a good father and this translates, just under the consciousness, into his being a good Monarch. The role, itself, is very paternal/maternal by its very nature.

I do know that my opinion of him, while always respectful and moderately high, really peaked when I saw him in a few videos with William and Harry. These are people that genuinely love and care about one another. It made me have a new sort of respect for him. In my world, talking to plants is part of the daily program and having earned the genuine love and trust of my children is a bit, a big bit, of the life goal.

Further, I was very much against Camilla in the beginning. But as time goes on and I see Charles' face more relaxed and his demeanor more happy, as I hear nothing but positive reports about her activities and duties, as I come to more fully understand the Diana years, I have built a respect for her. When they are together there is a great kinship between them and I am pleased that he found someone, at long last, who can be a helpmate for him, a true partner in what has to be one of the most demanding and daunting duties in existence. I am happy for them and in that he was always going to be the King, no matter the Queen Consort, I would rather he be happy with his Consort than bound by a lifelong duty in a situation that was unhappy.

I mean, he's going to die on the throne, being my King. The least, it seems to me, that I can offer back, is support for the partner he has chosen to help him meet his duty to me. It came grudgingly, though, I do admit.
 
Last edited:
If we measure someone's suitability for the role of monarch in terms of their achievements and conduct while heir to the throne, then Charles is simply in a different league to all his contemporaries. He has made a hugely positive contribution to the lives of his future subjects over his lifetime.

I mean, compare his achievements and efforts with those of, say, Prince Frederik or Prince Haakon and Charles is simply way, way ahead of either of them (even bearing in mind the differences in age), with all due respect to both princes.

People seem to think that as soon as Charles becomes King he's going to have to become some sort of mute robot when faced with the problems and issues in this country, for fear of being accused of overstepping his bounds. As we've seen over the last few days with QEII, that's not the case. Charles will be able to discuss issues, advise and warn his ministers on any topic he wishes. The only difference is, he'll have to ensure that he does it during his one-to-ones with the relevant minister in charge. I don't see how that'll be much of a problem for him, given most of his 'meddling' at the moment comes via letters to ministers anyway.
 
I actually like that he "meddles". I don't want an automaton for a King and in his "meddling" I am given to understand that

(1) He has a genuine interest in the affairs of his realm
(2) He is willing and able to exercise his royal perogative
(3) He does not see himself as a figurehead-to-be but a vital part of a constitutional monarchy where there is genuine and meaningful discourse between Sovereign and Government
(4) His heir will, one presumes, have a similar manner of filling the role of PoW as Charles has set a very good example

So, as long as his "meddling" is done appropriately, it's not really meddling - it's being a good Prince of Wales, Heir Apparent.

YMMV
 
Does that constiture dereliction of duty or compromise his dedication or commitment to crown and country?

Muriel, please forgive my poor english, but I am not sure if I understand your comment. Edzard Ernst believes that public health is at risk if politicians follow the advice of the above mentioned panel. For further information see: Edzard Ernst: The professor at war with the prince | Life and style | The Guardian It's hard to believe that the then principal private secretary of the PoW wrote this letter without the PoW knowing and thus endangering the position of Edzard Ernst.
 
Muriel, please forgive my poor english, but I am not sure if I understand your comment. Edzard Ernst believes that public health is at risk if politicians follow the advice of the above mentioned panel. For further information see: Edzard Ernst: The professor at war with the prince | Life and style | The Guardian It's hard to believe that the then principal private secretary of the PoW wrote this letter without the PoW knowing and thus endangering the position of Edzard Ernst.

Do you really think the Prince of Wales sees every single letter that's issued from his office? Of course not; if he did it would leave no time for him to do anything else.

The alternative medicines debate is complicated and cannot be summed up in a few sentences. Needless to say, there are educated and clever people on both sides of the argument, as well as very powerful interests involved here (the pharmaceutical industry included). From what I understand of this situation, Professor Ernst chose to take a DRAFT version of a report that one of the Prince's charities was working on, and went to the press ripping it apart despite the fact that it was unfinished. I seem to remember Professor Ernst chose to go after Prince Charles in a very personal manner, including calling him petty names. It's no surprise that his financial backers were uncomfortable with that.
 
Let's not forget the Queen became heir presumptive at about the age of 10, and monarch at 25. There was not much time to form an opinion. The information age had not arrived. Charles on the other hand has had decades of not being in a position where he has to keep his opinions under wraps. Had he never said anything to this point, he would have been viewed as dumb or unfit. I think neither are the case. Everyone's opinions change over time (or should) on any number of topics because of the new information received that support or dispute what we already believe.

It is the small changes, and things that do not change, that modernize the monarchy. Charles has given many interviews, the Queen has basically given none. William and Harry have joking complained about going to Highgrove because they have to dress for dinner, etc. That has not changed. This may seem unimportant, but all the little things add up to big things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom