The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 08-05-2011, 08:10 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,425
Wow, that was some digression...from Princess Elizabeth's desire to marry Lt Philip Mountbatten to Camilla's engagement ring to who did what to whom and when...and all points inbetween.

The moderators will not allow yet another thread to sink under the weight of the incessant and tiresome squabbling over Charles & Diana and Charles & Camilla. Therefore
posts not relevant to the thread topic have been removed.

Warren
for the British Forum moderators
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 08-05-2011, 10:18 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Very interesting post, Aliza. I hadn't thought about the church entanglements of the "Camilla issue." King Charles III may well have to use some kingly power to get what he wants here - and he may not feel it's useful to try and do that.

Wait and see, in 15-20 years, we hope?
I thought the Church had cleared up the "Camilla issue." In the eyes of the CofE, they are legally married with no encumbrance. He was a widower when he married, so there should be no religious issue regarding Camilla.

The Church of England agreed in 2002 that divorced people could remarry in church under certain circumstances. However, because the Church views marriage to be lifelong, there is no automatic right to do so and it is left to the discretion of the Priest or Vicar.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 08-05-2011, 01:35 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post

From my personal point of view, I'd have loathed seeing Camilla as Charles' Queen Consort if Diana were still alive. Since the Princess rests in peace and can not be hurt anymore, it really doesn't matter to me, although I'd be curious to know the viewpoint of Princes William and Harry.
This is an interesting viewpoint, Aliza, one that I had never considered. Thank you for bringing something new (to me) to the table.

From what I have read over the years, I have come to believe that many (most?) people actually hold the opposite opinion. With Diana gone people speculate endlessly about how she would have reacted to so many things. I do believe that were she still alive, she would have gone on to live such a full life, with so much happiness from other things, that the public would have long since stopped focusing on her unhappiness. I think this would have softened the public opinion of Charles and made him a more popular future monarch. I believe that were she still alive, seeing her prosper and heal her old wounds as both her and Charles created new lives for themselves would help the public move on, and therefore accept Camilla. In other words, I believe people would be considerably more accepting of Charles as monarch were Diana alive and people saw her doing well.

I feel that Charles will be a great king, although I doubt that he will be recognized for it. He is a man who is passionate about his work, and I believe that he will have this passion in being a king.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 08-06-2011, 09:13 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
But how many private letters can he write? He needs to be able to make the masses of ordinary Brits feel as though he represents them and understands them, to some extent.

His influence has been felt in architecture, for instance, but while commendable, it is not high on the British People's list of what needs to be fixed in these economic times.

Also, his style of living, so very different from his Mother's, makes him seem apart from the every day Brit. Maybe this will all change when he becomes King, I hope so. As I repeat myself again and again, I don't want to see him fail. Not for his own sake but for the sake of the Institution of the British Monarchy.
I think this post is deeply, deeply unfair to Charles. Limiting his charitable work to his interest in architecture is a gross understatement. We need only look at the Prince's Trust which has helped more than 600,000 young British people who feel hopeless to get involved in business, education or employment. I've been lucky enough to get involved with the Prince's Trust as the company I work for (which is one of the largest in the UK) is one of many who support the charity. These are young people who would otherwise be sitting on social welfare, not making any contribution to society. You're not in the UK but I can assure you that at a time when the unemployment rate among the 18-24 age group in the UK is at least 20%, we need the Prince's Trust now more than ever.

I've also been involved in another of the Prince's charities, Business in the Community, whereby we have donated our time and efforts to volunteer in the local community, helping to renovate schools and community buildings. Again, given the fact that the British government is essentially bankrupt and has to implement huge budget cuts, this kind of activity is enormously important.

These are just 2 examples of the direct benefits the people of the UK enjoy as a result of the Prince of Wales's drive and passion to improve the lot of his future subjects. There is no other Crown Prince or Princess who can come close to matching his achievements. And all this is before we take into consideration the many hundreds of millions of pounds Charles has raised for charitable good causes over the years.

I would go so far as to say that Britain has never had such a well qualified future monarch and one day I'll be very proud to say that he's my King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 08-06-2011, 10:32 AM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
I think this post is deeply, deeply unfair to Charles. Limiting his charitable work to his interest in architecture is a gross understatement. We need only look at the Prince's Trust which has helped more than 600,000 young British people who feel hopeless to get involved in business, education or employment. I've been lucky enough to get involved with the Prince's Trust as the company I work for (which is one of the largest in the UK) is one of many who support the charity. These are young people who would otherwise be sitting on social welfare, not making any contribution to society. You're not in the UK but I can assure you that at a time when the unemployment rate among the 18-24 age group in the UK is at least 20%, we need the Prince's Trust now more than ever.

I've also been involved in another of the Prince's charities, Business in the Community, whereby we have donated our time and efforts to volunteer in the local community, helping to renovate schools and community buildings. Again, given the fact that the British government is essentially bankrupt and has to implement huge budget cuts, this kind of activity is enormously important.

These are just 2 examples of the direct benefits the people of the UK enjoy as a result of the Prince of Wales's drive and passion to improve the lot of his future subjects. There is no other Crown Prince or Princess who can come close to matching his achievements. And all this is before we take into consideration the many hundreds of millions of pounds Charles has raised for charitable good causes over the years.

I would go so far as to say that Britain has never had such a well qualified future monarch and one day I'll be very proud to say that he's my King.
You said this very well. I think you bring to the surface something that people outside of the UK are unaware of. Here in the US, we only hear about His Highness's organic farming and passion for the environment. However, we only know about the Prince's Trust by name. I'm glad to hear he's helping so many people. That's admirable indeed.
__________________
"My guiding principles in life are to be honest, genuine, thoughtful and caring".
~Prince William~


I'm not obsessed with royalty...I just think intensely about it.
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 08-06-2011, 04:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daria_S View Post
You said this very well. I think you bring to the surface something that people outside of the UK are unaware of. Here in the US, we only hear about His Highness's organic farming and passion for the environment. However, we only know about the Prince's Trust by name. I'm glad to hear he's helping so many people. That's admirable indeed.
I think Charles is one of those people who are more appreciated as time goes on. I don't know if he'll be a beloved king but I see him as being more and more respected as time goes on, especially once he becomes King and his full legacy is examined. Charles' life to me has seemed like one of unfortunate timing, in that he's always been overshadowed by someone, whether his formidable mother, his media savvy first wife, and now to a certain extent his more charismatic son and daughter in law. So I don't think he'll ever win any popularity contests but IMO popularity in and of itself doesn't mean much.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 08-06-2011, 06:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 509
I think it wouldnt hurt to compare Charles to another Prince of Wales who lived under similar conditions, his Great Great Grandfather, Edward VII.
The future Edward VII spent most of his life as PoW under a longlived, highlt respected Queen. He was King for only a short time and was highly regarded as a king.. He loved luxury had mistresses and a wife who was beloved by the public. IN many ways Charles has a similar character, but oh what a difference he has made of his life.

The future Edward VII really was a leech, a bad example. Our current PoW is a saint by copmparison.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 08-06-2011, 07:19 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
I think it wouldnt hurt to compare Charles to another Prince of Wales who lived under similar conditions, his Great Great Grandfather, Edward VII.
The future Edward VII spent most of his life as PoW under a longlived, highlt respected Queen. He was King for only a short time and was highly regarded as a king.. He loved luxury had mistresses and a wife who was beloved by the public. IN many ways Charles has a similar character, but oh what a difference he has made of his life.

The future Edward VII really was a leech, a bad example. Our current PoW is a saint by copmparison.

Edward VII also wasn't allowed to do very much by his mother so it is unfair to simply right off his time as PoW as a 'leech'. He wanted to be of use to his country but his mother simply refused to allow him to help her.

The present Queen, on the other hand, always actively encouraged Charles to be of use and to help her.

Similar circumstances but different approaches by the monarch's to the heir. A lesson learnt - by both Elizabeth and Charles - from the past.

When Edward was able to do things for the Queen he did so very well and was highly regarded within his own time by the people with whom he came into contact. He did a lot of the opening of stuff type duties but not the formal representation stuff.

I do think that if Albert had lived Edward would have been far more closely involved in the monarchy as a young man but Albert's death just as Edward was approaching adulthood (he was only just 20) meant that he wasn't brought into a working relationship with his mother and hence she never allowed him that role so he had to create a role for himself and was always blocked by his mother whenever there was any suggestion of him doing things that she should have done and refused to do or things that Albert had done.

Yes he lived the life of a rich 19th C gentlemen - but that is also what he was - so he lived amongst his own class and lived the way they did.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 08-06-2011, 08:18 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 19
The Monarch and the Royal Family should be able to comment on politics and issues which affect their People. The Monarch should be the rightful Head of Government!

Also I believe when His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales becomes King...I believe he shall take the name George.

I also believe that Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cornwall will become Queen Consort as is her legal and right, as being the lawful and legitimate wife in the eyes of the law and the Church. The People must get used to His Royal Highness being on The Throne. I just hope he does not modernize and that he does not change the title of the Defender of the Faith to Defender of the Faiths. He will be the Supreme Governor of The Church of England...there is but one faith that is the State Religion and that is The Church of England.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 08-06-2011, 08:26 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam20045 View Post
The Monarch and the Royal Family should be able to comment on politics and issues which affect their People. The Monarch should be the rightful Head of Government.
The monarch can comment on the issues affecting the people - and in fact does so - not to do so would be dereliction of their duty - but they do it in private in their discussions with the Prime Minister.

If they were still the Head of Government they wouldn't be the monarchs any more - they lost that right in 1649 and one of the conditions of the Restoration was that effective government rested with the parliament and not the king.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 08-06-2011, 08:40 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 19
I wish there could be dual Head of Government....The Monarch and whomever the Prime Minister is
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 08-06-2011, 08:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam20045 View Post
I wish there could be dual Head of Government....The Monarch and whomever the Prime Minister is

That is why we have a Head of State and Head of Government - two people - one who can truly represent the entire nation and one who has to be unpopular with some of the population because they have to lead the government in making unpopular decisions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 08-06-2011, 09:16 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 19
I mean the Monarch who is Sovereign and therefore in the Republican term Head of State acting as Head of Government also...Head of Government in co with the Prime Minister who is also Head of Government
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 08-06-2011, 09:30 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
What point would that serve? The Prime Ministers seem to be doing a good enough job without a monarch becoming the head of government along with them. I think the only time a govt. system should be changed is if it is causing a problem. With England, it isn't broke so why fix it.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 08-07-2011, 02:40 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Edward VII also wasn't allowed to do very much by his mother so it is unfair to simply right off his time as PoW as a 'leech'. He wanted to be of use to his country but his mother simply refused to allow him to help her.

The present Queen, on the other hand, always actively encouraged Charles to be of use and to help her.

Similar circumstances but different approaches by the monarch's to the heir. A lesson learnt - by both Elizabeth and Charles - from the past.

When Edward was able to do things for the Queen he did so very well and was highly regarded within his own time by the people with whom he came into contact. He did a lot of the opening of stuff type duties but not the formal representation stuff.

I do think that if Albert had lived Edward would have been far more closely involved in the monarchy as a young man but Albert's death just as Edward was approaching adulthood (he was only just 20) meant that he wasn't brought into a working relationship with his mother and hence she never allowed him that role so he had to create a role for himself and was always blocked by his mother whenever there was any suggestion of him doing things that she should have done and refused to do or things that Albert had done.

Yes he lived the life of a rich 19th C gentlemen - but that is also what he was - so he lived amongst his own class and lived the way they did.
I wouldnt deny that he did very well with what he had and certainly QV was very possesive about her role. As you say QEII and P Charles lappear to have learnt from that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 08-07-2011, 03:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
So, now we have a 21st century gentlewoman, with horses, corgis, wellington boots, and country estates.
Her son leads a similar life - albeit without corgis.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose :-)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 08-07-2011, 11:15 PM
shari-aree's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posts: 170
I would go so far as to say that Britain has never had such a well qualified future monarch and one day I'll be very proud to say that he's my King.[/QUOTE]

And I too!
__________________
" 'an harm none; thy will be done "
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 08-07-2011, 11:56 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
The Royal Family of Britain is nothing, if not an incredible example of conserving wealth over generations. This is not a bad thing (don't we all want our kids to do well?) Until and unless we get rid of inheritance, the Royals represent those whose ancestors managed to rise to the top and hang on for dear life (sometimes in the most tangential ways; but always involving lineage, gender, birth order and legitimacy).

In so doing, they have also propelled history forward according to their will (if they could), but always, gradually losing ground to the rest of us. The rest of us, of course, include descendants of females, first borns, illegitimate kids and so on - many of whom sought better opportunities outside monarchic institutions.

I truly have admired the way that the British monarchs have adapted. They should win a prize for adaptation. If the trend continues, though, the monarchs could (almost) disappear - and then, all of the historical importance I refer to would be lost. That would be tragic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 08-08-2011, 12:05 AM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi
The Royal Family of Britain is nothing, if not an incredible example of conserving wealth over generations. This is not a bad thing (don't we all want our kids to do well?) Until and unless we get rid of inheritance, the Royals represent those whose ancestors managed to rise to the top and hang on for dear life (sometimes in the most tangential ways; but always involving lineage, gender, birth order and legitimacy).

In so doing, they have also propelled history forward according to their will (if they could), but always, gradually losing ground to the rest of us. The rest of us, of course, include descendants of females, first borns, illegitimate kids and so on - many of whom sought better opportunities outside monarchic institutions.

I truly have admired the way that the British monarchs have adapted. They should win a prize for adaptation. If the trend continues, though, the monarchs could (almost) disappear - and then, all of the historical importance I refer to would be lost. That would be tragic.
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 08-08-2011, 11:55 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: ., Israel
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
The Royal Family of Britain is nothing, if not an incredible example of conserving wealth over generations. This is not a bad thing (don't we all want our kids to do well?) Until and unless we get rid of inheritance, the Royals represent those whose ancestors managed to rise to the top and hang on for dear life (sometimes in the most tangential ways; but always involving lineage, gender, birth order and legitimacy).

In so doing, they have also propelled history forward according to their will (if they could), but always, gradually losing ground to the rest of us. The rest of us, of course, include descendants of females, first borns, illegitimate kids and so on - many of whom sought better opportunities outside monarchic institutions.

I truly have admired the way that the British monarchs have adapted. They should win a prize for adaptation. If the trend continues, though, the monarchs could (almost) disappear - and then, all of the historical importance I refer to would be lost. That would be tragic.
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

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


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

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

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


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




Additional Links
Popular Tags
belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

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

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]