The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

I think Charles should really just leave the family to slim down naturally, as in 40 years there will not be the same amount of HRH's simply because William and Harry will likely not have 4 children each. If the Queen had not had Andrew and Edward then there would be 5 less HRH (Andrew, Bea, Eug, Edward and Sophie) therefore a smaller selection of family. This will eventually happen as the older members pass on, which I think Charles should really wait for. Beatrice and Eugenie will have to make their own way in life, as their older cousins Peter and Zara have managed to do. Of course they will ALWAYS have money and wealth because of inheritance, as will Louise and James, but they will all make their own way in life. Charles for one should be glad Edward and Sophie chose to not have their children styled as HRH's as it has made him not have to "deal with" two more HRH's in his lifetime.

It has been pointed out already a couple of times that the idea of a smaller working family is based on a comment from about 20 years ago that can't even be attributed to Charles.

Every article I have read has made it clear that the making the family smaller is by a process of not adding new people in the younger generation to replace the extended family in older generations so, if it is to happen at all, it will be natural.

George V had 6 children, 5 reached adulthood, 1 more had no children and only his three sons had 7 HRH grandchildren of whom 2 have died. So in The Queen's generation there were 4 princes and 3 princesses with only the princes automatically having HRH spouses - The Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent and Princess Michael while the spouses of the 3 princesses were Philip, Tony and Angus - one a consort to a Queen and the others husbands of princesses. Of those 7 only 1 passed on HRH - the Queen.

She had 4 children - 3 princes and 1 princess with a possible 3 HRHs by marriage. There are 6 eligible HRHs in the next generation but already 2 aren't using it.

In the next generation there will only be the children of William and Harry to have the HRH and that could easily be only 4.

Natural reductions follow naturally smaller families that we are having today.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I feel that it will not be him taking people out but as current law suggest these people will lose the HRH due to the style is not granted to nieces or nephew of the monarch or second cousin to the monarch. we will keep balcony appearances to Charles and his family and so forth. It is not like he is mean it is just the natural progression of things.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What current law are you referring to?

The current titles are under the 1917 LPs -

The children of the monarch:

Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward

Male line grandchildren of the monarch:

William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Micheal and Alexandra

The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales:

William's eldest son

This last LP was adjusted recently to give ALL of William's children HRH.

Under the 1917 LPs only William and Harry now living can pass the HRH on and Harry only to his children and only if Charles becomes King.

There is no law that I know that has suggested anyone currently with HRH will lose it.

The balcony appearance at the end of the Jubilee was focussed just on the immediate heir and family - as did Victoria at her golden jubilee. At Trooping the Colour we will still see the entire extended family - HRHs and others like the Philips, Tindalls, Linleys and Chattos.

 

[Ish]

I feel that it will not be him taking people out but as current law suggest these people will lose the HRH due to the style is not granted to nieces or nephew of the monarch or second cousin to the monarch. we will keep balcony appearances to Charles and his family and so forth. It is not like he is mean it is just the natural progression of things.

Why would anyone with an HRH lose their HRH?

There are very few people who have an HRH and use, and most are actually fairly old. These people are:

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, 91 (through his marriage)
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, 68 (male-line grandson of George V)
The Duchess of Gloucester, 66 (through her marriage)
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, 77 (male-line grandson of George V)
The Duchess of Kent, 80 (through her marriage)
Prince Michael of Kent, 70 (male-line grandson of George V)
Princess Michael of Kent, 68 (through her marriage)
Princess Alexandra, 76 (male-line granddaughter of Kent)
Charles, Prince of Wales, 64 (son of the Queen)
The Duchess of Cornwall, 65 (through her marriage)
Anne, Princess Royal, 62 (daughter of the Queen)
Prince Andrew, Duke of York, 53 (son of the Queen)
Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, 49 (son of the Queen)
The Countess of Wessex, 48 (through her marriage)
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, 30 (male-line grandson of the Queen)
The Duchess of Cambridge, 31 (through her marriage)
Prince Harry of Wales, 28 (male-line grandson of the Queen)
Princess Beatrice of York, 24 (male-line granddaughter of the Queen)
Princess Eugenie of York, 22 (male-line granddaughter of the Queen)

Right now the only way for an HRH to be created is through the birth of a new HRH to Prince William or the marriage of either Prince Andrew or Prince Harry (or for Andrew to get married and then have children). Prince Harry's future children will only become HRH's if and when his father becomes king.

The only 2 people who it would make any sense to have the HRH removed from would be Beatrice and Eugenie, but to do so without addressing the HRHs of the Gloucesters and Kents can (and likely would) be seen as an insult to Andrew and his daughters. There is no point in removing the HRHs from either Gloucester or Kent, as the youngest person with one through those lines is 66. Why bother striping someone of a title that they've had for 40+ years and can't pass on? Similar can be said of the York girls - why bother striping them of a title that they can't pass on? So the royal family is 2 people smaller? It changes nothing.

Regardless of who currently has an HRH, the family is going to get smaller. There are 5 HRHs who we can safely assume will not be alive in the next 20 years, and another 4 who will definitely be pushing their life expectancy. Within 40 years, we can assume that 14 of the currently 19 HRHs will no longer be alive, and another (William) will no longer be HRH. That leaves 4 of the current HRHs. The only additions will be through the marriage of Harry, any children born to Harry or William, any wives of William and Harry's sons, and any male-line grandchildren born to William (or female-line heirs).

If we assume that William and Harry each have 2 sons, all who marry, and each of William's 2 sons have 2 kids each, then there'll be 13 additional HRHs, for a total of 17 HRHs. If Harry only has daughters then there would 2 fewer, and if William had an heir and a daughter, there would be 3 fewer - meaning that we can project an estimate BRF size of between 9 and 18 people by the time William is king (8-17 HRHs plus the monarch). That's natural shrinkage, no need to revoke any HRHs.

 

[Ish]

Iluvbertie, technically Andrew can pass on the HRH if he remarries and has more children (a possibility that can't be ruled out). Charles can't only because of the age of his wife, and Edward technically does, but his children don't use it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course Andrew could pass it on if he remarried. If Camilla died and Charles remarried a younger women so could he as could Edward but...

The only ones in the current circumstances are William and Harry as it is highly unlikely that Andrew would remarry.

I would love Andrew to remarry a woman young enough to give him a son but I don't think he would do so. Why a son?? Because Beatrice can't inherit York and I would love for him to be able to pass on the title of York to one of his descendents - and yes I know the history and how it hasn't happened since the 1400s. I just find it offensive that in this day and age a woman can't inherit a title on the grounds that she is a woman.

The situation with Edward's children is difficult as there are two interpretations 1) that because there were no LPs they are HRHs but not using them and 2) because all that is needed is for The Queen's will to be known and that happened they never had the HRH.

 

[Ish]

Of course Andrew could pass it on if he remarried. If Camilla died and Charles remarried a younger women so could he as could Edward but...

The only ones in the current circumstances are William and Harry as it is highly unlikely that Andrew would remarry.

I would love Andrew to remarry a woman young enough to give him a son but I don't think he would do so. Why a son?? Because Beatrice can't inherit York and I would love for him to be able to pass on the title of York to one of his descendents - and yes I know the history and how it hasn't happened since the 1400s. I just find it offensive that in this day and age a woman can't inherit a title on the grounds that she is a woman.

I agree with this completely and think that while they're hashing out the current changes to the succession laws they should look at the general inheritance of titles - although as non-royal hereditary nobles are no longer created, the idea might be to let the nobility die out through the lack of male heirs and the inability of female heirs to inherit titles.

When William was created Duke of Cambridge, was it established that only his male heirs could inherit, or could daughters inherit as well?

 

[Iluvbertie]

William's LPs were the traditional 'heirs male' which could lead to an interesting scenario - girl first, then boy and William dies before becoming King - Cambridge is inherited by the son who won't become King.

 

[Ish]

William's LPs were the traditional 'heirs male' which could lead to an interesting scenario - girl first, then boy and William dies before becoming King - Cambridge is inherited by the son who won't become King.

In which case Cambridge continues, something that no one is really expecting now.

It's similar to the idea that not all of the realms pass the changes to the succession laws, in which case if there's a girl first then a boy later there could be one Queen of the United Kingdom and a King of *insert Commonwealth country*. In theory, because of the Catholic provisions, we could get up to 4 or 5 monarchs if the various realms passed none, some, or all of the changes, or inserted their own changes, independently of each other, and William had enough children.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In which case Cambridge continues, something that no one is really expecting now.

It's similar to the idea that not all of the realms pass the changes to the succession laws, in which case if there's a girl first then a boy later there could be one Queen of the United Kingdom and a King of *insert Commonwealth country*. In theory, because of the Catholic provisions, we could get up to 4 or 5 monarchs if the various realms passed none, some, or all of the changes, or inserted their own changes, independently of each other, and William had enough children.

Actually that latter can't happen as the changes to the succession act doesn't take effect until passed in all the realms so if a girl first and then a boy and if one of the countries hasn't changed the law then it is still boy first everywhere - so even if this child is a girl it is still possible that a younger son will take precedence.

 

[Ish]

Actually that latter can't happen as the changes to the succession act doesn't take effect until passed in all the realms so if a girl first and then a boy and if one of the countries hasn't changed the law then it is still boy first everywhere - so even if this child is a girl it is still possible that a younger son will take precedence.

Ah, see it's been reported here that it is possible (although, I wouldn't hold my breath on newspapers being right).

There is a part of me that would enjoy the results of different succession laws, though.

 

[DukeOfAster]

I agree with this completely and think that while they're hashing out the current changes to the succession laws they should look at the general inheritance of titles - although as non-royal hereditary nobles are no longer created, the idea might be to let the nobility die out through the lack of male heirs and the inability of female heirs to inherit titles.

When William was created Duke of Cambridge, was it established that only his male heirs could inherit, or could daughters inherit as well?

the Queen issued letter of patents stating that the children of William would get HRH and be Prince or Princess. that is what I am looking at.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

History always repeats itself. And I see a lot of similarities between the current Royal Family and the one from the late XIX century, early XX century.

Queen Victoria was a long-lived Sovereign, with a long reign. She was succed by her son, King Edward VII, who was, himself, a old man at his ascension. He's reign was quite short, and his son and successor, King George V, alongside his wife, Queen Mary, reinvented the Monarchy, so, the Institution was able to survive through the XX century.

Queen Elizabeth II is a long-lived Sovereign (even older than Queen Victoria). Her Majesty will, probably, live as long as her mother (so she has about more 15-20 years on hold). King George VII's (or Charles III, wathever) reign will be a short one (10-15 years). Will be upon King William V and Queen Catherine to reinvent the Monarchy, so the Firm will be able to survive through the XXI century, and reach the XXII.

So, in my opinion, during his reign, the Prince of Wales will start to change somethings, but the great renovation of the British Monarchy will only happen during the Duke of Cambridge's reign.

I don't think the Prince of Wales will do any slimmig down, that will occur naturally, during the course of time.

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^^
Edward VII was succeeded by his son George V who was the monarch married to Queen Mary.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

^^^^
Edward VII was succeeded by his son George V who was the monarch married to Queen Mary.

Yeah, I got confused.

I corrected. Thanks.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The big difference between Edward VII and Charles is that Edward smoked heavily, ate and drank to excess so he died due to not taking care of his health.

Charles has always taken care of his heath and therefore stands a great chance of living to the same age as his parents - whatever age he becomes King a reign of 20+ years is still possible.

William has smoked, and probably still does only we don't see it. He has also been a heavy drinker in his youth. He hasn't taken the same care of his health as his father has and so stands a greater chance of not living to the great ages of his grandparents. Add to those listed he also spends a lot of time in the sun so skin cancer is also a possibility - and that can also be fatal (I hate seeing people with tans as it is a sign of an unhealthy person not a healthy one).

It is perfectly possible that William won't become King until the middle of the century unlike George V who was King 100 years ago.

 

[ladongas]

What Laura Bush had to say in her book,

"Spoken from the Heart" :

During the account of her rise from an oil town in Texas to the world stage, Mrs. Bush describes her unexpected encounters with global leaders and heads of state. Her meeting with the Prince and Duchess came in November 2005. ‘When Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, came to visit us,’ she wrote, ‘they requested glasses of ice before we began a long receiving line. The staff dutifully produced them, and the Prince removed a flask from his pocket and added to each a small splash of what I presume was straight gin, so that they might be fortified before the hour of shaking hands’,” Times writes, citing Mrs. Bush herself.

Wonder why he didn't just ask Laura for a couple of drinks?

I've never thought of Charles (or Camilla) as being particularly abstemious, at least not when they were a bit younger. He does seem the picture of health, although I wonder if he has rosacea.

 

[cepe]

"Spoken from the Heart" :

During the account of her rise from an oil town in Texas to the world stage, Mrs. Bush describes her unexpected encounters with global leaders and heads of state. Her meeting with the Prince and Duchess came in November 2005. ‘When Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, came to visit us,’ she wrote, ‘they requested glasses of ice before we began a long receiving line. The staff dutifully produced them, and the Prince removed a flask from his pocket and added to each a small splash of what I presume was straight gin, so that they might be fortified before the hour of shaking hands’,” Times writes, citing Mrs. Bush herself.

Wonder why he didn't just ask Laura for a couple of drinks?

I've never thought of Charles (or Camilla) as being particularly abstemious, at least not when they were a bit younger. He does seem the picture of health, although I wonder if he has rosacea.

I cant see what this has to do the Monarchy under Charles or how you've reached your final conclusion.

 

[ladongas]

I cant see what this has to do the Monarchy under Charles or how you've reached your final conclusion.

The post prior to mine compared the habits and lifestyles of various royals, pointing out Charles' healthy lifestyle. I've been reading about and seeing pictures of Charles (and Camilla) for many years. There is no doubt in my mind that they enjoy (or enjoyed) alcoholic beverages. And why not? Many adults do, and I'm not suggesting either of them drink to excess. In fact, the occasional drink is considered healthful by many medical professionals.
I wonder about rosacea because of his complexion.

 

[gerry]

The post prior to mine compared the habits and lifestyles of various royals, pointing out Charles' healthy lifestyle. I've been reading about and seeing pictures of Charles (and Camilla) for many years. There is no doubt in my mind that they enjoy (or enjoyed) alcoholic beverages. And why not? Many adults do, and I'm not suggesting either of them drink to excess. In fact, the occasional drink is considered healthful by many medical professionals.
I wonder about rosacea because of his complexion.

agree about complexion and is rosacea not exacerbated by alcohol? here is hoping that the prince of wales and his duchess take after his esteemed and much missed grandmother who quite enjoyed the odd tipple or threei

 

[cepe]

You obviously don't know much about this Prince. The Prince of Wales leads an outdoor lifestyle - that would account for his complexion. In all the years of people being negative about this man, no one has ever accused him of drinking too much.

 

[ladongas]

You obviously don't know much about this Prince. The Prince of Wales leads an outdoor lifestyle - that would account for his complexion. In all the years of people being negative about this man, no one has ever accused him of drinking too much.

Nor did I.

 

[cepe]

Nor did I.

I know you didn't. I was just underlining the fact that his complexion is about his outdoor lifestyle; not roseacea or alcohol.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

There was a similar topic like this on another message Forum (Except it more abput the furutre of the English Monarhcy). This is what I wrote:

Sorry for this long post. t I wanted to add some stuff

1. I like Prince Charles. I have always like him but I have came to like him more over the last few years especially during the Diamond Jubilee last Year. I like the Documentary (Family Videos) he did and the Tribute he paid to his Mother at the Jubilee concert you could tell that Queen Elizabeth got a little emotions (genuinely moved) but she held back. You could tell he love his mother and that there is special bond there. I think Charles will make a Good King and will do a Good Job, his private life (The Diana/Camilla thing) should not get in the way of it or should not stop him. He is not the first King and will not be the last to have affairs and make mistakes before they came to the throne or after acceding. There are King who did much worst things then Charles ever did! I am not trying to open up another can of worms but Diana had her faults as well and cheated also let not forget (Diana was nice person but I never understood why some made her out to be some saint). obviously they both had their faults but Some peoples need to move on and let it be history. Camilla seem like a decent person to me. I have came to soften up to her more but not totally. I think Charles will make a fine King when it his time. He was raise by two Great Parents (Queen Elizabeth and Philip) The Queen was raised King George VI and The Queen Mother (Elizabeth) who I am sure prepared Elizabeth before she became Queen and The Queen Mother no doubt had a influence of her daughter up until the day she died and mostly likely had the same influence on Charles in preparing him. Charles is most trained Ready King you could have in my opinion. He has had his whole life to prepare. Whether peoples like it or not Charles will be King when The Queen dies even if he is 64 or 77 or even if He is only King for 1 years or 20 years. it won't matter because Charles is next in line not William And the first in Line to the throne to succeeds which it state in the Succession Law of the Act of Settlement .


2. There are some resisting Similarities/Parallels with Elizabeth/Charles and Queen Victoria/Edward VIII. The Mother (Victoria and Elizabeth) Having Long rein spanning more then 60 Years and then their heir/Oldest Son (Prince of Wales Edward and Charles) Being Party Animals (Mainly Edward) and having Mistresses, their Actions, causing scandals and embarrassment for their Mothers and putting the Monarchy Image at risk. Victoria blamed Albert death on her Son Edward Pretty much did not give him anything to do at all and did not share any information with him and he was pretty much in the dark so he went out and had affairs and Partied which did not make his Mother happy at all (As well as his actions and Countless Scandals he caused which she believe that he was trying to ruin the Monarchy after she ahs spent Years restoring it) and she believe that he did not have what it took to be A King and did not think that he was suitable to be king She loved her Son but he disappointed her at times. She did Question his suitability. Many people in Britain did not want Edward VII To be King either and did not thing he was suitable enough part of it had to do with his many mistresses, Scandals and partying ways. But in the End when Edward VII Came to the throne he proved his Mother and The Peoples of Britain wrong and he became a Successful and Popular King! Edward VII said that in order for the Monarchy to survive into the 20th century it had to change and Re-form it self. Victoria and Edward had a Difficult Relationship and she wasn't sure about the Future after she wads gone but in the End I think she would be Happy with what Edward did.

Same thing can be said with Elizabeth and Charles who at times over the years have been said to have had Difficult periods in their relationship (Mainly during the whole Diana thing). Elizabeth not allowing Charles to marry who he wanted and then the whole Charles-Diana-Camilla story. Charles and Diana Marriage falling apart, Cheating on each other then going to the press and airing their dirty laundry to the public/press, books and Leaked Taped Phone calls come out threatening the Monarchy. It was found out that Charles Had been seeing camellia for the entire marriage, Diana gives the infamous interview in 1995. Queen Elizabeth was not happy at all with what Charles and Diana were doing (Cheating, Airing Dirty Laundry in public/Press, Trashing each other, Playing Blame game, etc). She then told them to divorce. Diana was killed in 1997 and The Royal Family was Harshly and Unfairly Criticize I think! I think the queen handled that right. Diana was made to look like a Saint and Charles was made to look evil. Peoples blamed Charles which is not fair. The Monarchy Images was almost ruined but it survived and recovered! A lot of peoples do not want Charles to be King mostly because of what happened in the pass and Camilla. It had caused some problems between Mother and Son at certain times. Elizabeth has given Charles more to do and let him go out o his thing but not a lot. Elizabeth (Like Victoria) had been said to question Charles suitability as a King at times but in the long Run I think she believes he will do okay. I think some also question Charles suitability as King(Like Edward) and pretty much when ask why they don’t want him to be King the Answer is because of Diana-Camellia. You have to better then that. Many, Many Kings over the years has affairs (Including Edward VII) and Beheaded their wives and they were still popular or successful. Charles will do good Job and Will make a King. He has been training for the job for more then 60 Years now and all you have to do is go back and look at what he has done. He will prove peoples wrong just like King Edward VII. Like Victoria Queen Elizabeth love her son but is not always happy at the choices he make or the things he does but I think every parent is like that at times.


3. think The British Monarchy will last for a long time. Charles will do a Good Job and William will be Popular. The British Monarchy in times of Controversy and Scandals always recovers and it image is never completely damaged or tarnished. It popularity may have dipped a bit at times but it always remains high and it recovers Eventually Like in the 1870s (Including what I said above about Edward and as well as the fact there was a Republican Movement going on in which Victoria became Unpopular because she would not be seen in public eventually she was forced to come out into the public and The Movement died down and Eventually she became very popular again) or in 1980s and 1990s with all the Scandals, Controversy, affairs, Divorces going on. The Popularity of the Monarchy has never fallen below 60% in the last 70 Years and today it still very Popular(Now above 75%) with lot of Support for it. Elizabeth is now more Popular then she has ever been( Much like Victoria was at the end of her rein) Charles Image has been improved. The British Monarchy is now Very Popular with strong supports and also stable again after the 1990s.

4. It would really take a Huge Scandal or a Massive Controversy or embarrassment to really knock down the British Monarchy and abolish it! The British Monarchy is still the Most Popular and famous Royal Family in Europe and in the World. It will be the last one standing of all the current Royal Families in the world( And Europe) and the last one to ever fall!

Remember they already abolished the Monarchy once in 1649 when Charles I was beheaded but was restored 11 Years later in 1660 with His Son Charles II.

Much Like Victoria-Edward VII-George V Which was In order Long rein, Short rein and Geroge V had a Long Rein (But still much shorter then victoria. Charles will be a short rein and William will be longer then Charles but much shoter then that of Elzbaeth.

 

[Ish]

While there are similarities between Edward VII and Charles, I wouldn't say that history is repeating itself.

Victoria came to the throne at a very young age after the short reign of her uncle, William IV. She did not save the monarchy, that can be attributed to her uncle, she just provided her nation (and empire) with a stability in the monarchy. I would even go so far as to say a lot of the early successes of her reign can be attributed to the influence of her ministers and husband - Victoria was a woman who allowed herself to heavily influenced by both - while in some way the continued existence of the monarchy during Victoria's later reign can be attributed to the then Prince Albert-Edward, who gave the monarchy a presence in the UK while Victoria was in perpetual mourning. The idea that Prince Albert-Edward would not be a good king himself came from the fact that he was a playboy prince who was not trained for the role of monarch. In actuality, his short reign was very successful and he did a lot to establish the monarchy (and royal duties) as we know them today. Far more than his mother, he can be seen as having saved the monarchy.

Like her predecessor, HM came to the throne at a young age, and when combined with her own good health, that age can be attributed to her long reign. She has proven to be much better suited for her role than Victoria was, and despite some scandals during her reign she had proven to be a good monarch. Her son, whatever his personal issues have been, has been shown to be the most well trained heir apparent in the history of the British monarchy. There is little reason to believe that he will be an unsuccessful monarch (in contrast to the reason to worry about the success of the then Prince Albert-Edward), nor should we expect that his reign will be short - or that the reign of his son will be longer.

Despite HM's recent health problems, there is little reason to believe that she will not reign for another 10-15 years (at which point she will be 97-102). Assuming she reigns for another 15 years, Prince Charles will be almost 80 when he becomes king, but there's no reason to believe his life won't be long either - at that point his mother will have lived to be over 100, like his maternal grandmother did, his father has so far lived into his 90s (presumably with years to come). We have no reason to believe that Charles himself won't live to be 100 as well, giving him a 20 year reign. Right now he is older than Edward VII was when he became king, and in better health.

We don't really have reason to believe that William will live as long as his paternal grandmother (or as long as we can expect his father to live). Yes, paternally William's family has been long lived, but both his maternal grandparents died before their 70th year. Furthermore, unlike his father, William has been a smoker and as such is less likely to have good health in his old age. If his grandmother lives another 15 years, then William will be 45 when his father becomes king, and if Charles rules for 20 years then William will be 65 when he becomes king. As he's lived life more like Edward VII did, I wouldn't expect his reign (at that age) to be longer than 15 years. If all of that happens, then by the time Baby Cambridge will be 50. If Baby Cambridge is anything in lifespan like the late Queen Mother and what we can project for HM and Charles, then perhaps Baby Cambridge will have an especially long reign of 50 years.

 

[blauerengel]

You obviously don't know much about this Prince. The Prince of Wales leads an outdoor lifestyle - that would account for his complexion. In all the years of people being negative about this man, no one has ever accused him of drinking too much.

Haha,well-said! The Prince obviously has sensitive skin and if you don´t use an oily cream outdoors you get red cheeks.I find red cheeks quite attractive but I am battling with rosacea because like Charles I spend lots of time in the nature and often forget to use my lanolin facial cream...
HRH is definitely NOT an alcoholic,he just loves to be outside and spend his time in a natural environment which is showing in his face.

 

[blauerengel]

While there are similarities between Edward VII and Charles, I wouldn't say that history is repeating itself.

Victoria came to the throne at a very young age after the short reign of her uncle, William IV. She did not save the monarchy, that can be attributed to her uncle, she just provided her nation (and empire) with a stability in the monarchy. I would even go so far as to say a lot of the early successes of her reign can be attributed to the influence of her ministers and husband - Victoria was a woman who allowed herself to heavily influenced by both - while in some way the continued existence of the monarchy during Victoria's later reign can be attributed to the then Prince Albert-Edward, who gave the monarchy a presence in the UK while Victoria was in perpetual mourning. The idea that Prince Albert-Edward would not be a good king himself came from the fact that he was a playboy prince who was not trained for the role of monarch. In actuality, his short reign was very successful and he did a lot to establish the monarchy (and royal duties) as we know them today. Far more than his mother, he can be seen as having saved the monarchy.

I agree with your observations of Q. Victoria´s reign but I would not attribute so much of her success to other people.Yes,she came at the right time and was in the right place,she had the luck of working with highly intelligent politicians and good advisors-but it was also her who chose to LISTEN to them and Victoria who sought out the best advice-this is also an acchievement and something that takes good instict,strategic thinking and intellect.

Nowadays I see many politicians with a lot of smart,educated and experienced advisors-but would they listen to them?
No!They mostly do what they think is the right thing to do or what they think will give them good PR and a good chance to get re-elected.
(Not applying to all politicians,but in Austria it seems to be quite the norm!)

Q Elizabeth II has also heavily relied on good advisors and always tried to get as much information as possible to make a well-informed decision-some ppl call her the best-informed person in the British Empire because she is always reading every newspaper and special reports that are sent to her in a red suitcase (it was shown in a documentary).

Prince Charles is more independent and relies more on his own instinct and intuition than his advisors-he is also not afraid of speaking his mind and saying things that are more controversial and get discussed heavily by the public.

On the contrary-both Queens tried to be balanced and as little controversial as possible.They wanted to have a stable,peaceful empire with content citizens and the most important thing was to smoothen conflicts of interests and balance different political ideas that could have made UK more unstable from within or lead to fractions within the Royal family.They are rather conservative & pragmatic while Charles is not afraid to think out of the box and risk doing things in a new way (which might fail),or finding a creative approach to problems that have yet to be solved.

At least that´s how I see it,but it´s just my personal observation.

 

[padams2359]

When Edward VII came to the throne, the people needed a little party in their king. The many gloomy years with QV were long. The people wanted happy times. KE was "the Uncle of Europe.". He lived at some of the best years of Monarchy in Europe, and died right before it almost all died.

 

[royal-blue]

When Charles is King, is he likely to continue to invite Princess Margaret's son and daughter and their families to Balmoral and Sandringham each year as his mum currently does, or is he more likely to focus on just his parent's descendents?

The Queen doesn't invite her own cousins, the Kents and Gloucesters.

 

[NGalitzine]

I expect there will eventually be changes in the guest list which is only natural I think with any change in generations and leadership. Even now I believe the Linleys and the Chattos are only at Sandringham for Christmas every second year.