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
 
  #801  
Old 08-17-2011, 06:57 PM
princess-royal's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 08-17-2011, 07:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by princess-royal View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 08-17-2011, 07:37 PM
princess-royal's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 08-17-2011, 07:46 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by princess-royal View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 08-17-2011, 08:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,508
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 08-17-2011, 09:21 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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 . . . . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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/cont...0pack_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.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 08-17-2011, 09:38 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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/cont...0pack_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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 08-17-2011, 09:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
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.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 08-17-2011, 10:42 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 08-18-2011, 12:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495


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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 08-18-2011, 01:27 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post


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.
Actually when we stop and think about it, as the Prince of Wales, other than fulfilling royal duties and at times, filling in for his mother, Charles is really not required to do anything outside of that. He's not jet setting around the world on lavish vacations 10 times a year nor has he actually ever been a womanizer and a playboy with mega scandals to his name. He's not pontificating about the political issues of the day but rather expressing views on what would benefit the people as a whole. AND he backs it up with action through his Prince's Trust foundations, his own work with Highgrove and in the many visits he makes all over to be a part of what he's trying to put in action.

This man is an author, a painter, a farmer, very literate in music and art and an orator to boot. He's taken what he knows and has learned and found ways to try and apply them in ways not to benefit himself, but his people and the world around him.

If and when he does ascend the throne, this man will be one that knows intimately who his people are and what their situations are by the years of experience he's had actually working with them and for them.

Good griefs... sounds like someone I'd like to nominate for the presidency of the US. We need someone like him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:13 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
This man is an author, a painter, a farmer, very literate in music and art and an orator to boot. He's taken what he knows and has learned and found ways to try and apply them in ways not to benefit himself, but his people and the world around him.

If
Unfortunately I feel that this is the very reason why so many people dislike him. There are many people who don't like those who are good at or know things, especially when it has nothing to do with sport, pop music or movie stars.
Charles has spent so much of his time actually achieving things, not bad for someone who doesnt actually have to do anything.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
I might be wrong but dodn't the Queen actually express her dislike of the proposed/actual cuts to the military. If she did then that is an actual example of the queen acting on a political issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 08-18-2011, 06:14 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
I might be wrong but dodn't the Queen actually express her dislike of the proposed/actual cuts to the military. If she did then that is an actual example of the queen acting on a political issue.
You are correct. HM did voice her concern at the proposed cuts to the military. It must have been really bad and very important to her for her to have done such a thing. She would not have taken such a step lightly.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 08-18-2011, 11:53 AM
Daria_S's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: My own head, United States
Posts: 7,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually when we stop and think about it, as the Prince of Wales, other than fulfilling royal duties and at times, filling in for his mother, Charles is really not required to do anything outside of that. He's not jet setting around the world on lavish vacations 10 times a year nor has he actually ever been a womanizer and a playboy with mega scandals to his name. He's not pontificating about the political issues of the day but rather expressing views on what would benefit the people as a whole. AND he backs it up with action through his Prince's Trust foundations, his own work with Highgrove and in the many visits he makes all over to be a part of what he's trying to put in action.

This man is an author, a painter, a farmer, very literate in music and art and an orator to boot. He's taken what he knows and has learned and found ways to try and apply them in ways not to benefit himself, but his people and the world around him.

If and when he does ascend the throne, this man will be one that knows intimately who his people are and what their situations are by the years of experience he's had actually working with them and for them.

Good griefs... sounds like someone I'd like to nominate for the presidency of the US. We need someone like him.
Well put! And yes, some politicians ought to take a leaf out of His Highness's book and actually pay attention to what the people need and are looking for. He'll be a very good monarch when the time comes.
__________________
"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
  #816  
Old 08-18-2011, 02:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi
Good griefs... sounds like someone I'd like to nominate for the presidency of the US. We need someone like him.
Yes, we need a dilettante adulterer who has not held a job outside of his royal duties in decades. Much better than a Harvard trained attorney who ascended to the presidency without connections and due only to merit.

Yes, the person who believes people should not aspire to go beyond their station in life would be a great president. But then, he would need to be elected. Do you think Charles would deign to grovel for votes and act in such a base republican manner?

:-)

Please take this in jest.

Charles seems like a normal well rounded man who understands that he has a job to do and that the future of the monarchy depends on him doing it well.

That said, I do think that he and Camilla show real warmth and compassion. The photo of the Tottenham woman hugging him was extraordinary and would have been unimaginable years ago. Still, it goes too far to attribute to him the qualities necessary to lead a nation in any real sense or to function outside of a world where his greatest achievement was simply being born.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 08-18-2011, 03:20 PM
Bundtrock's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Irving, United States
Posts: 46
"
21st century

The monarchy currently remains secure in the United Kingdom with MORI Polls in the opening years of the 21st century showing support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 70% of people.[4] In 2005, during the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped slightly with one poll showing that only 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic.[4] In 2009 an ICM poll, commission by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know.[5] In the wake of the 2009 MP's expenses scandal, a poll of readers of the Guardian and Observer newspapers placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54%, although only 3% saw it as a top priority.[6]
In February 2011, a YouGov poll put support for ending the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth's death at 13%, if Prince Charles becomes King.[7] However, an ICM poll shortly before the royal wedding suggested that 26% thought Britain would be better off without the monarchy, with only 37% "genuinely interested and excited" by the wedding.[8]"


Republicanism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My thoughts;


Without question, whether Charles should become King, whether the Monarchy should continue, is solely a question for the British people to decide. IF I am understanding these polls correctly, roughly 70% favor retaining the Monarchy at this time. That is a SOLID, SUPER MAJORITY, so until that changes it would seem the British people have settled the question.


Likewise, with The Act of Settlement and hundreds of years of precedent, if Charles is alive when Her Majesty receives her eternal reward for a job well done, he WILL be King, period.
__________________
Camilla Bundtrock
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 08-18-2011, 05:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by fascinator View Post
Yes, we need a dilettante adulterer who has not held a job outside of his royal duties in decades. Much better than a Harvard trained attorney who ascended to the presidency without connections and due only to merit.
Why hasn't he had a 'real' job for decades? Because he was expected to give up the job he had in the navy to do royal duties - otherwise he would have remained in the navy for decades longer. That comment was simply uncalled for - due to being born who he was he wasn't allowed to have a paid job after his mid-late 20s but had to support his mother.

I think a Cambridge education the equal of Harvard - so Charles and Obama do have a similar education standard.

Although there are no reports of adultery from Obama there have been a number of presidents who have also committed adultery - a certain Mr Clinton comes to mind.

Quote:
Yes, the person who believes people should not aspire to go beyond their station in life would be a great president. But then, he would need to be elected. Do you think Charles would deign to grovel for votes and act in such a base republican manner?
If you had actually read what he said he said that people should realise that not everyone has the ability to do everything - and his staff member took it to be exactly as you have done.

What he said was that not everyone can reach the top - e.g. not every child can be a doctor - they haven't got the brains for it - and they should realise that at some point in their lives.

A man who is a realist actually.

No Charles wouldn't grovel for votes - because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all - but he has to take up that role when the time comes and will do so. He didn't choose to do so but having been born into the role he has spent his entire life preparing for it by serving the nation - unlike elected politicians who only go into the role for themselves. If you believe a politician has any other motive than personal aggrandisement then I am afraid you are living in dreamland.

Quote:
:-)

Please take this in jest.

Charles seems like a normal well rounded man who understands that he has a job to do and that the future of the monarchy depends on him doing it well.
I think when you insult a future Head of State who has worked hard at what he does for 40 years then you can't be taken in jest.

Quote:
That said, I do think that he and Camilla show real warmth and compassion. The photo of the Tottenham woman hugging him was extraordinary and would have been unimaginable years ago.

It would have happened years ago as well - it did at different times throughout his time as PoW because he has always genuinely cared for the people in these situations and has done more to help them personally than any government - as attested by his Princes' Trust and its work in these areas and he is going to increase that work now - both through the trust and his own pocket.

[quote[Still, it goes too far to attribute to him the qualities necessary to lead a nation in any real sense or to function outside of a world where his greatest achievement was simply being born.[/QUOTE]

He most certainly has the qualities necessary to lead a nation - whatever they may be. He has compassion and a love of his country. He has an education. He has been at the centre of its life for his entire life. He is the best prepared future leader anywhere - due to the time he has had to prepare and to learn.

Because he was born who he was he has had no say over his life's eventual ending but he has carved a role for himself while he waits for his mother to die. He could have sat back and collected stamps and shot things (as George V did) or he could have shot things, gone to nightclubs, gambled, changed his mistresses as often as his socks, drunk and eaten to excess (as Edward VII did) but he didn't follow those examples. He worked to create a legacy - the Prince's Trust - he got involved in the nation in a real sense and has always tried to make a difference. That is what a leader does and he has done it consistently.

He made one bad decision - he married the wrong women 30 years ago and since then many people have written him off. That is so unfortunate for him as he has done so much good but all a lot of people want to judge him on was that awful decision to put duty to his country first and marry Diana.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 08-18-2011, 07:27 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 163
This is baffling. I was responding to a post that Charles would make a good president. I did not agree. You apparently did agree, yet you expend a great deal of ire and verbiage to ultimately agree with my conclusion ("because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all")
The most important quality of a leader is that she LEADS, and if she has no desire to lead, then she is not suited to lead and she therefore lacks the qualities necessary to lead a nation. So, apart from the blustering indignation, doesn't your post just affirm what I originally said?
  • I wasn't comparing Cambridge to Harvard. My point was that Obama gained admission to schools based on merit. You know quite a bit about Prince Charles, so you can compare and contrast this as you wish and come to your own conclusions.
  • I did read Prince Charles's memo. Quite a number of people agree with my reading of it, though there are differing views: Has Prince Charles got ideas above his station? - Education News, Education - The Independent While the views he expressed are open to interpretation, it would be unreasonable to say that my summary of his statements did not closely correspond to the logical and prevailing interpretation of what he wrote in the memo. I would allow that his intended meaning may have been different.
  • I don't believe Prince Charles had the option of sitting back and doing nothing all of these years. It is not the example his mother set for him, not what the BP would have stood for and finally, dare I say, not in his nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why hasn't he had a 'real' job for decades? Because he was expected to give up the job he had in the navy to do royal duties - otherwise he would have remained in the navy for decades longer. That comment was simply uncalled for - due to being born who he was he wasn't allowed to have a paid job after his mid-late 20s but had to support his mother.

I think a Cambridge education the equal of Harvard - so Charles and Obama do have a similar education standard.

Although there are no reports of adultery from Obama there have been a number of presidents who have also committed adultery - a certain Mr Clinton comes to mind.



If you had actually read what he said he said that people should realise that not everyone has the ability to do everything - and his staff member took it to be exactly as you have done.

What he said was that not everyone can reach the top - e.g. not every child can be a doctor - they haven't got the brains for it - and they should realise that at some point in their lives.

A man who is a realist actually.

No Charles wouldn't grovel for votes - because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all - but he has to take up that role when the time comes and will do so. He didn't choose to do so but having been born into the role he has spent his entire life preparing for it by serving the nation - unlike elected politicians who only go into the role for themselves. If you believe a politician has any other motive than personal aggrandisement then I am afraid you are living in dreamland.



I think when you insult a future Head of State who has worked hard at what he does for 40 years then you can't be taken in jest.

It would have happened years ago as well - it did at different times throughout his time as PoW because he has always genuinely cared for the people in these situations and has done more to help them personally than any government - as attested by his Princes' Trust and its work in these areas and he is going to increase that work now - both through the trust and his own pocket.

He most certainly has the qualities necessary to lead a nation - whatever they may be. He has compassion and a love of his country. He has an education. He has been at the centre of its life for his entire life. He is the best prepared future leader anywhere - due to the time he has had to prepare and to learn.

Because he was born who he was he has had no say over his life's eventual ending but he has carved a role for himself while he waits for his mother to die. He could have sat back and collected stamps and shot things (as George V did) or he could have shot things, gone to nightclubs, gambled, changed his mistresses as often as his socks, drunk and eaten to excess (as Edward VII did) but he didn't follow those examples. He worked to create a legacy - the Prince's Trust - he got involved in the nation in a real sense and has always tried to make a difference. That is what a leader does and he has done it consistently.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 08-18-2011, 07:55 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
[QUOTE=fascinator;1304800]This is baffling. I was responding to a post that Charles would make a good president. I did not agree. You apparently did agree, yet you expend a great deal of ire and verbiage to ultimately agree with my conclusion ("because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all") [/qutoe]

The Queen is the same - would prefer to be a countrywoman but due to her birth realises that she as to be a leader and she has done that fabulously well for nearly 60 years but that doesn't mean it is what she wanted to do all her life.

Charles is the same - not choosing to be a leader but accepting that that is his role in life and done the best he can to prepare for that role.


Quote:
The most important quality of a leader is that she LEADS, and if she has no desire to lead, then she is not suited to lead and she therefore lacks the qualities necessary to lead a nation. So, apart from the blustering indignation, doesn't your post just affirm what I originally said?
You are looking at the situation from the point of view of people like you and I who can make that choice but not from the point of view of people who were born to lead - and the upper classes in Britain for generations have been raised to believe that that is their role - that being a leader is the responsiblity of those born to great privilege - so for the Queen and Charles being a leader wasn't something they chose but something they were raised to do and something they have accepted as their role in life


Quote:
  • I wasn't comparing Cambridge to Harvard. My point was that Obama gained admission to schools based on merit. You know quite a bit about Prince Charles, so you can compare and contrast this as you wish and come to your own conclusions.
You stated you would prefer to have a Harvard educated leader and I simply pointed out that Charles is Cambridge educated (and yes his results wouldn't have guaranteed anyone else a place there but his degree was earned on merit and to suggest otherwise is to further your insults heaped on Charles)

Quote:
  • I did read Prince Charles's memo. Quite a number of people agree with my reading of it, though there are differing views: Has Prince Charles got ideas above his station? - Education News, Education - The Independent While the views he expressed are open to interpretation, it would be unreasonable to say that my summary of his statements did not closely correspond to the logical and prevailing interpretation of what he wrote in the memo. I would allow that his intended meaning may have been different.
What he actually said “What is wrong with people nowadays? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far above their capabilities? - clearly expressing the idea that people need to realise their limitations. I see kids every year thinking that they are going to be doctors and lawyers and then they are devastated when they don't get into that course because they haven't believed their teachers who tell them they won't get the marks - that is all that he is saying - not that people shoudn't strive to reach the top but that people should be able to realise that they aren't all capable - unfortunately a lot of people - many in the link you quoted - didn't read the actual words and took the word 'capablities' to mean 'station' - two very different words. He went on to blame the fact that children aren't tested and told what those academic limits are - or what other limits they have e.g. we had a student at my school a number of years ago who went through the entire 'leadership course' we run but when the crunch came none of the teachers or his peers elected him to a prefects position because he simply wasn't cut out to be a leader for a lot of personal reasons - his parents protested to the school and tried to sue the school for not electing him to a prefect position - Charles would say that that was a person not realising their capablitilites - not saying he shouldn't have tried out to be a leader but should have accepted the fact that he wasn't one and simply moved on with life.

Quote:
  • I don't believe Prince Charles had the option of sitting back and doing nothing all of these years. It is not the example his mother set for him, not what the BP would have stood for and finally, dare I say, not in his nature.
The last sentence is the crucial one - it isn't in his nature to do nothing - his education and upbringing had been about service and so he has served but had his nature been different then there wouldn't have been a lot that anyone could have done about it e.g. William has already gone against the plans for his life with his extension of his military career - he was supposed to have already been doing full-time royal duties for about two to three years but he said 'no thanks' and I do suspect that he might even do another extension in 2013 (which he has already intimated) - Charles could have done the same thing in the 70s and fought to remain in the navy or have simply stayed at Highgrove and done little and what could anyone really have done - with the system of inheritance if he hadn't appeared in public since say 1975 but had remained at Highgrove talking to his trees he would still be the heir to the throne.

His get up and go is absolute proof of leadership - he set up the Prince's Trust and has overseen its operations for years - evidence of leadership abilities of course - but let's not let the truth get in the way of a false belief.
__________________

__________________
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
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:01 AM.

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]