The Monarchy under Charles

[milla Ca]

I do think that Camilla's legacy will be different with different generations.

Sorry, but don´t agree.
I´m sure the ´Diana/ Charles/ Camilla´ story, who seems to be so important for many today, will be more and more stand in the background for the coming generations.

Camilla´s legacy will be made in the years when she will be Queen. If the reign of King Charles will be successful, popular, great ( and i have no doubt it will be ) then the Queen by his site will play an important role ( like Prince Philip does it now or the late Queen Mother did it) and this time will write her legacy.

 

[brandon]

In the first place, his legacy as King begins when he becomes King, not in actions before that. His earlier actions might be part of his "life's legacy" or something like that in a broader view which biographers will deal with in the distant future. Other than that, a legacy doesn't come from issues surrounding marriages, so it's unfortunate for him that some people rush to mention that one way or another when they speculate about how history will judge him. All modern monarchs claim that they work for a better country and society, but it's really about how they carry out their constitutional role as the monarch, which is often more limited than their freer days when they were just the heir. His mother has respect from everybody, so if he can measure up to half of what she has achieved in respect earned then he will be doing well enough in his role already. A monarch isn't a pop star and doesn't require to be "adored" or any of these other things. "Caring"? Depends what you mean and what the reasoning is behind it. The main thing he needs to care about is to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner and that will be the best legacy he can achieve.

 

[milla Ca]

Of course your´re right when you say that ´the legacy of a King begins whe he becomes King´ but do you really think you can fade of 60 (and more years) of the Prince of Wales. His legacy will be always made of his life.
For me is ´to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner´not enough for a modern monarchy. A King/ Queen has to be today a ´people´s monarch´and be so much more than only a representer. It´s IMO the only way the monarchy can survive, and i´m sure Charles will go this way.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

I think, unfortunately perhaps, whatever legacy he leaves behind will be eclipsed for quite some time by the legacy of his mother. Look at Victoria as an excellent example of this; the only one of her descendants prior to EII that is even remotely remarkable in historical terms is the Duke of Windsor. And we all know how that turned out.

Charles is known for being outspoken, for being passionate, for even (gasp!) having political opinions and (shock!) saying them. All of that has to stop, immediately, as soon as he accedes to the throne. With good reason, of course; his duty at that point will be to be neutral.

I think his great legacy will really be William and (especially) Harry. Harry is in the enviable position of having power and prestige and an audience--and the ability to speak his mind. One hopes he will follow in his father's footsteps.

 

[Skydragon]

Of course your´re right when you say that ´the legacy of a King begins when he becomes King´ but do you really think you can fade of 60 (and more years) of the Prince of Wales. His legacy will be always made of his life.
For me is ´to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner´not enough for a modern monarchy. A King/ Queen has to be today a ´people´s monarch´and be so much more than only a representer. It´s IMO the only way the monarchy can survive, and i´m sure Charles will go this way.

You are right, everything that went before cannot and will not be dismissed. Of the many causes Charles will be remembered for, will be his support of organic farming, his calls for sustainable energy etc. People will remember that it was King Charles who started 'The Princes Trust', an organisation that has helped thousands of youngsters. Life doesn't stop and then restart when he becomes King.

I think his great legacy will really be William and (especially) Harry. Harry is in the enviable position of having power and prestige and an audience--and the ability to speak his mind. One hopes he will follow in his father's footsteps

I think that would be impossible to say at this stage. William is an unknown quantity, he could turn out to the another hate figure, it doesn't take much to turn the public against you. Look at Charles, he was the darling of the UK and Commonwealth at one time. There is no guarantee that Harry will not fall by the wayside again because of the prohibition of being a 'real' soldier.

 

[Elspeth]

As with Camilla, I don't think we can tell what sort of legacy he'll leave as King. His legacy as Prince of Wales looks to be pretty secure - he's made more of that position than most if not all of his predecessors, although I'm afraid that at least for the next few years his marital problems will dominate his legacy (although I don't see that situation lasting for the longer term). But his legacy as King? There are too many unknowns, IMO. Goodness knows what sort of situation he'll inherit - the way things are going, we could be in the middle of some sort of war, and that would make a great difference to his legacy compared with being King during peacetime. There could be a strong republican movement by then, especially if Australia, New Zealand, and/or Canada decide to get rid of the monarchy after the end of the Queen's reign and especially if Britain is in a major recession and the editors of the tabloid papers continue their vendetta against Charles and whip up people's feelings about subsidising a parasitic monarchy or whatever the excuse would be. It's also possible that the Commonwealth won't survive the Queen by very much. I think the world is in too turbulent a state to be able to project that far forward at this point.

 

[Monika_]

I should think one aspect of it would be his steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side, as Queen or as Princess Consort. It really doesn't matter, but that will be a large piece of the pie as for any analysis of his legacy is concerned.

 

[Skydragon]

I do think that Camilla's legacy will be different with different generations. For those who remember the 80's and 90's, Charles and Camilla's affair and Charles & Diana's marriage and divorce, Camilla will be known mostly as "the other woman", because, at that time, that's the most well-known thing she was. Of course, some will view her as a conniving homewrecker, while others will see her as a tragic figure.

For many who remember the 80's/90's, as time has gone by, they realise that they were being misled by the media. Many more were never taken in by the lies, so it is unfair, IMO, to say that's the thing she will be remembered for by most. Some of those that blamed Camilla for the breakup of Charles' marriage, have had a chance to experience live for themselves and realised that things are not always as clear as they thought. Of course Camilla was not in the public eye in the 80's anyway, it was during the Panaorama interview that she was brought into the marriage debacle, so we are talking a very short timescale.

For those in the generation who were born in the 90's and today, she will probably be known as the Prince of Wales' wife, and, when Charles succeeds the throne (allowing that he or Camilla do not predecease Queen Elizabeth), she will be known as the Princess Consort or Queen Consort, and for all of the good things she does, charities, etc.

Thats the silly thing, many who were born from '93 would not know the story anyway, only the snippets from mothers perhaps or the colouful books they are given to read. Therefore they will probably view Camilla as the woman married to a happy prince.

 

[Skydragon]

Sorry, but don´t agree.
I´m sure the ´Diana/ Charles/ Camilla´ story, who seems to be so important for many today, will be more and more stand in the background for the coming generations.

Yes indeed, apart from on here and presumably other forums, and the tabloids with their occasional attack, very few make comparisons between the two women or discuss the old Camilla/Charles/Diana/??? mess.

Camilla´s legacy will be made in the years when she will be Queen. If the reign of King Charles will be successful, popular, great ( and i have no doubt it will be ) then the Queen by his site will play an important role ( like Prince Philip does it now or the late Queen Mother did it) and this time will write her legacy.

Hear, Hear!

 

[ysbel]

All very interesting replies.

I agree with those who claimed that Charles' legacy as King would start when he becomes King. However I do see a way for his efforts up-to-date to put him in a better position to leave a legacy.

The issues that he has cared most about - the environment, alternative forms of energy - are now coming to the forefront of the general public's consciencenous. Right now because of gas prices, companies are seriously looking into alternatively fuelled cars. If this public attention is not just a fad but brings about some real change in how people lead their lives, then Charles could have been said to be on the forefront of a monumental change in public perception. It won't matter IMO whether he himself was instrumental in the change because people on the forefront get credit whether they played a major part or not.

If this new way of living becomes standard by the time he becomes King, then he can take steps to make Buckingham Palace more green and thus appear as he's just following in the steps of public opinion (ie, acting non-controversial) while all along people will know with Charles it won't be a public relations exercise because of his previous commitments.

Already because of the growing awareness of environmental issues, I've seen two non royalty focused articles that praise Charles for being ahead of the curve. No mention of his personal troubles was made in either article. That is not to say that people forgot his personal life, but it does appear for some that the environmental issue is important enough to focus on that entirely to the expense of his personal troubles.

If the number of people that care about this grows, Charles will become more relevant to the common man and the issue will become less and less controversial thereby letting Charles as King have greater influence.

Of course, as King, he will have to curtail his public statements but if the groundwork is already made, he won't have to say much.

 

[brandon]

He doesn't need to have steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side because she's been there in some degree since around 1984 at least. We could have another thread about the meaning of "steadfast" for some, but let's leave that aside here. He should be so lucky as to be considered to have a legacy that begins and ends with his actual reign, because the rest of it is too controversial and not the type of baggage to even want to be considered as part of a monarch's legacy, unless one is inclined to whitewash all of it. In fact, he's very much being given a chance to remake himself if people are fair enough to consider him on the merits of an actual reign than the rest of what's gone on. No one "hates" Charles, I think some people are projecting their own emotions into a question about legacy that if you really care about Charles is best confined to the way he carries out his role once it begins. "Modern" monarchy? I don't think that will begin until William is King. There are things he's decided to do as Prince of Wales that personally I agree with in the environmental sphere although these are not practicable for many if not most people as far as "organic". Elsewhere I've stated that I thought it was a good thing he wasn't going to those shameful Beijing Olympics, as the heir to the throne of a country which in fact will be attending the Olympics I think it was deliberate on his part. So there are social and political decisions he's made that I find commendable. It's not a black-and-white thing and few legacies are.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

Charles is also in very good health and has the genes of his grand-mother and both his parents who are into their 80s.

It is perfectly possible that he could live for 20 or so years after his mother and thus have a very good time to leave a legacy.

Edward VII's reign was so short, in my opinion, mainly because he didn't take good care of his body e.g. smoked way too much as well as ate too much and thus he died at 69.

In fact if you look back through Charles royal ancestors over the last 100 years (I don't know enough about the Queen Mother's family to comment) the main reason they haven't lived into their 80s seems to be associated with unhealthy practices such as smoking (or in the case of one great-grandfather getting assassinated) e.g. both grandfathers smoked heavily and died young.

A lot of people seem to think that Charles can't, or won't live to a ripe old age whereas I suspect that he will, and certainly hope so. I would love to see him have a reign of 20+ years and to do that he will have to live probably into his 90s.

 

[Al_bina]

...
If this new way of living becomes standard by the time he becomes King, then he can take steps to make Buckingham Palace more green ... [snipped]

I am not sure that it is possible to make the Buckingham Palace greener. It is a historical site, which is to be preserved for generations to come. I hope there will be no solar panels that will "uglify" this magnificent Palace.

[snipped] Elsewhere I've stated that I thought it was a good thing he wasn't going to those shameful Beijing Olympics, as the heir to the throne of a country which in fact will be attending the Olympics I think it was deliberate on his part. So there are social and political decisions he's made that I find commendable. It's not a black-and-white thing and few legacies are.

Does China really care about Prince Charles not attending the Olympic Games? I do not think so. The Chinese Government is fully aware of Prince Charles’s attitudes about the country. Chinese lean more towards practicality. The main point is that the Chinese authorities will do their best capitalizing on the situation by extracting donations and payments from Prince Charles’ Youth foundation in China.

 

[Skydragon]

I am not sure that it is possible to make the Buckingham Palace greener. It is a historical site, which is to be preserved for generations to come. I hope there will be no solar panels that will "uglify" this magnificent Palace.

The solar panels do not have to be on the roof, they can be at the back or a side. Lightbulbs could be upgraded, insulation made from sheepswool, all sorts of greener alternatives.

 

[Skydragon]

No one "hates" Charles, I think some people are projecting their own emotions into a question about legacy that if you really care about Charles is best confined to the way he carries out his role once it begins.

During the war of the Wales's, Charles was indeed a hate figure, for the most part that has faded away. Of course we are all giving our opinions, I don't see it as projecting emotion into it at all and even that would not alter a persons view of what his legacy may be. Just because it is different from yours, doesn't make it less valid. The comment of 'if you really care about Charles', has no place in this conversation, IMO.

As some of us have said, his legacy as Prince of Wales won't simply be discarded when he becomes King, it will all be bound together.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

The solar panels do not have to be on the roof, they can be at the back or a side. Lightbulbs could be upgraded, insulation made from sheepswool, all sorts of greener alternatives.

Actually, solar panels on the roofs are much more easily hidden than anywhere else.

Lightbulbs in most of the State areas in the Palace have already been replaced with highly efficient LEDs. I would imagine that Charles would attempt to put in some sort of greywater reclamation system, same as at Highgrove and Clarence House.

 

[fearghas]

...A lot of people seem to think that Charles can't, or won't live to a ripe old age whereas I suspect that he will, and certainly hope so.

I;m glad that you mentioned this because everyone seems to assume that the Queen will live for ages but not Charles. I've never understood their assumption as Charles has every liklihood of living into his 90s, especially as modern medicine has improved greatly since the Georges and Edwatds.

 

[fearghas]

I think, unfortunately perhaps, whatever legacy he leaves behind will be eclipsed for quite some time by the legacy of his mother. Look at Victoria as an excellent example of this; the only one of her descendants prior to EII that is even remotely remarkable in historical terms is the Duke of Windsor. And we all know how that turned out.

Incorrect I feel. George V will always be the WWI King, the one who turned his back on his German roots, created the house of Windsor and brought Great Britian through to victory. His legacy is very strong there. George VI reapraised the same role during WWII. He stood steadfast in his determination to bring Britain through that war. He is king of bthe second world war. Peopke may not remember their names, though many do, but they do know that of these Kings.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

I;m glad that you mentioned this because everyone seems to assume that the Queen will live for ages but not Charles. I've never understood their assumption as Charles has every liklihood of living into his 90s, especially as modern medicine has improved greatly since the Georges and Edwatds.

Men don't live as long as women do, on average.

 

[Elspeth]

He doesn't need to have steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side because she's been there in some degree since around 1984 at least. We could have another thread about the meaning of "steadfast" for some, but let's leave that aside here.

Good idea.

He should be so lucky as to be considered to have a legacy that begins and ends with his actual reign, because the rest of it is too controversial and not the type of baggage to even want to be considered as part of a monarch's legacy, unless one is inclined to whitewash all of it.

I don't think it's a matter of luck. His legacy as king will largely if not entirely begin and end with his reign. His overall legacy is a different matter, but that isn't the topic of this thread.

In fact, he's very much being given a chance to remake himself if people are fair enough to consider him on the merits of an actual reign than the rest of what's gone on.

In terms of his legacy as Prince of Wales, I don't see where anything very much needs to be remade. Between his causes and his charities, he's done more as Prince of Wales than most of his predecessors. The legacy of his personal life is a different matter, and I'm afraid for a while it's going to dominate, but it still doesn't negate everything he's done in his role as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall.

No one "hates" Charles,

Oh, some people do. We've had people show up here seething with hatred for him. The reason you aren't seeing it in the threads is that when people won't stop with the "he deserves to die a slow, painful death and I wish he'd die soon" stuff they don't tend to last long as members. People on both sides of the Charles-Diana debate can let their emotions rule their judgement.

 

[brandon]

I;m glad that you mentioned this because everyone seems to assume that the Queen will live for ages but not Charles. I've never understood their assumption as Charles has every liklihood of living into his 90s, especially as modern medicine has improved greatly since the Georges and Edwatds.

The fact is that medical science hasn't reached the point yet of being able to tell what diseases or disabilities are imprinted on an individual's DNA lifeline, or however we say it. Life is full of randomness, even once we know what our medical profiles are, so the true likelihood is that nothing will ever be advanced to the point of guaranteeing a long life. You can only improve the odds. So to say "every likelihood" is just as much as an assumption about the future as anything else.

 

[Monika_]

I understand your point, Elspeth, but IMO the word 'hate' is often attributed to those who perhaps simply don't 'respect' some of Charles' choices in life. Personally, I don't hate the man and I recognize that he has been forward-thinking in many respects. I just think some of his actions have harmed the monarchy. I don't think he has exemplified the level of self-sacrifice that HM has.

 

[acdc1]

For many who remember the 80's/90's, as time has gone by, they realise that they were being misled by the media. Many more were never taken in by the lies, so it is unfair, IMO, to say that's the thing she will be remembered for by most. Some of those that blamed Camilla for the breakup of Charles' marriage, have had a chance to experience live for themselves and realised that things are not always as clear as they thought.

I agree with you 100% in this fact. I did not like Camilla before, because I considered her a homewrecker, but when I read into the situation I saw that it was indeed misled by the media, and there were many other facts I had not considered as well (i.e. Diana's affairs). I've come to realize that Camilla really is a good person, and to me, her legacy will be based on much more than what happened twenty or thirty years ago.

 

[Monika_]

I agree with you 100% in this fact. I did not like Camilla before, because I considered her a homewrecker, but when I read into the situation I saw that it was indeed misled by the media, and there were many other facts I had not considered as well (i.e. Diana's affairs). I've come to realize that Camilla really is a good person, and to me, her legacy will be based on much more than what happened twenty or thirty years ago.

By chance, did you check the chronological order of the events involved before you came to this conclusion? Just wondering...

Camilla´s legacy will be made in the years when she will be Queen...

I respectfully disagree. A person's legacy does not start when they are 60+. It's a combination of what they have done and accomplished throughout their lives. To state that her legacy will be made when (if) she is Queen, seems to suggest that anything prior to that is insignificant.

...it was during the Panaorama interview that she was brought into the marriage debacle...

I believe Charles mentioned the subject in the Dimbleby interview in 1994.

 

[Mermaid1962]

And Morton certainly made very, very strong suggestions in the direction that Camilla was Charles' mistress.

I believe Charles mentioned the subject in the Dimbleby interview in 1994.

 

[Monika_]

And Morton certainly made very, very strong suggestions in the direction that Camilla was Charles' mistress.

Okay, agreed. But does the time and place of the revelation change the facts in any way?

 

[Winnie]

I think that time will certainly change people's opinion of Camilla. My parents thought that Mrs. Simpson was awful and destroyed Edward VIII and almost the crown -- my children think that Edward VIII was wonderful and mentality superior to take love over job he never really wanted just because he was born into that family -- me, I don't care either way.

Time changes people's opinion of history

 

[Winnie]

I understand your point, Elspeth, but IMO the word 'hate' is often attributed to those who perhaps simply don't 'respect' some of Charles' choices in life. Personally, I don't hate the man and I recognize that he has been forward-thinking in many respects. I just think some of his actions have harmed the monarchy. I don't think he has exemplified the level of self-sacrifice that HM has.

I really, really agree with you. I like Charles (especially now) but I do believe that he does not project any self-sacrifice -- not that it is his fault, due to his position in life -- but I don't believe that he [seems as] "strong" as his parents. The Queen's morals, character & respect from the entire world are second to none. She will be an almost impossible act to follow.

 

[udyusa]

Sorry but I don't believe that time or place changes anything. What happened happened, and History will not change the facts. Camilla was, and will always be, the mistress. It won't make her 'awful' but it Is a fact. Simple as that.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that her past will change. You're right in that she is what she is, and that is what she'll always be. But there's more to her than that, there's always been more to her than that and when she's Queen (and she will be), there will be more to her then.


Everyone screws up in life, she's no exception. No one should have behaved in this situation the way they did, but they did and that's that. But you can't keep her shackled to that all her life. You have to be willing to say "You've atoned, let's all move on" and get on with it. I think that's what people are saying. Her legacy when she's passed on should not be merely one sentence: "His Majesty's Mistress".