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
 
  #1041  
Old 09-27-2012, 11:07 AM
Avicenna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North of Lake Constance, Germany
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I am still waiting to hear how having to work thorugh an unfortunate and difficult marriage in any way compromised his duty to the crown, if that is what you are alluding to. Shocking as it might appear, divorce unfortunately is not uncommon, and even the CoE appears to be reconciling with British society at large.

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

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

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 09-27-2012, 11:15 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
I'm a big fan of the Prince of Wales and think he will make a great king. I do feel one of his biggest challenges as king will be to protect the existing royal prerogatives. There are more than a few MPs who feel Charles 'talks too much' on certain government policies and these MPs may have revenge on their mind when Charles is king. I know the Labour party want the royals to be seen and not heard.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 09-27-2012, 11:16 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avicenna View Post
Well, it's not always divorce which is questionable.

I - personally - am a bit sceptical when I think of the treatment of Edzard Ernst, former professor at the University of Exeter, who performed research on alternative curing methods. Several years ago a panel - initiated by the PoW - examined the benefit of alternative medicine. Edzard Ernst was part of this panel. However, during the review of the final paper he was shocked and withdrew his backing only to find himself in the line of fire. Remember the TIMES-article questioning if the PoW exceed his constitutional rights?
Does that constiture dereliction of duty or compromise his dedication or commitment to crown and country?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 09-27-2012, 11:35 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Charles has not done anything, as far as I can recall, that casts any doubts on his ability to be a good Monarch. Certainly nothing that the public could lay down as a water-holding concern, in my opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, he's going to die on the throne, being my King. The least, it seems to me, that I can offer back, is support for the partner he has chosen to help him meet his duty to me. It came grudgingly, though, I do admit.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 09-27-2012, 02:51 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
If we measure someone's suitability for the role of monarch in terms of their achievements and conduct while heir to the throne, then Charles is simply in a different league to all his contemporaries. He has made a hugely positive contribution to the lives of his future subjects over his lifetime.

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

People seem to think that as soon as Charles becomes King he's going to have to become some sort of mute robot when faced with the problems and issues in this country, for fear of being accused of overstepping his bounds. As we've seen over the last few days with QEII, that's not the case. Charles will be able to discuss issues, advise and warn his ministers on any topic he wishes. The only difference is, he'll have to ensure that he does it during his one-to-ones with the relevant minister in charge. I don't see how that'll be much of a problem for him, given most of his 'meddling' at the moment comes via letters to ministers anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 09-27-2012, 03:53 PM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
I actually like that he "meddles". I don't want an automaton for a King and in his "meddling" I am given to understand that

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

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

YMMV
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 09-27-2012, 06:47 PM
Avicenna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North of Lake Constance, Germany
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Does that constiture dereliction of duty or compromise his dedication or commitment to crown and country?
Muriel, please forgive my poor english, but I am not sure if I understand your comment. Edzard Ernst believes that public health is at risk if politicians follow the advice of the above mentioned panel. For further information see: Edzard Ernst: The professor at war with the prince | Life and style | The Guardian It's hard to believe that the then principal private secretary of the PoW wrote this letter without the PoW knowing and thus endangering the position of Edzard Ernst.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 09-27-2012, 08:47 PM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avicenna View Post
Muriel, please forgive my poor english, but I am not sure if I understand your comment. Edzard Ernst believes that public health is at risk if politicians follow the advice of the above mentioned panel. For further information see: Edzard Ernst: The professor at war with the prince | Life and style | The Guardian It's hard to believe that the then principal private secretary of the PoW wrote this letter without the PoW knowing and thus endangering the position of Edzard Ernst.
Do you really think the Prince of Wales sees every single letter that's issued from his office? Of course not; if he did it would leave no time for him to do anything else.

The alternative medicines debate is complicated and cannot be summed up in a few sentences. Needless to say, there are educated and clever people on both sides of the argument, as well as very powerful interests involved here (the pharmaceutical industry included). From what I understand of this situation, Professor Ernst chose to take a DRAFT version of a report that one of the Prince's charities was working on, and went to the press ripping it apart despite the fact that it was unfinished. I seem to remember Professor Ernst chose to go after Prince Charles in a very personal manner, including calling him petty names. It's no surprise that his financial backers were uncomfortable with that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 09-28-2012, 05:14 AM
padams2359's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 388
Let's not forget the Queen became heir presumptive at about the age of 10, and monarch at 25. There was not much time to form an opinion. The information age had not arrived. Charles on the other hand has had decades of not being in a position where he has to keep his opinions under wraps. Had he never said anything to this point, he would have been viewed as dumb or unfit. I think neither are the case. Everyone's opinions change over time (or should) on any number of topics because of the new information received that support or dispute what we already believe.

It is the small changes, and things that do not change, that modernize the monarchy. Charles has given many interviews, the Queen has basically given none. William and Harry have joking complained about going to Highgrove because they have to dress for dinner, etc. That has not changed. This may seem unimportant, but all the little things add up to big things.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 09-28-2012, 05:24 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218

Yes. Well stated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 09-28-2012, 09:10 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
We also should be careful when we say that the Queen is apolitical or never expresses political opinions, which is simply not the case. Everything we do is political, every choice we make is political.

So, when the Queen act as a beater and trains her dogs to take part in the shoots at Balmoral or Sandringham, she's making a political statement by choosing to actively partake in a controversial sport. When she accepts hundreds of thousands of pounds of agricultural subsidies as part of the EU's bonkers Common Agricultural Policy, she puts herself in a tricky position because the British government are hugely opposed to and committed to massive reform of the CAP. When she said during a speech she gave for her Silver Jubilee, "I cannot forget that I was crowned Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", it sounds totally unremarkable, until you realise that she said this in the context of rising Scottish nationalism and demands for devolution. It was an overtly political statement, making clear for all to see that she did not support such moves.

The reason this has worked for the Queen is not that she is not political, but that she is not party political. There is a big difference between the two, and it is a difference which Charles has always respected.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 09-28-2012, 09:19 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218

This is a very important notation in the discussion, and the clarification is useful and informative. I will say, however, as a strictly semantic rebuttal, that she is apolitical in the most common/colloquial context of the word - to wit: having an unbiased political opinion. (source is Oxfords whose online version actually gives the example: Administration should be an apolitical tool of the government.)

Good point, in particular about the statement in her Silver Jubilee speech. Even those who are required to be apolitical due to a constitutional role, can find ways to make their personal views understood, if not known outright. It's all about the subtlety and appropriateness, I suppose.

Good post.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 09-28-2012, 09:27 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
The reason this has worked for the Queen is not that she is not political, but that she is not party political. There is a big difference between the two, and it is a difference which Charles has always respected.
Great comment. I'm going to stop posting and just agree with your comments.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1054  
Old 09-29-2012, 07:40 AM
Avicenna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North of Lake Constance, Germany
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIIR View Post
Do you really think the Prince of Wales sees every single letter that's issued from his office? Of course not; if he did it would leave no time for him to do anything else.

The alternative medicines debate is complicated and cannot be summed up in a few sentences. Needless to say, there are educated and clever people on both sides of the argument, as well as very powerful interests involved here (the pharmaceutical industry included). From what I understand of this situation, Professor Ernst chose to take a DRAFT version of a report that one of the Prince's charities was working on, and went to the press ripping it apart despite the fact that it was unfinished. I seem to remember Professor Ernst chose to go after Prince Charles in a very personal manner, including calling him petty names. It's no surprise that his financial backers were uncomfortable with that.
Alternative medicine - It's definitely a complicated matter. That's probably why I appreciate Professor Ernst's scientific approach. Whereas I dislike the promotion of products by using ones title/name only. Therefor, well done, Professor Ernst for raising awareness!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 09-29-2012, 08:32 AM
EIIR's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,621
Unfortunatley, Professor Ernst's actions have led to his being viewed by some in this debate as dogmatically determined to remain on one side of this argument, which means that as soon as some people see his name on an article or a piece of research, they simply decide that it's of questionable balance and objectivity. As has been proved countless times, the fact that he has the term 'Professor' in front of his name doesn't mean that the whole world must swallow what he says to be true. The tendency to do so in the 21st century has been referred to as 'the tyranny of the experts'.

Professor Ernst's running to the press and use of very personal insults against those with whom he disagrees, has actually done his argument (and the work of his now former colleagues) a disservice from what I can see.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 12-04-2012, 09:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
A royal historian's opinion

Why Charles should now stand aside: In a provocative salvo, eminent royal historian MICHAEL THORNTON says three heirs is one too many | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 12-04-2012, 09:36 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,905
So what if there will be three heirs?? When Queen Victoria was alive there were three heirs as well. George V too. The Windsors as a family tend to live a long time and this was bound to happen.

Prince Charles has a history of good and productive work as Prince of Wales. Despite his messy personal life he has made a difference in many areas...poverty and unemployment among Brit youth, architecture, organic farming.

The idea that he should now step aside in favor of his son and daughter-in-law who-quite frankly-have not demonstrated an especially strong commitment to anything meaningful-is just insulting.

The tabs are eager to have William and Kate on the throne because they sell papers, not because it would be best for Britain or the Monarchy.

The Daily Mail makes me sick...such a fawning rag.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1058  
Old 12-04-2012, 09:46 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
Charles is an easy target for the tabloids but imo its not fair to state , "The idea that he should now step aside in favor of his son and daughter-in-law who-quite frankly-have not demonstrated an especially strong commitment to anything meaningful-is just insulting."

W&C have been married a total of 19 months and William is currently serving full-time with the RAF
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1059  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:00 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 4,905
I see your point DoE and I do understand William's commitment to his military duties. But what about Kate's excuse? Her very light work schedule has been the talk of many message boards.

I am sure they are perfectly nice people but no. I don't think they are that impressive as a couple, and I certainly don't want Prince Charles shoved aside for them.

Charles isn't perfect but he has been a very diligent, committed Prince of Wales. He deserves to be King when his time comes.
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 12-04-2012, 10:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,178
I agree Charles will make a great king and I'm a big fan. The tabloids like to stir the pot ,but I disagree with your assessment of Catherine, her work load is perfectly in keeping with the couple's long-term plans, but to each their own and different opinions make the world go round.
__________________

__________________
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




Popular Tags
abdication belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:41 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]