The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see the little debate on Mistress Camilla has erupted again. For those who aren't aware of it, Camilla has been married for three years now. It's very unfortunate to see that this subject is the only some seem to remember of. I hope it's not another attempt to start a CCD fight :whistling:

TheTruth
British Forum Moderator.
 
Last edited:
Are we really going down this path again?

Time to distract everyone with the new, extra-cute smilie: :hamster:
 
Camilla's legacy is not set in stone. I dislike the idea that she is going to be remembered as the mistress or the wife. Human beings are so complex I hate it when people put others in a box. The wife, the mistress, etc etc. She had had her good moments and her bad ones. Poor judgment and good judgment. No one is just one thing. Her legacy, for those that value the complexity of human life and experience will view her as many things and not just one thing or one period in her life. :)
 
Prince Charles has done more than just marry two women-and some individuals believe that the extent of his legacy is tied up to just those two events then I truly feel sorry for those persons. Let's look at Charles' legacy for a moment--he has founded about 16 charities--THe Prince's Trust, for example. He is patron of hundreds of charities--and he is dedicated to becoming environmentally responsible. I truly believe his efforts will one day garner him a Nobel nomination, if not prize. I think we should look at that.
 
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.

While that's true, I was talking about the people who come to this forum (to say nothing about going to other forums and blogs where such things are treated more leniently than they are here) to salivate about the prospect of Charles dying before his mother, preferably in as painful a way as possible. Believe me, I know the difference between lack of respect and virulent hatred, and I've seen virulent hatred directed toward Charles.
 
Prince Charles has done more than just marry two women-and some individuals believe that the extent of his legacy is tied up to just those two events then I truly feel sorry for those persons. Let's look at Charles' legacy for a moment--he has founded about 16 charities--THe Prince's Trust, for example. He is patron of hundreds of charities--and he is dedicated to becoming environmentally responsible. I truly believe his efforts will one day garner him a Nobel nomination, if not prize. I think we should look at that.


Welll he should have done more than just marry two women having lived to sixty odd years and had plenty of time on his hands to do other things. What he's done as Prince of Wales over a many years is a different matter than what he might do as King which is a different topic entirely. Just the Nobel Prize? Not a request to the Pope for canonization?:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
Good idea.



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.

I never said it was "a matter of luck". I said she was luck-y that anyone was willing still to withhold judgment about the legacy of his reign until it actually begins. One would expect him to be involved with charities and causes all these years because that's just about mandatory that heirs to thrones spend much of their time prominent in those things Especially and exactly because he didn't want a comparison drawn between himself and Edward VII as Prince of Wales. I wasn't the one trying to discuss his overall legacy nor his legacy as Prince of Wales. The rest of what you have to say in this post has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. so I won't answer it. And I've read plenty of boards too, so I know what the truth is.
 
Men don't live as long as women do, on average.

True but why?

Historically it is because of wars killing them at younger ages, along with the type of work they did.

For most women, childbirth and disease were the main reasons for early deaths whereas men had to face other dangers thus resulting in a shorter life expectancy. Once a woman passed her childbearing years her chances of a long life increased markedly throughout history. Men, however, didn't stop doing the things that killed them in their mid-late 40s and therefore still had a higher chance of dying younger than woman.

Even today more men die in car and work related accidents and other 'dangerous' activities resulting in lower life expectancy than women.

Average life expectancy is based on the whole population not on individual cases and Charles is no longer doing the more dangerous aspects of his life e.g. the 'action' man activities of his youth. As a result his healthy diet and lifestyle are increasing his chances of living to a very old age.

His genes point that way as well - both parents are in their 80s so there is a very good chance that Charles will also live as long as his mother and even longer.
 
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.

Charles is increasing the likelihood though through his healthy lifestyle.
 
And I've read plenty of boards too, so I know what the truth is.

One would think such conviction quite frivilous.

Because 'we' read a variety of boards, does not then mean 'we' are provided with an entirely fastidious account of what actually happens in the lives of those we speak of.

We are (the majority of, I'd profess to say) all people on the outer and our discussions rely largely on opinion, with the occasional biographical extraction thrown in for good measure of accuracy. Or some degree of.

In the pursuit of truth, a royal forum wouldn't necessarily be the first port of call..hehe.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. But on the other hand, everybody who's been here for a while knows that this board is the one where you can find TheTruth anyway.:D
 
I just wish that I could get the "Tampax" episode out of my head, then I could be far more objective.
I tried, I can´t, so I must leave the "Admire Charles" thread.
 
This is the Charles's legacy thread, not the Admire Charles thread.
 
I just wish that I could get the "Tampax" episode out of my head, then I could be far more objective.
I tried, I can´t, so I must leave the "Admire Charles" thread.

You don´t have to leave, because i´m sure the so ´human sides´ of Charles ,will play an important role when later people judge about his legacy.
 
This is the Charles's legacy thread, not the Admire Charles thread.

Thanks for beating me to it. No, I didn't mean to start an Admire Charles thread. He's done a few things I don't admire but isn't that true of everybody in the public sphere? I also didn't want to start a thread speculating whether Charles would live long enough to leave a legacy because this would make the thread rather pointless and there is already a thread about that.

To answer monika's point about self-sacrifice, I do think Charles has shown self-sacrifice in the way that royals have historically shown self-sacrifice - in public. The Queen herself defined self-sacrifice and taking the job that was handed to you and doing it for the best of your ability with a sense of purpose for the rest of your life and I think that Charles has done that. No one can accuse him of just going through the motions of his duties as Prince. Even with his first marriage, he married the right sort of girl that was expected of him, treated her position with respect while in public, carried on with his royal duties as many and as few as the Queen as monarch has given him. In that way, he has been very traditionally self-sacrificing as a royal, although I guess there were times when he wished that he had never made that 'perfect' marriage.

Of course, I think no one can show the self-sacrifice that the Queen has but then that means Charles, Anne, Andrew, Diana, Sarah , William, Harry, etc. The Queen was raised with the sensibilities of the generation before her and with each generation the sense of self-sacrifice does seem to diminish. Charles and Anne show more responsiblity to their positions IMO than Diana and Sarah did and Diana showed more responsibility than William and Harry do.
 
For those who aren't aware of it, Camilla has been married for three years now.
Three years and three months!:lol::flowers:

Camilla's legacy will include her charity work and of course the support of Charles, as a man, Prince and King. As a mother and a stepmother to William and Harry, she will be remembered as having supported them in their personal lives, Royal lives and their charitable endeavours. She will probably be remembered as a doting grandparent to all her grandchildren, royal or commoner. :flowers:

:hamster: :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
I do see as problematic some of his outspoken statements because that is part of his personality. That's why I said that if the environmental movement becomes part of everyday life for most people, he will have lucked out in his views on the environment. Once the majority of the public accepts a certain view, it no longer is controversial to express them.

Actions like a public distancing from the China Olympics would be hard to do as monarch. As Head of State, the monarch is the representive of Britain towards all other sovereign states, even China.
 
I have read a book called "Break the cycle" which just stated that Prince Charles will be always praised for him supporting the disadvantaged and then his sense of community services. In an other book, "the radical prince" which covers Prince Charles's ideas in all fields and even try to integrate these ideas into a interrelated network which covers many areas of our daily life: health, built environment, agruiculture, culture, religion and etc.

I put Prince's charities as his greatest legacies because not only himself intiatiated these charties but they cover different fields. For most public, his most famous charity organisations will be Prince's trust and business in the commuities and his environmental initiatives. However once people are allowed to have some specialised area understanding,they will gradually see Prince Charles' unque views in various fields from medical to agriculture, from education to art... He will be rememebered as a man with mutiple talents...Prince Charles will be regarded as a sustainable and philosophy prince.

I think Prince Charles will play a role who tries to bridge different religions into a multi-cultural society which allows more openess, friendliness and tolerance among religions and different culture.... Until now, Islamic culture and western civilised cultures seemed to be his focus. However he may play a role to bridge western cultures and eastern cultures...this time India cultures and Chinese cultures as representives....
 
Last edited:
Of course Camilla will be remembered as a doting step-grandparent to Diana's grandchildren.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
{response to deleted posts removed - Elspeth}

Charles is a popular speaker on a variety of subjects, many that were seen as 'weird' and although these will have to stop, I remain of the opinion that the work he has done as Prince of Wales will form part of his legacy as King. In the years to come, I believe his subjects will see him as a caring monarch and a hard working one.

Most of us seem to be talking about his charity work being part of his legacy in one way or another, how many can name 10 or so charities that HM is actively involved in?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welll he should have done more than just marry two women having lived to sixty odd years and had plenty of time on his hands to do other things. What he's done as Prince of Wales over a many years is a different matter than what he might do as King which is a different topic entirely. Just the Nobel Prize? Not a request to the Pope for canonization?:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

As King I would imagine that the things which he has been passionate about would continue to be important to him--so it isn't likely that he will suddenly give up the charities he founded--all 16--or the charities of which he is patron--about 350 or so, nor will he suddenly not care about the environment. What he has done as the Prince of Wales will not fall by the wayside once he is King and I think it is inconceivable and a little naive to only look at what he will do as King. Elizabeth II became Queen quite young and never had the chance to cultivate interests as Princess Elizabeth. Charles has had the chance to develop mature, passionate interests which I am certain he will continue to address and support once he ascends the throne.
 
Last edited:
Henry VIII is mainly remembered for having 6 wives and beheading two. The Church matter seems to come after that.
Prince Charles perhaps will be remembered for having a mistress and making her Queen. Perhaps that will be the first memory of him in the future. Unfortunate but very probable.
 
Henry VIII is mainly remembered for having 6 wives and beheading two. The Church matter seems to come after that.
Prince Charles perhaps will be remembered for having a mistress and making her Queen. Perhaps that will be the first memory of him in the future. Unfortunate but very probable.
The difference is that Charles was only married to his first wife for a relatively short time and that at a time he was merely a Prince. Henry was married as King each time. Already there are people that only know Camilla as his wife and there will presumably be many more by the time he is King.
 
And still ...I would say that Menarue is correct. The very first thing, which will come to other generations, will be the war of Wales, and then all other good things he did during his lifetime as Prince or King.
 
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.

I don't think there is anything "simple" about the whole story of Charles' first marriage, nor about his enduring relationship with his now-second wife. There are very few details about either story (and still more details which overlap into the other) which are gray and immensely complicated. That is why there are so many opinions about it. That is why people still have debates about it. Because one person's conjecture is Bs to another person. And there so many lies, half-truths, and unaccountable gossip in the pot. The one thing that is 100% certainty is that all three of the principal characters were human, with all the attendant human weaknesses, blindness, and egos. And so the lesson or moral, if you will, I suppose, is that all three deserve our compassion and graciousness.
 
And still ...I would say that Menarue is correct. The very first thing, which will come to other generations, will be the war of Wales, and then all other good things he did during his lifetime as Prince or King.

IMHO it depends on the people reflecting about King Charles. I agree that tabloid readers probably will think first of the War of the Waleses which has no historical importance at all so far: it didn't change neither succession nor the existance of the monarchy. I also assume that readers of historical novels will find that authors will put their main interest in the CCD-triangle - though I'm not sure that Diana will emerge the Saint and Camilla the Witch because that's against the eternal law of Happily Ever After. Rather vice versa, I'd say.

But more intellectual approaches to the reign of King Charles (may it be far, far away in the future and may it last long!) will in all likelihood find more important points of interests. Charles' life so far has so much to offer for a political historian, so already books could be written about him without mentioning Diana and Camilla in more than a biographic footnote like: Married 1981-1996: Lady Diana Spencer; Married 2005 - present Camilla Shand. And after some years on these forums I'd say I'd love to read such a book. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom