I don't really need to go into this do I? Not amongst us? But, really Charles is known as an eccentric philanderer, despite his hard word for charities. Nothing like his coronation to better recast his image from the dithering playboy prince to one of a serious constitutional monarch and leader.
This is the thread about the Monarchy under Charles, your saying he needs to change when he becomes King. So why not discuss it? If you didn't want to be challenged, why say it?
"Dithering playboy Prince" he's been married to one woman for 5 years, and when he was married previously, he only cheated on Diana with only one woman, and that was Camilla. He may have been as playboy when he was in his 20's but I don't think anyone, no newspaper has called him that?
I coronation, isn't going to change who he is.
Trust me, its all about managing one’s image. The press has always been brutal for Charles, it will not stop once he become’s king and he enacts his agenda (once for which I am supportive of). A “Charles III” with the precedents of the other two and Prince Charles own personal life will be the end of the English monarchy in my opinion. And believe me, the press will associate a “Charles III” with the other two and all the machinations and philandering of Charles III’s life will be associated in the public mind with the other two.
Brutal I think is the wrong word, they have been critical of him, especially when Diana died.
I doubt in this day and age, people will remember or even know who Charles I and II were, let alone what happened in their reign. Unless you follow royalty, and follow it very very closely, they won't know about Charles two named ancestors.
The press will not even know Charles I and II, they won't compare them to Prince Charles at all, Queen Elizabeth II has never been compared to Queen Elizabeth I has she? Or has any other Monarch been compared to someone else who shared the same name?
I know the press of this country, and they will be interested in the here and now, not the past.
A “George VII” has all the advantages of linking Charles with the rule of his grandfather and great grandfather. It’s simply a rebranding of his image, if done right. A benefit of this would be clearly George VI’s performance during WWII, and the nostalgia that comes along with it.
Why does he want to link to his grandfather and great-grandfathers reign, he should carve out his own reign, show the world, as you put it, that he isn't a "philandering eccentric".
The people who remember WWII and George VI are Monarchists, and people who fought in the war. The war isn't taught in British Schools anymore, and certainly not in reference to George VI's involvement. Nobody lower than the age of 75 perhaps will remember. So what would be the point?
Also, Charles could only be like George VI was in the war, if we have another war.
Ultimately, it’s all about word association, rather then anything like superstition. Rightly or wrongly, the name Charles is linked with baggage for him both historically and in his younger years. George VII offers a clear, definitive, masculine break from all of that. One which I support.
I would bet my best luggage on the fact that he will take George as his regal name, as much as I would bet that Camilla will be queen!
I completely disagree, no one remembers the baggage of the name Charles, and when he becomes King the old stories of his affair with Camilla, death of Diana and possible the talking to plants. But nothing that won't go away.
A name does not change a person, and as you've said doesn't forget the past.
If Elizabeth and Phillip had wanted Charles to become King George VII, then i'm sure they would have named him George.
Camilla will be his Queen, and Charles will be King Charles III.
