The Monarchy under Charles

[muriel]

As the title is automatic there is no need for Parliament to do anything.

The last thing the BRF want is a debate about anything to do with the royal family as it could so easily backfire - particularly with a minority government.

Quite right, no need to go to Parliament. Debates of this type are best avoided in Parliament.

FYI, We have a coalition government, not a minority one.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Quite right, no need to go to Parliament. Debates of this type are best avoided in Parliament.

FYI, We have a coalition government, not a minority one.

Does one party have a majority? No

Do the two parties concerned usually form a coalition government? No

Is the coalition committed to the same things on all policies? No

When we have a coalition government here we know before the election which two parties will form that coalition (Liberals and Nationals). They pretty much agree on all major policies before the election and make it known to the population what they will do. To me that is a coalition.

A minority government is when two or more parties or individuals, after the election join together to form government but when the next election comes they will campaign against each other again.

 

[muriel]

Your personal definition of a coalition may be at variance to the publicly accepted form, but a minority government is one that does not have a majority in Parliament, period. As to whether the parties went into the election with a coalition agreement already in place or not relevant as to whether the resulting government is a coalition or a minority government.

The current government in the UK is comprised of Conservative and LD members of Parliament, both of whom are integral to the cabinet and government. They are bound by the coalition agreement (which runs for the full term of the Parliament) that they entered into after the election in May 2010. This would have been a minority government if a coalition agreement had not been entered into, and the LDs were not a part of the government, but merely provided the Conservatives issue based support in Parliament

 

[Iluvbertie]

Obviously we have a different understanding of what sort of government constitutes a coalition. As we have them regularly in this country my understanding is that they go into the election that way. Yours is different. We have even had coalitions where one of the two parties could form government on their own but they stay in the coalition - that is a coalition to me.

We must disagree on this point.

 

[jemagre]

Yes, there is no real reason to reduce the size of the royal family as the process of natural selection will do it naturally.

Is natural selection fast enough for the British public? I don't know but I do think that the royal family will have to change in order to survive.

I do wish Charles would give some ideas about how he plans on changing things. I know it might be considered rude to discuss such things while she is alive but he is a man that does not appeared to be scared to discuss controversial issues.

If I were the Queen I would want to know what he plans to do after I was gone. Then again I might be a little controlling

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is natural selection fast enough for the British public? I don't know but I do think that the royal family will have to change in order to survive.

I do wish Charles would give some ideas about how he plans on changing things. I know it might be considered rude to discuss such things while she is alive but he is a man that does not appeared to be scared to discuss controversial issues.

If I were the Queen I would want to know what he plans to do after I was gone. Then again I might be a little controlling

To be quite honest, the british public unless you are a royal watcher doesn't understand the system of titles. If the remaining royals with titles show that they are worthy of their titles then I think that will satisfy the public.

I'm sure he knows what he would like to do and has discussed this with HM. But I don't see why we should know until he becomes king.

 

[jemagre]

To be quite honest, the british public unless you are a royal watcher doesn't understand the system of titles. If the remaining royals with titles show that they are worthy of their titles then I think that will satisfy the public.

I'm sure he knows what he would like to do and has discussed this with HM. But I don't see why we should know until he becomes king.

I think that is a tragedy that some people worldwide are not that interested enough in their own governments to want to know how they function. Then again I have always though that apathy is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. At least if people hate you they care enough to pay attention to you.

As for what he will do well...I understand what you are saying. I just think that maybe it might be nice for an outline. He is not a popular choice to be king. No, I don't mean that William should be king. I just think that maybe an outline might change some perceptions about him for those who want him to be King. For those like myself who don't live in England but are interested in history it is a unique situation to watch a different kind of government hand-over.

I also think that the days when the royals positions were secure ones are gone. Nowadays they almost have to sell themselves like politicians to win public approval. Like it or not we are in those days. If we were not then the royal family would not be on facebook or twitter.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What changes would people like him to make?

The monarchy has evolved even during the present reign and that evolution will continue for the rest of this reign and then into Charles' reign.

It would be totally inappropriate for him to make public any plans for what he would like to do when his mother dies.

In addition he doesn't have a lot of say anyway as the government will decide all official roles of the monarchy so any changes Charles would like to make would be purely superficial and not substantial to the role of the monarch.

Outside of the monarch no other royals have anything to do with the running of the government anyway and most people I am sure realise that - and the monarch doesn't do much - signs the legislation, talks to the PM, hosts visiting officials and provides entertainment for the masses - that is the main role for the royals - entertainment. If you think about what we as royal watchers discuss it comes down to what they wear, who they are dating, what their children look like, when their babies are due, and what events they attend to give us the information to discuss the above - nothing about their role in government as they don't really have one.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think that is a tragedy that some people worldwide are not that interested enough in their own governments to want to know how they function. Then again I have always though that apathy is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. At least if people hate you they care enough to pay attention to you.

A lot of people in this country know how the government functions. But government and the monarchy are two very different things. People don't know how the title system works, which is what I said.

As for what he will do well...I understand what you are saying. I just think that maybe it might be nice for an outline. He is not a popular choice to be king. No, I don't mean that William should be king. I just think that maybe an outline might change some perceptions about him for those who want him to be King. For those like myself who don't live in England but are interested in history it is a unique situation to watch a different kind of government hand-over.

IMO, if he released some kind of information, it would add fuel to the critical fire about what he is going to do. At the moment people can say "Charles won't be a good king", but they cannot give a reason. If he says he's going to do x, y and z. People can then critisize him for what he has suggested.

I also think that the days when the royals positions were secure ones are gone. Nowadays they almost have to sell themselves like politicians to win public approval. Like it or not we are in those days. If we were not then the royal family would not be on facebook or twitter.

I don't think facebook and twitter is "selling themselves", I think it's moving with the times. A lot more people access faceboook and twitter than read the newspapers or follow this forum.

 

[jemagre]

[I don't think facebook and twitter is "selling themselves", I think it's moving with the times. A lot more people access faceboook and twitter than read the newspapers or follow this forum.[/QUOTE]

I think moving with the times and selling themselves is almost interchangeable. Then again I think anyone in the public spotlight has to sell themselves in order to get heard. For example: If he did not sell themselves then nobody would know about his charities. For the record I don't consider selling oneself is always a bad thing. It just depends on the situation.

 

[jemagre]

What changes would people like him to make?

The monarchy has evolved even during the present reign and that evolution will continue for the rest of this reign and then into Charles' reign.

It would be totally inappropriate for him to make public any plans for what he would like to do when his mother dies.

In addition he doesn't have a lot of say anyway as the government will decide all official roles of the monarchy so any changes Charles would like to make would be purely superficial and not substantial to the role of the monarch.

Outside of the monarch no other royals have anything to do with the running of the government anyway and most people I am sure realise that - and the monarch doesn't do much - signs the legislation, talks to the PM, hosts visiting officials and provides entertainment for the masses - that is the main role for the royals - entertainment. If you think about what we as royal watchers discuss it comes down to what they wear, who they are dating, what their children look like, when their babies are due, and what events they attend to give us the information to discuss the above - nothing about their role in government as they don't really have one.

I don't disagree with what your saying. I just think that he has a reputation as a "political" prince of wales. Will that continue or will he be more traditional? Will he keep everyone in the family or will he let "natural selection" take its course? Will he be more pomp and ceremony or less official. I don't expect answers to everything just wondering about what kind-of King he will be.

Also he doesn't seem big on the entertainment part of his role. ( I could be wrong) So how will he adapt to fit the situation?

I admit I don't follow him as much so I was really saying that stuff so I could make a more informed opinion. Any ideas?

 

[AnnEliza]

I don't disagree with what your saying. I just think that he has a reputation as a "political" prince of wales. Will that continue or will he be more traditional? Will he keep everyone in the family or will he let "natural selection" take its course? Will he be more pomp and ceremony or less official. I don't expect answers to everything just wondering about what kind-of King he will be.

Also he doesn't seem big on the entertainment part of his role. ( I could be wrong) So how will he adapt to fit the situation?

I admit I don't follow him as much so I was really saying that stuff so I could make a more informed opinion. Any ideas?

Don't know, but there really isn't a lot of pomp and circumstance, or as you say "entertainment" in the role of the Prince of Wales, is there? According to history, Edward VII was criticized for being quite a party animal while he was Prince of Wales, but there was little else for him to do. At least Prince Charles is pursuing his interests and making a statement for sustainable living in the future. I like him for that. Perhaps he is being very political about it now, because he knows that if and when he becomes King, he won't have that luxury, so any influence he could have would have to be in the present.

 

[Roslyn]

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1975 edition: entertainment: amusement, public performance or show

IMO Charles is entertaining us every time he steps outside the door and even behind close doors; one of his very private telephone conversations entertained us immensely. His very existence entertains us.

He entertains the passers by who stop to watch him as he's walking to his car or into a building to open something or other or to present medals to servicemen, and he entertains the people who attend the functions, and he entertains the rest of us who read about what he's done and look at the photos and video clips.

Just looking at his clothing and wondering who put the combinations together diverts from our mundane existences and entertains us, and we are especially entertained when we see him in his Highland Games outfits, stalking and shooting outfits, unusual and sometimes outlandish outfits he dons during overseas trips and his fancier getups such as his various uniforms for different events. We wonder about his medals and his ribbons and decorations and things that are alien to most of us. And we like to see what his wife is wearing when she accompanies him to these events, especially the formal events where they are in evening wear and wearing bling and decorations. His facial expressions entertain us: we comment on whether he is smiling, or laughing, or looking bored or sad.

I waited an hour in the January sun on Australia Day, 1998, to watch a car carrying him and Diana drive around the corner I was standing on. I was entertained by watching the police close the roads, and by seeing the official vehicles approach and watching other people stop to watch. And I was entertainined by the glimpse I got of Charles & Diana inside the car, then by watching the streets return to normal. That unexpected event was the highlight of what would otherwise have been a fairly uneventful day for me.

Even when Charles is doing something worthy like writing letters about the environment, or initiating some Prince's Trust project, etc., he is entertaining us because many of us read about those things solely because of who he is, and only because of who he is and the institution of which he is a part, and we discuss whether he is being too political for the PoW.

In a way the RF is like a living collection of a particular species of animal or plant. Wherever he goes and whatever he's doing, Charles is an entertainment on some level, and so are all the other members of the RF.

 

[jemagre]

Don't know, but there really isn't a lot of pomp and circumstance, or as you say "entertainment" in the role of the Prince of Wales, is there? According to history, Edward VII was criticized for being quite a party animal while he was Prince of Wales, but there was little else for him to do. At least Prince Charles is pursuing his interests and making a statement for sustainable living in the future. I like him for that. Perhaps he is being very political about it now, because he knows that if and when he becomes King, he won't have that luxury, so any influence he could have would have to be in the present.

I do agree that his message about sustainable living seems to be a very personal message and that some people might want him to give that up when he becomes King though I don't think he will. As for the entertainment part of his role I meant it in the literal sense. For example: he is not a big partier. He seems to prefer country life. Not that it is a bad thing.

 

[Wisteria]

An article in this morning´s DM.

Why this man is too dangerous to be king. In a landmark essay, Max Hastings tells why this increasingly eccentric royal could imperil the monarchy | Mail Online

 

[Kataryn]

An article in this morning´s DM.

Why this man is too dangerous to be king. In a landmark essay, Max Hastings tells why this increasingly eccentric royal could imperil the monarchy | Mail Online

Who is Max Hastings? I don't like journalists who put their own opinion into the mouth of people they don't name but give status through their description. "I heard one of the cleverest men in Britain, master of an Oxbridge *college, quite calmly say the other night: ‘The best hope for the *monarchy is that Prince Charles dies before the Queen.’

Bah! And what a terrible thing to say without reliable source. Why notbe open about it? Hastings gives a lot of points why he doesn't wish Charles to become king. The onl way this is going to happen, as he well knows, is if Charles dies before the queen. So he wshes for that but is too afraid to write it unser his own name. Coward.

​

​

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is the DM which has on its agenda two things - destroy Charles and destroy the monarchy.

 

[Roslyn]

Hastings is quite right about us not knowing what the Queen thinks about much. Her Majesty's circumstances were such that she didn't have to spend years and years waiting for her job and find something constructive to do with her time while she was waiting. Even if she hadn't acceded to the throne till she was in her 40s or so, she was a woman of her time and not an academically inclined one. She would probably just have raised her family and kept quiet about her opinions anyway. We've been told she likes to avoid conflict in family matters and defers to Philip. Charles, OTOH, has an enquiring mind and is interested in intellectual pursuits and likes to speak his mind and expect people to listen to him. He was bound to get into hot water over some things. But I think once he becomes king he will play by the rules.

William seems to have some firm ideas of his own and he doesn't mind expressing them and I think we could be in for some fun and games with him when he gets out of the services and starts to involve himself in more things and gains confidence.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hastings is quite right about us not knowing what the Queen thinks about much. Her Majesty's circumstances were such that she didn't have to spend years and years waiting for her job and find something constructive to do with her time while she was waiting. Even if she hadn't acceded to the throne till she was in her 40s or so, she was a woman of her time and not an academically inclined one. She would probably just have raised her family and kept quiet about her opinions anyway. We've been told she likes to avoid conflict in family matters and defers to Philip. Charles, OTOH, has an enquiring mind and is interested in intellectual pursuits and likes to speak his mind and expect people to listen to him. He was bound to get into hot water over some things. But I think once he becomes king he will play by the rules.

William seems to have some firm ideas of his own and he doesn't mind expressing them and I think we could be in for some fun and games with him when he gets out of the services and starts to involve himself in more things and gains confidence.

Not long ago I seem to remember reading a comment by Charles along the lines of 'if my parents didn't want me to think for myself and about things they shouldn't have sent me to Gordonstoun and Cambridge'. Now I don't think he is criticising his parents so much as pointing out that his education has contributed to his way of seeing the world - he inquires into things and that is part of what the education he gained and the subjects he studied trained him to do. This comment is also only a fraction of the whole comment but it is the bit that I think I remember and that I think is relevant.

 

[Esmerelda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hastings

The article is certainly anti-Charles but I didn't get the impression that it was anti-monarchy. I don't think an article in the Daily Mail is going to abolish the institution. That paper exists more for entertainment than information, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I am concerned about his alleged involvement in getting NHS funding for homeopathy. Did this actually happen?

 

[Nico]

This is the DM which has on its agenda two things - destroy Charles and destroy the monarchy.

Not necesserarily, the DM is able to publish some stories like this too :

He may chat to parsnips but Prince Charles MUST be King | Mail Online


Yet an often challenged source, the DM is, as an other poster said, for entertainement purpose. They like to generate some debate but i'll not take this last Charles attack too seriously....

 

[Iluvbertie]

If you look at the DM articles on the whole they are anti-Charles and anti-monarchy although they will write positive ones sometimes in order to sell papers.

 

[scooter]

If you look at the DM articles on the whole they are anti-Charles and anti-monarchy although they will write positive ones sometimes in order to sell papers.

One might argue that the purpose of newspapers is to infom the populace. One might further argue that the populace has a right to know what the priveledged inheriting who behave extremely badly are up to if they are supposed to be 'in good standing with the Church as Defender of The Faith'. Instead of being angry with the paper for reporting the longterm misbehavior of Charles, why not be angry with Charles for the behavior? This is my point of view...

 

[MARG]

I am going to take a shot in the dark and assume that by "the populace has a right to know what the priveledged inheriting who behave extremely badly are up to if they are supposed to be 'in good standing with the Church as Defender of The Faith'. Instead of being angry with the paper for reporting the longterm misbehavior of Charles, why not be angry with Charles for the behavior?" that you are referring to the breakdown of the breakdown of Prince of Wales marriage which was, what, 15 - 20 years ago? Most murderers have been paroled within that stretch of time.

The Church of England, like most Christian Churches preaches Forgiveness, as Judgement is the province of God. You are obviously not in favour of such generousity of spirit . Do not mistake me here, forgiveness is never easy even for the most easygoing of people. If God can forgive, who are you to be advocating the continued throwing of stones.

The Church and most ordinary sinners have moved on and see no sin worthy of withholding the throne, even if such a thing were possible.

 

[Roslyn]

One might argue that the purpose of newspapers is to infom the populace. One might further argue that the populace has a right to know what the priveledged inheriting who behave extremely badly are up to if they are supposed to be 'in good standing with the Church as Defender of The Faith'. Instead of being angry with the paper for reporting the longterm misbehavior of Charles, why not be angry with Charles for the behavior? This is my point of view...

I can see nothing in the Hastings article which would prompt a remark about Charles being "in good standing with the Church as Defender of The Faith", so assume you are alluding to the adultery business.

The Daily Mail has made a point of keeping the public fully informed about Charles' transgressions in that regard, but it should be noted that at the time of the wedding it also informed the public of the text of highlights of the order of service for the blessing after their civil marriage:

These published highlights included the following recitation from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

"Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men: We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Read more: The order of service: Highlights | Mail Online

They said it, requested forgiveness, the Archbishop asked their God to have mercy on them and pardon them and deliver them from their sins. It's now a matter between them and their God.

They did all their Church expected of them, and Charles is now in perfectly good standing with his Church, and there is no obstacle in that regard to him going on to become King and Defender of the Faith at his Coronation.

I happen to agree with Charles' views on the environment and applaud what he is doing to try to save rainforests. I don't think it's at all odd to talk to plants; I frequently talk to mine, and have for decades. I believe he is a good man, and trying to do the best he can, while he can, to help mankind and the future of the planet. He might be wrong about some things, but he, like everyone else, is entitled to his opinions. Once he is King, I believe he will keep his opinions to himself, but until then he will speak his mind when he feels it appropriate to do so. I suspect his Prime Ministers might come to fear their weekly meetings with him, which might be a bit longer than they are under her Majesty!

 

[Tyger]

Are these articles - do you believe - intended to foment disquiet regarding the succession thus laying groundwork for abolishing the monarchy? Are the articles accurate - as far as you know - regarding the 'breakdown' of the Charles/Camilla marriage? Being on this site I got a warn fuzzy about the marriage and then was shown these articles - are they true? Or spurious?

Charles And Camilla In Marriage Crisis - UK & World News - News - People.co.uk

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Express Yourself :: Are Charles and Camilla in trouble?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ll-spend-rest-holiday-family-away-Royals.html

 

[Madame Royale]

The articles are 6 months old and bare no weight at all. I wouldn't give them any thought. As you suggest, quite spurious.

 

[Tyger]

The articles are 6 months old and bare no weight at all. I wouldn't give them any thought. As you suggest, quite spurious.

Oooops! Just noticed that - thank you!

The third link is recent - about their Christmas plans and I found the posters' comments interesting. They seem relevant - its all in how you decide to interpret something (that is really private business) -

Poster#1 - You're reading too much into it. Thousands of second/blended families will have similar arrangements this Christmas - I do! If there really was a problem, they'd be keeping it much more under wraps.

Poster#2 - What a lovely picture, I don't think I have ever seen him look happier. Few older adults want to control their partners every movement and what a wonderful advert for maturity they are.

Poster#3 - As far as I can see Camilla is a pragmatic woman who never thought her relationship would be a fairy story but can appreciate the give and take of a long term love affair. Another non story - PoW spends a day apart from Camilla - shock horror!

 

[Iluvbertie]

The DM runs this story every so often about Charles and Camilla spending time apart as evidence of them being in trouble in their marriage.

However, they have done the same thing every year - spent Christmas Day together and then Camilla has gone to spend the rest of the holiday period with her children and now grandchildren.

They will have a holiday together in Scotland in the New Year (unless the weather is too bad). A year of so ago the weather was so bad that trains and planes were grounded and Camilla decided to not join Charles and again people saw that as evidence of trouble in the marriage by conveniently forgetting or ignoring the pleas by the government and transport officials for the public to avoid unnecessary travel at that time.

Charles and Camilla aren't some young passionate lovers in the first throws of new love but a couple who are mature and have separate lives as well as lives together.

My parents, for work reasons, actually lived in two different cities for five years but their was absolutely no doubt that their marriage was strong - in fact stronger after Mum retired than before she took up the job in Sydney while his job was in Bathurst. At the time they had been married for over 30 years and ended up married for over 50 before my Mother's death 4 years ago and to see my father on the anniversaries they had shared their is no doubt of the love between these two - and being apart didn't lessen that love.

I see Charles and Camilla the same - being apart doesn't mean trouble in the marriage but rather can mean a great deal of strength.

 

[Tyger]

Some questions....

I have some questions -

- Is Charles popular or unpopular? Is it true that only 16% of the public want him to be King?

- Is Camilla in general still villified? Is she still seen as the 'spoiler' and the root cause of all problems? is she 'lazy'? What is the purpose behind all the bad press? Just for the hey of it? Or to undermine the monarchy? Is Diana the cause of the factioning?

- Is this idea that William step over his father to Kingship serious? If so, what is the root of such animosity towards Charles?

- What do you British folks make of all the controversy? Its source? And what does it bode for the future?