The Monarchy under Charles

[EIIR]

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.

 

[Catherine J]

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.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

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.

 

[Avicenna]

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!

 

[EIIR]

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.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

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

 

[Moonmaiden23]

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.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

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

 

[Moonmaiden23]

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.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

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.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

"the couple's long term plans"? What have I missed....?

 

[NGalitzine]

Actually I don't think anyone in the UK had any serious problems with the Duke and Duchess living as an RAF couple in Wales and undertaking royal engagements, like overseas tours, on a part time basis. I know there are probably a few who would have liked to have seen Catherine out and about more so they could comment on her wardrobe but that is hardly serious. Imagine how those same commentators would have reacted to Elizabeth going off to live with Philip in Malta.

 

[vkrish]

No..expecting William to be in RAF even after Charles ascends, is a bit too much. No CP I know, however small monarchy, has an active job. We cant expect the CP (PoW) of an extensive institution like BRF to have an active job, that too after all trimming. They will have a lot of public appearances and many more corresponding preparations/briefings. And btw, Charles will be in his mid-70s when he ascends, and William in early 40s. If i am not wrong, once you are in 40s, u cant do those dashing jobs anymore. You will either become an instructor, or given desk work, or go up in administration (again, unlikely for William, since he is going to be very irregular). So its not worth juggling up all these jobs, getting criticised on both fronts, and messing up.

 

[AnnEliza]

What makes you think Charles will be in his mid 70's when he becomes King? Her Majesty is in good health, but no one knows how long she will live. Her mother lived a very long life, but her father and sister didn't.

 

[Lumutqueen]

What makes you think Charles will be in his mid 70's when he becomes King? Her Majesty is in good health, but no one knows how long she will live. Her mother lived a very long life, but her father and sister didn't.

And anyone who knows about George and Margaret know why they didn't live into their 100s.

 

[Roslyn]

George and Margaret made lifestyle choices that adversely affected their health and shortened their lifespans, but living into one's 100s is still unusual.

 

[vkrish]

And anyone who knows about George and Margaret know why they didn't live into their 100s.

I seriously believe King George VI died early because of his unhealthy lifestyle.
I ll never buy the silly nonsense the Queen Mother and her PR army cooked up and ingrained into peoples minds for half a century, blaming Edward-Wallis and duty. Thats really hilarious.
Every person born into royalty should be prepared to take up duty. Its not some favour or voluntary self-destruction.
Anyway, I guess I got off-topic, so leave it.

 

[AnnEliza]

George and Margaret made lifestyle choices that adversely affected their health and shortened their lifespans, but living into one's 100s is still unusual.

The Queen Mother had a stressful life too, with the war and widowhood, and no doubt worry about both her daughters, and the antics of her grandchildren. The fact is, no one can know how long anyone will live, though I wish Her Majesty long life and good health.

 

[VictoriaB]

The Queen Mother had a stressful life too, with the war and widowhood, and no doubt worry about both her daughters, and the antics of her grandchildren. The fact is, no one can know how long anyone will live, though I wish Her Majesty long life and good health.

Both the King and Princess Margaret were heavy smokers. I think those are the lifestyle choices that shortened both their lives. The King's death was smoking related and Margaret's health problems (stroke) are related to smoking.

The Queen has never smoked and while that certainly doesn't guarantee a long life there seems to be plenty of evidence that it helps.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They were also both heavy drinkers - a combination not conducive to long lives.

 

[sarahedwards2]

Both the King and Princess Margaret were heavy smokers. I think those are the lifestyle choices that shortened both their lives. The King's death was smoking related and Margaret's health problems (stroke) are related to smoking.

The Queen has never smoked and while that certainly doesn't guarantee a long life there seems to be plenty of evidence that it helps.

Also Margaret liked to party!

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Partying involves drinking and smoking in many cases, yes?

 

[Cynderella]

I hope that HM lives a LONG LONG time. If that is the case, then Charles could be nearing 80 when he ascends to the Throne.

I'll give Charles credit, when most people are looking to retire, he is having to "step it up" to do more in his mother's stead. He may not get to the Throne until he is very elderly after waiting all of his life for the opportunity to make his mark. He will at that point be taking over for the longest serving Monarch in British history! Those are enormous shoes to fill! Most of her subject have never had any other Monarch and she will be a tough act to follow!

 

[AnnEliza]

I hope that HM lives a LONG LONG time. If that is the case, then Charles could be nearing 80 when he ascends to the Throne.

I'll give Charles credit, when most people are looking to retire, he is having to "step it up" to do more in his mother's stead. He may not get to the Throne until he is very elderly after waiting all of his life for the opportunity to make his mark. He will at that point be taking over for the longest serving Monarch in British history! Those are enormous shoes to fill! Most of her subject have never had any other Monarch and she will be a tough act to follow!

I agree, even more of a challenge than Edward VII had.

 

[Artemisia]

And yet Edward VII lived up to the challenge as Prince Charles undoubtedly will.
Elizabeth II is a fantastic Sovereign, but there were great Monarchs before her, and there will be ones in times to come.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

And yet Edward VII lived up to the challenge as Prince Charles undoubtedly will.
Elizabeth II is a fantastic Sovereign, but there were great Monarchs before her, and there will be ones in tomes to come.

Agree with you there!

 

[padams2359]

She would be the longest. Ironically in the 52 years from 1900, there had been 4 previous monarchs. Most of us don't know the ramifications of changing a monarch. The stock market with be a roller coaster. London is a major player in the corporate and financial systems. Those shoes will be huge. William will start to come out from her shadow. Charles will have a hard time breaking out. There many not be enough time if the queen goes to 102. QE emulates her mother, and why shouldn't she? A little Gin & Dobonnet can keep you going for years. The secondhand smoke from the King and Princess Margaret did nothing.

 

[cepe]

The stock market should not be affected by the death of the Queen. Fiscal and economic policy are not influenced by the monarch and will not change with the accession of Charles.

The only impact I can think of is that the country will "close" for the funeral and the coronation. But this will be off-set by increased trade etc. I know this sounds calculating but its the reality.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Unlike 1952 I don't see everything shutting down for 3 days or so in the immediate aftermath of the Soveriegn's death. Some places might close on the day of the funeral but there will be many people who will still need services as there will be an upturn in travel of people wanting to pay their respects.

The Coronation will be a large spectacle and again places will close on the day near the route but that will be offset by a large increase in tourists into the country - not just for the day either but over the course of the year to see various displays that will be up to mark the occasion.

 

[Queen Angelique]

I hope that HM lives a LONG LONG time. If that is the case, then Charles could be nearing 80 when he ascends to the Throne.

I'll give Charles credit, when most people are looking to retire, he is having to "step it up" to do more in his mother's stead. He may not get to the Throne until he is very elderly after waiting all of his life for the opportunity to make his mark. He will at that point be taking over for the longest serving Monarch in British history! Those are enormous shoes to fill! Most of her subject have never had any other Monarch and she will be a tough act to follow!

I SO agree with you, dear Cynderella;
And I am also fairly sure HM will carry on for sometime yet. This will mean for Charles a very late "call-up" for the job He was born to do. But personally, I feel He will be a wonderful King. I admire Him, His lovely sense of Humour, His courage to be Himself, the love and care He showered on His boys; in short, I feel many might just be rather surprised in how wonderful a Monarch He will turn out to be.