The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

MARG - not this week but next week when the World Cup begins - then yes - cricket rules.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Charles hits back over 'ill informed speculation' about his plans for kingship - Telegraph

If Prince Charles does become the sovereign, he, as King, is entitled to his opinion. He is an individual also.
Must Charles always be under the scrutiny of the public about his speeches?
​

 

[royal rob]

If Prince Charles does become the sovereign, he, as King, is entitled to his opinion. He is an individual also.
Must Charles always be under the scrutiny of the public about his speeches?
​

Yes he must and will be under scrutiny that's what happens to Kings ( or Queens )


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[padams2359]

Camilla and Sofie are from 2 different generations in time. Camilla is probable closer to Sofie's mother's age. Their interests are different.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Had Sophie's mother lived past 2005, she would be 80 or 81. Sophie is 50 and Camilla is 68 this coming July.

 

[cepe]

Camilla and Sofie are from 2 different generations in time. Camilla is probable closer to Sofie's mother's age. Their interests are different.

it isn't about generations per se, it's about life "history" IMO. Camilla has children in their 30's and has also grandchildren. Sophie is a mother of young children.

The generation (age based) gap has altered considerably since women began marrying older and having children later. HMQ had 2 children by the time she was 25; Camilla by the time she was 31 and Sophie it was 42.

In many ways Camilla understands young children (as a grandmother) as does Sophie (as a mother). HMQ has never really understood children at all IMO.

BTW, then I started this post I didnt realise just how different the age ranges were re having children. How times have changed

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

I just do not think he will make a great king. In my gut, Charles, while not wanting to see his parents pass on, cannot WAIT to get to that throne and place Camilla beside himself. I am sorry, I do not care what anyone says, it was very sad and to me VERY telling, the 2012 balcony appearance.

I think in many ways his selfish and spoiled view of himself has not changed much over the years.... I can see him jealous of the easy way William gets on with his in-laws. Let us remember, they ARE IN FACT HUMAN. More so now in this generation of royals. If I had lived in the house like William did and then saw the woman who in fact helped break apart my parents' marriage...I would look and yearn for a sense of normalcy at all costs. He is truly happy with the Catherine. You can see it. He seems to get along great with his in-laws. Good for him.

Given Charles's own words from his mouth, he feels everything we have read about his version of his childhood, etc, jealousy/envy about Diana's popularity. I am sure his staff since has established his own household do everything like we have read but wipe his backside for him.

Now, to appease the the ones who will attack me on here, he has done many, many, many great things for charities, the Prince's Trust, for architecture, the environment, etc...but I do not trust him an inch as king. How I truly in my heart wish the throne could go to William and Catherine. I will tell you one thing, you can tell, NO ONE TELLS WILLIAM WHAT TO DO. And good for him. I would be tired of all this if I were him and grew up exactly the way he did.

So go ahead and rip me apart.

Don't make me laugh.

I do not trust him an inch as king.

I suppose you is from the United States since you live there. And since you are not living in any of the Commonwealth realm, you don't need to trust him.

 

[Osipi]

I suppose we all can and do look at Charles from different aspects of his life and we form our own opinions from our own learning experiences of the life and times of the Prince of Wales.

Although, over the years, there has been much that points to Charles being an insecure, introverted individual who perhaps didn't have as pleasing of a childhood as perhaps he would have liked, over the years learning about and watching Charles create and put into action his role of The Prince of Wales, I find him to be very much an altruistic person with the welfare of the people, the country and even the globe close to his heart. The programs he's started, the concerns he's raised that not only affect humanity today but looking far into the future and knowing that the motto "Ich Dien" of the Prince of Wales aren't just empty words to him make me realize that Charles will be a King of the people with their best interests at heart.

He has served far too long to take his role as monarch as something trivial or self serving. He is very much a traditionalist with a deep ingrained sense of the responsibility his role as monarch entails. He will definitely be very much a hands on monarch and will take advantage of his meetings with the PM of the day but yet know where the limits are. He has already established many causes and organizations and these will not fade away once he becomes king.

Will he downsize the royal family? Perhaps. There's a lot he might do but I do believe that what he will do will be in the best interests of those he serves and not for self aggrandizing or selfish reasons.

 

[cepe]

If Prince Charles does become the sovereign, he, as King, is entitled to his opinion. He is an individual also.
Must Charles always be under the scrutiny of the public about his speeches?
​

He can have an opinion, and he could state it BUT the line in the sand is that he cannot make a political statement or anything that could be construed (can of worms) as political.

In the UK the so-called "nanny-state" where politicians interfere in everyday life on a regular basic, it means that he would be restricted.

The Queen has promoted Christianity, but she couldn't say "I'm anti-multi-culturalism".

Charles could support charities for young people but he couldn't say "the Gov should do more for young people".

William and Catherine might want homosexuals who went to prison when it was a crime to have a royal pardon BUT they can't say so because that is a decision of parliament (note - I do not know if this is their opinion).

So using these examples, I would say that Charles may have voiced opinions but has never been political.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Charles has never interfered in party-political issues and he will not do so when he becomes King. Those who says that he shall not have any opinions in public and uses the Queen as an example should know the facts.

The Queen is patron of over 600 charities and organisations. I have heard that she is very interested in what they are working with and that she follows many of them closely behind closed doors. She is also interested in young people, the poor and the less fortunate. She have also talked about it in several speeches that she has held in the UK, Canada, Australia, New zealand etc etc and in many other countries where she is not the head of state. She also talks about many topics in her Commonwealth Day Message. I have also heard and read that she is much more outspoken in private ,but everyone who meets her seems to take a voluntary vow of perpetual silence as a journalist in newsweek put it.

And there are sometimes her opinions have reached the media, but they never make a big issue out of it.

The Queen says 'poverty is being ignored and more should be done to fight it' - Mirror Online

She told one academic: “Poor people and their problems don’t get reported often, and they need all the *assistance they can be given.”

And when she said it, she was accused of this.

But Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, told the Mirror: “There’s never been a day in her life where she has had to worry about getting food on the table or making sure her children have books and uniforms for school or paying the mortgage and bills.

“It’s a rather crass and inappropriate statement from someone who is a multi-millionaire many times over and has no problems helping herself to public money.

“What does she know about politics and these people’s lives?

“She couldn’t be further from normal people’s experiences and all the evidence shows she can only identify with people she mixes with, who are millionaires living in large mansions and country estates.”

“She’s clearly making a political statement which she’s not supposed to be doing. There’s a whole lot of implications you could take from what she has said.

“It’s a criticism of government policy, and the rights and wrongs of government policy aren’t what she’s supposed to speak on.”

BBC News - Abu Hamza concerns raised by Queen

BBC News - BBC apology to Queen over Abu Hamza disclosure

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, our correspondent said the Queen had been upset that there was no way to arrest the radical cleric and spoke to the then home secretary to ask why somebody who appeared to be inciting violence and hatred was still at large.

"Like anybody, she was upset that her country and its subjects were being denigrated by this man," said our correspondent, who stressed that the monarch was not lobbying but "merely voicing the views that many have".

And when this came out, the BBC was accused of this.

But campaign group Republic has accused the BBC of revealing details of the Queen's interest in the case to put her "on the right side of public opinion".

"The decision to disclose this one conversation while keeping all else secret smacks of a deliberate PR stunt to put the Queen on the right side of public opinion," the group said.

And then there was the Queen and Margaret Thatcher. The Queen was dissatisfied with Thatcher because she didn't do enough for the poor, the miners' strike, the unemployment, the commonwealth etc etc.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I think the hard part of this interference issue for many of us is that the line between political and not political can be so fine. The line between acceptable and inflammatory even more so.

Cities and towns are indeed finer places with lovely public spaces. But imposing one's own taste on the definition of lovely can be a bit problematic. And influencing public funding of public space design should be out of bounds.

It's one thing to say religions must build bridges and another to tell Christians that they should all be reading the Koran (this has not happened, this is an example) the Vedas, the Tao, etc. (and vice versa).

And frankly, the lines get ever smaller. Charles' task to remain apolitical will be far more difficult than his mother's was.

Personally, I find it interesting that stopping exotic animal trade is IMHO a highly political topic - solutions include the imposition of trade regulation and enforcement. Solutions involve convoluted diplomatic efforts that should lie outside the influence of the Royals. But somehow, this passes our "political sniff test."

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think the hard part of this interference issue for many of us is that the line between political and not political can be so fine. The line between acceptable and inflammatory even more so.

Cities and towns are indeed finer places with lovely public spaces. But imposing one's own taste on the definition of lovely can be a bit problematic. And influencing public funding of public space design should be out of bounds.

But routinely decisions on architecture are made by a very, very small group of people. That is what annoys the architects (and the city planners), Charles is impacting their carte blanche as the ultimate 'artists' and 'deciders' regarding public space. I do understand that architects satisfy a customer; I am making a broad point.

It seems to me that Charles serves a function. He speaks for a point of view that is routinely squashed. His views on the 'built environment' are not unique. Many there are who must be grateful that they have a voice through Charles. If Charles doesn't speak up for the historical nature of the English landscape, who will replace him of equal stature? By his saying something he opens up the possibilities. I am reminded of Jackie Kennedy Onassis who went to bat to save Grand Central Station. That is an example of a single individual who made a difference on public architecture. No one complained. She went so far as to engender support. Charles merely states his view, thus widening the debate. A good thing imo.

 

[cepe]

But routinely decisions on architecture are made by a very, very small group of people. That is what annoys the architects (and the city planners), Charles is impacting their carte blanche as the ultimate 'artists' and 'deciders' regarding public space. I do understand that architects satisfy a customer; I am making a broad point.

It seems to me that Charles serves a function. He speaks for a point of view that is routinely squashed. His views on the 'built environment' are not unique. Many there are who must be grateful that they have a voice through Charles. If Charles doesn't speak up for the historical nature of the English landscape, who will replace him of equal stature? By his saying something he opens up the possibilities. I am reminded of Jackie Kennedy Onassis who went to bat to save Grand Central Station. That is an example of a single individual who made a difference on public architecture. No one complained. She went so far as to engender support. Charles merely states his view, thus widening the debate. A good thing imo.

Can I add that every planning decision is open to public debate in the UK. From major works (ie the Shard) to me building an extension.

There are strict planning rules and any planning authority must stick to them. But remember that Charles has no power, and just because he says he doesnt like something, that should not impact on the decision. His influence is not so great that he can alter the rules.

What you read in the press is flim-flam. Sound and fury signifying nothing.


This is the most sensible, honest and pragmatic article on the recent rubbish in the press. Simon Jenkins is a well respected journalist, not a monarchist but he nails it with this as he debunks the recent nonsense.

Our monarchy is powerless and would remain that way under King Charles | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[AdmirerUS]

But routinely decisions on architecture are made by a very, very small group of people. That is what annoys the architects (and the city planners), Charles is impacting their carte blanche as the ultimate 'artists' and 'deciders' regarding public space. I do understand that architects satisfy a customer; I am making a broad point.

It seems to me that Charles serves a function. He speaks for a point of view that is routinely squashed. His views on the 'built environment' are not unique. Many there are who must be grateful that they have a voice through Charles. If Charles doesn't speak up for the historical nature of the English landscape, who will replace him of equal stature? By his saying something he opens up the possibilities. I am reminded of Jackie Kennedy Onassis who went to bat to save Grand Central Station. That is an example of a single individual who made a difference on public architecture. No one complained. She went so far as to engender support. Charles merely states his view, thus widening the debate. A good thing imo.

I don't disagree - but I was speaking to the topic - Charles as Monarch.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Can I add that every planning decision is open to public debate in the UK. From major works (ie the Shard) to me building an extension.

There are strict planning rules and any planning authority must stick to them. But remember that Charles has no power, and just because he says he doesnt like something, that should not impact on the decision. His influence is not so great that he can alter the rules.

Same in the US, where there is a planning authority and rules that are not bent for the wealthy and influential.

What you read in the press is flim-flam. Sound and fury signifying nothing.

Good to know.

This is the most sensible, honest and pragmatic article on the recent rubbish in the press. Simon Jenkins is a well respected journalist, not a monarchist but he nails it with this as he debunks the recent nonsense.

Our monarchy is powerless and would remain that way under King Charles | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Thanks for this link, cepe. The article is excellent. I especially liked this part -

TEXT: "What critics find scary about Prince Charles is his strength of opinion. He is portrayed as rising in the morning aching with “frightful worries” over climate change, organic vegetables, youth employment, GM foods, urban renewal, modern architecture and fracking. He obsesses over anything sustainable and renewable. He bores for Britain on natural and animal conservation. He remains loyal to the wilder shores of his enthusiasm, to holistic medicine and peace on earth. A one-time champion of the Social Democrat party has gone green fundamentalist. He loves passing causes.

"The Prince of Wales, in other words, is Guardian-lite – which should surely be a source of comfort to his critics on the left. But is not his power irresponsible and unaccountable, they ask. They invert Voltaire, agreeing with what the prince says but denying him the right to say it.

"What is this right denied? The famous “black spider” letters to ministers, which the Guardian justly thought should be in the public domain, are mere letters. They can be torn up – and, I suspect, were. The prince may dislike a plan for the Chelsea barracks, but that was no reason for the council to refuse it. Nor did it: the plan was withdrawn by the ubiquitous Qataris.

"The prince is a celebrity. Hereditary celebrity, and its opinion, is no more or less legitimate than that of a pop star, a sportsman, a novelist or Russell Brand, on all of whom the media dance attendance. Celebrity has influence only insofar as it commands public support. The rest is noise.

"The prince has no influence on policy or decision in comparison, for instance, with that of an “unaccountable” newspaper or with the true movers and shakers, the lobbyists who now terrorise whole provinces of the coalition government. A princely concern for a green belt orchid counts for nothing against the massed ranks of the National Farmers’ Union or the Home Builders Federation. A concern for arms sales to the Gulf is lost amid the big guns of British Aerospace. The prince gives funds to no political party. He wields no divisions, just a few biscuit factories."

 

[MARG]

There is one thing he can do and often does, as in the case of the Chelsea Barracks scenario, gives voice to those that are not heard.

There was a tight-knit community vocally lobbying against the proposal, claiming it would have a huge negative impact on their community. How Prince Charles became aware of the development I am not sure, but one thing I am sure of is that the locals were ignored and Charles taking up their cause, made the news for "interferring", yet again after a single letter was leaked.

He was called arrogant for charging the developers to prove the development would not adversely impact the community and the good old architects and developers wailed and publically castigated him, all the while shooting themselves in the foot by providing a platform for the local citizens and raising public interest in something that would otherwise have just ground on inexorably.

Why Prince Charles is right about architecture - Comment - Voices - The Independent

 

[SLV]

Our monarchy is powerless and would remain that way under King Charles | Simon Jenkins | Comment is free | The Guardian

Excellent article.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Excellent article.

And excellent prose. Well worth the read if only for the phrasing.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

What do you think about Prince Charles getting involved in a project that would restore some of the older castles in England?
​

 

[royal rob]

What do you think about Prince Charles getting involved in a project that would restore some of the older castles in England?
​

As long as he listens to others in the project
On second thoughts best if he's not involved leave to the people that trained and professional


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[VictoriaB]

As long as he listens to others in the project
On second thoughts best if he's not involved leave to the people that trained and professional


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Yes. Leave it to those who would update the castles so that they are more in tune with modern views on architecture. Attach some hideous concrete structure or glass edifice to a beautiful medieval building.

Listening to other points of view flows both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[royal rob]

Yes. Leave it to those who would update the castles so that they are more in tune with modern views on architecture. Attach some hideous concrete structure or glass edifice to a beautiful medieval building.

Listening to other points of view flows both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

So all architects are idiots and only know modern work and Charles who isn't a architect knows better.
There are plenty of architects who are specialists in these sorts of projects and have studied for years.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[VictoriaB]

So all architects are idiots and only know modern work and Charles who isn't a architect knows better.
There are plenty of architects who are specialists in these sorts of projects and have studied for years.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

No, not all architects are idiots but some have horrendous taste IMHO.

Prince Charles certainly needs to accept other points of view but so do the so called experts.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[AdmirerUS]

What do you think about Prince Charles getting involved in a project that would restore some of the older castles in England?​

​

I think he's done that - sort of. Dumfries' estate dates to the 1500s, and the current house to the 1700s.

 

[royal rob]

Just because all his great greats lived in castles doesn't mean he would know anything about restoring them
It's a very specialist job to be able to protect it from further damage
My great greats lived in little timber shanty's but I wouldn't know how to restore them either.
Just my opinion but I think Charles would be a massive pain in the b.. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[AdmirerUS]

I'm changing the subject. I hope when Charles is King, that he stops promoting family members along a timeline as if they were still active military. It's a tradition that once made sense, but has become a more of a liability in a modern military/society. JMO.

I think the honorary leadership positions can have some real impact for members of the services. I just question the value of perpetual promotions to anyone other than the member of the Royal Family and as a nod to "tradition."

 

[Skippyboo]

I don't see what the big deal is about a honorary promotion. It isn't a taking a promotion away from an active serving member of the forces. It is just letting the Royal where a different uniform. Charles himself when he left the Royal Navy was probably around the rank when William left - Lt. or Lt. Cmdr. Through out the years, he has been promoted to the top ranks in all three services.

If he stayed the rank he left active service, he would be King -head of the armed forces but only a junior officer. Would he have to salute officers who have a higher rank?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[AdmirerUS]

To me it just looks elitist. It's not earned, it's a gift. This is just my opinion, but it demeans earned promotions when unearned promotions are tradition. And sometimes, the timing can be awkward.
As to the salute - as a no longer active service member a salute is not required. Someone who knows more about the military/royalty level of rank would have to address who salutes whom in what instances. I admit - that's way out of my experience.

 

[VictoriaB]

To me it just looks elitist. It's not earned, it's a gift. This is just my opinion, but it demeans earned promotions when unearned promotions are tradition. And sometimes, the timing can be awkward.

I agree with you. But isn't that what monarchy is all about? The very existence of Kings and Queens not to mention an aristocracy has nothing to do with merit, it's all about elitism. From there it's a very short leap to honorary promotions.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think he's done that - sort of. Dumfries' estate dates to the 1500s, and the current house to the 1700s.

Correctly so. He has never done any restoration 'on his own' as far as I know. What he does do is employ the experts, the artists and restorationists themselves. He employs architects, in fact.

What makes Charles valuable is that he actually does consult with 'the experts'. Charles is not an outlier. The Dumfries estate is an example of just how savvy his attention is to a project. He likely could restore castles, if that was an interest, though I have the impression that Charles undertakes a project only when he can see a benefit accruing to a larger, current need, like local employment and revitalization of an area.