Camilla & Charles: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[ysbel]

randomlyKeira,

you live in London. Are you British? Will you be comfortable pledging allegiance to the King when Charles' time comes?

[randomlyKeira]

Originally Posted by ysbel

randomlyKeira,

you live in London. Are you British? Will you be comfortable pledging allegiance to the King when Charles' time comes?

I am British, and I will pledge allegiance to King Charles III (or King George VII as he's indicated he might wish to be called)... But I think it might be easier to pledge to Dreamboat Willy when he comes to be sovereign

[ysbel]

Ah, I see, randomlyKeira.

So what would your recommendations for Charles and Camilla to prepare themselves and make themselves worthy of the throne in the eyes of the people?

They're not going to have William's youth for girls to go crazy over them but what can they bring to the table to make a difference?

[randomlyKeira]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Ah, I see, randomlyKeira.

So what would your recommendations for Charles and Camilla to prepare themselves and make themselves worthy of the throne in the eyes of the people?

They're not going to have William's youth for girls to go crazy over them but what can they bring to the table to make a difference?

Well, I think that Charles would make an amazing monarch... He's been bread for it since he was born, and if certain people would look past what happened with Diana, then they would agree. Before Charles and Diana's romance fell apart, people thought that Charles would make a great King, and after everyone was still so captivated by Diana, that they "took her side" in a sense. Charles already has everything that someone would need to be the ruling King, he only has certain public disapproval going against him. But he really is a genuinely caring, and intelligent individual. He's a bit awkward, and non-modern, but the fact of royalty isn't meant to be modern, it dates back before recorded time.

And Camilla is really a nice woman if every person in the country and commonwealth were to meet her, which I know is impossible. She's funny, and supportive, which is what a consort is meant to be, a supporter to their spouse (again, a non-modern institution that the monarchy holds).

To sum up, I think that what Charles and Camilla really need is to in a way "distance" themselves from Diana. I loved Diana, but that really is the only thing that people hold against them, that Camilla was once not properly suited for Charles, and he had to marry Diana instead, and they kept on their affair on during their marriages. If people were to look past their affair, and the press would let them, I believe that the people in this country would learn to understand that Charles would make an excelent King...

(But the people who would think that of course would not be the people who are modernists, and wish to abolish monarchy on principal.)

[Al_bina]

Originally Posted by ysbel

...
I was thinking that Charles and Camilla could settle back as the monarchs and let William take center stage as the dashing future of the monarchy without jeopardizing the hereditary succession of the throne which jumping over Charles would do.
...
[snipped]

I fully concur with the above. It is wrong to change the succession rules without serious reasons. When it comes to the dim past, people should always keep in mind that (1) Princess Diana's son will continue the bloodline; and (2)Prince William needs time for good training, but not crash course.

[randomlyKeira]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I fully concur with the above. It is wrong to change the succession rules without serious reasons. When it comes to the dim past, people should always keep in mind that (1) Princess Diana's son will continue the bloodline; and (2)Prince William needs time for good training, but not crash course.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what both of you are suggesting, but the way I understand it is that you think Charles and Camilla should become King and consort, but let William take on the duties...

If I understand correctly, the only thing that would come of it is a further hatred towards the monarchy because they "aren't doing anything".

[Al_bina]

Prince Charles should ascend the throne. Prince William should take on Crown Prince's duties only and learn how to become a monarch. As for those, who would not like Price Charles to become a monarch, they should remember that nothing is eternal and Prince William will ascend the throne when the time comes.
I am not fan of the couple in question, at the same time I see no valid reasons for changing the succession order.

[randomlyKeira]

Originally Posted by Al_bina

Prince Charles should ascend the throne. Prince William should take on Crown Prince's duties only and learn how to become a monarch. As for those, who would not like Price Charles to become a monarch, they should remember that nothing is eternal and Prince William will ascend the throne when the time comes.
I am not fan of the couple in question, at the same time I see no valid reasons for changing the succession order.

I still don't understand...

[love_cc]

Originally Posted by randomlyKeira

I still don't understand...

She means that she does not like Prince Charles and Camilla much. But now she accept the fact that Prince Charles has the natural right to ascent the throne because he is the first born of the queen. And William of course should follow his father's step to take the Crown prince's duties when his father ascend the throne.

[randomlyKeira]

Originally Posted by love_cc

She means that she does not like Prince Charles and Camilla much. But now she accept the fact that Prince Charles has the natural right to ascent the throne because he is the first born of the queen. And William of course should follow his father's step to take the Crown prince's duties when his father ascend the throne.

Oooooohhhhhh...... I feel like an idiot.... She's tried to explain it to me about eight times, and I feel like a complete idiot...

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by randomlyKeira

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what both of you are suggesting, but the way I understand it is that you think Charles and Camilla should become King and consort, but let William take on the duties...

If I understand correctly, the only thing that would come of it is a further hatred towards the monarchy because they "aren't doing anything".

No, not really. At least I wasn't.

I was just thinking that Duke of Marmalade has a point in that Charles is losing his freshness by just waiting and waiting for the throne. However, he's not eternally young so he has to bring something else to the table other than the freshness of youth a William would bring.

I was also thinking that a sedate respectability is more appropriate for a monarch and consort and that the sparkle and excitement of youth is more appropriate for an heir and his consort.

[randomlyKeira]

Originally Posted by ysbel

No, not really. At least I wasn't.

I was just thinking that Duke of Marmalade has a point in that Charles is losing his freshness by just waiting and waiting for the throne. However, he's not eternally young so he has to bring something else to the table other than the freshness of youth a William would bring.

I was also thinking that a sedate respectability is more appropriate for a monarch and consort and that the sparkle and excitement of youth is more appropriate for an heir and his consort.

Okay, thank you for explaining... I agree...

[ysbel]

I just had dinner with a very nice couple: an Englishman and his American wife living in the states and asked him whether the monarchy could survive a King Charles.

He said most undoubtedly yes. He was of the opinion that once Charles becomes King, Charles will become invested with the majesty of the position of kingship and he thought that people's distaste at what transpired at his first marriage would become secondary to their desire to respect his position as King. He said that people would hesitate to speak ill of Charles when he is King for fear of undermining the institution of the monarchy.

He quoted that the monarchy is a very popular institution and people are hesitant to speak ill of the queen but he says that is because of the position she possesses. His quote was that you don't mess up your own house and for the Brits to criticize the Queen too harshly would be messing up their own house.

He was of the opinion that to criticize Charles thusly when Charles becomes King would be tantamount to the same thing.

It is but one man's opinion but I was thinking whether this would be the difference between men and women. We are mostly women on this forum and not so many men but I know that men grant respect based on position and once you gain a certain position (no matter how) men will tend to grant you the respect your position demands rather than the respect your personal conduct demands.

Since men are half of Britain's population would this difference between the sexes play a part in the reception a Charles and Camilla receive upon ascending the throne.

[randomlyKeira]

Well, opinions of the monarchy change from person to person, as genereal opinions do. I don't personally know anyone that is vocally against the monarchy, but the media does shove it into your face every now and then. But the people like that, that are supremely against the monarchy itself are the only ones to my knowledge would be completely against Charles being King. But public opinion of Charles isn't very high at this point, and neither is Camilla's, as this thread suggests... I had one aquaintance say that they would move out of the country should Camilla be Queen.

I don't really feel the way that your friend does about being afraid of speaking my mind about the Queen/King, of course there is general sense of respect, but I feel that they really are genuinely nice people, despite their moral errors in the past...

But I think that the country, as well as the commonwealth, will not outright protest when Charles reigns...

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by ysbel

He said most undoubtedly yes. He was of the opinion that once Charles becomes King, Charles will become invested with the majesty of the position of kingship and he thought that people's distaste at what transpired at his first marriage would become secondary to their desire to respect his position as King. He said that people would hesitate to speak ill of Charles when he is King for fear of undermining the institution of the monarchy.

Another thing to be considered is that at the moment the Queen draws her last breath, it will be C&C mania in the media. All eyes will be on them, and unless one of them kills a puppy on the palace balcony, it will only do good things for them.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ysbel

He said most undoubtedly yes. He was of the opinion that once Charles becomes King, Charles will become invested with the majesty of the position of kingship and he thought that people's distaste at what transpired at his first marriage would become secondary to their desire to respect his position as King. He said that people would hesitate to speak ill of Charles when he is King for fear of undermining the institution of the monarchy.

I'm afraid that might not stop certain elements of the press, who are trying to do exactly that. It'll be interesting to see how much public opinion is against that sort of mischief-making. My guess is that since Charles and Camilla have been married several years already and Diana's memory is fading - I was surprised in one of the other threads to see how many people at TRF are too young to remember her directly - people might resist the attempts of the republican and tabloid newspapers to cause trouble. And if the trouble doesn't sell, the chances are that they'll stop trying. We can hope, anyway.