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

[Jo of Palatine]

Quite the contrary, my sub's respected hard workers and honorable behavior, it is/was our corporate culture,

Hm, IMHO an important part of honorable behaviour is the decency to check facts before passing judgment.

In this case we have so far no official statement confirming that Camilla dropped out of any of her scheduled events due to whatever reason. All we have are two papers claiming that she hasn't as many scheduled events as her husband, one even explaining that fact with the information that she needs more time for preparation than her husband.

Taking this information to pass judgment of Camilla's work ethic and to condem her seems indecent to me. Maybe you sub's respected your hard work, but I doubt they would have respected to be judged by you without your trying to seriously checking the circumstances before that judgment.

 

[Gaia]

Really, from what we see of many businesses, honour does not come into it.

Even the various religions have problems with the concept of honour. It all depends on a personal view, after all, many women are killed each year in 'honour killings' and the people involved believe they acted to protect their code of honour. So as we can see, what is one persons idea of honour is not everyones idea of honour.

I happened to have a wonderful experience during my career so I speak from my experience. If you are seeing the opposite in your experience.. how sad. As for honor, calling out religions that don't hold a woman to an equal standard is an odd extreme in trying to make your point, but I agree the DoC would have not been around today if she was in one these cultures.

My circle of friends, which at least one was born and raised in England, do not find DoC to be an exemplary model of hardworking nor sweet. She makes the US Wallis Simpson look like an amateur. This is my opinion, I understand that some of you don't agree and that is your right...I won't belittle you because I don't agree.

Taking this information to pass judgment of Camilla's work ethic and to condem her seems indecent to me. Maybe you sub's respected your hard work, but I doubt they would have respected to be judged by you without your trying to seriously checking the circumstances before that judgment.

Why are you making this personal, I don't agree with you about DoC. We don't agree about her character...the word condemn is so dramatic. As for my subs you are projecting....I had and still have consulting work based on my skills...I would love to put a plan together for the DoC

 

[Skydragon]

I happened to have a wonderful experience during my career so I speak from my experience. If you are seeing the opposite in your experience.. how sad. As for honor, calling out religions that don't hold a woman to an equal standard is an odd extreme in trying to make your point, but I agree the DoC would have not been around today if she was in one these cultures.

I am not part of the daily grind, so please, save your sarcasm. I would think the entire Western world has read about the lack of honour in any number of businesses, I was merely pointing out that your idea of honour might be different from others. I don't find it very honourable to judge someone on mis reading a couple of articles. Recently a Bishop has been forced to resign because he fell in love with another woman, some of his parishoners, acting in a to them, honourable way, forced this resignation. They believe they did an honourable thing even though I find it was neither an honourable nor christian thing. I don't understand your 'calling out' remark, so I won't judge you on that.

I did not mention religions regarding honour killings, I said many religions have a problem with honour and many women are killed each year because they were believed to dishonour their family. Two completely different examples of 'honour'.

My circle of friends, which at least one was born and raised in England, do not find DoC to be an exemplary model of hardworking nor sweet. She makes the US Wallis Simpson look like an amateur

Based on what, the same misread article? Does your one English friend know HRH personally to make this judgment, have you and she based your comparison on misread articles concerning Simpson as well as HRH or are you saying you are able to compare one with the other from personal knowledge?

I would love to put a plan together for the DoC

Lucky for us, she has professionals to advise her.

 

[MARG]

far from the press not being interested in Camilla's side of the story, they would have paid many millions for it, goodness they have, I understand, offered thousands to any friend who will speak, without any success to date. That is the mark of a good woman who can gather such loyal friends.

You have a really good point there. Not only has she gathered loyal friends, but am I right in thinking that neither "the Butler" nor anyone else employed by her, has felt the need to feather their nest?

 

[Russophile]

My circle of friends, which at least one was born and raised in England, do not find DoC to be an exemplary model of hardworking nor sweet. She makes the US Wallis Simpson look like an amateur.

Good Lord I should hope not! Wallis loved David but she was never lN LOVE with David, not like Camilla is with Charles.
I have a couple English clients here in Oregon as well and they have said what a conniving person Camilla is. I just don't see it. All I see is a prejudice that just because Camilla wasn't Hollywood beautiful like Diana, people don't like her. Since they label her a "rottweiler" they think her motives suspect and evil.
I like her character. I think she's a strong woman worthy of respect.

 

[rmay286]

Good Lord I should hope not! Wallis loved David but she was never lN LOVE with David, not like Camilla is with Charles.

I have only read one biography of Wallis Simpson and that not completely, but I don't know how you could know whether she "loved" David but wasn't "in love" with him?

 

[tinkerbell1948]

I actually picked up a book at a second hand shop that Wallace wrote , can't remember if I even have it any more. It was called "The Heart Has It's Reasons". Might dig it out if I can find it and re-read it.......but I digress this thread is about Charles and Camilla

I'm sure Camilla will never write/conspire to write a book/arrange an interview, she has kept silent all these years as have her friends . I respect her for that

 

[Russophile]

I have only read one biography of Wallis Simpson and that not completely, but I don't know how you could know whether she "loved" David but wasn't "in love" with him?

Indeed this is about Charles and Camilla, I was responding to the post above where they were comparing Charles and Camilla's relationship to that of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
I am currently at work, so this is what I've come up with just on the top of my head.

From Greg King's Book: The Duchess of Windsor.
"More than anything else, she appears a woman who. in her own way, loved David greatly."
Emphasis Mine.
Didn't say she was in love with David, just loved him in her own way.

From Dancing With The Devil by Christopher Wilson:
"In the eyes of these adhearents, Jimmy put Wallis in a position to fatally compromise the man who had given up his throne, his crown and his empire for the woman he loved. For four years and three months, the Duke of Windsor was cuckolded by, and remained in danger of being rejected for, a homosexual."
Again, Emphasis Mine.
Everybody knows about the affair Wallis had with Jimmy Donohue. In my opinion, if you are IN LOVE, really IN LOVE with somebody, you don't go screwing around on them.

From Owen Platt: The Royal Governor
"Always strong-willed, Wallis now dominated Edward completely; on one occasion, in front of guests, she thumped the table and forebade him to give instructions to the servants "in my home."
Ditto the above.
Point being, marriage is a two-way street. It's built upon people who work together, no one has the upper hand in the relationship. I don't see that with Camilla and Charles. I noticed that to some degree with Wallis and David.
I see Charles and Camilla's relationship to be very healthy, give and take. I saw Wallis and David's as rather sad. She did love him, he did take care of her, but it wasn't the "Romance of the Century" that many have proclaimed it. David simply didn't want to be King and in giving up the throne, how could Wallis dump him?

Charles and Camilla have a very lovely, working, healthy relationship. They always have had this and they always will.

 

[Skydragon]

I have a couple English clients here in Oregon as well and they have said what a conniving person Camilla is. I just don't see it. All I see is a prejudice that just because Camilla wasn't Hollywood beautiful like Diana, people don't like her. Since they label her a "rottweiler" they think her motives suspect and evil.
I like her character. I think she's a strong woman worthy of respect.

Many people have judged Camilla on the things Diana said, but as they say -

You can fool some of the people, some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

There will always be gullible people who choose to believe Camilla is the devil, because they are unwilling or unable to see beyond what ONE person told the world, in her efforts to shift the blame over the breakup. The same pattern that Diana used at school, (poison pen letters prime example). Having spoken to many people over this past year, from all walks of life, the anti Camilla brigade seem to be either raving church goers or people whose partner/spouse/father, has had affairs or divorced them. I say father because those where the mother had affairs all have excuses for what she did.

Not scientific I know!

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Having spoken to many people over this past year, from all walks of life, the anti Camilla brigade seem to be either raving church goers or people whose partner/spouse/father, has had affairs or divorced them. I say father because those where the mother had affairs all have excuses for what she did.

Not scientific I know!

Not scientific, okay, but an interesting observation.

 

[Empress]

Hello everyone -

Please remember that any personal exchanges need to be carried out via PM. The temperature in this thread seems to be rising, and the next outbreak of personal comments will close the thread for clean up.

I am sure you are all mature enough to have some restraint and not take exception at every possible turn.

Empress

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

The only friend who has spoken, was Jilly and that was with tacit approval and an agreement that she would be very careful in what she said, I understand.

Who is 'Jilly'?

It's an interesting discussion some of you have been having about loyalty.
I think the loyalty of Camilla's friends shows that she gives them strong reasons to be loyal. She is loyal to them, and so they return the favor. Like attracts like. Good friends have good friends.

I do not want to engage in yet more Diana/Camilla comparison, but comparisons are so useful for illustration. With Diana, she fluctuated in her alliances so much that her "friends" never knew what they would have any given day. Will it be 'sweet' Diana or 'sulky' Diana or whatever? So maybe Diana attracted the same to her, the fluctuating, the unstable, the non-loyal.
She was such a person, with such "friends". Maybe....

 

[Russophile]

CT, you can't get away from the comparisons, there will ALWAYS be comparisons. There is no doubt in my mind that Diana did a LOT of good in her short life. She brought a lot of attention to good causes and broke a lot of barriers. She most likely would have done that to the end of her days, were they not cut short. But I do have to tell you, I am enjoying Camilla and the way she's stepping into the spotlight. I like the way she's handling her duties and the way she's supporting Charles. She's coming into her own and I see a very confident, strong woman here that's a definite asset to the RF.

 

[Skydragon]

Who is 'Jilly'?

It's an interesting discussion some of you have been having about loyalty.
I think the loyalty of Camilla's friends shows that she gives them strong reasons to be loyal. She is loyal to them, and so they return the favor. Like attracts like. Good friends have good friends.

Jilly is a friend of Camilla's and a writer of some steamy novels!
Jilly Cooper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jo of Palatine]

CT, you can't get away from the comparisons, there will ALWAYS be comparisons. There is no doubt in my mind that Diana did a LOT of good in her short life. She brought a lot of attention to good causes and broke a lot of barriers. She most likely would have done that to the end of her days, were they not cut short. But I do have to tell you, I am enjoying Camilla and the way she's stepping into the spotlight. I like the way she's handling her duties and the way she's supporting Charles. She's coming into her own and I see a very confident, strong woman here that's a definite asset to the RF.

I like that - breaking up that endless Diana-Camilla-circle.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Sometimes I think that I found the reason why part of the media and some people are so emotionally opposed towards Charles and Camilla: because Charles is such a picture-perfect prince. He really is a gentleman as well as a nobleman, he keeps his faults (according to Dimbleby: he likes to complain and has a streal of self-pity) under wraps and he goes out of his way to make people comfortable, showing a caring side that people really enjoy. He gives a lot of thought and work to better the life of others, while his personal indulgences seem small compared to what he achieves for people not so lucky as him. He is a deep thinker but not arrogant about it, he never appeared a genius but he is an example of what even kids from a non-academic family could achieve if they got proper help biggrin.

He is Mr. Nice Guy personified and after close to 60 years of public scrutiny, I guess we would know if he had a dark side to him (other than his marriage to Di, but I come to that ).

Enter Camilla: well, she is the idea of a British lady personified and if it wasn't for a certain princess and the media, nobody would have ever discussed her private life in public, much less seen her as the center of a scandal. And the really bad thing for the media is: she is obviously as genuine an article as her prince.

So - where is the reason for the obvious dislike of the prince and his second wife? I guess it has to do with shame that the media and a lot of people fell for Diana's spell. If this prince was so picture-perfect and if his princess was the fairytale come true: why did their marriage not work out? So in order to whiten the coat of the princess, they had to blacken the prince and find the witch who was responsible.

The media caters for the public - they try to anticipate the public's reaction and attune their stories according to it. So I have hope: once the Diana-inquest is finished, there will be silence, only occassionally disturbed by some reminiscences but never threatened by some real news about her.
She will fianlly rest in peace while Britain may be allowed to enjoy their perfect prince and his darling wife. Or so I hope.

 

[rmay286]

Sometimes I think that I found the reason why part of the media and some people are so emotionally opposed towards Charles and Camilla: because Charles is such a picture-perfect prince. He really is a gentleman as well as a nobleman, he keeps his faults (according to Dimbleby: he likes to complain and has a streal of self-pity) under wraps and he goes out of his way to make people comfortable, showing a caring side that people really enjoy. He gives a lot of thought and work to better the life of others, while his personal indulgences seem small compared to what he achieves for people not so lucky as him. He is a deep thinker but not arrogant about it, he never appeared a genius but he is an example of what even kids from a non-academic family could achieve if they got proper help biggrin.

He is Mr. Nice Guy personified and after close to 60 years of public scrutiny, I guess we would know if he had a dark side to him (other than his marriage to Di, but I come to that ).

Enter Camilla: well, she is the idea of a British lady personified and if it wasn't for a certain princess and the media, nobody would have ever discussed her private life in public, much less seen her as the center of a scandal. And the really bad thing for the media is: she is obviously as genuine an article as her prince.

So - where is the reason for the obvious dislike of the prince and his second wife? I guess it has to do with shame that the media and a lot of people fell for Diana's spell. If this prince was so picture-perfect and if his princess was the fairytale come true: why did their marriage not work out? So in order to whiten the coat of the princess, they had to blacken the prince and find the witch who was responsible.

The media caters for the public - they try to anticipate the public's reaction and attune their stories according to it. So I have hope: once the Diana-inquest is finished, there will be silence, only occassionally disturbed by some reminiscences but never threatened by some real news about her.
She will fianlly rest in peace while Britain may be allowed to enjoy their perfect prince and his darling wife. Or so I hope.

Wow, I don't know that I would call Charles a perfect prince. A bad guy with a dark side? No, but I think there are reasons people don't see Charles as a perfect prince and Camilla as a perfect princess beyond simply Diana. There are definitely some irrational Diana fans out there who hate everything Charles and Camilla do. But you don't have to have listened to a word Diana said or care anything about her to have reasons for thinking Charles and Camilla aren't the epitome of perfect royalty. I think here Charles and Camilla seem to be getting points for not talking about their private lives, being discreet and doing their social duty, etc. Maybe other people don't care as much about that, still think about the affair. I had to listen to another rant from my professor today about the dreadfulness of the whole royal family, no exceptions included. Partly because he thinks they're a waste of space anyway, partly because he thinks their personal lives all left something to be desired.

 

[Russophile]

I had to listen to another rant from my professor today about the dreadfulness of the whole royal family, no exceptions included. Partly because he thinks they're a waste of space anyway, partly because he thinks their personal lives all left something to be desired.

Partly because secretly he'd like to BE a member of the RF???

 

[rmay286]

Partly because secretly he'd like to BE a member of the RF???

Who knows? I can't figure out actually why someone would have such a strong opinion against the royal family, but then I don't live in Britain. He said they should all get a "real job", he couldn't stand them.

Actually it's quite interesting having a professor from Britain. It's the first time I've ever encountered the subject of the royal family at university. He asked, "So do you guys think you should get rid of the Queen?" Everyone: "What's wrong with the queen? Getting rid of our ties to Britain would be too much work! Changing the constitution and all..." I think you can that tell the general Canadian population doesn't have strong feelings about the monarchy either way.

Even so, ideas trickle down. Someone did mention seeing a recent documentary asking whether the royal family still had a purpose--were they really good examples, what with Charles marrying his mistress "Carmilla" (sic)?

I guess the point I'm making from that is that not everyone has strong feelings about Diana, but are still picking up the message that Charles might be unfit as king/head of the Church of England because he had an affair and married his mistress. And that's a fact that has nothing to do with spin by Diana or Diana fans.

 

[Skydragon]

Actually it's quite interesting having a professor from Britain. It's the first time I've ever encountered the subject of the royal family at university. He asked, "So do you guys think you should get rid of the Queen?" Everyone: "What's wrong with the queen? Getting rid of our ties to Britain would be too much work! Changing the constitution and all..." I think you can that tell the general Canadian population doesn't have strong feelings about the monarchy either way.

Just because the chap is a professor, does not mean he is not a republican. According to this huge lol poll of 1032 people, the majority of Canadians want to drop the monarchy.
Majority of Canadians want to drop monarchy: poll | International | Reuters

 

[milla Ca]

Sometimes I think that I found the reason why part of the media and some people are so emotionally opposed towards Charles and Camilla: because Charles is such a picture-perfect prince. He really is a gentleman as well as a nobleman, he keeps his faults (according to Dimbleby: he likes to complain and has a streal of self-pity) under wraps and he goes out of his way to make people comfortable, showing a caring side that people really enjoy. He gives a lot of thought and work to better the life of others, while his personal indulgences seem small compared to what he achieves for people not so lucky as him. He is a deep thinker but not arrogant about it, he never appeared a genius but he is an example of what even kids from a non-academic family could achieve if they got proper help biggrin.

He is Mr. Nice Guy personified and after close to 60 years of public scrutiny, I guess we would know if he had a dark side to him (other than his marriage to Di, but I come to that ).

Enter Camilla: well, she is the idea of a British lady personified and if it wasn't for a certain princess and the media, nobody would have ever discussed her private life in public, much less seen her as the center of a scandal. And the really bad thing for the media is: she is obviously as genuine an article as her prince.

So - where is the reason for the obvious dislike of the prince and his second wife? I guess it has to do with shame that the media and a lot of people fell for Diana's spell. If this prince was so picture-perfect and if his princess was the fairytale come true: why did their marriage not work out? So in order to whiten the coat of the princess, they had to blacken the prince and find the witch who was responsible.

The media caters for the public - they try to anticipate the public's reaction and attune their stories according to it. So I have hope: once the Diana-inquest is finished, there will be silence, only occassionally disturbed by some reminiscences but never threatened by some real news about her.
She will fianlly rest in peace while Britain may be allowed to enjoy their perfect prince and his darling wife. Or so I hope.

Great post, Jo, thank you!

I wish i could share your optimsm that the press will no longer damage Charles and Camilla after the Diana inquest is finished.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Sometimes I think that I found the reason why part of the media and some people are so emotionally opposed towards Charles and Camilla: because Charles is such a picture-perfect prince. He really is a gentleman as well as a nobleman, he keeps his faults (according to Dimbleby: he likes to complain and has a streal of self-pity) under wraps and he goes out of his way to make people comfortable, showing a caring side that people really enjoy. He gives a lot of thought and work to better the life of others, while his personal indulgences seem small compared to what he achieves for people not so lucky as him. He is a deep thinker but not arrogant about it, he never appeared a genius but he is an example of what even kids from a non-academic family could achieve if they got proper help biggrin.

He is Mr. Nice Guy personified and after close to 60 years of public scrutiny, I guess we would know if he had a dark side to him (other than his marriage to Di, but I come to that ).

Enter Camilla: well, she is the idea of a British lady personified and if it wasn't for a certain princess and the media, nobody would have ever discussed her private life in public, much less seen her as the center of a scandal. And the really bad thing for the media is: she is obviously as genuine an article as her prince.

So - where is the reason for the obvious dislike of the prince and his second wife? I guess it has to do with shame that the media and a lot of people fell for Diana's spell. If this prince was so picture-perfect and if his princess was the fairytale come true: why did their marriage not work out? So in order to whiten the coat of the princess, they had to blacken the prince and find the witch who was responsible.

The media caters for the public - they try to anticipate the public's reaction and attune their stories according to it. So I have hope: once the Diana-inquest is finished, there will be silence, only occassionally disturbed by some reminiscences but never threatened by some real news about her.
She will fianlly rest in peace while Britain may be allowed to enjoy their perfect prince and his darling wife. Or so I hope.

Good post Jo but I'd like to disagree. I don't think that Charles is seen as a picture perfect prince or Mr Nice Guy. I see his image more as Mr Forever-In-Waiting who has become a bid odd during this period (painting watercolours and talking to his plants) because after having given countless audiences or attended countless events and sparked interest in countless good causes (especially re environment or Prince's trust) he has clearly reached the point where he can't do more to raise his profile as heir; it's the top job that's missing to get any further. I don't see the Diana issue still being a major (negative) influence on his public image and I acutally think that getting married to Camilla was a step in the right direction. People (including me) were actually happy that he did what he should have done 30 years ago, finally!!! I think that Camilla is good for him and that they make a happy couple - he has finally made peace with himself. Having said that and I have said it before, I don't think that there is positive impact on the institution monarchy itself. I see Charles and Camilla more or less as an elderly couple, nice but a bit odd, same as HM & Prince Philip, but the difference is that those two are from a different generation and HM - due to her young age when taking over - has gained the respect of the public for the impact she has made as monarch. This is exactly what Charles and Camilla are missing - not their fault though - and the reason why people won't support a King Charles wholeheartly. There is nothing new about him, we've seen it all before, and all he will be is a King unable to leave the shadow of his mother. I see Camilla as neither loved or respected but nor hated; she might have a good impact on her husband in private life but won't have an impact for the better on the monarchy itself. It will be down to William to capture the young generation, re-raise interest in the institution and get the public to support him as King, both by working hard and getting married to a suitable wife who brings along some emotional intelligence, a "people's princess" (sadly the comparison to his mother will be inevitable). Good luck!

 

[milla Ca]

Good post Jo but I'd like to disagree. I don't think that Charles is seen as a picture perfect prince or Mr Nice Guy. I see his image more as Mr Forever-In-Waiting who has become a bid odd during this period (painting watercolours and talking to his plants) because after having given countless audiences or attended countless events and sparked interest in countless good causes (especially re environment or Prince's trust) he has clearly reached the point where he can't do more to raise his profile as heir; it's the top job that's missing to get any further. I don't see the Diana issue still being a major (negative) influence on his public image and I acutally think that getting married to Camilla was a step in the right direction. People (including me) were actually happy that he did what he should have done 30 years ago, finally!!! I think that Camilla is good for him and that they make a happy couple - he has finally made peace with himself. Having said that and I have said it before, I don't think that there is positive impact on the institution monarchy itself. I see Charles and Camilla more or less as an elderly couple, nice but a bit odd, same as HM & Prince Philip, but the difference is that those two are from a different generation and HM - due to her young age when taking over - has gained the respect of the public for the impact she has made as monarch. This is exactly what Charles and Camilla are missing - not their fault though - and the reason why people won't support a King Charles wholeheartly. There is nothing new about him, we've seen it all before, and all he will be is a King unable to leave the shadow of his mother. I see Camilla as neither loved or respected but nor hated; she might have a good impact on her husband in private life but won't have an impact for the better on the monarchy itself. It will be down to William to capture the young generation, re-raise interest in the institution and get the public to support him as King, both by working hard and getting married to a suitable wife who brings along some emotional intelligence, a "people's princess" (sadly the comparison to his mother will be inevitable). Good luck!

Duke of Marmalade, i disagree with most of your statements.

Your describtion of Charles as a heir who only paints watercolours and talks to plants is only fit for an article in a tabloid but nothing more.
The Prince is a hard working man ( maybe you should have a look in his diary), who travels around the country to support different projects, to help people, to represent the crown. He is president of many many charities and the Prince´s Trust helps and supports young people in a very successful way. Other things are his organic farm and his engagement for the environment which is respected also abroad.

Together with his wife, who is president of many charities herself and who always supports her husband in a great way, the Prince and the Duchess are not an odd couple but the future of the monarchy. There was never a Princ e of Wales who was so well prepared to do the job as a King before.

I hope in many many years ( after the reign of his father) we can say the same about William and his wife. At the moment he his only a young man learning a job but not someone who could be a good King yet or in the near future.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I don't think that Charles is seen as a picture perfect prince or Mr Nice Guy. I see his image more as Mr Forever-In-Waiting who has become a bid odd during this period (painting watercolours and talking to his plants) because after having given countless audiences or attended countless events and sparked interest in countless good causes (especially re environment or Prince's trust) he has clearly reached the point where he can't do more to raise his profile as heir; it's the top job that's missing to get any further.

Let's view the situation form a different angle: what would be if the Britons suddenly decide to get rid of their monarchy. What would the queen do, what would Charles do? Who do you think would have more impact without the position they now hold? For me the answer is clear: Charles would smoothly fit in with the republic, still enjoy the comfort he is used to as a very rich man and he would go on being an enormously sucessful CEO of the Duchy of Cornwall. Probably he would get voted into parliament for the Tetbury constituency.

But what would the queen do? I guess she would retire, dignified and silent. I don't see her as the fighter for the non-priviledged while I see Charles continuing his work.

 

[yvr girl]

Just because the chap is a professor, does not mean he is not a republican. According to this huge lol poll of 1032 people, the majority of Canadians want to drop the monarchy.
Majority of Canadians want to drop monarchy: poll | International | Reuters

It said it was an online poll, which I wouldn't put much faith in. Self-selecting polls aren't as accurate as random ones.

Getting rid of the monarchy in Canada is a very tall task. There has to be agreement between the federal and provincial governments. I don't see it being such a top of mind issue, that any government would start the fight.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Let's view the situation form a different angle: what would be if the Britons suddenly decide to get rid of their monarchy. What would the queen do, what would Charles do? Who do you think would have more impact without the position they now hold? For me the answer is clear: Charles would smoothly fit in with the republic, still enjoy the comfort he is used to as a very rich man and he would go on being an enormously sucessful CEO of the Duchy of Cornwall. Probably he would get voted into parliament for the Tetbury constituency.

But what would the queen do? I guess she would retire, dignified and silent. I don't see her as the fighter for the non-priviledged while I see Charles continuing his work.

First of all, this is an interesting but hypothetical question - if the Britons would want to get rid of the monarchy they would do so after HM's death as it will mark the end of an era anyway. She is not only loved and respected for what she has achieved during her long reign but also because she is seen in line with those great (female) monarchs who had a huge impact on Britains history and present, such as Elizabeth I or Victoria.

For me there is only one answer to this question: the person QE II is not even conceivable without being the monarch. She is not and does not want to be seen as a private person but only as head of state serving her country. A Britain without the institution monarchy would not be HM's Britain - I am sure she would feel like ET coming to planet earth after all these years.

Charles however is from a different generation, has never been monarch and would be able to adapt to the situation, continuing with the work he has done so far, I completely agree with that, and this is what makes the situation so dangerous and leads to another question: Why would Britain need a monarch if the heir would do the same work anyway? Apart from hard work and service to the country, royals must stand out and have a special aura that makes people get attracted to them. Again, I like Charles & Camilla but I don't see anything special in them, no sparkle or inspiration and therefore I believe that there will be tough times ahead for the monarchy after HM's death.

 

[milla Ca]

Again, I like Charles & Camilla but I don't see anything special in them, no sparkle or inspiration and therefore I believe that there will be tough times ahead for the monarchy after HM's death.

And why do you think that William can revive this ´sparkle of inspiration´, only because he is young and looks a bit like his mother?
When this is the qualification for a good King then i really fear for the future of the British monarchy...

 

[ysbel]

Actually the fights that members here are having about who was most at fault in Charles, Diana's and Camilla's situation sound very similar to the sides that friends take when their mutual friends get divorced. I still believe this is the fallout of Diana directly taking her case to the people. If she hadn't have done it, if she and Charles had gone the route of Joachim and Alexandra, I think the outcome for all three Diana, Charles, and Camilla, and all of their children would have been vastly different than what it turned out to be.

And I think that people's opinions of Charles and Camilla and William and Harry would be very different than what they are otherwise.

But the Duke of Marmalade made a very good point here in this post below.

I see his image more as Mr Forever-In-Waiting who has become a bid odd during this period (painting watercolours and talking to his plants) because after having given countless audiences or attended countless events and sparked interest in countless good causes (especially re environment or Prince's trust) he has clearly reached the point where he can't do more to raise his profile as heir; it's the top job that's missing to get any further.

What it looks like is that Charles has overstayed his welcome in the role he has now and that is as the heir to the throne. I can see that. He's been the heir since he was three years old, for sake of novelty people would like to see another heir. The sole reason for this is that his mother has lived too long. That I can see so it really makes one wonder whether the Queen should abdicate - not for William - but for Charles. People can prepare all they want but at some point the only way to evaluate whether you ready for the top job is to give it to you.

And then William would have a new role as the dashing young heir. Actually I think the Queen out of duty would not want to abdicate but if she felt that in abdicating she was fulfilling her duty, then I think she would.

However, to effect that change both the Queen and the government would have to be comfortable that a monarchy with a King Charles would work now and be secure.

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.

The question is whether William is interested in being sparkling to the public and can he do it? The other question would be whether Charles and Camilla can assume the aura of aged respectability.

They had affairs so I think its a matter of whether people will always see them as permanently tainted by their original sin or whether people see them as survivors, those who made mistakes and learned from them.

In one sense, if someone has a reputation of having lessons learned from their mistakes, it can give them an added respectability.

 

[rmay286]

Good post Jo but I'd like to disagree. I don't think that Charles is seen as a picture perfect prince or Mr Nice Guy. I see his image more as Mr Forever-In-Waiting who has become a bid odd during this period (painting watercolours and talking to his plants) because after having given countless audiences or attended countless events and sparked interest in countless good causes (especially re environment or Prince's trust) he has clearly reached the point where he can't do more to raise his profile as heir; it's the top job that's missing to get any further. I don't see the Diana issue still being a major (negative) influence on his public image and I acutally think that getting married to Camilla was a step in the right direction. People (including me) were actually happy that he did what he should have done 30 years ago, finally!!! I think that Camilla is good for him and that they make a happy couple - he has finally made peace with himself. Having said that and I have said it before, I don't think that there is positive impact on the institution monarchy itself. I see Charles and Camilla more or less as an elderly couple, nice but a bit odd, same as HM & Prince Philip, but the difference is that those two are from a different generation and HM - due to her young age when taking over - has gained the respect of the public for the impact she has made as monarch. This is exactly what Charles and Camilla are missing - not their fault though - and the reason why people won't support a King Charles wholeheartly. There is nothing new about him, we've seen it all before, and all he will be is a King unable to leave the shadow of his mother. I see Camilla as neither loved or respected but nor hated; she might have a good impact on her husband in private life but won't have an impact for the better on the monarchy itself. It will be down to William to capture the young generation, re-raise interest in the institution and get the public to support him as King, both by working hard and getting married to a suitable wife who brings along some emotional intelligence, a "people's princess" (sadly the comparison to his mother will be inevitable). Good luck!

I basically agree with this whole post. Jo of Palatine suggested that Charles could be very popular if people just forgot about Diana, or would have been popular had he not married Diana. I think not and for most of the reasons you suggested.

Firstly, the fact that Charles is dedicated to worthy causes, carries out many public engagements, and does so with good humour and discipline, only goes so far. I think if a monarch is going to become popular for their work ethic and sense of duty, these qualities have to be seen as exceptional--in other words, that the monarch isn't just fulfilling his/her duty but going above and beyond. The Queen is seen as going beyond the call of duty for three reasons: first, she became queen at a younger age than most and thus has reigned longer than most monarchs. Secondly, even though nowadays she's still just doing her duty as usual, this is now seen as exceptional because she's in her 80s, when what was routine at 40 starts to look impressive. Thirdly, the queen's reputation has remained impeccable all throughout her reign; you never hear of her making an inappropriate comment, let alone committing an indiscreet act. She really comes across as a faultless example of personal character.

Charles, on the other hand, might be dutiful, but he doesn't have any of the advantages his mother has, which make a monarch seem exceptional. He'll never reign as long (that's not his fault, but it's a fact). He's middle-aged; maybe he'll be more admired for working hard when he's in his 80s, but even then he'll only have been king for a few years as opposed to his mother's impressive 55+. He does have scandals in his past. And beyond that, Charles is eccentric or at least viewed as such. He makes comments on current affairs that some people might see as dubious, such as offering support for Muslims.

Of course a monarch can always become popular despite all kinds of flaws, provided they're charismatic or have that "sparkle" you talked about. Queen Elizabeth doesn't necessarily sparkle, but she doesn't need to because of her reputation. I don't personally believe Charles and Camilla have the charisma or the widespread appeal to ever catch the public's attention. The Canadian poll Skydragon brought over was interesting. Here's a quote:

In a separate question, 35 percent of respondents said they wanted Prince William to succeed the queen, compared with 20 percent who favor Prince Charles.

Support for cutting ties to the monarchy increases to 55 percent if Prince Charles were to become king -- a common thread in Commonwealth countries, said Mario Cansenco, director of global studies at Angus Reid.

People for whatever reason (probably because he's young) think William is more energetic and appealing and can renew the monarchy. I have no idea if he can, in fact from what I've seen of him lately he doesn't seem very goal-driven and given the long wait he'll have to be king, why should he be?--but that poll kind of goes to show you that Charles doesn't quite capture the public imagination.

 

[randomlyKeira]

I haven't read through the entire thred, but I'm answering the question in the first post, so sorry if I'm a bit daft and might reiterate what others have said...

Charles and Camilla seem genuinely happy together. I was at their wedding, and even though it made me a little sick to my stomach because of Camilla's unequal comparison to Diana, you couldn't help but be happy for them. I'm not much of a Camilla fan, but I don't have an outright hatred for her either.