Charles' legacy as King

ysbel · #1 07-20-2008, 12:42 PM

With so many threads of what legacies the royal ladies will leave, I think its time to discuss what legacy Charles will leave since it was his title that put the ladies in a position to leave a legacy at all.

To start off, I know there's a possibility that Charles will not be King; however, its pointless IMO to discuss what legacy he will leave if he does not become King or if he abdicates shortly after assuming the throne.

So let's assume that Charles will be King and he will be King long enough to leave a legacy - good or bad - from his era as King. It could be a few years or many, just long enough in your opinion for him to leave a legacy.

So what legacy do you think that Charles will leave as King?

Jo of Palatine · #2 07-20-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

So what legacy do you think that Charles will leave as King?

His legacy IMHO will be a very British one: he will have encouraged people to believe in themselves, he will have shown his utmost support for those who aim to better themselves and he will have shown the Britons that no matter how many golden spoons were put in your baby mouth, you still have a duty to fulfill, you still have to work for the community and you still can do something to keep this community of mankind going on.

He will have stood proud and strong and convinced of his agenda. He will have worked hard to put this agenda to live for the sake of his subjects. For me, his being king will only top his work as an outstanding Prince of Wales, so I believe his being king will only strengthen his contribution to society which already is something to be proud of.

BMC · #3 07-20-2008, 01:08 PM

I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

Jo of Palatine · #4 07-20-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMC

I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

But there is already so much achievement connected to his name, so he won't have to start at level Zero. He will put the King's stamp on the things he cares about, probably change some things and be always good for some hefty surprise, I guess.

ysbel · #5 07-20-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMC

I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

You're right BMC, there is the possibility that Charles will not be King long enough to create a legacy at all. However, if we make that assumption, there's no use to have a thread to discuss why Charles won't live long enough to leave a legacy.

This is why I asked other members to assume that he WILL be on the throne long enough to create a lasting legacy.

So if you assume that he will be King long enough to create a legacy - good or bad - what do you think that legacy will be?

milla Ca · #6 07-20-2008, 02:52 PM

I don´t think that Charles´ legacy will only made of his years when he will be King.
All the good important work he does as the Prince of Wales will not end and will be not forgotten when he climbs the throne.
Although his duties than will be different in some parts ( i´m sure i will miss his critical statements in many cases) we will not see a ´new´ Charles.
He will be the caring King, i´m sure, and we also will see some changes to a more modern monarchy and ( and agree with Jo) some surprises nobody knows yet.
(IMO

)

So his legacy ( in the peoples mind) will be one of his whole life, of a man who works for a better world and who cares for the people first.
( I hope

)

In historical books/chronicals the people later will read about a Prince who had to wait long for his reign, who had a failed first marriage, and about a King Charles and Queen Camilla who were adored by the people and who pointed the way to the future of the British monarchy during their accession to the throne.
( I hope

)

brandon · #7 07-20-2008, 03:15 PM

In the first place, his legacy as King begins when he becomes King, not in actions before that. His earlier actions might be part of his "life's legacy" or something like that in a broader view which biographers will deal with in the distant future. Other than that, a legacy doesn't come from issues surrounding marriages, so it's unfortunate for him that some people rush to mention that one way or another when they speculate about how history will judge him. All modern monarchs claim that they work for a better country and society, but it's really about how they carry out their constitutional role as the monarch, which is often more limited than their freer days when they were just the heir. His mother has respect from everybody, so if he can measure up to half of what she has achieved in respect earned then he will be doing well enough in his role already. A monarch isn't a pop star and doesn't require to be "adored" or any of these other things. "Caring"? Depends what you mean and what the reasoning is behind it. The main thing he needs to care about is to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner and that will be the best legacy he can achieve.

milla Ca · #8 07-20-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon

In the first place, his legacy as King begins when he becomes King, not in actions before that. His earlier actions might be part of his "life's legacy" or something like that in a broader view which biographers will deal with in the distant future. Other than that, a legacy doesn't come from issues surrounding marriages, so it's unfortunate for him that some people rush to mention that one way or another when they speculate about how history will judge him. All modern monarchs claim that they work for a better country and society, but it's really about how they carry out their constitutional role as the monarch, which is often more limited than their freer days when they were just the heir. His mother has respect from everybody, so if he can measure up to half of what she has achieved in respect earned then he will be doing well enough in his role already. A monarch isn't a pop star and doesn't require to be "adored" or any of these other things. "Caring"? Depends what you mean and what the reasoning is behind it. The main thing he needs to care about is to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner and that will be the best legacy he can achieve.

Of course your´re right when you say that ´the legacy of a King begins whe he becomes King´ but do you really think you can fade of 60 (and more years) of the Prince of Wales. His legacy will be always made of his life.
For me is ´to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner´not enough for a modern monarchy. A King/ Queen has to be today a ´people´s monarch´and be so much more than only a representer. It´s IMO the only way the monarchy can survive, and i´m sure Charles will go this way.

PrinceOfCanada · #9 07-20-2008, 03:36 PM

I think, unfortunately perhaps, whatever legacy he leaves behind will be eclipsed for quite some time by the legacy of his mother. Look at Victoria as an excellent example of this; the only one of her descendants prior to EII that is even remotely remarkable in historical terms is the Duke of Windsor. And we all know how that turned out.

Charles is known for being outspoken, for being passionate, for even (gasp!) having political opinions and (shock!) saying them. All of that has to stop, immediately, as soon as he accedes to the throne. With good reason, of course; his duty at that point will be to be neutral.

I think his great legacy will really be William and (especially) Harry. Harry is in the enviable position of having power and prestige and an audience--and the ability to speak his mind. One hopes he will follow in his father's footsteps.

Skydragon · #10 07-20-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milla Ca

Of course your´re right when you say that ´the legacy of a King begins when he becomes King´ but do you really think you can fade of 60 (and more years) of the Prince of Wales. His legacy will be always made of his life.
For me is ´to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner´not enough for a modern monarchy. A King/ Queen has to be today a ´people´s monarch´and be so much more than only a representer. It´s IMO the only way the monarchy can survive, and i´m sure Charles will go this way.

You are right, everything that went before cannot and will not be dismissed. Of the many causes Charles will be remembered for, will be his support of organic farming, his calls for sustainable energy etc. People will remember that it was King Charles who started 'The Princes Trust', an organisation that has helped thousands of youngsters. Life doesn't stop and then restart when he becomes King.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceofCanada

I think his great legacy will really be William and (especially) Harry. Harry is in the enviable position of having power and prestige and an audience--and the ability to speak his mind. One hopes he will follow in his father's footsteps

I think that would be impossible to say at this stage. William is an unknown quantity, he could turn out to the another hate figure, it doesn't take much to turn the public against you. Look at Charles, he was the darling of the UK and Commonwealth at one time. There is no guarantee that Harry will not fall by the wayside again because of the prohibition of being a 'real' soldier.

**Elspeth** · #11 07-20-2008, 04:25 PM

As with Camilla, I don't think we can tell what sort of legacy he'll leave as King. His legacy as Prince of Wales looks to be pretty secure - he's made more of that position than most if not all of his predecessors, although I'm afraid that at least for the next few years his marital problems will dominate his legacy (although I don't see that situation lasting for the longer term). But his legacy as King? There are too many unknowns, IMO. Goodness knows what sort of situation he'll inherit - the way things are going, we could be in the middle of some sort of war, and that would make a great difference to his legacy compared with being King during peacetime. There could be a strong republican movement by then, especially if Australia, New Zealand, and/or Canada decide to get rid of the monarchy after the end of the Queen's reign and especially if Britain is in a major recession and the editors of the tabloid papers continue their vendetta against Charles and whip up people's feelings about subsidising a parasitic monarchy or whatever the excuse would be. It's also possible that the Commonwealth won't survive the Queen by very much. I think the world is in too turbulent a state to be able to project that far forward at this point.

Monika_ · #12 07-20-2008, 04:25 PM

I should think one aspect of it would be his steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side, as Queen or as Princess Consort. It really doesn't matter, but that will be a large piece of the pie as for any analysis of his legacy is concerned.

ysbel · #13 07-20-2008, 04:56 PM

All very interesting replies.

I agree with those who claimed that Charles' legacy as King would start when he becomes King. However I do see a way for his efforts up-to-date to put him in a better position to leave a legacy.

The issues that he has cared most about - the environment, alternative forms of energy - are now coming to the forefront of the general public's consciencenous. Right now because of gas prices, companies are seriously looking into alternatively fuelled cars. If this public attention is not just a fad but brings about some real change in how people lead their lives, then Charles could have been said to be on the forefront of a monumental change in public perception. It won't matter IMO whether he himself was instrumental in the change because people on the forefront get credit whether they played a major part or not.

If this new way of living becomes standard by the time he becomes King, then he can take steps to make Buckingham Palace more green and thus appear as he's just following in the steps of public opinion (ie, acting non-controversial) while all along people will know with Charles it won't be a public relations exercise because of his previous commitments.

Already because of the growing awareness of environmental issues, I've seen two non royalty focused articles that praise Charles for being ahead of the curve. No mention of his personal troubles was made in either article. That is not to say that people forgot his personal life, but it does appear for some that the environmental issue is important enough to focus on that entirely to the expense of his personal troubles.

If the number of people that care about this grows, Charles will become more relevant to the common man and the issue will become less and less controversial thereby letting Charles as King have greater influence.

Of course, as King, he will have to curtail his public statements but if the groundwork is already made, he won't have to say much.

brandon · #14 07-20-2008, 05:14 PM

He doesn't need to have steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side because she's been there in some degree since around 1984 at least. We could have another thread about the meaning of "steadfast" for some, but let's leave that aside here. He should be so lucky as to be considered to have a legacy that begins and ends with his actual reign, because the rest of it is too controversial and not the type of baggage to even want to be considered as part of a monarch's legacy, unless one is inclined to whitewash all of it. In fact, he's very much being given a chance to remake himself if people are fair enough to consider him on the merits of an actual reign than the rest of what's gone on. No one "hates" Charles, I think some people are projecting their own emotions into a question about legacy that if you really care about Charles is best confined to the way he carries out his role once it begins. "Modern" monarchy? I don't think that will begin until William is King. There are things he's decided to do as Prince of Wales that personally I agree with in the environmental sphere although these are not practicable for many if not most people as far as "organic". Elsewhere I've stated that I thought it was a good thing he wasn't going to those shameful Beijing Olympics, as the heir to the throne of a country which in fact will be attending the Olympics I think it was deliberate on his part. So there are social and political decisions he's made that I find commendable. It's not a black-and-white thing and few legacies are.

Iluvbertie · #15 07-20-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMC

I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

Charles is also in very good health and has the genes of his grand-mother and both his parents who are into their 80s.

It is perfectly possible that he could live for 20 or so years after his mother and thus have a very good time to leave a legacy.

Edward VII's reign was so short, in my opinion, mainly because he didn't take good care of his body e.g. smoked way too much as well as ate too much and thus he died at 69.

In fact if you look back through Charles royal ancestors over the last 100 years (I don't know enough about the Queen Mother's family to comment) the main reason they haven't lived into their 80s seems to be associated with unhealthy practices such as smoking (or in the case of one great-grandfather getting assassinated) e.g. both grandfathers smoked heavily and died young.

A lot of people seem to think that Charles can't, or won't live to a ripe old age whereas I suspect that he will, and certainly hope so. I would love to see him have a reign of 20+ years and to do that he will have to live probably into his 90s.

Al_bina · #16 07-20-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel

...
If this new way of living becomes standard by the time he becomes King, then he can take steps to make Buckingham Palace more green ... [snipped]

I am not sure that it is possible to make the Buckingham Palace greener. It is a historical site, which is to be preserved for generations to come. I hope there will be no solar panels that will "uglify" this magnificent Palace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon

[snipped] Elsewhere I've stated that I thought it was a good thing he wasn't going to those shameful Beijing Olympics, as the heir to the throne of a country which in fact will be attending the Olympics I think it was deliberate on his part. So there are social and political decisions he's made that I find commendable. It's not a black-and-white thing and few legacies are.

Does China really care about Prince Charles not attending the Olympic Games? I do not think so. The Chinese Government is fully aware of Prince Charles’s attitudes about the country. Chinese lean more towards practicality. The main point is that the Chinese authorities will do their best capitalizing on the situation by extracting donations and payments from Prince Charles’ Youth foundation in China.

Skydragon · #17 07-20-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina

I am not sure that it is possible to make the Buckingham Palace greener. It is a historical site, which is to be preserved for generations to come. I hope there will be no solar panels that will "uglify" this magnificent Palace.

The solar panels do not have to be on the roof, they can be at the back or a side. Lightbulbs could be upgraded, insulation made from sheepswool, all sorts of greener alternatives.