Which countries would you like to see Charles & Camilla visit over the next few years

[Roslyn]

Prince William is to pay a visit to New Zealand and to Australia on behalf of The Queen following the natural disasters in both countries. Prince William will visit following invitations extended by the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Prime Minister of Australia.

IMO, it should be Charles, not William. And, ideally, it should be Charles and Camilla. They have avoided us long enough, IMO. It has been alleged that Charles fears his wife will not be well received here. Well to that I say, "Man up, Charles; suck it and see!".

It is Charles who will be our next Head of State, not William. Our country will be a republic long before William is King, so he will never be our monarch. Yet he is the one who has apparently been invited by our government. Squeaky clean, son-of-Diana, newly-engaged-William. I wonder about that, because I am by nature skeptical, and I am sure it is not that simple, and that there have been, and are, soopersekrit telecons and/or emails fluttering between our countries.

Australians are very forgiving people, but we do recognise an attempt to hoodwink us, or play us for fools, whether it is by our own government, or upper class Brits. Especially by upper class Brits, for we have much practice with that, and we enjoy that game.

 

[muriel]

Not sure I agree with the reasons you refer to, but I certainly agree that C&C do need to spend some time ion Arustralia and NZ. I hate to put it like this,, but the recent disasters would have been a perfect opportunity for them to visit. Perhaps they will accompany HM and the DoE to he CHOGM meeting in Australia later this year.

 

[Madame Royale]

IMO, it should be Charles, not William. And, ideally, it should be Charles and Camilla. They have avoided us long enough, IMO. It has been alleged that Charles fears his wife will not be well received here. Well to that I say, "Man up, Charles; suck it and see!".

It is Charles who will be our next Head of State, not William. Our country will be a republic long before William is King, so he will never be our monarch. Yet he is the one who has apparently been invited by our government. Squeaky clean, son-of-Diana, newly-engaged-William. I wonder about that, because I am by nature skeptical, and I am sure it is not that simple, and that there have been, and are, soopersekrit telecons and/or emails fluttering between our countries.

Australians are very forgiving people, but we do recognise an attempt to hoodwink us, or play us for fools, whether it is by our own government, or upper class Brits. Especially by upper class Brits, for we have much practice with that, and we enjoy that game.

I must say I do agree with much of what you have said, Roslyn. I stated much the same in response to the topic which transcended in another thread. However, I do believe the invitation was extended to Her Majesty at which point it was decided between her, Charles and William that he would make the visit. At least that's what's being reported in the media.

Not that Camilla should ever hold any constitutional significance within this Commonwealth, but the absence, infact, the evident dismisal (impo) to even contemplate visiting as a couple, is starting to become a joke.

The fact they have undertaken so many visits abroad, and lengthy ones at that, does not boast well for what is a perceivable reluctance to visit this continent. A place that Charles proclaims to hold in such 'high' and 'sentimental' regard. Actions speak louder than words, don't cha know!

It's true that during her life, Diana was well regarded here by many. That's an unavoidable truth. But she was idolised in the US, and Canada, and yet official visits to these two nations have been undertaken with very little concern for 'unforseen unpleasantness'. The problem here is that Clarence House and Buckingham Palace have allowed a sense of hesitation to build by not doing their part (again, imo) to make any such visit happen. The longer you put something off, the more intimidating the prospect can become and I do believe this is what's happening. More like, It's what's happened.

As popular as William may be here, in comparison to his father, it is, as you say, not he who is in line to next inherit. Yet they seem content (intent ?) on allowing him do the groundwork on his fathers behalf. Infact, undertaking his father's responsibilities as heir to this throne I suppose you could say.

As I've said before, William is personable, young and fresh and I genuinely like him for the person he appears to be at such a distance. Naturally he will be more popular and present an image of a 21st centiury royal which will undoubtedly appeal to a good many people, BUT, he isn't his father and his father needs to reflect a little and establish a renewed sense of Commonwealth service beyond Canada.

 

[Polly]

I agree with Rosyln and Madame Royale - the appropriate person to represent Her Majesty in New Zealand and Australia at this time is Charles. I also believe that the reason he isn't is that they are unsure of Camilla's reception.

When the Black Saturday memorial was held Charles was overseas, elsewhere, so, understandably, the Princess Royal visited. There is no reason offered for his lack of interest, this time.

Prince William, as welcome as he is, is a PR plus for the Family and I understand that. However, it says little for Charles' sense of responsibility towards his future subjects that he ignores them at this time. It is not well done of him. His mother would never put her personal wishes before her duty and as it's been reported in the past that Charles worries about 'losing' Australia, his decision to stay at home, given that the Palace has decided that a royal visit of condolence is to take place, will be very poorly viewed.

Personally, knowing how shockingly some suffered in Queensland's devastating floods, the immense tragedy and destruction in New Zealand,and those being assailed again in Queensland and still suffering in Victoria, I feel somewhat miffed that Charles hasn't seen fit to come himself.

 

[scooter]

Considering Camilla's known dislike of the heat why would you want them to have a retreat in a climate in which she would be uncomfortable?

She does not have a 'dislike of the heat' while cruising the Greek islands on vacation in the summer. The dislike of the heat strangely only occurs when work is involved

 

[BellaFay]

How many times does it have to be pointed out that it is the Queen in conjunction with the Prime Minister & Cabinet Office who decides which member of the royal family is sent where. Prince Charles doesn't get a say in the matter. This was pointed out by Jonathan Dimbleby in his biography of Prince Charles many years ago. If the Queen doesn't want C&C to go to Australia - particularly Camilla - in case she proves to be as well received as she was in Canada there isn't much that Charles can do about it. If they were both afraid to go why do they both make a point of attending Australia day celebrations etc. at the Embassy in London. It all seems to me to be part of the same myth that is propagated by Buckingham Palace that Prince charles isn't interested in the Commonwealth. This myth was knocked on the head in 2000 in an interview with The Guardian newspaper by a Foreign Office aide accompanying Charles on a visit to Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago & Guyana. The Foreign Office aide expressly stated that Charles was very keen for himself to develop stronger links with the Commonwealth but the Queen & her advisors weren't - and this was a long time before Charles married Camilla.

 

[Roslyn]

If HM is indeed the reason Charles and Camilla re not coming, then I believe she has made an error of judgment on this occasion.

 

[Polly]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, BellaFay.

The Cabinet Office(s) in question in this matter is Australia's and New Zealand's, and it's most improbable that they would ask for William in lieu of Charles - Charles is the next monarch, after all, and while this country is a constitutional monarchy, we manage things according to custom and protocol. Visits of condolence are the initiative of the Palace, which requests on Her Majesty's behalf if one would be welcomed. It is hardly likely that either government would say no.

No matter what Jonathan Dimbleby said years ago, the British PM and his cabinet has little say in who visits what Commonwealth country or when. Naturally, the government needs to approve senior royals leaving the country, but that's another matter. The British government has no say at all in the Royal Family's accepting invitations to or expressing a wish to visit one of Her Majesty's realms, i.e. the British government has no authority or power to bestow or deny such visits from the Queen of Australia, the Queen of Canada and the Queen of New Zealand. Visits to foreign countries may well be different as there are usually Foreign Affairs considerations and implications.

The appropriate royal in the current circumstances would have been Charles. If concern about Camilla's reception is indeed the reason that he's not coming, then the palace has seriously misjudged the Australian, and dare I say it, New Zealand people. It's difficult enough supporting the monarchy in this country as it is. A perceived slight won't help matters.

William, of course, is always welcome, in any circumstance.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She does not have a 'dislike of the heat' while cruising the Greek islands on vacation in the summer. The dislike of the heat strangely only occurs when work is involved

The heat on a curise is very different to the dry heat in Middle Eastern countries as there is often a breeze and air conditioning nearby. On official engagements in the Middle East and other hot countries it can mean hours in the heat with little or no relief - a very different situation to one where a person can get up and go inside to air conditioned comfort after a few minutes if they wish.,

She does dislike the heat (as do many people). It isn't strange to find that if affects her more when she is working to when she is relaxing. It is quite normal actually.

 

[Madame Royale]

If they were both afraid to go why do they both make a point of attending Australia day celebrations etc. at the Embassy in London.

Easily answered. Such functions do not require their physical presence in Australia. The advantage of being on home soil I'm affraid.

I do not believe their attendance at the occasional event in London, adequately reflects a commitment which should be otherwise be expressed in person.

Charles could very well express interest to travel here, not as a representative of his mother, but for his own means and purposes.

I truly can't fault those who suggest, and often feel, that the Prince of Wales can be a man of exaggerated substance at times. He's perfectly good at talking the talk, but not always so keen to walk the walk.

Without doubt, there is a reason beyond an 'in house selection process', which continues to keep Charles at bay. And certainly, it's not hard to acknowledge what infact that reason is likely to be.

And that is something Australian's are very good at picking up on, and I assure you, it's not at all endearing and only continues to affirm what it is a good many Australian's have come to feel, certainly in recent years. That the man really is an isolated figure who is very much disconnected with this continent and her peoples.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I do think that one point that people are overlooking is that this visit has been arranged at relatively short notice but normally the royals and their calendars are organised 6 months or more in advance so it may be that William was free but that Charles has some long-standing engagements that simply couldn't be cancelled without giving unnecessary offence.

 

[MRSJ]

Or could it be they invited William because he's the hot commodity right now and his presence would give much publicity to such a tragic occurence? I realize Charles is POW but William is far more popular with the people/papers/world media ? Just throwing out suggestions

 

[Madame Royale]

I do think that one point that people are overlooking is that this visit has been arranged at relatively short notice but normally the royals and their calendars are organised 6 months or more in advance so it may be that William was free but that Charles has some long-standing engagements that simply couldn't be cancelled without giving unnecessary offence.

No I don't believe anyone is overlooking anything here. We are all perfectly aware of the 'diary priority'.

As such, it will be most interesting to see what infact Charles and Camilla have planned, publically or in any official capacity, during the time his son is in New Zealand and Australia.

If we are talking of meetings and phone calls, then I do believe there would be a way for such things to be temporarily put on hold for not even a week of absence. Certainly so. In any case, that's what staff are for. Finding ways to work around itineraries in light of engagements which would (should) require the presence of either the monarch, or in her place, the heir.

When the Princess Royal represented her mother here in 2009, I was perfecly content with her presence as I know she is a fine lady with a tremendous work ethic and the Queen is said to have asked Anne near immediately upon receiving the invite to travel in her name. She was her first option.

Upon receiving this invite, it has been reported that the Queen, Prince of Wales and Prince William came to a decision that he should visit on his grandmothers behalf. Thus suggesting that the Prince of Wales, by all accounts, gave counsel in the decision making process. To me, that speaks volumes as to the reluctance of Charles to front up himself.

Or could it be they invited William because he's the hot commodity right now

For sure that is a major factor. And don't get me wrong, William is a perfectly capable and popular choice and will again be welcomed most agreeably. But he isn't his father and given the nature of the invitation, his father should be undertaking the task.

Good on William though. His presence will I'm sure bring a smile to the faces of a good many people in the area's he shall visit.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Unless the Queen is coming herself, to me, one descendent is pretty much the same as another - Charles can be interchanged with Anne or William - they are all much of a muchness these days.

As the Queen isn't coming it doesn't matter who she sends to represent her.


If this report is right then that may very well be a reason for choosing William

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_642396.html

 

[Polly]

The Spanish visit dates are not clear and it's likely that William will be back in the UK before his father leaves for Spain. Further, official visit to Spain or not, I recall that the King of Spain and Charles are close personal friends.

If Charles wants to be King of Australia and New Zealand he should show some respect and concern for the immense suffering of so very many. The cyclone and floods which hit Australia were far from ordinary occurrences and widespread over an area larger than the size of western Europe. The destruction of beautiful Christchurch and the resultant loss of life and the continuing traumatic state of many of the locals, added to the difficulties of day to day living combined with the real fear of further after shocks, should have made him eager to visit and offer his sympathy and encouragement. In the final analysis, that's a major part of the royal family's rationale and function in today's world.

I, like many, feel greatly disappointed in Charles' decision.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I didn't know that Charles and Camilla were going to Canada as well as William and Kate.

My apologies to everyone. I thought I was in the William and Kate thread.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think Charles is fully aware of the fact that most Australians do not want him as our King for one thing.
Just because the Spanish trip will be after William's return doesn't mean that Charles and Camilla could do a trip like that and recover properly to go to Spain within a couple of days.
Doing a five day trip down under with 24 hours flying either side will lead to adjustment problems time-wise as well and to expect a 62 year old to make that trip to a land where he suspects he isn't all that welcome and that his wife is even less welcome (rightly or wrongly - that is the perception that Charles would be getting from the media here and the numerous opinion polls - wanting to be a republic after the Queen dies or having William as the next King).

 

[Roslyn]

I don't care if Charles and/or Camilla would be tired after their journey. Being aged 62 is irrelevant, IMO. He's fit as a trout and this sort of trip is part of his job, the job that gives him enormous wealth and privilege for life. He and his wife will be the next King and Queen of the UK no matter what Camilla will be known as, and, if the Australian republic is not made a fact before his mother's death, he will be the next monarch and head of state of my country. If Charles holds the perception that he will not be welcome and that his wife will be even less welcome, and that has been a significant factor in them not coming, he has disappointed me enormously. He has no courage if this is the case, and I thought he did, and he has gone way down in my estimation.

 

[Warren]

Things are getting way too personal and nasty so posts where members are attacking other members have been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[Renata4711]

Article by Matthew Parris, The Times:

It is Prince Charles's duty to go to Australia | Matthew Parris - Times Online

 

[Iluvbertie]

Article by Matthew Parris, The Times:

It is Prince Charles's duty to go to Australia | Matthew Parris - Times Online

Why have you posted a link to an article that is 2 years old?

 

[Renata4711]

Why do you think ??

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why do you think ??

If I could think of any valid reason to post a story that is two years old I wouldn't have asked the question would I?

I asked a question for the simple reason that I could see no reason to post that story about the fires in 2009 now in 2011.

 

[Roslyn]

Since the Tour thread is locked for now this seems the most appropriate place to say this.

I am squealing with delight at the news that Charles and Camilla are coming here next year. I have been hoping they would ever since they married and I plan on making an effort to see them if they come to Sydney or Brisbane.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

I wish someone from the BRF would come and visit us here in Hawaii. Considering the ties between Hawaii and the U.K. go way back. I wish they would consider us at some point, we would love to see them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It isn't up to them to decide where to do officially - it is up the US government to invite them and to decide on the itinerary. If you want that then you need to get your government to invite them.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

Oh. I didnt know that. So then that means the President would have to invite them or our Governor? I guess I could mail a letter to our Governor with a reason to invite them. I know alot of people would love to have them visit. I think it would be a great opportunity for them to learn about the link between Hawaii and the U.K. if they dont already know. Well darn it, they would just love it here.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't know how it works in the US between the Federal and State governments in that regard.

 

[NGalitzine]

Oh. I didnt know that. So then that means the President would have to invite them or our Governor? I guess I could mail a letter to our Governor with a reason to invite them. I know alot of people would love to have them visit. I think it would be a great opportunity for them to learn about the link between Hawaii and the U.K. if they dont already know. Well darn it, they would just love it here.

Probably you would have better luck if you could find a special anniversary of a link between Hawaii or the Kingdom of Hawaii such as a treaty, or a link to Captain Cook or perhaps the Anglican Church.

 

[LadyGabrielle]

Good idea. There are numerous historical artifacts here that prove absolute links. There are also our books that were written by our Kings that give all the information. The artifacts, letters etc, are in the palaces throughout Hawaii. But the main artifacts are at the museum and the Palace on Oahu. There is plenty to show the royals if they ever did come.