Will Charles Ever Reign?

[tiaraprin]

Well, given this is the way the aristocracy and the royal family have handled marriage for centuries, I hardly see how Diana's experience was any different and she knew that. It's not like she was surprised, both her parents did the same thing and so did her grandparents.

Diana was adamantly opposed to a divorce and most certainly did not feel "it was the only way out". She shot herself in the foot (again) by conducting the Panorama interview and forced the Queen to take action. She had no choice in the matter.

I stand by my opinion that Diana was ambivalent about divorce. She wanted to be free of the horrors of the courtiers and the royal family but yet didn't want to divorce and have her sons be from a divorced backround like she was. She also feared losing custody of her children. I feel she was torn on the issue.

 

[una]

Both of them taking lovers and pretending is not a way for anyone to live their life. It is morally wrong

What strikes me as morally wrong is passing on to her children a model of marriage as conflict and misery. When the marriage failed in the mid 80's, she could have made an accomodation with her husband either to be friends, or at least have a civil working relationship. Then the children could have grown up in a stable positive marital environment. But she chose to carry on the conflict, using this 'sham' justification. Thus, the model of marital strife she inherited from her parents has been passed on to the next generation, with who knows what consequences for her children's marital happiness.

 

[Feberin]

Not to mentioned she played a large part in getting personal storries about the marriage out to the public and causing the public battle that her children were forced to endure.

 

[tiaraprin]

What strikes me as morally wrong is passing on to her children a model of marriage as conflict and misery. When the marriage failed in the mid 80's, she could have made an accomodation with her husband either to be friends, or at least have a civil working relationship. Then the children could have grown up in a stable positive marital environment. But she chose to carry on the conflict, using this 'sham' justification. Thus, the model of marital strife she inherited from her parents has been passed on to the next generation, with who knows what consequences for her children's marital happiness.

You think watching parents in a civil but loveless marriage is a great example to children?? Watching your parents take lovers and hiding from the world the truth of the matter?? Gee, that is a great example to set your children about marriage. Don't expect to ever find happiness in marriage, but don't worry, you can have mistresses as long as you keep it secret and civil with your wife!! That is immoral hypocracy!! That is not a marriage, that is a shameless sham!!

 

[Incas]

There is an idealized version of how marriage is supposed to be, the Cinderella story of happily ever after. I don't think there is a single person in the world against that idea of domestic bliss. That's the dream marriage Diana read about in Barbara Cartland's novels. To me, that dream, with the press as cheerleading squad fueled the atmosphere surrounding C&D's "courtship". It's not a bad ideal. That's the dream the country hoped for their future king. But the problem with Cinderella is that the story never mentioned the Prince as an individual of his own right, with his own dreams or aspirations. He came into the story to save Cinderella from a life as a servant. That was his sole purpose in the story. In real life, that Prince did and do have his own ideas and opinions. And with difference of opinions, comes disagreement and discontent in their union.

 

[Zonk]

I am fairly new to the board and I realize that you guys have discussed the Diana/Charles marriage many times...but I am going to add my two cents anyway.

It takes two people to make a marriage work and one person for it to fail...lets face it..they both were at fault. I admired and will continue to admire Diana until the day I die but she was not perfect. And although I didn't personally know her...I am sure she would admit the same. The facts are this:

1) Like it or not, Prince Charles did initially pursue Diana under false pretenses. Was he in love with her when they got married (please refer to that Whatever in love means comment) probably not. Do I think she loved him when they got married...yes. Did he grow to love her...yes but it wasn't a forever kind of love. That he saved for Camila. You can look at pictures of them during a small window of their marriage and see the love that they both exhibited to each other.

2) Charles is selfish. Yes, I said it. Sorry, if that offends anyone. He couldn't handle all the press attention that fell on Diana. Maybe if he was a little supportive or understood that its simply good business to have a young beautiful princess on the cover of a magainze/newspaper than they might have had a chance for a decent relationship. But he didn't..cause he was immature and selfish as well. And yes, it is stupid and quite shallow to focus on one's clothes when we should be focusing on proverty, racisim, war, etc. but it wasn't her fault. Don't hate the player...hate the game. Instead of him against Diana it could have been them against the press.

3) Camilia. Where do I start with that one. I don't like her...probably won't for some time to come. I think she, intentionally or not caused a lot of the problems in that marriage. She choose Andrew Parker Bowles, and hey..if he cheated on you when you were dating why did she think that would change! She made her unhappy bed she should have just stayed there. If she did, as it has been reported suggested Diana cause she thought she was a mouse and wouldn't pose a problem for them (Charles and Camillia) to resume their relationship than thats just foul! Diana said that it was three of them in the marriage and it was crowded...its crazy..its pretty much the same now. She will haunt them until they day they die. But Diana has been dead for 8 years, and they both have right to be happy with each other. Its obvious to anyone that they love each other. I just wish they were adult enough to do it 30 years ago and they could have saved everyone a lot of pain.

4) Diana and shooting herself in the foot. Let's face it, being the source of Diana: Her True story and doing that Panamora interview were just plain foolishness. Let's face it...that interview really forced the Queen's hand. At that point, the Queen wasn't trying to save their marriage but rather the monarchy and at that interview showed that she wasn't part of the team and you can't have that. And you got to respect the Queen for making that move. On the other hand..I can see where Diana was coming from...at that point she was scared that she was going to lose her kids and she fought back the only way she could with the media. And I think I read somewhere that she wasn't guaranteed permanent custody. I am not a parent but I think that it is the consensus that most parents would do anything for their kids...that's correct right?

5) Infidelity. They both cheated. I am pretty sure Charles cheated first (although again I have no proof) and although two wrongs don't make it right: let's stop throwing up the fact that Diana cheated as well. I don't know many women who could handle the fact that their husband is cheating, getting NO type of affection. Not knowing who you can trust, cause you are pretty sure that the friends that you made thru your husband (please see the van Custems, Lord and Lady Romsey, the Soames, etc.) are aiding and abetting the alleged trysts.

6) Her kids insight to her marriage. I will agree that confiding her marriages troubles to her kids was probably not the smartest thing to do but as a child of divorced parents here's a key to the wise: kids are not dumb...they pick up on issues and whether or not someone is happy or not happy. But everyone handles things different..and from what I can see..her kids are remarkably stable. I think they are fine testament to both parents: Charles and Diana. Let's face it...Charles didn't have an ideal childhood as well.

I do believe, however, at the time of her death..Charles and Diana had resolved a lot of their issues and were in fact friends.

That's it. Sorry to get on my soap box. I am off now Sorry, if I posted this in the wrong thread.

 

[Ennyllorac]

Zonk, thank you for your input and insight. I think you made very valid points. And by the way... Welcome to the forum!

 

[tiaraprin]

I am fairly new to the board and I realize that you guys have discussed the Diana/Charles marriage many times...but I am going to add my two cents anyway.

Zonk, that was incredibly well thought out with great insight. I am quite impressed! You are an asset to the Forum and Welcome!
.

 

[ysbel]

I think we all see that both Charles and Diana made mistakes. The difference is which mistakes we see as excusable. Actually I see Charles' resentment of Diana's fame as understandable because I don't know of any man whose ego could take that. But he is so reserved anyway, that having a flashy wife would have been a problem anyway.

If Charles' love affair with Camilla was non-negotiable, I think Diana's love affair with the media was non-negotiable. So there were four entities in the marriage not three.

 

[polop]

I think we all see that both Charles and Diana made mistakes. The difference is which mistakes we see as excusable. Actually I see Charles' resentment of Diana's fame as understandable because I don't know of any man whose ego could take that. But he is so reserved anyway, that having a flashy wife would have been a problem anyway.

If Charles' love affair with Camilla was non-negotiable, I think Diana's love affair with the media was non-negotiable. So there were four entities in the marriage not three.

I agree 100%. Diana and Charles were too good to be true.

 

[Duchess]

Welcome to the board Zonk. One of your points I found very interesting and bang on...Diana never should have confided her marriage troubles to her children when they were so young. Why on earth do parents do this. I think it puts enormous pressure on children...making them feel that they have to try to do something to help their parents stay together. I'm sure Diana's intentions were the very best but it's too bad she did this.

 

[la francaise]

In my opinion NO.

His mother does not want to give up her role just yet and until she does charles is gonna have to wait his turn. But by that time comes she may decide to give the throne title to william if only he seems fit and ready to take up on the responsibilties first. My opinion .

 

[Warren]

In my opinion NO.
His mother does not want to give up her role just yet and until she does charles is gonna have to wait his turn. But by that time comes she may decide to give the throne title to william.

Queen Elizabeth cannot determine who succeeds to the Throne. The rules regarding succession are laid down in the Act of Settlement. Ultimately the Parliament decides. If the Parliament wants to remove Charles from the line of succession then Parliament will have to change the Act of Settlement.
.

 

[iowabelle]

I don't think Queen Elizabeth will ever abdicate because she saw the chaos created by her uncle, and she probably thinks abdication = disgrace. Plus, having been crowned she was annointed by God's representative and made a vow to God to serve her people. How can she renege?

If Charles is alive at the time of her passing, he would never step aside. It has been his destiny to be king all his life.

 

[tiaraprin]

I don't think Queen Elizabeth will ever abdicate because she saw the chaos created by her uncle, and she probably thinks abdication = disgrace. Plus, having been crowned she was annointed by God's representative and made a vow to God to serve her people. How can she renege?

If Charles is alive at the time of her passing, he would never step aside. It has been his destiny to be king all his life.

Her Majesty WILL NEVER ABDICATE. She has made that abundantly clear. To be a monarch is to be monarch until one dies. If she becomes incapacitated, Charles would be declared Prince Regent just as in the case of George III when his health took the final turn for the worse. Until Her Majesty passes away (and may it be a LONG, LONG TIME FROM NOW), She will remain the reigning monarch.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!

 

[la francaise]

Okay, yall well thank you for all of your opinions

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

I don't think Queen Elizabeth will ever abdicate because she saw the chaos created by her uncle, and she probably thinks abdication = disgrace. Plus, having been crowned she was annointed by God's representative and made a vow to God to serve her people. How can she renege?

If Charles is alive at the time of her passing, he would never step aside. It has been his destiny to be king all his life.

That's right, The Queen and the late Queen Mother could never forgiven for King Edward VIII's abdication to marry and be with Mrs Wallis Simpson. Maybe some people can feel sorry for Prince Charles that he had waited for really long more than half of his life to the throne but if Her Majesty never gives him the throne, some people could feel sorry for him, but i dont think Her Majesty will abdicate and i also dont expect that happens even Her Majesty passed away, i just wish and pray for Her Majesty, wish her could reign for more and more years, she is a wonderful Queen.

 

[ysbel]

It's been said before but the Queen won't abdicate and if Charles outlives her, he won't step aside for William.

From the time he was born, everyone assumed Charles would have a short reign. His mother was only 21 when he was born and the royal women tend to live long lives.

But if you look towards Sweden, Carl Gustavus' grandfather was 70 when he inherited the throne and he reigned another 20 years or so.

 

[iowabelle]

Yes, Charles, like Edward VII, has been blessed with an Eternal Mother.

 

[grevinnan]

Although the likelyhood that QEII will abdicate is very slim, another part of the issue is William. If he developes into someone that the Brittish people can identify with and feel proud of, and if he marries someone that the people truly take to their hearts and would like to see as their Queen, and they have a bunch of very cute kids, and Charles is up in age and "old" in body and mind, then William may be asked to ascend the throne.

Although at this point in time any discussion of the matter is pure speculation.

 

[Saragli]

Prince charles is not old in body and mind. Charles is one of the healthiest men of his age and he is a man of the future. Charles flaw is that he lacks charisma and he cant get his ideas through passionatly. Instead it seems like he is an old bat. But if you think about what he has to say he is a man ahead of his time but no one wants to think of the future and its upcoming problems.

 

[Margrethe II]

The possibilties of Abdication are so undeinably foreign to Her Majesty, that I am sure the thought has never once entered her mind. No, it is safe to say that she shall continue to execute the duties of sovereignty until the time comes for her to meet her creator. If I had my way, The Queen would reign forever but alas, it is'nt (realistically) feesable.

"MII"

 

[tiaraprin]

Yes, Charles, like Edward VII, has been blessed with an Eternal Mother.

Oh Iowabelle, you crack me up!! That is such a good quote from Edward VII!

I am glad Charles has been blessed with an Eternal Mother!!

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!

 

[ysbel]

Yes, Charles, like Edward VII, has been blessed with an Eternal Mother.

What I was trying to say was that Charles could have an Eternal Mother and still outlive her for another 20 years like Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden. The man was seventy when he inherited the throne.

Gustaf and Charles have some similarities. Gustaf remarried once his first wife died to Louise Mountbatten and the marriage was happy but without children. That didn't pose a problem because the heir to the throne had been born out of Gustaf's first marriage.

Camilla seems to have given Charles a new lease on life. He seems happier and less stressed since he married. Finding a partner in your golden years that you can live and be happy with is a good reason to keep on living for a lot longer.

 

[branchg]

That's right, The Queen and the late Queen Mother could never forgiven for King Edward VIII's abdication to marry and be with Mrs Wallis Simpson.

Based on what has been written by royal biographers over the years, it was actually the Queen Mother who never forgave the Duke for abdicating the throne. The Queen was far more pragmatic and willing to put the past behind.

Charles must become King when his mother dies under the Act of Settlement. It is automatic and without question. If he was incapacitated or unable to carry out his duties as Sovereign, then Prince William would automatically become Regent until his father recovered or died. Like Edward VIII, Charles could only be removed from the throne by an Act of Parliament.

The Queen will never abdicate. She has made that very clear.

 

[Zonk]

The Queen will never abdicate and Charles will succeed in due time. I don't believe he will step aside nor will William take the crown if offered if his dad is still alive. Thats kind of foul. Not a great fan of Charles's but you train for a position all of your life and than told..Never mind...we like your son better! He is young, handsome, looks like his mom, more exciting. William loves his Dad too much! He already thinks he is misunderstood.

On another note...if you get a chance...please read "Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses who stole their Father's Crown" By Maureen Waller. Great Book. Somewhat on the same lines. Queen Mary II and Queen Anne stole the throne from their father (imagine what the royal family would be today if they hadn't!) James II and life was never the same!

 

[sara1981]

The Queen will never abdicate and Charles will succeed in due time. I don't believe he will step aside nor will William take the crown if offered if his dad is still alive. Thats kind of foul. Not a great fan of Charles's but you train for a position all of your life and than told..Never mind...we like your son better! He is young, handsome, looks like his mom, more exciting. William loves his Dad too much! He already thinks he is misunderstood.

On another note...if you get a chance...please read "Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses who stole their Father's Crown" By Maureen Waller. Great Book. Somewhat on the same lines. Queen Mary II and Queen Anne stole the throne from their father (imagine what the royal family would be today if they hadn't!) James II and life was never the same!

i would agree with that posts!

but HM Queen never let down but she still at 79 years old and she nearly 80 years old next years and her husband Prince Philip will become 85 also but many people give HM Queen as god save the HM Queen they wont let down she very strong woman and she very wise woman.

Sara Boyce

 

[iowabelle]

On another note...if you get a chance...please read "Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses who stole their Father's Crown" By Maureen Waller. Great Book. Somewhat on the same lines. Queen Mary II and Queen Anne stole the throne from their father (imagine what the royal family would be today if they hadn't!) James II and life was never the same!

Less that they stole the throne than that James II decided to follow in his father's footsteps and ignore the wishes of Parliament. The foolish man tried to rule in the style of Louis XIV and never learned that England was not France.

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, I think it's rather misleading to say his daughters stole his throne; I doubt they had much more choice in the matter than he did. Mary II's husband effectively stole the throne from her and, after her death, her sister until 1702, but I don't think the princesses stole it from their father.

 

[Zonk]

I would tend to agree but the book puts a different slant on it. It talks about the court intrigue that lead to the taking of the throne. It focuses on the relationship that Anne had with her father and stepmother, the birth of the disputed child, the letters that Anne wrote Mary (who was Orange) which basically fanned the fire,and how after Mary and William assumed the throne it affected the relationship of Mary and Anne. In addition, it addresses the succession if Mary was to die before William, when Anne would inherit, the succession of the Hanoverians, etc.