Will Charles Ever Reign?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elspeth said:
The fact that he married someone with whom he couldn't grow and develop together seems to have brought out the worst in him over the years. It sounded as though Diana could see many of his problems but that she approached them as though she was criticising him, which made him get defensive and criticise her in return. If they'd only had some sort of basis of mutual respect, it would have been a lot healthier.

Good analysis, Elspeth.
 
Elspeth said:
The fact that he married someone with whom he couldn't grow and develop together seems to have brought out the worst in him over the years. It sounded as though Diana could see many of his problems but that she approached them as though she was criticising him, which made him get defensive and criticise her in return. If they'd only had some sort of basis of mutual respect, it would have been a lot healthier.

Guess what camilla married someone else first. Maybe if she hadn't he could have stood up to his family and they could have gotten married.
 
I know Camilla married someone first, and I'm pretty sure that in the early 1970s the Queen wouldn't have given her permission for Charles to marry her. Even after she was married, it shouldn't have stopped Charles finding a woman with whom he had a friendship based on respect. He always said he fell in love easily, so it ought to have been possible for him to get over Camilla and find himself someone who at least had the potential to be a real companion.
 
I skimmed Penny Junor's book over the weekend.

I think that part of Charles' problem has been that he has always been surrounded by very strong women (his nanny, the Queen, the Queen Mother, Camilla, Anne, and Diana). He never got a backbone because he was always obeying nanny and the two queens. So, it's just not in his nature to strike out and do what he wants (and he whines to get what he wants from those women).
 
Elspeth said:
I know Camilla married someone first, and I'm pretty sure that in the early 1970s the Queen wouldn't have given her permission for Charles to marry her. Even after she was married, it shouldn't have stopped Charles finding a woman with whom he had a friendship based on respect. He always said he fell in love easily, so it ought to have been possible for him to get over Camilla and find himself someone who at least had the potential to be a real companion.

He was serious with a couple of other women before Diana. I always wondered what happened to the relationship with Lady Jane Wellesley. They were definitely serious for awhile there but the only official story when they broke up is that she was considered too independent by the Palace insiders.
 
Just about every Crown Prince of whatever has had an affair..Princess Diana said that Prince Charles told her that he refuses to be the only future king without a mistress. In the past it was always kept secret. Prince Charles and Camilla's affair is nothing new to the monarcy. With the creation of the television, and media private lives began to be shown to the public. With Diana:Her true Story every detail was brougt to light. Before no one EVER spoke about affairs. If every prince who had an affair never became king the monarcy woud have failed before it even began.
 
ysbel said:
He was serious with a couple of other women before Diana. I always wondered what happened to the relationship with Lady Jane Wellesley. They were definitely serious for awhile there but the only official story when they broke up is that she was considered too independent by the Palace insiders.

I heard that Lady Jane didn't want to live in the spotlight.

She must have been a very independent woman to resist the temptation.
 
-
Well, it does not matter much, Camilla is his wife and as he becomes king, she will have a title that is befitting her role.
Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. No comment on the second portion of your post. ;-)
 
runaway princess said:
There's no reason for him to not be king....the throne has to be passed fairly!...Just because Will is handsome, kind, and looked like he would be a better king than his dad and the U.K. favors him more than Charles doesn't mean he has to be king right now!

Of course not. Is anyone actually suggesting that? I think that many just want the Queen to outlive her son.
 
ysbel said:
He was serious with a couple of other women before Diana. I always wondered what happened to the relationship with Lady Jane Wellesley. They were definitely serious for awhile there but the only official story when they broke up is that she was considered too independent by the Palace insiders.

Lady Jane did not want to become part of the "Royal Family Circus". Lady Jane had ambitions for a career and freedom. Marrying Charles would have relegated her to the golden fishbowl.

When she was asked about becoming Princess of Wales and eventually Queen, she responded "I have my own title, thank you very much." Now that is a lady with a great independent spirit!!!
 
tiaraprin said:
I still stand by what Sean said. Everyone has their opinion and mine and Sean's are in perfect harmony.

Thanks. As far as moralizing goes, well, this is a contentious topic and people with have different viewpoints. Although I'm not all that interested in the Windsors, discussions on morals (or a lack thereof) and moralizing are entirely appropriate given some of the immoral (by the standards of many) behaviour of certain memebers of the aforementioned family.

They are public figures who have conducted their 'business' in public, and thus scrutiny and discussions from divergent viewpoints -- or so-called 'moralizing' --regarding their said behaviour is entirely appropriate. If one doesn't like reading it then one should, in my opinion, simply go on to the next post & not criticize others for expressing their views.
 
Last edited:
Sean.~ said:
Thanks. As far as moralizing goes, well, this is a contentious topic and people with have different viewpoints. Although I'm not all that interested in the Windsors, discussions on morals (or a lack thereof) and moralizing are entirely appropriate given some of the immoral (by the standards of many) behaviour of certain memebers of the aforementioned family.

They are public figures who have conducted their 'business' in public, and thus scrutiny and discussions from divergent viewpoints -- or so-called 'moralizing' --regarding their said behaviour is entirely appropriate. If one doesn't like reading it then one should simply go on to the next post.

As someone who is very interested in the Windsors, all this horrible behaviour has done no good for the monarchy. While one must understand that they are human beings also, it does not excuse them, or anyone else for that matter, for some of the horrendous behaviour that has gone on. Charles and Camilla have forever earned my antipathy for their behaviour.

For those who will tell me that Diana was not a saint either, no she was not. If Diana were alive, she would have some apologizing to do also. However, I can understand her behaviour much more than Charles'!!
 
Sean.~ said:
They are public figures who have conducted their 'business' in public, and thus scrutiny and discussions from divergent viewpoints -- or so-called 'moralizing' --regarding their said behaviour is entirely appropriate. If one doesn't like reading it then one should, in my opinion, simply go on to the next post & not criticize others for expressing their views.

Sean, anything written on a public forum is open to criticism. The public breakdown of Charles' and Diana's marriage was mainly played out in public by Diana (Andrew Morton's book, Panorama interview, etc.) Charles didn't parade his mistress around town while being married (unlike Edward VIII).

My opinion is that moralizing about the breakdown of other people's marriages is pretty futile. Some marriages go wrong in so many ways, that it's pointless to fight over who did what first and who is the most to blame.
 
Charles is going to have some problems as King but I think acceptance of Camilla is the least of his problems. He seems in his own way as resentful as Diana was. (example, when he told William at the ski slopes that he hated the press) Its really not a good attitude to have especially when the job entails meeting a lot of people most of whom one thinks are inane or stupid. And its really sad to think he had to ask William what to do about the press. William is only 23 years old for chrissakes. A monarch can't gain respect if he has to ask his 23 year old son how to handle the press.

I favored the marriage with Camilla because he is the heir to the throne (kingship is not attained by popularity but by primogeniture) and her presence seems to stabilize him. As heir to the throne he needs that. But she can't be everywhere with him. The whole debacle at the ski slopes happened because that's the one activity she doesn't share with the Prince so she wasn't there.

That is sad. If that's the case, when Charles III ascends the throne I sure as hell want Camilla to be with him as much as possible. Its not an ideal situation but with a hereditary monarchy, you have to take what you get.
 
I agree that he will have problems when he is king, because of all the people who are still upset with him and who will never accept Camilla. I respect their feelings, but we have to look out for Will and Harrys also. Queen Elizabeth is up in age. When she passes on William will probably just be beginning his own family. therefore, he may feel to much pressure with trying to get used to being a father and king of a country at the same time. When Prince Charles passes away, hopefully Prince William will be grown up, settled in to his new life, and have a loving family of his own. Harry will need to learn how to be his brothers backup during difficult times. Harry has alot to learn, and William will need him while he is king.
 
It's hard to know what kind of monarch Charles will be until he becomes King. People can certainly question his judgment and decisions regarding his personal life over the years (with good reason), but I think it's a bit unfair to blame him for everything that went wrong. People make mistakes and maybe he should have fought harder to win Camilla in the 70's when he had the chance. Maybe he didn't try hard enough to see Diana's point of view. But that is all in the past now.

Life does go on and I think Charles will make a fine King and, so far, Camilla seems to have taken to public life very well. They seem very happy together and if they make a good team and serve the monarchy well, so be it.
 
ysbel said:
when Charles III ascends the throne....
Charles III? There has already been a Charles III, his name was Charles Edward Stuart. Charlie Windsor wouldn't dare:confused:

Charles is a Stuart name:)
 
Sure he'd dare; it may be a Stuart name, but it's also his name, and he does have Stuart ancestors.

I wouldn't be surprised if he called himself George after his grandfather, but he's been known as Charles for so long that a different name would take a lot of getting used to. Edward VII kept his own name when he came to the throne at a rather advanced age.
 
Elspeth said:
Sure he'd dare; it may be a Stuart name, but it's also his name, and he does have Stuart ancestors.

I wouldn't be surprised if he called himself George after his grandfather, but he's been known as Charles for so long that a different name would take a lot of getting used to. Edward VII kept his own name when he came to the throne at a rather advanced age.

I mentioned it on another thread... and got lambasted.

Apparently, Charles has said that b/c of bad associations with Charles I and II, he intends to call himself George VII. Not a bad idea, to honor the grandparents.

If I were allowed to vote, I'd say go for Henry IX... but I'm sure he'd find something wrong with my favorite king, too!

By the way in response to the quotation, I think Edward VII was really "Albert Edward". Victoria was really "Alexandrina Victoria."
 
he was christened as charles, so i think he should use the name charles. i don't live in the UK so i wouldn't know how the royals are perceived over there. but is there is any reason why charles won't reign? if they skip charles in favor of william, that would be very awkward. it is not natural. it would undermine the monarchy in some way. they are following what the citizens want which is william over charles. the grandeur of the british monarchy lies in the idea of "it" being an institution. so not following the line of succession degrades the institution of the british monarchy. they should just stick with charles for stability. i dont mean to sound like a "know it all" because i am not an expert. but in order for the monarchy to be stable, charles needs to assume his "god given" right to become king.
 
aj00192557 said:
he was christened as charles, so i think he should use the name charles. i don't live in the UK so i wouldn't know how the royals are perceived over there. but is there is any reason why charles won't reign? if they skip charles in favor of william, that would be very awkward. it is not natural. it would undermine the monarchy in some way. they are following what the citizens want which is william over charles. the grandeur of the british monarchy lies in the idea of "it" being an institution. so not following the line of succession degrades the institution of the british monarchy. they should just stick with charles for stability. i dont mean to sound like a "know it all" because i am not an expert. but in order for the monarchy to be stable, charles needs to assume his "god given" right to become king.
Following the line of succession ended years ago when the Electors of Hanover ursurped the throne, the true monarchy ended with the Stuarts, simple as that.:(
 
Oh, yes, that's right - he was another Bertie, wasn't he? It's George V who was using his first name.

Thing is, Prince Charles doesn't look like a George somehow. Not with those ears.
 
aj00192557 said:
he was christened as charles, so i think he should use the name charles. i don't live in the UK so i wouldn't know how the royals are perceived over there. but is there is any reason why charles won't reign?

Only that the Winsor women seem to be very long-lived, the Windsor men don't, and Princess Elizabeth was quite young when she gave birth to Charles, so there's a chance he won't outlive her. I very much doubt that he'd step aside in favour of William, given that he knows what it was like growing up as the son of a young monarch and probably not wanting to put William through the stress of combining kingship with a young family.
 
Following the line of succession ended years ago when the Electors of Hanover ursurped the throne, the true monarchy ended with the Stuarts, simple as that.:(

It doesn't count as usurping when they were invited by the government, sad purple smiley notwithstanding.
 
Lordmountainslim said:
Charles III? There has already been a Charles III, his name was Charles Edward Stuart. Charlie Windsor wouldn't dare:confused:

Charles is a Stuart name:)


There is no official monarch named Charles III. The man you refer to was a "pretender" to the English throne, due to his dubious birth (which I do acknowledge now is ridiculous) and more importantly his religion. Catholics were excluded from the line of succession since The Glorious Revolution of 1688. It made the point crystal clear after James II attempted to bring Catholicism back.
 
I think the Prince of Wales will have his short reign, and he should have his turn. He has been waiting for so long, and I hope that he'll have to wait some more—William IV ascended the throne at 64, why not surpass him as the oldest monarch in time of accession? :)
 
when he ascends the throne, what will Camilla be known as. HM the Princess Consort? HRH The Princess Consort? (let's forget the argument of Queen Consort vs Princess Consort) where does her name go?
 
florawindsor said:
when he ascends the throne, what will Camilla be known as. HM the Princess Consort? HRH The Princess Consort? (let's forget the argument of Queen Consort vs Princess Consort) where does her name go?
Her Royal Highness The Princess Consort, without a name... Or she'll be a simple Queen Camilla. :)
 
thank you Mapple, Queen Camilla (no HM?)sounds much better to me. it's a bit strange to call somebody without his/her name, also HRH doesn't quite match with HM King Charles..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom