Will Charles Ever Reign?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
RubyPrincess168 said:
Deep down, my response to "Will Charles ever reign?" is 'I hope not.".
Why is that your response?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kerry said:
He may not have the respect of the people as the Queen but how could he? That's an impossible task at the moment and it may be even when/if he's King since he will not reign for over 50 years. He has to deal with issues not brought up in the present? Why wait to another is the face of the monarchy to bring up the issues? I don't get that.

I agree on the first part, of course he won't have the opportunity to prove himself until he's the monarch. So we have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll bring along the right assets for a good king.

What I wanted to say in terms of issues coming up is that I think especially within the commonwealth there might be a desire for reform / doing things differently with a new king. These issues would never be brought up now as QE II is there over 50 years, out of respect for this long period of time. Most people just know QE II as monarch and not her father anymore. When Charles is king, he's much more vulnerable because he lacks this kind of respect (not his fault though). Plus, it seems that he is less diplomatic when he gives statements about various issues - something his mother would never do - and he already gets a lot of stick for that in the media. He seems to act a bit awkwardly eg why mentioning his plans for his coronation and of course he's making the press go wild although the issue could be on the agenda only in 20 years' time :flowers:
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
...Plus, it seems that he is less diplomatic when he gives statements about various issues - something his mother would never do ...:flowers:
The thing we all tend to forget when commenting on Charles airing his views compared to HM's silence, is that she was only 26 when she became Queen. We knew very little about Charles' views at that age. Had HM had to wait until she was over 50, perhaps she would have spoken out on some issues. :flowers:
 
If Charles were right, it would be a better idea for him to communicate with the right level of people IMHO.The three rights of a monach:to be consulted,to encourage, and to warn. Charles is perfectly practising. Queen keeps slience on so many issues which makes her a perfect constitutional monarch.But I doult that there is only one model of perfect constitutional monarches and Charles should have quicker reactions in a more changable world. He is very sensitve about changes but he is unwilling to make changes. Think about the week of Diana's death. I think a stronger monarch with more influence is necessary to prevent from being invaded by the governemnt power like PM Blair.or the monarchy may be abolished by some republican politicans.
 
Last edited:
Skydragon said:
The thing we all tend to forget when commenting on Charles airing his views compared to HM's silence, is that she was only 26 when she became Queen. We knew very little about Charles' views at that age. Had HM had to wait until she was over 50, perhaps she would have spoken out on some issues. :flowers:

Yes, you are right. But it seems he doesn't keep in mind that he will need the favour of the press to a certain degree. I know the british press is one of worst around but I feel that he or whoever is advising him could do better in dealing with the media. These days it's a complete desaster - not only his matters but the matters of his sons too. I liked William a lot but all we see of him now is drinking all night in pubs. As Clarence House is involved here I think it's another example that the handling of media issues needs some improvement, not only for William's sake but for Charles's sake too.
 
I admit I've not read this whole thread, I've skimmed here and there but I would like to have my say anyway.

Personally I think Charles will make an excellent monarch and I hope that he gets the chance to show what he has to offer.

I don't really like the idea that the King has to be press acceptable (that's not an attack on who ever mentioned that subject) - I think his role is above that. That is my opinion. I understand where other people are coming from but I feel that the press has been given far too much leeway when it comes to the British Royal Family.

I find him a charming man and his thoughts about the world and the future admirable. I think we need more leaders who think long term like him.

Again, I'd like to see what he can do. :flowers:
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Yes, you are right. But it seems he doesn't keep in mind that he will need the favour of the press to a certain degree. I know the british press is one of worst around but I feel that he or whoever is advising him could do better in dealing with the media. These days it's a complete desaster - not only his matters but the matters of his sons too. I liked William a lot but all we see of him now is drinking all night in pubs. As Clarence House is involved here I think it's another example that the handling of media issues needs some improvement, not only for William's sake but for Charles's sake too.
He shouldn't have to take the media into account at all, that is a legacy from his ex. The moment we all expect him or anyone else to live by the media, we might as well all give up. :flowers:

It is worth bearing in mind the behavior of the majority of media employee's is far from exemplary. :eek:
 
Skydragon said:
Why is that your response?

As seen in another thread, Rubyprincess is a Diana-supporter. Thus her response makes sense, at least to her.
 
Skydragon said:
The thing we all tend to forget when commenting on Charles airing his views compared to HM's silence, is that she was only 26 when she became Queen. We knew very little about Charles' views at that age. Had HM had to wait until she was over 50, perhaps she would have spoken out on some issues. :flowers:

That's a very insightful idea. :flowers:
 
Jo of Palatine said:
As seen in another thread, Rubyprincess is a Diana-supporter. Thus her response makes sense, at least to her.

Not so much a Diana-supporter but that Charles has shown a lack of good judgement and good moral character. If he is to be held up as an example to his people, he has done a poor job.
 
RubyPrincess168 said:
Not so much a Diana-supporter but that Charles has shown a lack of good judgement and good moral character. If he is to be held up as an example to his people, he has done a poor job.
As Diana did, Charles has shown he is human! :rolleyes: To err is human, to forgive divine!
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
...What I wanted to say in terms of issues coming up is that I think especially within the commonwealth there might be a desire for reform / doing things differently with a new king. These issues would never be brought up now as QE II is there over 50 years, out of respect for this long period of time...

I thought maybe this was the case; reverence since she's been there for so long.

Also, he may seem less diplomatic at the moment but I believe he feels that he can be. I think he knows what his position is and what it will be. Why should he carry on as his mother when times have clearly changed? If he did that wouldn't the people of the UK think that he's just a continuation of the Queen?
 
Skydragon said:
As Diana did, Charles has shown he is human! :rolleyes: To err is human, to forgive divine!
Forgive Charles! :pigsfly:
Methinks you forget that whilst Charles may indeed be human, upon the death of Diana all her wrongdoing was wiped clean from the 'Printers Presses', not to mention their rather short (convenient) memories. :innocent:

Now, in an almost utimate and incredibly bizarre twist of fate, the press seem to have become the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong! Or more specifically, who is and is not fit to rule! :doh:
How in the name of all that is holy did we all allow that to happen? :beamup:
 
Rather than endlessly regurgitating the "Charles can't be King because Diana's dead" subtext in this thread (now well into part 3), we really need to move along.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator
 
If Charles is alive when QEII dies there are only two things that I could see from stopping Him becoming king. 1. Given how old the Quen Mother lived to be, if QEII lives to be 100ish Charles would be 75-80. If he had some bad health issue (didnt his grandfather die of cancer at a realitively young age?). or 2. if the Church of England gets sticky on the issue of his being married to a divorcee and refuses to do the ceremony. Frankly I think it could go either way with this one. They wouldnt do the wedding ceremony in the church remember? Although the present Archbishop of Canterbury is quite elderly himself at this point, there may well be a younger person in that post when the time comes,who might be more flexible. I dont think Charles' divorce comes into play as the previous spouse is deceased.
 
Well being an example to the rest of the country will get in the way of the royals appearing more human and like us. People have to decide what they want.

Her Majesty is an example to look up to but that is because she's old and her values are the values of another generation which all of us have lost, not only Charles. But even the Queen was criticized for being cold and uncaring at times.

The Queen believes is accepting what you are given in life whether you like it or not and doing your job in the same impeccable manner no matter the circumstances.

In this democratic society where self-fulfillment and personal happiness is considered more important than loyalty to others, the Queen's notion of gritting your teeth and accepting what life throws at you would be highly unacceptable to people of later generations no matter their background. I greatly admire the Queen but I would not want to live her life.

By necessity, whoever succeeds her as monarch will bring different values simply because their generation's values will be different from hers.
 
Charles is also a divorcee so where is the issue in that? So is the Princess Royal. I don't think that divorce is an issue anymore since times have changed.

Did King George VI have lung cancer? He was a smoker.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Yes, you are right. But it seems he doesn't keep in mind that he will need the favour of the press to a certain degree. I know the british press is one of worst around but I feel that he or whoever is advising him could do better in dealing with the media. These days it's a complete desaster - not only his matters but the matters of his sons too. I liked William a lot but all we see of him now is drinking all night in pubs. As Clarence House is involved here I think it's another example that the handling of media issues needs some improvement, not only for William's sake but for Charles's sake too.

The media issue. Are there any avenues where the monarchy is favorably painted? Or should I say Clarence House? Is there at least one reputable media oulet that's pro Charles?

My thought process is that here in the States for example, Fox News is pro-republican no matter the issue and MSNBC is the same but pro-democrat while CNN just tells it like it is no matter the party affiliation. ( I am saying this only as a comparison and not for political discussion.)

He will need positive media as king but I think it has to start now.
 
Skydragon said:
He shouldn't have to take the media into account at all, that is a legacy from his ex. The moment we all expect him or anyone else to live by the media, we might as well all give up. :flowers:

It is worth bearing in mind the behavior of the majority of media employee's is far from exemplary. :eek:

I would agree if there was an ideal world. Living by the media is one extrem, at the moment Charles is practicing the other extrem, ignoring them and blaming them for everything that goes wrong. He should find a balance here, very helpful for his future role. Media makes a lot of public opinion, remember?

Another good example is the interview that the princes did on the occasion of the anniversary of Diana's dead (will be shown on TV in due course). As an interviewer they chose some girlie DJ instead of a well respected journalist. If the princes want to be taken seriously, they should begin to act seriously.
 
Last edited:
The media of today is not the media of yesterday. It will always find fault and it will always resort to the gutter. Charles doesn't need that, he needs the love and respect of his subjects and I am in doubt that he will have that.
 
BeatrixFan said:
The media of today is not the media of yesterday. It will always find fault and it will always resort to the gutter. Charles doesn't need that, he needs the love and respect of his subjects and I am in doubt that he will have that.

The RF have already underestimated the power of the media once, almost 10 years ago, and it was a fatal mistake. It showed how far this family was away from the public opinion and did a lot of damage to the monarchy. Charles should better think twice before he underestimates the media once again.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I would agree if there was an ideal world. Living by the media is one extrem, at the moment Charles is practicing the other extrem, ignoring them and blaming them for everything that goes wrong. He should find a balance here, very helpful for his future role. Media makes a lot of public opinion, remember?
True, but as we are seeing in the UK, the press and the celebrity culture is losing it's hold, people are waking up to the fact that they have been led by the media for too long. Todays youngsters seem more aware that what the media shows them may have been slanted to show what the editor's want and most seem more prepared to listen to both sides. :flowers:

Great post ysbel! :rose:
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
The RF have already underestimated the power of the media once, almost 10 years ago, and it was a fatal mistake. It showed how far this family was away from the public opinion and did a lot of damage to the monarchy. Charles should better think twice before he underestimates the media once again.

The voice of the media is not always the same as the public opinion.
Many people are bright enough to seperate gossip and rumours from the truth when they consume the media.
So it is not only a question of the media if Charles will be a successful and popular King.
I thing he goes the right way and the people will honor it more and more.
The media has some influence but is fortunately not the only power to force or to stop it.
 
The RF have already underestimated the power of the media once, almost 10 years ago, and it was a fatal mistake. It showed how far this family was away from the public opinion and did a lot of damage to the monarchy. Charles should better think twice before he underestimates the media once again.

The public are more aware of the media now than they were then. It didn't show the family to be out of date and it didn't do damage to the monarchy at all, that's a gross overstatement and I won't even get into what actually caused the damage. As for Charles thinking twice, the first time it didn't happen on his watch. It was for the Queen to estimate or underestimate the media and how her family responded to it. The media treatment really isn't that different, nor is the relationship with the Royal Family.
 
Skydragon said:
True, but as we are seeing in the UK, the press and the celebrity culture is losing it's hold, people are waking up to the fact that they have been led by the media for too long. Todays youngsters seem more aware that what the media shows them may have been slanted to show what the editor's want and most seem more prepared to listen to both sides. :flowers:

Great post ysbel! :rose:

If that's the case then seems to me that the media needs to change their strategy and embrace the monarchy. Charles could definitely use that.
 
BeatrixFan said:
As for Charles thinking twice, the first time it didn't happen on his watch. It was for the Queen to estimate or underestimate the media and how her family responded to it.

Correct. But he is part of this family and was the person most involved in the issue as he was the estranged husband and father of the two sons.
So either he saw it the same way the Queen did or he was too weak to fight through his own opinion.
Either way, doesn't make Charles look good - considering the way he's dealing with the media today I go for the option that he saw it the same way the Queen did. Seems he's still waiting for his wake up call but I am sure it will come through to him some day.
 
They were all involved as the criticism was launched at all of them. If you were Royal, you could be blamed - that's how the media played it. And as for being too weak, are you seriously suggesting he should have disobeyed his own mother who just happens to be the Queen also? Have you not even considered that the Queen knows best and Charles does what she advises him to do because she's reigned over us for 54 years and knows us better than we know ourselves? I don't know what you're on about with this wake up call business but I think you'll find that he's been the best Prince of Wales Britain has ever had and that his popularity is going up and up all the time as a result of the new Charles we've seen since the Duchess came on the scene. It's time to stop living in the past or in the land of dreams. Charles will be King soon, he's popular, he'll be a good King and as he said himself, "Down with the media".
 
branchg said:
Her Majesty Queen Camilla. Anything else would require an Act of Parliament, which isn't likely to happen.

Some asked what would be Camilla title when Charles becomes King. My question is can Camilla chose a different name? I understand that Charles can chose another name when he becomes king, can Camilla do the same????:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom