The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 08-22-2007, 11:54 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
This thread isn't turning into a rehash of the Charles-Camilla-Diana fight to the death, I hope.
__________________

__________________
  #42  
Old 08-23-2007, 03:31 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
Look, I'm not a partisan of one or any side of this triangle/square/pentagon, but it REALLY annoys me when one side or the other tries to rewrite/whitewash history. If Camilla was the non negotiable love of his life, then lets not pretend that everything was hunky-dory until D 'spontaniously lost her mind'.
This isn't the first time I've heard the statement 'whitewash the past' in regards to people's views of Charles and Camilla, and quite frankly I think its unfair.

It is one's privilege to view statements that Charles and Camilla were simply good friends as an attempt to whitewash the past; however, one should probably know that Diana's version of the events at the time of her wedding changed a bit with time and went from being blissfully happy walking up the aisle to stories of dreading to find Camilla sitting prominently in the pew.

Its true that Charles and Camilla later got together but with the two different versions of her early marriage, it is an equally fair assumption that Diana's first version of her wedding rather than her second was the truthful one.

But differing accounts of their early marriage shouldn't have any impact on Charles inheriting the throne.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
  #43  
Old 08-23-2007, 05:23 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter View Post
As far as Camilla's not being eligable to be the princess bride in the 70's, why do you think that the things that made her ineligable at the time are now ok to make her the duchess bride?
I don't think anyone could understand the machinations that were going on behind the scenes, of other people putting in their tuppence worth. You had Lady Fermoy putting forward her granddaughters (I don't think she was too concerned which, but she was prepared to back her son in law over her daughter to further her ambitions), Mountbatten putting forward his and of course all the ones who never got past the first hurdle.

There was also the suspicion that Camilla was in fact too closely related to Charles and that children from such a union could be affected.

The rows were not originally because of Charles friendship with Camilla, more because Diana was unable to accept that Charles duty to attend events he had agreed to go to, could not be cancelled just because she fancied a day together. It must have been hard for her, to realise that she was no longer a free person.

We are not talking about physics are we, we are talking about humans and human emotions and that can't be quantified, as for the later story of Camilla being right 'there', from the aisle, Diana would have been hard put to spot anyone in the back rows, let alone actually recognise them.

It is immaterial how many books people read on the 'subject', because the public will never know what happened.

Lets also not forget that Charles was and is the royal, both Diana and Camilla were/are only members because they were/are married to him.
__________________
  #44  
Old 08-25-2007, 07:54 PM
pinkie40's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
I think Charles will reign but his reign will not be pleasant in some matters....I think there will be more focus upon Republican issues and those matters will gain in popularity in the far reaches of the Commonwealth. The only saving grace will be that Charles will be elderly and he will probably have to rely heavily upon William carrying out a multitude of duties for his father which will balance out the cries of total Republicanism.

Charles is an incredibly charming man but lacks the poker faced diplomatic skills HMTQ has....
__________________
  #45  
Old 08-25-2007, 10:40 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
Just a small point here, Pinkie40.

Prince Charles has an abundance of diplomatic skills and kindheartedness which may not always be apparent. e.g.

Two years ago, one of my cousins and her family were in the UK and hoping to see as many members of the RF as possible. Learning that the PoW was due somewhere or other, she and her family undertook an inconvenient journey to be at the same place. When the Prince arrived he was running late and hurried past the waiting crowd with a wave. My cousin (typically strong-willed and an up-front Australian) called out: 'hey, Charles! Over here! We're Australians and we've come a bloody long way to see you'! The Prince stopped in his tracks, turned around, and walked over to Lesley, shook her hand, shook the children's hands, and chatted to them all for a few minutes. Of course, such a pleasant and gracious gesture wasn't reported in the press. He's alright, is Charles. My personal view is that he's popular in Australia but that, rightly or wrongly, since his marriage, his popularity has suffered, and I think it grossly unfair.

Hurrying through a lot of posts which I've missed over the last few weeks I noted one on this thread which claimed that Charles may be jealous of William.

Last Thursday night on the ABC (Oz equivalent of the BBC) a program was screened which claimed that Charles was jealous of William, who's immensely popular. Comments continued along the lines that William is very much his mother's son (he's just like her), that Charles accepts these qualities in his son (well, he'd be an odd parent if he didn't, I think); that with William on the scene, who on earth would be interested in two such old fogies as Charles and Camilla?; that William is cast by the RF as the 'saviour' of the monarchy; that the RF adores Kate; that the RF despairs of Harry who, on the whole, is pretty dumb (unlike William) and who always knew he'd never be allowed to go to Iraq; and, importantly, that everywhere they go, William shines down Charles, just as his mother did and that Charles suffers this, philosophically.

My point here is, really, that when respectable and responsible broadcasters screen these nonsense programs, it's inevitable that ordinary people will start to assume that there is some sort of jealousy between the Heir and his son. Further, it's not a new story, nor is it completely unimaginable, which makes me wonder if there is indeed any serious project afoot to deny Charles the throne.

Simply, my view is that if an hereditary monarchy is to be maintained then Charles and only Charles, can be the next King, assuming that he doesn't pre-decease his mother. If the monarchy skips a generation for any reason whatsoever, then it will be it's death-knoll.
__________________
  #46  
Old 08-26-2007, 07:19 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 589
Polly,thank you for the information of the program. I missed it on thursday. My view has never changed on this topic. Prince Charles and only Charles can be the next king if he doesn't pre-decease his mother.He will a good king becasue he always taks his duty very seriously.

I don't think Charles would create any unhappy thing between his sons and him. IMO he suffered a lot from his own problems with his father. He has the first-hand experience that how painful the can be for his sons and himself. I think his parenting style is an open mind and understanding style not a very strict style. I would like to have such a father as well. He really seems to be a nice and funny and sweet character man.
__________________
  #47  
Old 08-26-2007, 05:28 PM
pinkie40's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 423
I was in the presence of Prince Charles when he was in Dallas in February 1986 when he presented an award. My ex and his life partner attended several of the events in Philadelphia by invitation as my ex has supported several of HRH's charities over the past 30 years. Prince Charles' friends include some of the most powerful people on Earth so he will be supported with a great powerbase when he becomes King.

Prince Charles might face issues that will only take life after his mother's death. Hopefully, those issues are already being anticipated and Prince Charles is dealing with them delicately to make the tramsition from HMTQ's reign to his reign as smooth as possible.

If the public outcry is so powerful to make his wife refrain from attending a memorial service, we should take heed there could be much more such outcries against the Royal Family....especially a few select members.

The House of Windsor is a very strong entity and Charles will become King upon the death of the present Queen....I sort of hope he takes on the name of George VII rather than Charles III.
__________________
  #48  
Old 09-04-2007, 10:08 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Upstate, United States
Posts: 3
I'm new and catching up on all these threads,but I do believe the law is the law and Charles should reign on the death of the Queen, but what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry! Personally, while the law is the law and should be followed, in my heart I'd like to see ANDREW up on the throne..and we all know THAT won't happen!
__________________
  #49  
Old 09-04-2007, 10:41 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiltmaker View Post
what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry!
Tough for the Queen then.
__________________
  #50  
Old 09-04-2007, 10:47 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Wonderfully amusing and titilating discussion, but the topic at hand is reallly a simple one--Will Charles Ever Reign?
Well, I think it is kind of a rhetorical question because the Monarchy is set up in such a way that when the Monarch dies, the next in line (the Heir, in this case the PoW) automatically assumes the throne. So, it would appear that Charles will inherit throne upon the death of his mother. William will then be declared the Prince of Wales, and will produce and heir. After King Charles dies, King William will ascend the throne. After William dies, his heir will ascend the throne, and so forth and so on. Unless Charles abdicates, and I just do not see him doing that, William will have to wait. And, frankly, WHY would William want to ascend to the throne at such a young age?
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #51  
Old 09-04-2007, 10:50 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by kiltmaker
what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry!

It is not the Queen's decision to make. It's a birthright, specifically, Charles' birthright and then William's.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #52  
Old 09-05-2007, 02:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
...is that he's popular in Australia
As popular as would be expected given his personage. He has not endeared himself to any great length and indeed most remain indifferent to 'Charlie'. Not in a negative way and neither is it anything to rave about. 'We' don't not like him but neither is he someone 'we' seem intent on hearing about on the whole.

His made trips and of course spent time in Australia tending to his own education but to say his 'popular' amongst Australian's wouldn't be, I think, an inaccruate account (respectively of course, Polly )

I'm not saying he isn't thought of nicely, just doesn't conjure up any real feeling amongst most.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
  #53  
Old 09-05-2007, 06:09 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
Wonderfully amusing and titilating discussion, but the topic at hand is reallly a simple one--Will Charles Ever Reign?
Well, I think it is kind of a rhetorical question because the Monarchy is set up in such a way that when the Monarch dies, the next in line (the Heir, in this case the PoW) automatically assumes the throne. So, it would appear that Charles will inherit throne upon the death of his mother. William will then be declared the Prince of Wales, and will produce and heir. After King Charles dies, King William will ascend the throne. After William dies, his heir will ascend the throne, and so forth and so on. Unless Charles abdicates, and I just do not see him doing that, William will have to wait. And, frankly, WHY would William want to ascend to the throne at such a young age?
Actually we don't know if William will ever be Prince of Wales.

On his father's accession he will immediately become the Duke of Cornwall etc but... it is up to Charles to decide if, and when, he creates his son POW. With growing Welsh nationalism it is possible that the Welsh Assembly may advise the new king that they don't want a POW in which case Charles will be the last one.

The title Prince of Wales is NOT automatic unlike that of Duke of Cornwall.
__________________
  #54  
Old 09-05-2007, 07:06 AM
principessa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Schweinfurt, Germany
Posts: 2,646
I think Charles will reign. He will get king in the next 15 years. And he will be a great king of the United kingdom.
__________________
  #55  
Old 09-05-2007, 09:47 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
It seems to me that there have been Princes of Wales since 1218; and now, they want to stop? I thought that Welsh nationalism is a desire to protect the national heritage of Wales. Part of that heritage is the Prince of Wales--who is involved in many different charities in Wales. I find it hard to believe that the country of Wales would do away with a centuries old title that works for their advantage.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #56  
Old 09-05-2007, 10:24 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Upstate, United States
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
Originally Posted by kiltmaker
what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry!

It is not the Queen's decision to make. It's a birthright, specifically, Charles' birthright and then William's.
True true, I'd still like to see Andrew up there on the throne though
__________________
  #57  
Old 09-05-2007, 10:28 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbcode99 View Post
It seems to me that there have been Princes of Wales since 1218; and now, they want to stop? I thought that Welsh nationalism is a desire to protect the national heritage of Wales. Part of that heritage is the Prince of Wales--who is involved in many different charities in Wales. I find it hard to believe that the country of Wales would do away with a centuries old title that works for their advantage.
Problem is that the English king Edward I. finally conquered Wales in 1282 and had the last Welsh prince of Wales tortured, maimed, drawn and quartered in front of a both fascinated and horrified crowd of Weshmen. In 1284 Wales became incorporated into England and in 1301 Edward created his eldest son Edward the first "Prince of Wales" of England. One can understand that still many Welshmen resent this title and its historical meaning, even if they like Charles personally.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
  #58  
Old 09-05-2007, 10:43 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
EGADS! That is very brutal--but why now? Can Wales decide that they don't want to have the title used anymore? Is it a legal title? How would this work?
Personally, I think it is not wise to dispense with the title. Regardless of the history, it cannot be disagreed that more recent holders of the title have doen good with it, and future holders, in theory, would use it in such a way as to benefit Wales.

And, my Dear Kiltmaker, I too adore Andrew--but really, some of those "ladies" he runs around with as a future Queen Consort?? Tsk Tsk.......but, Andrew is a charmer. He'd have no trouble charming me, that's for sure.
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
  #59  
Old 09-05-2007, 03:29 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
The Assembly doesn't have the power to dispose of a title. They can symbolically vote in favour of its abolition, but it in no way binds the Sovereign. It may weigh in the decision process, but it has no legal effect.
__________________
  #60  
Old 09-05-2007, 05:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
The Assembly doesn't have the power to dispose of a title. They can symbolically vote in favour of its abolition, but it in no way binds the Sovereign. It may weigh in the decision process, but it has no legal effect.

However, if the Assembly did express a desire for the King not to use the title the King would be unwise, as a constitutional monarch bound to accept the advice of his ministers (including his Welsh minister) to go against that advice.

If the Welsh Assembly did tell Charles that they didn't want the Prince of Wales title to be given to an English prince (who has been seen actively supporting English sporting teams against Welsh ones for example) then Charles would really be bound to follow that advice, just as if the English/British PM advised him to do something.

I wouldn't be surprised if that scenario actually unfolded and that William never became Prince of Wales but spent his years as heir to the throne as Duke of Cornwall.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread

Tags
prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding? ysbel The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 1212 06-09-2011 06:37 AM
Charles and Camilla current events 14: September - November 2006 Avalon Current Events Archive 199 11-10-2006 03:46 PM
Charles and Camilla current events 13: July-September 2006 Warren Current Events Archive 201 09-11-2006 12:00 PM
Charles & Camilla Current Events 3: 4-16 October 2005 Warren Current Events Archive 185 10-15-2005 08:11 PM
Charles and Camilla: Current events 2: Sept - Oct 2005 Elspeth Current Events Archive 199 10-04-2005 04:45 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]