Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Al_bina]

In what way? Charles as godfather is reputed to have set up trust funds for them, but I can't see how else they might benefit.

I thought "the trust fund " theme is over, after pro-organic godson clarified the situation. They will benefit in a way other humans capitalize on their connections, although the individuals in question may genuinely believe that these connections have nothing to do with their success.

 

[ysbel]

I seriously don't think Camilla started an affair with Charles just so her children could capitalize on their Royal connections.

 

[diamondBrg]

I would say that Prince Charles and Princess Diana underestimated each other and suffered because of it later. Although Princess Diana might have lied about her interests, Prince Charles was old enough to fairly judge her character and choose another appropriate lady to secure the bloodline. Princess Diana was not a total witch, who nagged the life out of innocent and poor Prince Charles. Each party "slept on the bed they made".

Yes they did and they both mutually decided to end the marriage. Diana came out of it smelling like a rose with her 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling and a residence at Kensington Palace.

It was Diana's choice to live fast and loose afterwards and to make very stupid choices, Dodi Fayed comes to mind. It was Diana who chose to get into that car that fateful August night in Paris, no one forced her to live like a rock star. IF she had of remembered that she was the mother of a future King and still have two young sons to raise and behaved herself, she might well have still been alive today.

I see no reason why Prince Charles should be expected to live a miserable and lonely life because of an ex-wife's total stupidity.

 

[Al_bina]

I seriously don't think Camilla started an affair with Charles just so her children could capitalize on their Royal connections.

I agree with your views, but the royal connections will never hurt ...

 

[Al_bina]

Yes they did and they both mutually decided to end the marriage. Diana came out of it smelling like a rose with her 17 MILLION Pounds Sterling and a residence at Kensington Palace.

It was Diana's choice to live fast and loose afterwards and to make very stupid choices, Dodi Fayed comes to mind. It was Diana who chose to get into that car that fateful August night in Paris, no one forced her to live like a rock star. IF she had of remembered that she was the mother of a future King and still have two young sons to raise and behaved herself, she might well have still been alive today.

I see no reason why Prince Charles should be expected to live a miserable and lonely life because of an ex-wife's total stupidity.

I agree with the said. Prince Charles has never lived "a miserable and lonely life", he just suffered consequences of his poor judgement.
You are too categorical and agressive in regard to Princess Diana. I believe that she has already paid the ultimate price.

 

[milla Ca]

I agree with your views, but the royal connections will never hurt ...

In the early 90s when the affair of Charles and Camillan was made public and filled the headlines of the tabloids every day, i think Camilla´s children Laura and Tom had a hard time.
So if now their ´royal connection´bring sometimes an advantages for their lifes we should be glad for them.
Laura and Tom are both very private and low-key, they support their mother and they are very loyal to their stepfather without the wish to sparkle in the ´royal limelight´.

 

[diamondBrg]

I agree with the said. Prince Charles has never lived "a miserable and lonely life", he just suffered consequences of his poor judgement.
You are too categorical and agressive in regard to Princess Diana. I believe that she has already paid the ultimate price.

Yes she did, through her own choosing. Life is for the living and Prince Charles is still alive and hopefully with many years ahead of him and is entitled to live his with happiness.

Diana will be remembered for the enormous good she did and all that she accomplished in her public service and that is as it should be. I feel very sorry for Diana and the life she led, but as an adult she was responsible for the choices she made and many of them were very bad. Believe ir or not, I personally liked and admired Diana in many ways, how she conducted herself prior to and during her life as a Royal is simply not one of them.

 

[Al_bina]

In the early 90s when the affair of Charles and Camillan was made public and filled the headlines of the tabloids every day, i think Camilla´s children Laura and Tom had a hard time.
So if now their ´royal connection´bring sometimes an advantages for their lifes we should be glad for them.
Laura and Tom are both very private and low-key, they support their mother and they are very loyal to their stepfather without the wish to sparkle in the ´royal limelight´.

I am glad for them. Hopefully they will not disappoint their parents.

 

[scooter]

I wonder why you would think an American writer could have any idea what aristo's or commoners in the UK feel about Camilla? Diana was disliked by some aristocrats, who felt she let the side down and loved by some commoners who were led to believe she was just like them.

Camilla is liked by the aristocrats, IMO, and disliked, at the moment by some commoners. Although we can see from her reception throughout the UK, the UK public is warming to her by the day and a large percentage of Highlanders love her, IMO.

The Dominick Dunne quote was from after he met her a few weeks before her death. As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing? The spindoctoring from Clarence House is not as good as when Bolland was doing it. Whomever advised THR that it would be a good idea for Camilla to go did not do them any favors. I think it set back her public profile and reminded people of the whole c/d/c mess.

 

[Charlotte1]

As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing?

I've already mentioned that the change in opinion to Camilla when looking at polls taken before their wedding to now. The same polling company asked the same question before C & C's wedding 9% were prepared to see Camilla as Queen. The poll taken before the memorial 28% were prepared to see Camilla as Queen, in two and a half years that means support for Camill has increased three fold. Quoting polls taken at the time of the wedding to give as evidence of the lack of support for Camilla aren't valid as subsequent polls show the support is increasing.

The egg throwing claim came from tabloids quoting members of The Diana Circle, these are also the same people who threatened to picket and hurl abuse at C & C on their first tour of the US. One woman turned up at a few events and that was it. Again they claimed on the second trip that they would stage protests, nothing happened and no-one turned up. The Diana Circle members were the ones who ran the campaign by bombarding Clarence House with complaining letters against Camilla attending the Diana memorial service. Again I'll point out that the Diana Circle is based in the US and most of their membership is not from the UK. Thanks to the concerted efforts of the Dianaites and a media trying to whip up a frenzy, the focus of the memorial was taken away from Diana and onto Camilla. Therefore she released the statement that her attendance would distract from what the memorial was about, that was the life of Diana.
August is a slow news month, the media had plenty of time to create whatever slant they wanted on Camilla attending Diana's memorial. They unsuccessfully tried the whole 'why isn't the flag flying at half mast at Buckingham Palace" at the anniversary of her death, well that didn't work as people didn't care and pointed out that the flag doesn't fly at half mast on the anniversary of the deaths of King George VI, Winston Churchill or Queen Elizabeth. So the media let that one die a natural death, the only negative spin they could manage was Camilla's attendence and they were fueled by the extremists as that's what the Diana maniacs are.

 

[Elspeth]

I could not imagine Tony Blair as a person, who severely discredited the British Royal Family. Why didn't he fully capitalize on emotions of the crowds after Princess' death and start the process of abolishment?

He'd only been Prime Minister for a short time when that happened, and he wasn't in much of a position to challenge the monarchy as a brand-new PM. The undermining came later. He did capitalise on the emotions of the crowds to do the "People's Princess" stuff along with the implication that the rest of the royal family, including the Queen, weren't connecting with the people. That was damaging enough to be going on with.

 

[Al_bina]

He'd only been Prime Minister for a short time when that happened, and he wasn't in much of a position to challenge the monarchy as a brand-new PM. The undermining came later. He did capitalise on the emotions of the crowds to do the "People's Princess" stuff along with the implication that the rest of the royal family, including the Queen, weren't connecting with the people. That was damaging enough to be going on with.

I am not surprised to learn about the Machiavellian streak in Mr. Blair’s character as it is essential for the long-term political survival. Still his attempts to undermine the royalty might be viewed as fruitless. Prime Ministers come and go, whereas the British Royal Family, even with controversial Prince Charles, remains inviolable.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Once again I ask.."For what possible reason did they have to have a civil marriage service (specifically forbidden in the Marriage Act), if they had the approval and consent of the Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury (who must perform the coronation)?" and "what is the difference between the situation with Charles and Camilla v. David and Wallis?"
The only reason that Queen Elizabeth is on the throne today is that it was ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE that the King/Defender of the Faith be married to a divorcee. Queen Wallis anyone? Would those of you in the Camilla camp have been so accepting of Queen/Princess Consort Wallis?

We had that upthread and in several others: acording to experts a civil marriage is valid for the future king. Edward VIII. had to go because he was politically involved with the British fascist and other right-winged movement and the government already feared Nazi- Germany and used this chance to get rid of a king who might have left the UK out in the cold when it came to Hitler. How right they were: at one point the Duke of Windsor accepted an offer by the Nazis to make him king and Wallis queen once they had conquered the UK!

I doubt any politician of today fears that Charles would go against the interests of his country in that way. And look at Spain where democracy was saved by the king who did not work together with the military who attempted a coup d' etat and told them to give up instead. So in 1936 there was a vivid interest to get rid of "David" while there is none to get rid of "Cheeky Charlie".

 

[Jo of Palatine]

You are too categorical and agressive in regard to Princess Diana. I believe that she has already paid the ultimate price.

No, she hasn't. She is dead, yes. But we all have to die one day. But she never had to really pay for what she did to others. I believe she was able to be compassionate and cared for many things. But once she was no longer caring for someone or a project or once she felt mistreated, she could be very vicious and negative. Then she felt justified to do all she wanted and lied and deceived to reach her own ends. I just remind of telephone terror attacks, the Panorama-interview, the way she treated Fergie in the end...

To pay the ultimative price for having character traits like that would not have been dying while you were young, beautiful and admired!

I

 

[lucien]

As to the initial question,ofcourse he will.But darling mama's health is such,she might live to be a hundred like her mother before.No-one knows, maybe she even outlives her son.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Dominick Dunne quote was from after he met her a few weeks before her death. As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing? The spindoctoring from Clarence House is not as good as when Bolland was doing it. Whomever advised THR that it would be a good idea for Camilla to go did not do them any favors. I think it set back her public profile and reminded people of the whole c/d/c mess.

I doubt anything the Prince and his princess do nowadays reminds people of this mess, it's part of the media and Diana's fans who cannot let loose and bring up the same old stories again and again.

I f I had the choice between being a friend of Diana or Camilla I would choose Camilla. And I bet if Diana's fans were honest, they would, too! After all we have never heard from an "ex-"confidante of Camilla how badly she was treated but we heard nummerous accounts of how thin the line between friendship and abuse was with Diana.

And now the person who most intimately lived together with Diana and had to cope with her should be denied his peace, his happiness and his inheritance only because he at one point called it quits? Come on!

 

[Al_bina]

No, she hasn't. She is dead, yes. But we all have to die one day. But she never had to really pay for what she did to others. I believe she was able to be compassionate and cared for many things. But once she was no longer caring for someone or a project or once she felt mistreated, she could be very vicious and negative. Then she felt justified to do all she wanted and lied and deceived to reach her own ends. I just remind of telephone terror attacks, the Panorama-interview, the way she treated Fergie in the end...

To pay the ultimative price for having character traits like that would not have been dying while you were young, beautiful and admired!

I

It has been kind of you to provide very emotional comments. You are entitled to your opinion about Princess Diana. I avoid being too categorical about people. Human beings are neither moral and virtuous paragons nor absolute villains. In this respect, Princess Diana was a mixture of positive and negative traits as well as Prince Charles and his spouse.

 

[Al_bina]

I doubt anything the Prince and his princess do nowadays reminds people of this mess, it's part of the media and Diana's fans who cannot let loose and bring up the same old stories again and again.

I f I had the choice between being a friend of Diana or Camilla I would choose Camilla. And I bet if Diana's fans were honest, they would, too! After all we have never heard from an "ex-"confidante of Camilla how badly she was treated but we heard nummerous accounts of how thin the line between friendship and abuse was with Diana.

And now the person who most intimately lived together with Diana and had to cope with her should be denied his peace, his happiness and his inheritance only because he at one point called it quits? Come on!

Who denies Prince Charles "his peace,his happiness and his inheritance" (Joe of Palatine, 2007)? Fairly speaking, I do not understand this outcry that Prince Charles is denied something. Love triangles are akin to civil wars, where each side has got its own truth. Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall have been reaping consequences of their poor judgment and mistakes as well as Princess Diana did. The untimely death of Princess Diana has alleviated tensions and defused the controversy over the whole situations to a certain extent.

 

[Skydragon]

The Dominick Dunne quote was from after he met her a few weeks before her death. As far as 'public opinion' in GB, there was a BBC poll at the time of Charles and Camilla's engagement (just type the names, wedding and constitution) that was overwhelmingly of the opinion that if C and C married, he should step down from the succession, which is what I based my post on. In regards to public opinion about Camilla, very recently she chose (had her hand forced?) to cancel going to the memorial because of the groundswell against it, no? I seem to remember Beatrixfan posting something about egg throwing? .

I think most of your points have already been answered, but I still cannot find anything to suggest that Dunne has spoken to or has much knowledge about what aristocrats or commoners think.
Very many people do not vote in polls and unless there is a strict mechanism at play, a person with strong views can vote time and again. As an ex friend explained it to me, just clear your cookies and open dozens of hotmail accounts. Personally I could never be bothered. You also have to take into account the old argument of how could 1000 or so, give a clear picture of what 60,776,238 people think!

Far from starting a groundswell against Camilla, even the worst tabloids came down in support of the actions she had taken and went so far as to praise her for it. I doubt she was worried by the threats from a few demented Diana circle members, she knows the protection she has and she knows they couldn't get within egg throwing distance. She withdrew from the service so that the media would focus on Diana, as William and Harry wanted and for that she should be admired.

 

[diamondBrg]

Who denies Prince Charles "his peace,his happiness and his inheritance" (Joe of Palatine, 2007)? Fairly speaking, I do not understand this outcry that Prince Charles is denied something. Love triangles are akin to civil wars, where each side has got its own truth. Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall have been reaping consequences of their poor judgment and mistakes as well as Princess Diana did. The untimely death of Princess Diana has alleviated tensions and defused the controversy over the whole situations to a certain extent.

"love triangle"? More like an octagon. Diana had more lovers while married to Prince Charles, according to numerous reports, than Carter has little liver pills.

Diana was mentally ill as well as bulimia. Diana threw her stepmother down a flight of stairs. Diana lied and slandered an unmarried woman in public by telling her how sorry she was about losing a baby and then settled a lawsuit over the matter.

I really don't think you can compare the actions and behaviors of Prince Charles and Diana at all.

 

[Al_bina]

"love triangle"? More like an octagon. Diana had more lovers while married to Prince Charles, according to numerous reports, than Carter has little liver pills.

Diana was mentally ill as well as bulimia. Diana threw her stepmother down a flight of stairs. Diana lied and slandered an unmarried woman in public by telling her how sorry she was about losing a baby and then settled a lawsuit over the matter.

I really don't think you can compare the actions and behaviors of Prince Charles and Diana at all.

Well, may be... you are right. She was just a disillusioned and deeply hurt woman, who did not master the highest art of sophistiacted revenge. It seems to me that Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall have become the quintessence of virtue, whereas Princess Diana is viewed as the evil incarnate.

 

[diamondBrg]

Well, may be... you are right. She was just a disillusioned and deeply hurt woman, who did not master the highest art of sophistiacted revenge. It seems to me that Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall have become the quintessence of virtue, whereas Princess Diana is viewed as the evil incarnate.

No, she was severely mentally ill and traumatized from a very neglected childhood and expected Prince Charles to make right everything that had gone wrong in her life. Had she not been blond, blue eyed and beautiful and titled, she most likely would have ended up in an Institution for the Mentally Ill. Instead her family and Prince Charles Grandmother manipulated him into a marriage with her.

 

[Liz]

Had she not been blond, blue eyed and beautiful and titled, she most likely would have ended up in an Institution for the Mentally Ill.

Exaggerate much?

 

[diamondBrg]

Exaggerate much?

I don't think so at all.

 

[jcbcode99]

Diana was the product of a very unhappy childhood and she had always dreamed of marrying a prince because in her mind, that was a rescue from her own reality. All children, even teens, have this fantasty. Let's not forget how old Diana was-she was barely out of that age of adolescent fantasy. And suddenly, there she was, living the fairytale--which is exactly what she wanted. She was a child when she got married, and she behaved as a child would--petutantly, selfishly, angrily, vengefully. Her behavior is probably nothing we haven't done at some point in our lives, if we're being fair. Diana never got to experience university--and that is when we all grow up, and she never had a career that helped to define who she was before she entered the Royal Family. Again, her age and inexperience created this situation.

I do think that she created an amazing public personna, but all the personal accounts we've heard of her indicated that she was a selfish person. I hate that, because had she not married so young that may not have happened to her. I also think she was a fantastic mother--but she confided too much in William--a parent should be a parent and a child a child. He didn't need to hear all that. The reason she felt she could trust no one was because she alienated so many people. Its sad that such a truly dynamic individual had these problems.
As for Charles, he will ascend to the throne and be a wonderful King. He has earned the right to be King. After all, if Henry VIII could still be king.......
Camilla will be Queen Consort and stand confidently by her man.
Until then, God Save the Queen!

 

[ysbel]

I think the question of who was good and who was evil is rather irrelevant. Diana is dead and gone and she herself cannot affect the status of the monarchy any more but the question for the British people now is whether the British monarchy is worth saving.

Unless Charles dies before the Queen, he and Camilla are going to be the face of the future British monarchy and so the state and condition of the monarchy are going to be irretrievably tied up with the status and condition of Charles and Camilla. I know there is talk about Charles dying before the Queen but people shouldn't count on it to prevent Charles from ascending the throne.

If the British people care about the status of the British monarchy, at some point they have to care about the status and condition of Charles and Camilla - and William who comes after. Right now, the whole purpose of the monarchy is to protect the status of the Queen who is its figurehead; at some point, the focus needs to change to protect the status of Charles and Camilla since they are to follow in the Queen's footsteps.

If the British people don't care, then they can get rid of a 1000 year old tradition but once they do, they can't go back.

 

[Liz]

As for Charles, he will ascend to the throne and be a wonderful King. He has earned the right to be King. After all, if Henry VIII could still be king.......
Camilla will be Queen Consort and stand confidently by her man.
Until then, God Save the Queen!

I agree..he deserves it and he will be a wonderful King.

 

[Elspeth]

We had that upthread and in several others: acording to experts a civil marriage is valid for the future king. Edward VIII. had to go because he was politically involved with the British fascist and other right-winged movement and the government already feared Nazi- Germany and used this chance to get rid of a king who might have left the UK out in the cold when it came to Hitler. How right they were: at one point the Duke of Windsor accepted an offer by the Nazis to make him king and Wallis queen once they had conquered the UK!

He didn't. There's no evidence for this, and the statements that have been put about to that effect are not based on anything concrete. Since this is a flat accusation of high treason, it needs to be based on something a lot stronger than is actually out there. Some of the biographies dealing with this issue are fairly carefully worded to give an impression without actually saying anything outright, but I don't think any halfway authoritative biography has ever confirmed this.

Many politicians and right wingers were rather enamoured of Hitler and especially Mussolini early on, before the extent of Hitler's perfidy became common knowledge. George VI and Queen Elizabeth were strong supporters of Chamberlain's appeasement policy, as were many people who had lived through the First World War and didn't wish to have to experience a second one. Edward VIII was acting fairly standardly when he tried so hard to broker peace with Hitler.

I've read two volumes of Tommy Lascelles's memoirs, and it seems as though there were very grave doubts about Edward's fitness for kingship way back in the 1920s, and it also sounds as though one of the doubters was Edward himself. It may not have helped him that many of his advisors were loyal to his father rather than to him and some of the others were considered by the old guard to be rather unsound.

Edward did have Charles's habit of getting involved in political issues where a more prudent Prince of Wales and King might not have, and in both cases it seemed to be a matter of the Prince (and King, since some of this happened after Edward's accession) having more access to ordinary people than politicians tended to, and therefore seeing the human effects of some political decisions at first hand. As one example, it seems to be be fairly well accepted now that the Government had decided to just abandon the South Welsh miners to lives of unrelieved poverty rather than trying to do anything to help them when the mining industry hit hard times - possibly payback for the 1926 strike or something. And then Edward went to South Wales and shone a bright light on the human side of this policy so that the public could see what was actually happening. This sort of interference that makes the government look callous - something Charles is also rather good at - is bound not to be popular with the Establishment.

While it wouldn't on its own be a reason to try and get rid of a King, the combination of this long-held feeling that Edward wasn't suitable, that he surrounded himself with people who were untrustworthy (at least by Establishment standards), that he was out of control as far as his handlers were concerned, and that he wasn't a Good Christian Gentleman and wasn't wanting to marry a suitable woman did add up to enough of an incentive to not try very hard to find a solution where he could marry and continue to be King. I assume Charles was given assurances that the Church isn't going to suddenly decide to get up on its high horse about his coronation if he went ahead with his second wedding.

 

[Elspeth]

No, she was severely mentally ill and traumatized from a very neglected childhood and expected Prince Charles to make right everything that had gone wrong in her life. Had she not been blond, blue eyed and beautiful and titled, she most likely would have ended up in an Institution for the Mentally Ill. Instead her family and Prince Charles Grandmother manipulated him into a marriage with her.

I think it's overstating it to say she was severely mentally ill. She did have some problems as a result of her early experiences, and they weren't helped by her high-profile marriage to someone with whom she was fairly incompatible on a personal level. I think had she not been beautiful and famous, she'd have found it easier to control her problems and seek help; it's also very possible that she wouldn't have had the level of problems that she had.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well, may be... you are right. She was just a disillusioned and deeply hurt woman, who did not master the highest art of sophistiacted revenge.

So many excuses for Diana, so many blame for Charles.... Why doesn't that tell you something? It's so easy to sit back in your (probably cozy) computer chair and write that "Charles and Camilla reaped what they had sown" when you are not in the least involved, when you are just an outstander delighting on your own ability to pass judgments on people you'll never, ever meet.