The Monarchy under Charles

[Arncliffe]

I was bitterly disappointed when HRH's services were declined. I've often felt that things would have turned out for the better for Australia if that opportunity to have had a visionary in his prime as G-G had not been lost.

Next governor-general could be Prince Harry, William | News.com.au

 

[Madame Royale]

I was bitterly disappointed when HRH's services were declined. I've often felt that things would have turned out for the better for Australia if that opportunity to have had a visionary in his prime as G-G had not been lost.

That article is over a year old.

 

[Iluvbertie]

By the time Charles was old enough to be considered Australia had moved away from having foreigners in that position and Charles will, like the rest of his family, will always now be seen as foreigners.

 

[Roslyn]

Yep. The time had long passed for an English Prince to be our G-G when Charles was apparently interested. No way in the wide world would one of his sons be considered for the post now, though I suspect the Australian Republican Movement would just love to see one of them try.

 

[Tyger]

A 1985 Documentary....

I have spent a delightful evening watching a 1985 documentary with a couple of friends - Prince & Princess of Wales - In Public & Private on YouTube. (Love that YouTube!). I want to mention that I have never been a 'fan' of Prince Charles. Saying that, I have never been an 'unfan', either. Since I am interested in a certain aspect of his first wife's life, I have found myself watching a series of videos and this documentary had me sitting up and really looking at Charles.

I was directed to some YouTube documentaries and interviews and found this one which I found riveting, especially the footage showing Charles going about his 'work'. This is the first footage I've seen of him showing him in such a relaxed and positive light - engaging and quite charming, to boot. Fabulous smile!

What comes across in this footage for me is: 1) how in shape he is! yes, I noticed - and he's not really all that bad looking; 2) how truly intelligent and naturally engaged he is with the public aspect of his role - I had not really been aware that he is actually a charming man; 3) how in-depth - and seriously comprehensive - his 'work' internationally has been; 4) what artistic sensibilities Charles has that have developed Highgrove into a very handsome property; and 5) what a truly sensitive and caring father he is. (All these were surprises to me given 'the press' about him over the decades - at least here in the US - especially the last. I surmised as much from what I was seeing in regards the grown William and Harry, that he was a good father, but its very clear that he was a good father from the get-go. What one sees here is a very gentle man, comfortable with his sons and they with him. It was noticeable how much Harry favored his father - I'm not saying 'over and above' anyone else just that its clear that Harry - at two years - was eager to be in 'Poppa's' arms - very sweet. That says a lot about his parenting.)

Prince & Princess of Wales - In Public & Private (1985 documentary) Part 9 - the part about Charles begins at 4:30 into the segment -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2Ei3ziNXhA

Prince & Princess of Wales - In Public & Private (1985 documentary) Part 10 - the guy really was in shape! Yes, I noticed that again - especially on a polo pony! Impressive -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snfcn2Me3VE&feature=related

Prince & Princess of Wales - In Public & Private (1985 documentary) Part 11 - that polo pony ride, hmmm.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6Izj70nwxc&feature=related

I think I've been charmed! I am in love. Ha! Anyway, Charles is not an ignorant, lay-about man. He's a gem really. I think he will be a very intelligent King, an interesting one, and one who will impact the monarchy in significant - and healthy - ways. Just from these clips one can see his innate talent. He's even more seasoned now - can only get better.

The thought occurred to me that he might be a throw-back to his great-great-great grandfather, Prince Albert. (Too many 'greats' there?) Seems to have the same savvy, same interest in their current times.

I look forward to his reign. It will be fascinating to watch.

 

[Tyger]

Well ... you might be correct. In my personal opinion, Prince Charles is not Steven Jobs, who can re-invigorate the monarchy in some unknown way and "press it forward into the 21st century". What exactly could he do? On the other hand, Prince Charles would have made a nice Governor of California.

Ha! Governor of California!

Prince Charles is not Steven Jobs - you miss my meaning or perhaps are not acquainted with the nature of Charles' Trust initiatives? Charles has taken what he has and become a facilitator for innumerable initiatives of his own. Do you not know of the work of the Prince's Trust? Impressive organization, impressive effectiveness. Charles has been a man very much of his generation albeit Royal and English so it becomes clouded. The British Press has been very low-brow - even ignorant - in its coverage - and criticism - of Charles, I'm now coming to believe.

I don't know what Charles will do in the 21st Century as King, but he is by far someone exceedingly well-equipped - in intelligence and skills, firmly bedded in a life-time of real work, as a CEO type - to re-define the monarchy for current times. Britain has 'lucked-out' with Charles IMO. He has sensibilities that span many disciplines and can only be for the good in the long run. IMO.

 

[Tyger]

Charles' Film 'Harmony'....

I have not seen this film - and have only just become aware of it. Here is a teaser for the film and I am impressed. Hugely impressed. It is interesting that in the Brian Williams' interview linked to above, he does mention that there may be a re-definition of the monarchy when he ascends the throne - or not. He will change things for sure, I think, and for the best, I trust.

HARMONY (Teaser)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWJtS2VpYm0&feature=related

 

[Roslyn]

Boxing Day night here, and I'm back at the motel and online quickly checking what's been happening around the world while I've been filling up on turkey and ham for the second day in a row. Heading home tomorrow and once there and finally able to wind down and really relax for a few days I'll be checking out these videos you've pointed out to us, Tyger. They sound very interesting. YouTube is a fabulous resource, isn't it!

 

[Al_bina]

Ha! Governor of California!
Prince Charles is not Steven Jobs... Charles has taken what he has and become a facilitator for innumerable initiatives of his own. Do you not know of the work of the Prince's Trust?...

Prince's Trust is a charity that operates in more different environment than Apple, which has risen from ashes, and other for-profit organisations. Those, who desire to catch a glimpse of the royalty and put it on their list of good deeds, donate to the above fund (e.g., Mrs. Joan Rivers and rich new Russians). Prince Charles might possess all qualities you have mentioned. However, he and his English language (the main reason I have taken an interest in the British Royals) do not impress me much. Mr. Brian Sewell's English is much better. It remains to be seen what kind of King Prince Charles will make and how he will re-define the monarchy.

 

[Tiggersk8]

I have not seen this film - and have only just become aware of it. Here is a teaser for the film and I am impressed. Hugely impressed. It is interesting that in the Brian Williams' interview linked to above, he does mention that there may be a re-definition of the monarchy when he ascends the throne - or not. He will change things for sure, I think, and for the best, I trust.

I have seen Harmony and highly reccomend it. Charles is the narrator for the film and it shows how in different parts of the World, bringing together various pieces of the puzzle that used to be at each other's throats, and getting them talking, can bring about real change.

Such as Clear Cutting of Forests in British Columbia, which is shown in the film. It truly is facinating and also gives us a bit of a look of how Charles uses his influence and connections when it comes to the Environment.

Will he be a good King, we'll only know that after he takes the Throne, but he certainly does try to make this World a bit of a better place. For that, he has my respect.

 

[georgiea]

Will he be a good King, we'll only know that after he takes the Throne, but he certainly does try to make this World a bit of a better place. For that, he has my respect.

And my respect too Tiggersk8.

 

[Marie of The Sea]

Well ... you might be correct. In my personal opinion, Prince Charles is not Steven Jobs, who can re-invigorate the monarchy in some unknown way and "press it forward into the 21st century". What exactly could he do? On the other hand, Prince Charles would have made a nice Governor of California.

Quite so, Al-bina. He might have succeeded where the film actors failed!

Charles is very much a man of tradition and has no interest in new innovations. Before crops were fertilized and had pesticide applied, they were organic aka as untouched by chemicals. He liked going back to that archaic method, which has it good and bad points. Not all chemicals are bad annymore than all natural substances are good. His father and sister are much more progressive, condoning GM crops.

Page 121 The Ethics of Food
The ethics of food: a reader for the ... - Google Books

The BMA had to come out against Charles old-fashioned remedy for curing cancer, coffee ground enemas. They said it was a quack remedy that cost lives.

Prince Charles told off by medical experts
Prince Charles told off by top cancer specialist over alternative therapies

Accused of quackery


Prince Charles accused of 'quackery' over Duchy detox potion | UK news | The Guardian

He turns his back on modern science and wants to go backward in agriculture and medicine.

His idea for the monarchy is to eliminate his sister and brothers and their children from duties and have only he, his wife and two sons and their partners in the public eye, going about duties and supporting charities. I don't think that sort of cutback will work for all the organizations depending on the monarchy for support.

Would Charles make a good king?

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Have Your Say :: DEBATE: Will Charles make a good King?-

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles is not reactionary but more simply a traditionalist.

He reads the public demand for a cut down royal family - but we don't know exactly how small he would like it to go.

It has been reported that he would like to take the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie but that has been from 'royal sources' at a time when bashing Charles was the national pasttime and hasn't been confirmed by him.

I suspect that he would like the Royal Family to be the monarch, spouse and their children and spouses but he also knows that taking the HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie would mean no HRH for Harry's kids to be fair.

He will be a more modern monarch than his mother but he will also be the last true royal monarch of Britain in my opinion.

 

[Tyger]

Charles is very much a man of tradition and has no interest in new innovations. Before crops were fertilized and had pesticide applied, they were organic aka as untouched by chemicals. He liked going back to that archaic method[...]

i can't respond to all your points given the constraints of the thread but just to say that what I know of agricultural interests here in the US - which is basically agri-business corporations - it takes some moxie to enter this debate over sustainability. Instead of having monied, corporate interests drive the decision making, sustainability pits a different model against the profit interests. That takes gumption - and a progressive outlook. Its great that Charles has been willing to engage the debate in his position.

If you look at what he is doing in his planned communities regarding sustainability you will see that Charles is very much an innovative thinker and able to identify others who think innovatively, as well as gather and communicate with a vast range of individuals. Much of what he is involved with began way before it was 'cool' or even on the political map.

I am not a Charles fan, by the way, he doesn't give me a 'warm fuzzy'. I have just looked at his endeavors to see what he has been doing - and it is impressive. Is it possible that it is because Charles-bashing seems to be the British media's main activity when it comes to Charles that a reasoned and balanced perspective on Charles' work has never been given? Or does Charles get a fair shot in British reporting - we just don't know about it here in the US? Maybe.

 

[Marie of The Sea]

Actually Charles has jumped on the bandwagon of those who are progressive and was not an originator of organic crops and sustainability.
His ideas are copied from the endeavours of those who pioneered those ideas.

There are many complaints about Poundbury and his other planned communities among the inhabitants and the people in the neighboring towns and villages.

With his unlimited funds and contacts, he does whatever he likes and his duchy products and communities were designed to fill his coffers.

Cracks appearing in Prince Charles's dream village in Poundbury | UK news | The Guardian

No 'sustainability' there.

Royal Family lose battle with angry villagers to turn their home into 'another Poundbury' | Mail Online

 

[Tyger]

Actually Charles has jumped on the bandwagon of those who are progressive and was not an originator of organic crops and sustainability. His ideas are copied from the endeavours of those who pioneered those ideas.

Actually there was no bandwagon to jump on when he began all this 20 years ago - except maybe in the US and some areas of Britain. It was not a popular bandwagon if there was one. He subscribes to innovative thinking. He listens, experiences and makes choices accordingly. Its what most of us do. Few of us are 'originators' but sometimes the way we combine our interests makes for innovative work in the world. i think Charles has done that - he's carved a niche for himself and engaged in honorable work.

There are many complaints about Poundbury and his other planned communities among the inhabitants and the people in the neighboring towns and villages.

There is nothing unusual in the article - it is a year and a half old article and some of it is a re-telling of bits from other articles from that time period. Most of the 'complaints' are not due to Charles - though the clear attempt is to call into question the development.

With his unlimited funds and contacts, he does whatever he likes and his duchy products and communities were designed to fill his coffers.

Charles has certainly proven himself a savvy businessman. My understanding is that he pays for well over 80% of his expenses - which should make those concerned with the cost of Royalty heartened. He's paying his own way. He could be 'filling his coffers' in a far more lucrative (and easier) fashion but has chosen the path of a developer.

Your next article states:[...]Poundbury, a controversial project by the Prince of Wales estate to create a model of an environmentally sustainable village according to his theories about town planning, which began around 20 years ago.

This article claims that Charles has his own theories about town planning so by this he is an originator of ideas. I'm not saying he is but this article claims such and that they have been gestating for 20 years. Pretty progressive. [In fact, the article says 20 years but its more like 30 to 35 years - Charles has been thinking outside-the-box for a very long time. Truly ahead of his time.]

No 'sustainability' there.

Another article from a year and a half ago - which I don't think talks about sustainability, so yes, none there. Charles is a developer, no question of that. i read the article and read nothing alarming. An attempt at re-development was rebuffed. Or more correctly, an attempt at controlled development - which is what Charles is doing (and which we here in the US have come to realize is the only way to go with development) - was pushed back by the residents. Truth to say, from what I read in the article, IMO the residents were ill-advised and turned down a great opportunity.

 

[Marie of The Sea]

Among Charles' 185 employees are the people who make the decisions and choices, the business professionals that make his inherited estate profitable. I don't think he is personally a businessman by any means but follows usually sound advise and follows popular trends.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really must disagree with this.

He was an environmentalist when that was extremely unpopular and he was labelled a crackpot as a result.
He was critical of modern architecture in places where it was out of sinc with the local environment - when that was extremely unpopular but now many more people agree with him.
He was in fact a man ahead of his times - supporting unpopular ideas that are now popular - not the other way around.

 

[Tabby]

The BMA had to come out against Charles old-fashioned remedy for curing cancer, coffee ground enemas. They said it was a quack remedy that cost lives.

Prince Charles said he knew of a woman who had been told she had terminal cancer and would not survive another round of chemotherapy. She tried the Gerson Therapy (which includes coffee enemas), and was still living seven years later. He was using this example to support his belief that alternative treatments should be investigated.

Now Charles backs coffee cure for cancer | Society | The Observer

 

[Marie of The Sea]

Tabby, in reply, which does not change the fact that his remedies have been called 'quackery' by medical scientists. We all know people who were mislead by schemes such as the Gerson Diet, who died because of abandonning actual proven medical procedures.

Whatever benefit Gerson Therapy might have for preventing disease does not translate into effective treatment for those who have cancer. This point is lost on Prince Charles and his supporters, however.
For a skeptic, which Charles is not, several questions regarding his anecdote should be asked: Who is this phantom person that was saved by juices and enemas? and what evidence is there that she really was suffering from terminal cancer? Who told her she would not survive chemotherapy? And, what evidence is there that Gerson Therapy had anything to do with her being alive and well seven years after her alleged bout with "terminal" cancer?

Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter 44

He asked that a certain practitioner of alternative medicine heal his Aunt Margaret. While it was a kind thought, it did not benefit her health.

I think he is too gullible to be a strong leader. He is influenced by dangerous individuals. For many decades, Charles was an avid and staunch follower of Lauren van der Post. He even read the charlatan's jiggery pokery filled books on his honeymoon, made him Prince William's godfather and revered him as his personal guru when the man was nothing more than a fraud.

New Statesman - Faking it. Frank McLynn on the life of Prince Charles's celebrated guru: a fraud, liar and crazed right-winger

And when it came to women, der Post was a bounder. In the early 1950's, when he was 46, he seduced the 14-year-old daughter of a wealthy South African winemaking family, who had been entrusted to his care during a sea voyage. She became pregnant, and although he sent her a small stipend, he never publicly acknowledged the daughter born of the relationship.

Charles practically worshipped this man and spent many years with him in talks, the man who taught him to speak to plants.

Master Storyteller or Master Deceiver? - NYTimes.com

 

[Mirabel]

There was an editorial in our local newspaper this morning (picked up from an Ottawa paper).
It was critical of Charles for granting interviews to Americans when he should be trying to improve relations with Canada.

The editorial mentioned that the Queen is greatly loved, but predicted an uneasy transition when Charles assumes the throne. It said that he should be trying to warm things up now, and forget about the US and concentrate on Canada!

 

[Roslyn]

Do you have a link to that article, Mirabel? I'd like to know why Charles is supposed to improve relations with Canada rather over the US. Has he done something specific to offend Canada, or is is just because Canada is a Commonwealth country? If it's the Commonwealth connection, why should Canada get preference? *pouts like jealous child*

 

[Renata4711]

It stands to reason that the transition from HM the Queen to Prince Charles may not be the smoothest, simply because of the Queen's longevity which is very unusual.

 

[nascarlucy]

Is Canada jealous of the United States because Prince Charles grants interviews to America? This is ridiculous to say the least.

 

[Mirabel]

Do you have a link to that article, Mirabel? I'd like to know why Charles is supposed to improve relations with Canada rather over the US. Has he done something specific to offend Canada, or is is just because Canada is a Commonwealth country? If it's the Commonwealth connection, why should Canada get preference? *pouts like jealous child*

I hope this works:

Editorial Roundup: Excerpts From Recent Editorials | WJBF
It's supposed to be excerpts so may not include the whole thing.
Scroll down to Dec. 28 entry on strained royal relations.
The editorial is titled: It's time for Royal Family to court Canada's loyalty

 

[Roslyn]

Thanks.

A filler story. Canada's essentially in the same boat as Australia.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I wasn't aware that Prince Charles's relations with us needed any "improving." If he doesn't come here very often, it's because there's more of an emphasis on inviting the Queen. After all, she's our sovereign.

 

[georgiea]

I am a Diana, Princess of Wales fan and can say I moved pass after the wedding, because the Duchess is good for Prince Charles. For the Duchess of Cornwall to be titled Queen at first I thought I could accept it, but them I thought of Prince Philip and Prince Albert. They were princes instead of Kings and they both did not do anything morally wrong. Also, in order for the Duchess to marry Prince Charles a PC spokesman said Camilla would not be titled the Princess of Wales. And if Prince Charles becomes King she would be titled Princess. I don't like that PC is talking about now changing her title to Queen that is to me like taking back an important factor for him to marry is mistress. This is the problem for me and I think with anyone who trust what a future ruler tells his subjects. This is a problem for us loving Diana, Princess of Wales fans.

 

[muriel]

In the UK, the wife of a King is the Queen, the husband of a reigning Queen is a Prince, irrespective of whether you have committed any moral sins or not. That is just the way it is. Irrespective of what she is called, Camilla will legally be Queen, just as she has been Princess of Wales since her wedding to Charles.

Charles never sought the permission of the country to marry Camilla - he only needed the consent of his mother. The basis on which that consent was given has not really changed - Camilla was always going to be Queen, irrespective of what any of us may feel.

This has nothing to do with Diana. diana was divorced from Charles, so irrespective of whether he had remarried or not, she was never ever going to be Queen. Lets just move on now, its been a long time.

 

[Madame Royale]

Whether legally Queen or not, the fact remains that it was supposedly the intention that she would be known by another style and title when her husband succeeds. And that intention was willingly made public.

I do believe it's becoming more evident as times moves on that the proposal to soften the anticipated 'blow' at the time of engagement was never really going to become reality, but that it would take some of the heat off the couple for publically declaring their commitment to one another, officially.

I am inclined to believe, certainly of late, that it was a well orchestrated case of public manipulation (an agenda if you will) and something I don't respect at all I'm affraid.

The wording was flimsy enough for them to dissasociate themselves at some point should they wish to do so and again I don't find that very agreeable.

I do believe I find resolve a far more endearing quality than idle indecisiveness.