Indeed.
With all due respect Prince Charles has been in a waiting position for so long, that he is basically the "eternal reserve".
And looking apart from the issues he has had in his personal life, he glamour factor is descending while W&K is ascending.
Not to mention that many no doubt question the logic of putting a man on the throne who has reached retirement age.
Prince Charles is a prime example of the problem we are going to see more and more of: The monarchs live so long nowadays that it makes more sense to put the grandchild on the throne.
He is a living argument for why abdications should perhaps become the norm, rather than the exception.
Prince Charles is not a life wasted waiting, but he might be an opportunity wasted. In other words: What mark would he have put on Britain and the BRF had his mother died or retired 20 years ago?
Now that opportunity has passed.
1. Had the Queen abdicated 20 years ago from 16 countries and stepped down as head of the Commonwealth, and let the then very unpopular/controversial Charles succeed, then we wouldn't have had any Britich monarchy today.
2. And then we wouldn't have had our amazing iconic Queen with her Jubilees, walkabouts (from 1970-2012), her Commonwealth visits with huge crowds, all here diplomatic efforts, we wouldn't have seen other State leaders admiring/praising the British monarch as we see today, we wouldn't have seen US presidents say this:
I confess I've also come back to wish Her Majesty the Queen a very happy 90th birthday. Earlier today, Michelle and I had the honor to join Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh as their guests at Windsor Castle, where we conveyed the good wishes of the American people.
I have to say I have never been driven by a Duke of Edinburgh before. (Laughter.) And I can report that it was very smooth riding. As for Her Majesty, the Queen has been a source of inspiration for me, like so many people around the world. She is truly one of my favorite people. And should we be fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She’s an astonishing person, and a real jewel to the world and not just to the United Kingdom.
We wouldn't have seen her amazing smile, her kindness, seen her visiting hospitals etc from 1952-2012, seen her as focal point during tragic events as in 2005 and 2017.
Much of this is due to her longevity and very long reign.
3. And had the Queen abdicated (against her people's wishes) 20 years ago and the monarchy had survived, Charles had probably been an unpopular monarch.
4. And had he been monarch 20 years ago, then it had been an opportunity wasted. As a constitutional monarchc, he couldn't have done anything of the good work he has done for over 40 years.
5. And Charles age has nothing to do with the fact that William are the preferred choice to succeed the Queen.
6. Some says that the monarch in the UK are most popular when they are very young (as the Queen was in 1950s) and when they are old because the Queen's popularity/approval has been enormously high after she turned 80.
7. I don't agree with that, because the Queen has alwais been popular, also in the months after Diana died.
8. Her Ipsos MORI approval ratings was above 70% in the 1990s (also in December 1997), it was at 66% in March 1998, but was back at 73% in August 1998 and has been at 80/90% after 2002.
While we see that people in other monarcies (expept from Norway) wants the older monarch to abdicate because the heir and spouse are young/popular, that wasen't the case in the UK when Charles was young and popular.
From Ipsos MORI: Do you think that the Queen should abdicate at some stage, or should she remain Queen as long as possible?
December 1981: Abdicate 48% Remain Queen 45% Don't Know 7% - the only time more people wanted her to abdicate instead of remaining on the throne.
April 1984: Abdicate 32% Remain Queen 59% Don't Know 9%
February 1987: Abdicate 35% Remain Queen 61% Don't Know 4%
January 1990: Abdicate 47% Remain Queen 48% Don't Know 5%
May 1992: Abdicate 39% Remain Queen 53% Don't Know 8%
January 1994: Abdicate 28% Remain Queen 66% Don't Know 6%
December 1994: Abdicate 28% Remain Queen 64% Don't Know 8%
September 1997: Abdicate 27% Remain Queen 65% Don't Know 8%
August 1998: Abdicate 28% Remain Queen 67% Don't Know 5%
November 1998: Abdicate 29% Remain Queen 67% Don't Know 4%
November 1999: Abdicate 32% Remain Queen 60% Don't Know 8%
8-9 June 2000: Abdicate 31% Remain Queen 62% Don't Know 7%
29-30 June 2000: Abdicate 31% Remain Queen 62% Don't Know 7%
April 2001: Abdicate 34% Remain Queen 61% Don't Know 6%
April 2016: Abdicate: 21% Remain Queen 70% Don't know: 9% - the highest number I've seen for the Queen to remain on the throne.
Duc_et_Pair, this isn't about Emperor Akihito, King Albert II, King Juan Carlos, the pope or the dutch royal family. And some polls have shown a weakening of the support for the monarchy in the Netherlands after the abdication.
Spain: Juan Carlos had to go because of his stupidity/scandals and selfishness. It was necessary to save the monarchy.
The Pope: He is a elected (by the cardinals) dictator in a tiny state and the powerful controversial head of a church with about 1 billion members. And John Paul II should have abdicated when he become to frail, the same with Benedict XVI. But the old out of touch cardinals who elects the pope are always choosing old out of touch people to secure their own interests. And (as I've said before) you can't compare the Vatican/Pope with a proper country or a constitutional monarch.
Sadly most people don't understand what Charles has achieved with The Princes Trust and so do see his a 'life wasted waiting'.
The press don't help with their constant negative stories about him and rarely anything positive.
The BRF does have a problem due to the Queen's longevity which may very well see a need for an abdication in the future for the monarch to survive - it won't be either The Queen or Charles but I can see William abdicating and relatively young as well - even in his 60s so that George is in his early 30s with maybe a young wife and children. He may even encourage legislation to be past to set an automatic 'abdication' or 'retirement' age.
I wrote this in the 'After Elizabeth' thread, and it fits as an ansver to your post as well:
1. He gets credit from the media all the time, his approval ratings are at around 70% and 60% thinks he's going to be a good king? Not bad for a man who has received so much criticism.
2. Is he going to be popular/beloved and admirred like his mother? No way, but I think/hope that he vill be respected.
3. Will he ever be the prefered choose to succeed the Queen? No, he wont. Why? Because people who don't follow Charles see him as a boring, distant and cold man who was mean to Diana. And they would rather have the younger William.
4. Is he all those things above? Of course not, but most people don't know about his good works or sees him on his walkabouts around the UK.
5. Did most people see him on his visit (with Camilla) to Sydney in 2015, where they drev bigger crowds than William/Kate and Harry? No, they didn't.
6. Did most people see him on his visits (with Camilla) to Romania, Italy and Austria this year, where they were mobbed by people? No, they didn't.
7. Do most people know that he is actually very good at connecting with people? No, they don't.
8. But the problem now is the 20th Anniversary of Diana's death: It has (as I thought it would) damaged the monarchy, Charles/Camilla and even our 91-year-old Queen.
I also want to add that the the media/commentators have been after William/Kate (called them boring, uncharismatic, lazy and work-shy) for years now while both Charles and Camilla have been praised as never before. Camilla has even been called popular (something she's never going to be).
William as heir:
1. His popularity in the media is likely to rise now (at least I hope so) and thats a good thing.
2. He will never have the popularity that he had among ordinary people in the UK from 2010-2013, but he's still pretty popular (not bad after the all the criticism he has received).
3. And yes William is going to be more popular as heir than his father King Charles, but that is not a problem. Frederick and Victoria are more popular than the monarchs in their countries (the same with Willem-Alexander when he was the heir).
4. William will be the popular heir (also when he gets older), if he stays away from cheating on his wife, interventions in politics and don't does stupid interviews. He has never done any of this things and I dont't think he's likely to start now.
William as monarch:
1. Not going to be loved/admired as his grandmother, but is likely to be quite popular.
2. I for one (because I'm a big fan of him) think he's going to do a great job and he reminds me about HM.
Charles: He is going to be more respected in the media (although he already is) when he becomes the monarch, and I think (as I said above) that he's going to be respected (but not popular) by ordinary people too.
Sadly, Charles has failed to connect with his future subjects in a way that they would understand his achievements. He can't rely on people to automatically understand; it's his case to make or to have made. The first things I think of when I consider the POW are his relationships with women...and his wardrobe. I am well-educated and well- read, and I have spent a lot of time in the UK. I'm well aware of the Princes Trust, but Charles' personal life has obscured his professional life. Sad, but true (IMO).
I don't think this is the right thread for this discussion, but I answer it above in my post.