The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
In a television interview which Princess Diana had on November 20, 1995, in The Royals, Kitty Kelley wrote:

She (Princess Diana) was asked whether she thought her husband would ever be King.
Diana replied: I would think that the top job, as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him, and I don't know whether he could adapt."
 
:previous: It is best to remember that Kitty Kelly is a writer noted for unofficial "biographies" with little access to her victim's private lives or their friends or even to those who work with them. When it comes to the BRF I think she had more “according to a former equerry” or “recalled a friend” etc. than there ever were equerries or friends.

Her style is classic soap opera, scandal and skuldugerry. Her sources often come straight from the scandal rags of the time and let's face it, that is hardly a credible reference. Basically she is a legend in her own lunchtime and held in contempt by both her victims and serious readers. :bang:
 
:previous:
now that is the most perfect comment about KK :frazzled: this is how I picture her trying to get another 15 minutes of fame for she doesn't want the world to forget how very important she is(in her eyes only I say)
....this is for you :champagne:, I so loved your comment!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It must be noted however that in this case KK is actually quoting Diana's own words from the Panorama interview so while KK does lack credibility in many of her assertions she is correct in this one - Diana did call into question Charles' ability to do the job of being King.
 
My point exactly. It is annoying when people are misquoted, especially when the quote is on video and made public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A write-up mentioned:
King Charles III could well be presented with a kingdom bristling at inherited privilege, of which the monarchy stands out as a prime example.
To ensure that the throne lasts long enough to pass to his heir, Charles will have to convince his people that the Crown will continue to represent the heritage, the traditions and the finest values of Britain.​
Could you supply the source of the cited wite-up?
I watched that interview again recently and found it quite interesting to hear what Diana really did say.
Let's not disect the interview yet again. I think everyone is very aware of what the transcript of the Panorama interview says and what was not said, and how the whole interview played out on film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is my view:

Reign will be short. He will try to step into government affairs. The only other royals in that family who will count will be his 2 sons, grandson, daughter-in-law. Everyone else will be sent off into space..so to speak..never to be heard from again.

I am going to get grief for this, but I have said it before, Charles, in his mind and words, is a victim, blaming his childhood, his parents, for what he never had. While I am sure he loves his parents, he is itching to get his hands on the crown and ensure he and Camilla are at center stage.

For anyone with a half a brain, the title Princess Consort in 2005 was nothing more than to admonish people from complaining and whining. Legally speaking, from the moment she was married, she was the female part to all his titles, and will be Queen, unless Parliament passes a law saying otherwise. Please, your conspiracy theories, your "but the internet says this", your personal rather than accurately and thoroughly researched views on what her title will be that fills 30,000 pages on here.

I do not know these people personally. I only go by what comes out of Charles's mouth, the book he assisted with in the 1990's, and his interview. That is why I am making the statements I am.

The balcony in 2012 was VERY telling. The Charles version of the monarchy. No, I could care less what anyone says. I am sure Prince Philip would have made sure the entire family would have been there too.

So...ladies and gents... lay into me for commenting. :)
 
I do not know these people personally. I only go by what comes out of Charles's mouth, the book he assisted with in the 1990's, and his interview. That is why I am making the statements I am.

The balcony in 2012 was VERY telling. The Charles version of the monarchy. No, I could care less what anyone says. I am sure Prince Philip would have made sure the entire family would have been there too.

So...ladies and gents... lay into me for commenting. :)

I think Charles of the 90s is quite a different man than the Charles we see now. When one has negative things happening in their lives (as Charles did in the 90s), very often it does impact them physically, emotionally and spiritually. I think the documentary that Charles made in honor of his mother's diamond jubilee was very telling into the sentimentality that Charles feels for his family.
He is quite obviously a man happy in his own skin, more confident and is more than ready to do anything HM asks of him gladly.

I think Charles will be a very "hands on" King but any political opinions and views will not be made public. He certainly can and will advise the Prime Minister on affairs and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a venue where he'll be very outspoken and express very clearly his views. He would have made a very fine statesman or politician if his destiny wasn't the throne IMO.

Of course the main focus of the royal family will be on Charles' immediate family but I certainly don't see him tossing anyone to the curb. Gradually, as time passes, the world will look on the Yorks and the Wessexes and the other cousins such as we now look at the Glouchesters and the Kents. Its just the way things go. Other than Charles' sons, none of the Queen's other grandchildren are slated to work for the Firm and other than the York girls, none of them hold or use royal titles. It's not the way Charles wants it but the way the Firm has decided it will go and HM and the DoE are very much still involved in that decision making process.
 
Here is my view...No, I could care less what anyone says.
Well I dont care less about your view either.

Charles knows exactly what the role of Monarch entails and will do what is required. The role of PoW is very different and it is a great mistake to think that he doesnt know the difference.

He has been a great Prince of Wales and has done more directly for individuals than any other member of the royal family - and that includes the Queen.

We will see change - for the better IMO. He will look after those who have given good service to the monarchy but they will not be replaced when they retire or die. He believes that the monarchy should be managed through the funds given to it, and not the use of their private money. And I agree.

He will be my King of my Country and I look forward to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...Other than Charles' sons, none of the Queen's other grandchildren are slated to work for the Firm and other than the York girls, none of them hold or use royal titles...
When Prince Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh, as he is expected to, I suspect his children will be elevated to HRH status as BTW they are entitled to by birth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When Prince Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh, as he is expected to, I suspect his children will be elevated to HRH status as BTW they are entitled to by birth.


Why? Edward made the decision that he didn't want his children to be HRHs. This isn't likely to ever change, and really they're better off for it. Beatrice and Eugenie are endlessly criticized because they're not seen as fulfilling the required role of an HRH, while the Queen is choosing to not recognize them for what royal duties type engagements they do - so, essentially because of their titles they're in lose-lose situations. Neither Louise nor James are likely to have to deal with this.
 
Here is my view:

Reign will be short. He will try to step into government affairs.

He knows that he can't do that - and if he doesn't then HM has failed in a major part of her role - training her successor, which for one moment I don't believe she has done. Charles has exercised the right of ALL citizens to express his views and nothing more. That the government of the day have decided to listen to him on occasions is their business - maybe because they think he has a point. In addition politicians from both sides of parliament have constantly said that he is entitled to his views and that they have been helpful.

The only other royals in that family who will count will be his 2 sons, grandson, daughter-in-law. Everyone else will be sent off into space..so to speak..never to be heard from again.
If so, and I don't believe that for one minute for the simple reason that he needs them to do the work currently being done - around 800 engagements each per year with 5 people doing the work being done by 15 now. Of course his siblings will still be around doing things. The focus will naturally be on his own children and grandchildren - just as it was in the 70s and 80s on the Queen's children and grandchildren but now the younger siblings aren't the focus so in time the same thing will happen to Harry and his children.

I am going to get grief for this, but I have said it before, Charles, in his mind and words, is a victim, blaming his childhood, his parents, for what he never had. While I am sure he loves his parents, he is itching to get his hands on the crown and ensure he and Camilla are at center stage.
For anyone with a half a brain, the title Princess Consort in 2005 was nothing more than to admonish people from complaining and whining. Legally speaking, from the moment she was married, she was the female part to all his titles, and will be Queen, unless Parliament passes a law saying otherwise. Please, your conspiracy theories, your "but the internet says this", your personal rather than accurately and thoroughly researched views on what her title will be that fills 30,000 pages on here.
I don't like the way you have expressed this but I do think that you are right and Camilla will be Queen Consort as is her right.

I do not know these people personally. I only go by what comes out of Charles's mouth, the book he assisted with in the 1990's, and his interview. That is why I am making the statements I am.
Charles' book was written at the height of the War of the Wales' and so has to be put into that context. He was hurting from his wife's accusations and so responded the way he did. If he did the same book now I suspect it would be very different.

The balcony in 2012 was VERY telling. The Charles version of the monarchy. No, I could care less what anyone says. I am sure Prince Philip would have made sure the entire family would have been there too.
He wouldn't - as it was announced in MARCH 2012 who was going to be on the balcony - before Philip took ill - so there is no way that Philip would have made sure the entire family was there as the decision had been made to have just the Wales branch of the family there. If you are going to make claims it is a good idea to check your facts.

So...ladies and gents... lay into me for commenting. :)
I don't think dissecting you comment is 'laying into someone' but simply commenting section by section - some things I agree with and others I think you are wrong both in her opinions and your facts.

That is what a discussion board is all about surely.
 
All monarchs need the support of family members to carry the enormous workload that is required. So Anne, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, and probably Beatrice and Eugenie will be expected to carry on with the many duties they do now as a support to the monarch. When the next generation come along Beatrice and Eugenie will most likely be expected to help out as well as they have started to do now.
 
A very nice and insightful read about the British royals and it's future. Richard Palmer is also hinting that there may not be enough funds to allow the younger royals to perform more official engagements. He also hints that Charles seems to be "reluctant" to increase funds for William & Catherine and Harry's offices and staff.

I also think Charles will always speak out on issues that he's passionate about. Now and even when he's King. I don't think he's going to trip up on the political side of things but he's going to continue to make his voice heard. I think everyone will just have to get used to it.

What happened in Spain proves the British royal family cannot rest on its laurels-
Kate Middleton helps British royal family popularity but abdication shows it can change | Richard Palmer | Columnists | Comment | Daily Express
 
Last edited:
Charles can voice his opinions as King- he just has to do it behind the scenes during his weekly visit with the Prime Minister of the day.

Financing a larger staff for WK and H, may be a problem now but not in the next reign as William gets access to the Duchy of Cornwall cash. Eventually, Harry's household will be separated from William and Kate's.
 
I don't see the point of some of the royal families royal duties.

The Queen visiting a cracker factory.
Camilla patron of a children's theatre group.
Princess Anne visiting lighthouses as patron.
William, Kate & George's play date etc.

IMO, the RF could easily reduce the number of royal duties by eliminating all except medical & military related charities.

They can visit an area when there is a disaster or when a city/town has an anniversary ie 250 years or 500 years since founded.

IMO, only the charities that fit this criteria should be passed on to the younger generation.

Just my opinion, but I think the Queen will outlive her cousins and their charities that are not military nor medical will be left to lapse.

I think King Charles' reign will be the same length as George VI.
 
Last edited:
So you think The Queen aged 88 now will outlive a man nearly 20 years her junior - The Duke of Gloucester who is 69. I don't think that most people would expect that - a man 10 years her junior - such as the Duke of Kent maybe but 20 years - not really.

If Charles had a reign as long as George VI it would still be 15 years - but there is no reason to assume that he won't live to the same age as his mother - thus a 22 year reign is possible.
 
IMO, The Duke of Gloucester always looks unwell and although his mother lived over 100, his father was unwell since around age 65.

IMO, the Queen will live to be about 98 & Charles around 92.
 
Why do you think only medical and military things are valid? Are enviromental works not important? Or charities that raise money for poor people? Such as the princes trust or the duke of edinborough scheme? And the royal family needs to be seen, not just in the media. Tours of regional areas are very important or else you get resentment and people will rightly say, oh they are only interested in london.

Sorry this was directed at queen camilla not you muriel
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see the point of some of the royal families royal duties...
Its getting to be a small, small world after all....

As far as how engagements are carried out and where, I think we're on the cusp of seeing a big change starting to rear its head. One thing is happening that I think will change the face of the work of the Firm and that is that it is going global. I can see this happening especially in the conservation field as we all know how Charles the Green (dang that name suits him) is passionate about conserving our planet and its inhabitants. Sustainable is a key word with him and if we look at the future of the Prince's Trust and the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, we see that conservation is one of the three major aspects they focus on. Harry, with his work with the military and Walking with the Wounded has already gone global and its my hope (and gut feelings) that Kate just may expand her work for hospices for children to be a global venture especially after visiting the ones she did on the Australian/NZ tour.

Its a world stage now and something tells me that Charles as King will be a man that is not only aware of this, but is a man that also knows he's in a position to perhaps create some changes for the better, through his Firm, that will benefit all of us.

I just love it when I express a thought and then something pops up in another thread that is a good example. Gotta love it!

Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter · 2h
That film screening Harry's attending will benefit 3 charities: Sentebale, Walking With The Wounded and The David Rattray Memorial Trust. (Thanks Dman for the link!)
__________________
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think the palace and the media have a communications problem though. Something I thought should've been fixed by this time.
 
A very nice and insightful read about the British royals and it's future. Richard Palmer...also hints that Charles seems to be "reluctant" to increase funds for William & Catherine and Harry's offices and staff.
The way Palmer has written this is somewhat ambiguous, and potentially misleading. "Hinting" (!) that Charles is "reluctant" to increase funds for the Cambridge and Harry press office gives it a negative connotation. Palmer goes on to state that Charles has brought over some of the Palace press staff to work in the Cambridge/Harry office.

Thus an alternative interpretation is that with the virtual amalgamation of the Clarence House and Buckingham Palace Press Offices, Charles is ensuring that efficiencies are made by redeploying staff to where they are most required. It's otherwise called good management.

- - - - -
On a definitely unambiguous and positive note, in the same article Palmer compares the public perception of Charles and Camilla 10 years ago to now. He has this to say about the Duchess of Cornwall:

"To those of us who cover the Royal Family, Camilla is the nicest, wittiest, most relaxed, engaging and natural of all the royals in our company."

Praise indeed from the Express, a newspaper noted for its championing of the "Diana was murdered" [by MI5/6 and the Royal Family] conspiracy speculation.
.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think only medical and military things are valid? Are enviromental works not important? Or charities that raise money for poor people? Such as the princes trust or the duke of edinborough scheme? And the royal family needs to be seen, not just in the media. Tours of regional areas are very important or else you get resentment and people will rightly say, oh they are only interested in london.

Sorry this was directed at queen camilla not you muriel

Some duties & charities are important & some appear to be nothing more than fluff.

Camilla's literacy campaign vs her as patron of a children's theatre.
Anne's Save the Children vs patron of lighthouses.

By visiting medical facilities, areas affected by disaster or cities celebrating an anniversary they will be visiting most areas.

It is the fluff that can be reduced or eliminated if there are concerns about cost or a reduction in the size of the royal family.
 
Last edited:
It isn't fluff to support the arts and introduce children to the theatre or painting. And the people who operate and maintain the lighthouses on the British coast do an important and sometimes dangerous job. This is a way of thanking and supporting what they do.

none of it is "fluff"
 
One person's fluff is another person's livelihood.

As the royals are supposed to represent all Brits they should engage with all Brits and so Anne enjoys her lighthouses as much as she works for Save the Children, Andrew goes to the ballet (yes Andrew and the ballet) as well as climbs down buildings like The Shard for Outward Bound.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom