The Monarchy under Charles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not convinced that people who post comments on internet sites are representative of the population as a whole, because they will be a very small fraction of that population, and with a tendency to be those who have strong opinions.
 
:previous: How refreshingly well balanced Peter Hitchens article is. He brings out the "ordinary" that lies behind the Headlines. His take on Polls, their uses and abuses and, more tellingly, who is willing to front up with big bucks to create new Headlines and consequent crises is unusual, especially in the Daily Mail!!

How silly. In an era when our politics is full of callow young men with no real experience of life or the world, Prince Charles is a reassuringly wise figure, whose thoughts on many things are a good deal less weird than the Prime Minister’s hurriedly invented bilge about Big Societies and Gross National Happiness.

When you put it that way Charles talking to parsnips seems quite sensible when you consider the alternative of talking to the press. The parsnips have so much more to offer.
 
Yes, and you can parboil them, which the justice system never seems to manage!
 
Its hard to read it all - but I have a question. I read the beginning of this thread in 2006 and it was all positive about Charles but there appears to have been a sea change 4 years later on this last page of the thread. What changed? :ermm:
 
:previous: Different people, with different opinions would be the answer.

Furthermore, those who posted at the beginning of this thread have not, with the exception of Roslyn, posted in some time and some have even been banned due to their behaviour.

I should hardly think a change in tone to be very surprising in a disucssion forum though. Theres never usually any common ground due to the immense prejudice you often find laden throughout the threads.
 
Last edited:
Its hard to read it all - but I have a question. I read the beginning of this thread in 2006 and it was all positive about Charles but there appears to have been a sea change 4 years later on this last page of the thread. What changed? :ermm:


Some posters are just totally anti-Charles and sometimes they post in close succession.

Others are very supportive of Charles and again often post their posts together.

Sometimes we have antis- and pros- engaging in debate but they usually deteriorate to the extent that some of us no longer even acknowledge the existence of others due to years of virulent abuse on these boards.
 
Golly! Perhaps I deserve some sort of long-service medal, or maybe good conduct medal. :lol: Still here after all these years and a survivor of the Charles/Camilla/Diana wars.

I've been interested in Charles since he was here at school and swam on our Sydney beaches. I have a great deal of time for him and I am very fond of Camilla. I hope I get the chance to see him become King and Camilla his Queen. I think we'll see some changes under King Charles, but I cannot predict what they will be.

Welcome, Tyger. I'm going to enjoy reading your posts.
 
Thank you, Roslyn. :flowers:

Just in general, speaking to no one in particular ;) just want to say that as a newbie it is daunting to find the 'right' place to post - its a very large site and tons of fun.

I am thrilled to have found a place where I can actually have a conversation about some issues (Diana/Charles/Camilla) that I have honestly only recently begun to have a point of view about. Is there a particular thread that is devoted to this triad? Its clear from the little bit that I have read that this is a well-worn debate - but I am new to it (believe it or not - at least in detail) - and I have recently come to have an opinion about what Diana was asking 'me' as a member of the public to participate in.

Since its hard for me to jump into a long standing thread - so much reading to get the jist - would it be okay for me to start a thread on the issue regarding Diana that has been bothering me? I believe that Diana as an 'event' or phenomenon is very important for us to look at as a culture - is there a thread that is already going that I can join?

Many thanks.
 
^^^^^
This doesn't have a lot to do with The Monarchy under Charles, so you might want to PM a moderator about your ideas. :)
 
I believe that if the monarchy is to survive it needs to be smaller. Limit it to William and family, Harry and family and maybe someone else. The rest of the family could be grouped similar to how the Dutch do it. Some people are in the royal family and some are in the royal house. Those in the royal house could even go out and get normal jobs. Like for example, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie on down.

( I believe some posters have said as much in the past and I agree with their thoughts on this matter as I think the size of the family and how much money they get from taxpayers is part of the reason why people have a problem with them.)
 
Id like for Camilla to known as Queen they are legally married after all
 
Legally she's the wife of the King therefore the Queen. If she gets called Queen Camilla is another matter.
 
They should pass this through Parliment so we can know once and for all
 
The title of Camilla is probably the last thing on Parliaments mind at the moment.
 
Last edited:
They should pass this through Parliment so we can know once and for all


As the title is automatic there is no need for Parliament to do anything.

The last thing the BRF want is a debate about anything to do with the royal family as it could so easily backfire - particularly with a minority government.
 
The title of Camilla is probably the last thing of Parliaments mind at the moment.


I'm not a UK citizen, but I should hope not. Something like that sounds rather trivial compared to a lot of the problems facing the country at the present moment. It would be comparable to our Congress deciding whether or not Vice-President Biden's wife should be referred to as the Second Lady or just Mrs. Biden.
 
I believe that if the monarchy is to survive it needs to be smaller. Limit it to William and family, Harry and family and maybe someone else. The rest of the family could be grouped similar to how the Dutch do it. Some people are in the royal family and some are in the royal house. Those in the royal house could even go out and get normal jobs. Like for example, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie on down.

( I believe some posters have said as much in the past and I agree with their thoughts on this matter as I think the size of the family and how much money they get from taxpayers is part of the reason why people have a problem with them.)


Currently there are really 14 people who are HRH from birth and that includes Louise and James.

In the next 20 or so years that will drop as the Gloucester and Kents pass no and their descendents don't pass on the HRH and those descendents already have jobs away from the royal situation. The same with the descendents of Princess Margaret and Princess Anne.

What will happen with Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be interesting, and by this time next year we will have a better idea as Beatrice will have finished her studies and it will have been announced what her future will be.

If the work of the royal family is to be restricted to William, Harry, their wives, Charles and Camilla then that will be 6 people currently doing the work of 14 currently and Harry will be full-time in the military for probably another 20 years.

I would like to see the more extended family not appearing on the balcony etc as it gives the idea to the public that they are supporter people that they aren't. e.g. if at William's wedding on the Queen's descendents and the Middletons were there, plus the wedding party of course and then at the Trooping the Colour only the Queen's descendents were there people would see that the royal family is getting smaller anyway.
 
Good point, plus unless Bea and Eugenies husbands are given titles won't the Princess/Prince and HRH drop with them anyways-
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope.

I woudl assume that unless Letters of Patents are adressed or they announce that they would be known by a lesser name, then Beatrice and Eugenie will be known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York, Mrs. David Clark....like Princess Anne was when she first married Mark Phillips:

There have been some small precendents so its possible:

HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught (granddaughter of Victoria) when she married she announced that she would be known as Lady Patricia Ramsay (adopting the style of her husband) but she was still a member of the BRG.

I don't believe any LP's were introduced for this. Same thing with Princess Katharine of Greece...she was known as Katharine Branaham (sp) and that was it.
 
Sorry I misspoke I meant their children would not be titled unless the husbands were give a title upon marriage like Princess Margerets children -?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: How refreshingly well balanced Peter Hitchens article is. He brings out the "ordinary" that lies behind the Headlines....

When you put it that way Charles talking to parsnips seems quite sensible when you consider the alternative of talking to the press. The parsnips have so much more to offer.

Since I talk to asparagus ferns, Charles is OK in my book!
 
Okay..than yes...they would be like Margaret or Anne's children.

Yes, you are correct.

Really, by the time Charles takes the throne you will have lost at least four to five people who do a lot of engagements (Queen, Prince Phillip, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Kent)...I mean Alexandra is the youngest at 74...between them they do about 600 engagements a year right?

So Kate will have to step it up...and Camilla and Sophie will have to pick up more...and they might need Beatrice and Eugenie to pick up some of the slack. Only time will tell.
 
Isn't the list of HRH going to get smaller just because of who is currently royal? Only the children of the sons of the monarch have HRH, so it will end up just being William and Harry. The Duke of York's daughters will not pass on HRH to their children, and the Princess Royal's children don't have HRH. The Earl of Wessex's children are HRH, but not using that style. So as the Queen's cousins pass away, there won't be many HRH's left at all.
 
AnnEliza said:
Isn't the list of HRH going to get smaller just because of who is currently royal? Only the children of the sons of the monarch have HRH, so it will end up just being William and Harry. The Duke of York's daughters will not pass on HRH to their children, and the Princess Royal's children don't have HRH. The Earl of Wessex's children are HRH, but not using that style. So as the Queen's cousins pass away, there won't be many HRH's left at all.

Man, William and Kate and Harry and whoever better plan to have a lot of kids (just a joke!) :)
 
Isn't the list of HRH going to get smaller just because of who is currently royal? Only the children of the sons of the monarch have HRH, so it will end up just being William and Harry. The Duke of York's daughters will not pass on HRH to their children, and the Princess Royal's children don't have HRH. The Earl of Wessex's children are HRH, but not using that style. So as the Queen's cousins pass away, there won't be many HRH's left at all.

Yes, there is no real reason to reduce the size of the royal family as the process of natural selection will do it naturally.
 
The Queen should start handing off to Charles.....

I put this text on the wrong thread - just realized it should be here...

You know what I think? I think the Queen is going to - or should - start handing off more royal duties and responsibilities to Charles. I would hope he is in conversation with his mother about this. It makes perfect sense and would cushion the transition (passing from the Queen to the next King) when it inevitably comes. I think I see indications that this is being contemplated, in fact.

The Queen must understand that she needs to begin 'investing' in Charles if the future (of her family) is to be sanely shaped. She likely very much wants to slow down a bit, too - who doesn't at her age - and it just makes all kinds of sense for her to open up the situation more.

If this isn't in the works, I think it should be. The Queen needs to be far-thinking in this way to ensure a seamless and healthy transition, built on the known and an established trust. Too much potential damage could be done otherwise without that clear, steady hand setting in motion the future course.

P.S. Please forgive if I am presenting a topic that has already been thoroughly discussed. I have not read all of this thread and in fact just skipped back and found interesting stuff - so......
 
Last edited:
It remains to be seen ...
As for the monarchy under Prince Charles, it will be usual, traditional as the monarchy is supposed to be ... Prince Charles will be a placid King. It would be fair to presume that being a King will significantly constrain his controversial comments.

I would say just the reverse. Charles will be the one to change the monarchy and press it forward into the 21st century - he has the intelligence and the capacities developed over a lifetime of entrepreneurial and managerial endeavor. There is nothing placid about Charles.

He has created networks of relationships and taken seriously his role as a steward of 'his people' via his businesses that engage young people in all manner of preparations for life. He has created endeavors that change lives. He has not been just a Patron of Charities and the Arts doing photo ops. He has been a working man all his adult life - innovative, prescient and thinking outside-the-box.

Charles is going to be anything but a placid King and will be a hard act for William to follow.

William would be the placid and traditionalist king at this point. He presents as shy and very ill-at-ease in his role. He needs considerably more tutelage under his father before he will be ready for kingship. In fact, it is my keen hope that Kate (Catherine) has a bit more on the ball than William for their children's sake. William has a great deal more living he needs to do before he will have the capacity to be king intelligently and not just be a fellow who makes sure everyone likes him.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom