The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

I have some questions -

- Is Charles popular or unpopular? Is it true that only 16% of the public want him to be King?

I some circles Charles is very popular, with most people he is fine but with the Diana fanatics Charles is evil incarnate.

- Is Camilla in general still villified? Is she still seen as the 'spoiler' and the root cause of all problems? is she 'lazy'? What is the purpose behind all the bad press? Just for the hey of it? Or to undermine the monarchy? Is Diana the cause of the factioning?

Camilla isn't villified except by the Diana fanatics. She is seen largely as one of many outsiders who was involved in the marriage as most reasonable people also realise that Diana cheated and cheated with many more people and that she lied about that in the various interviews and books etc. Camilla doesn't do as many duties as other royals but she is slowing increasing her duties, bearing in mind that two years ago she had a hysterectomy and this year a broken ankle (and did duties with that injury). The bad press comes from the pro-Diana papers that were fed inside information from her for years and made huge sales as a result. They lost their cash cow and want to blame someone - other than themselves of course. Some of the press are republicans and would like to see the monarchy gone, some just anti-Charles and others very supportive of the monarchy. Diana and her story is very much the cause of the factioning but as more people reach adulthood with no personal memory of her - remember that 18 year olds now were only 5 when she died - the factioning will diminish.

- Is this idea that William step over his father to Kingship serious? If so, what is the root of such animosity towards Charles?

No this isn't serious - particularly when it comes from people suggesting that the Queen make William her heir rather than Charles - as it shows they have no knowledge of things as only Parliament can do that. The root of the animosity is that Charles dared to be unhappy in his marriage to Diana and sought love elsewhere thus making her unhappy. Charles is also seen as a bit eccentric with talking to plants, interest in the environment - for years before anyone else saw it as a problem, and other things. At William's age Charles was as popular as William is now - but people like to forget that.

- What do you British folks make of all the controversy? Its source? And what does it bode for the future?

I am not British but see no problems ahead for the monarchy in Britain. In countries like Australia the situation is slightly different as many Australians want us to be a republic. It has nothing to do with the individual who is the monarch but more to do with the fact that we believe that our Head of State should live in this country full-time and not visit us about every 5 years or so.

 

[MARG]

Well said Madame Royal and Iluvbertie. This is a brave new world we live in and love spans the miles, the months and, in some cases, the years. There are thousands, not least those in the Military deployed overseas, who obviously can't share Christmas and yet do we think all their marriages are over? Come to think of it many here found those wives who didn't wait for their husbands away for 4 years during WWII somewhat fickle?

Just as a matter of interest weren't we all noting (read drooling) the of the arrival of the Queen's exteded family, and thrilled at the addition of Kate to the stream of cars arriving for the traditional London Christmas Luncheon at the Palace just last week? It recognises that not all will be together on Christmas Day, not least Prince William who is on duty.

 

[Tyger]

Thank you, Iluvbertie!

I am so grateful to have found this site. I feel like I have found sanity! No small matter. Its a social phenomenon that fascinates me and I crave conversation about it.

One more question - the 'Diana fanatics' - how large is the contingent? Can one give a percentage of the British populace? And is the low 16% figure correct - who want Charles as King?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The hard core Diana fanatics are a relatively small group and diminishing every year.

There are many others who loved Diana (why I have no idea as I loathed her from day 1 - but...) but who have moved on and don't really care one way or the other any more about the issues - the mature ones actually.

The figure about 16% varies depending on which paper you read and how the question was worded. There are ways to set up polls to get the result you want e.g. set up a series of questions about Diana, divorce and adultery and then throw in at the end 'should Charles therefore be King?' and people will answer that in relation to the other questions but set up a series of questions about experience and duty and birthright and then ask the same question and you will get a totally different figure.

One thing people forget with the idea that William should replace his father as heir is that William is supposed to love and respect his father and that action would actually be totally against that position as it would show a man who has no feelings for his father. There have been reports in the last month or so of an official at BP or CH saying that William is opposed to the idea totally.

I am old enough to remember Charles - aged 28 - and people saying that the Queen should abdicate for the much more popular Prince of Wales - in fact I remember one survey then showing support for that idea running at about 70%. Charles was a much loved man in his 20s and he smiled and laughed all the time. Many of us who remember the young Charles are very happy to see that man return to us after the sad and morose man we had in the 80s and most of the 90s.

 

[Kataryn]

Thank you, Iluvbertie!

I am so grateful to have found this site. I feel like I have found sanity! No small matter. Its a social phenomenon that fascinates me and I crave conversation about it.

One more question - the 'Diana fanatics' - how large is the contingent? Can one give a percentage of the British populace? And is the low 16% figure correct - who want Charles as King?

As long as we don't know which question was actually asked, there is no sense in believing such a figure.

e.g. The question "Do you prefer a young/modern to an old/old-fashioned king?" without any reference to Charles, William or whoelse might bring a low preference of only 16% for the "old model" - which can then be communicated as if only 16% were for Charles....

As for the Dianaistas: I think Diana and her media co-workers did a perfect job on communicating her side of the story. Even people who know next to nothing about the infamous triangle CCD probably have a slightly uneasy feeling when it comes to Camilla. Wasn't there something? Can't remember what exactly but she was the guilty part.... It is sad, but understandible. What makes me angry are the people so interested in her that they should have gotten the facts, not her spin on it and still believe that shewas a saint. Somehow it is a certain justice that Diana had to pay for her carelessness in not wearing a seatbelt (maybe she did not use it because she looked out of the back window of the car at the following paparazzi) in an accident caused by those she so heavily conspired with: the media.

 

[Zonk]

Let's get back on topic.

This thead isn't about Diana.

 

[Kataryn]

I am old enough to remember Charles - aged 28 - and people saying that the Queen should abdicate for the much more popular Prince of Wales - in fact I remember one survey then showing support for that idea running at about 70%. Charles was a much loved man in his 20s and he smiled and laughed all the time. Many of us who remember the young Charles are very happy to see that man return to us after the sad and morose man we had in the 80s and most of the 90s.

I remember that I became an adult in december 1980 and thought how cool it would be to go to London to meet Charles... And only two months later he announced his engagement to the not much older Lady Diana. Okay, I was a bit disappointed first but I then fell for their romance and watched their wedding with great delight. At that time there was no internet and no English papers at reach in Germany, so whenever I went to Britain I searched for books about them, which in the beginning did not exist. Only when I read Morton and then Holden/Junor about Charles I found that I could understand Charles' side much better than Dianas. But then, I'm not bored by a man who likes to read on our honeymoon....

But hey, Charles really was a catch as a man back then! And I, too, was so glad to get that funny and happy man with the wrinkles around his eyes back after he married Camilla.

 

[Charlotte1]

Thank you, Iluvbertie!

I am so grateful to have found this site. I feel like I have found sanity! No small matter. Its a social phenomenon that fascinates me and I crave conversation about it.

One more question - the 'Diana fanatics' - how large is the contingent? Can one give a percentage of the British populace? And is the low 16% figure correct - who want Charles as King?

The percentages vary depending on what is happening in the royal world. The last poll that was taken on who should be king was done within days of the announcement of William's engagement. So naturally the percentage that wanted him to be king was high and those who wanted Charles to be king was low.

Previous to this poll, the one taken after William had committed some 'sins' Charles scored well over 50% believed he should be the next king and William scored in the low 30s!

The hardcore Dianaites, probably Diana fanatics is a little harsh! They tend to be from the US, Diana has hugely popular there, she was glamourous and a celebrity all things guaranteed to give her a large following. Looking at royal message boards, her most ardent defenders and promoters of "Charles must suffer for ever and ever and ever" "Camilla is evil incarnate" tend to be from the US. UK posters have well and truly moved on and find the whole 'defenders of Diana' clique tiresome. They usually too make a point that people in the UK have moved on as well to the disbelief of the Dianaites. "How short are people's memories" tends to be used a lot! As well as 'history being white washed" when anything postitive comes up about Charles and Camilla and their past! And yes I spend faaaaaaarrr too much time reading royalty message boards!

 

[Madame Royale]

And yes I spend faaaaaaarrr too much time reading royalty message boards!

But your posts can often be an interesting read so at least your presence serves a greater purpose

 

[Smart]

Am I the only one who thinks if Charles inherits the throne, Britain will be a Republic in no time?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Am I the only one who thinks if Charles inherits the throne, Britain will be a Republic in no time?

Why do you think that?
We have a very small republican movement.

 

[Osipi]

Am I the only one who thinks if Charles inherits the throne, Britain will be a Republic in no time?

I really don't think so. Its not really a question of IF he inherits the throne as he WILL become King in the instant of his mother's passing.

Personally from my angle as an American and not overly studied in British politics, I would imagine that Britain becoming a republic would have more to do with the politics of the government rather than a figurehead King that is mostly symbolic of British history and traditions.

 

[sirhon11234]

Somehow it is a certain justice that Diana had to pay for her carelessness in not wearing a seatbelt.

It certainly is not, and what a petty thing to say.

Osipi

Personally from my angle as an American and not overly studied in British politics, I would imagine that Britain becoming a republic would have more to do with the politics of the government rather than a figurehead King that is mostly symbolic of British history and traditions.

I agree, for Britain to become a republic, something detrimental would have to happen to cause such a huge shift in government. What happened in his first marriage should bear no weight in him becoming King and fulfilling his duties.

 

[Renata4711]

I used to fancy myself a republican (with a small 'r'), but with hindsight I can see that the British constitution is in better hands with the British Monarchy (even with Charlie) than with a republic.

In 1988 I was ordained into the Church of England (whose Head is the Queen), and to my surprise I felt no reluctance to swear the Oath of Allegiance to HM The Queen. Again I felt that I was "safe" with the Queen, rather than to any old church.

 

[Kataryn]

It certainly is not, and what a petty thing to say.

Sorry. But the longer I live the more I find that people are getting exactly what they asked for. Which has a certain justice, at least for me.

 

[Zonk]

Enough.

For the last time.....This thread is not about Diana.

Any and all posts that refer to Diana, the fans, and the way she died will be deleted without notice.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Am I the only one who thinks if Charles inherits the throne, Britain will be a Republic in no time?

There might be a few others who would agree with you but they could probably be counted in the 100s at most.

There is no real republican movement in Britain.

In countries like Australia, where there is a republican movement it isn't anything to do with Charles but with our future in our region and having our own Head of State. Remember that we voted on becoming a republic in 1999 when Charles' popularity was fairly low and some people even used the idea of Charles becoming the next king as a reason to vote for a republic (a few and none officially I might add) and even so the idea was defeated 55% No to 45% Yes. Most commentators would argue that it was the way of choosing the president that stopped it getting up then and nothing else. My reason for raising this is that that was 10 years ago and people knew that the Queen would live many years yet so it wasn't about personalities or respect for the Queen but what was best for Australia. The semi-official line now is that we will do nothing during the present reign but again that doesn't mean that we would vote for a republic just because Charles has become King.

 

[Roslyn]

Yes. It's rather impersonal here in the sense that it's not hostility towards the Royals generally or Charles in particular, that underpins many Australians' desire for an Australian head of state, just a desire to have someone who will put us and our interests first.

We saw a recent example of this sentiment when Australia lost the bid to host the 2022 Soccer World Cup. A few days afterwards there was a letter to the editor in the Sydney Morning Herald from a fellow who bemoaned the fact that while Prince William had been vocal in supporting the UK bid for the 2018 World Cup, he hadn't said a word about Australia's loss, and that as our future head of state he should have done so. I know William is the president of the British FA and it was natural for him to be heavily supportive of their bid, but neither Britain nor any other Commonwealth country was bidding against Australia for 2022, and it would have been nice for him to have said something about it when we didn't win. Before the voting he did tell our Governor-General, Ms Bryce, who led the Australian delegation, that he thought we must be one of the favourites, but not a word afterwards. I suspect he may have not wanted to offend the USA and/or Japan or the other bidders, particularly the successful bidder, Qatar, but as things presently stand he is our future head of state and thus people expect him to act a bit more as though he is on our side.

A little thing, maybe, and I have cited only one person's opinion (other than my own), but I think it does exemplify the fact that William's interests, and his father's and his grandmother's, are not Australia's interests, and that the days when the monarch can give us preference have long passed.

I do not think there will indecent haste to make us a republic once Charles becomes king, but I believe that the republican movement will gain momentum then, but not because it is Charles who is king, and I doubt that Charles will feel personally offended when it happens.

 

[jemagre]

I think that the only reason why people want William to be king is due to popularity. If they actually looked at what he has done so far he does not appear to be ready for such a task. In 20 yrs or so it will probably be a different story.

As for the republic idea in England. I think it is hard to get a good measure on the idea because of the media bias present in the media of the world. There will always be those who worship the monarchy and those that hate it. As such they will always color the polls accordingly to fit their agenda.

After all how often to you hear about the Republic movement in England? Is it really that disorganized or does the media just not wish to cover it?

I remember reading that support for the monarchy feel in sweden after Victoria got married because of the amount of money spent on the event. For all we know that could happen in England. Any number of events could either make the monarchy stronger or weaken it.

 

[Arncliffe]

I haven't heard a word from the defeated and the thoroughly demoralised rebels since the monarchists stoutly fought and won the 1999 referumdum.


I'm very cross with their HRH's at the moment for letting us all down by walking into that trap. It's caused unnecessary chit-chat.

But I must be frank and say how day by day it is becoming apparent that the prayers of the many about the longevity of the present monarch seem to have been affirmed.

So their HRH may never be called. They dont exactly have the vim, verve and vigor that HM had at their ages.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To describe republicans as rebels is over the top. They are patriots who see a different future for their country than having a Head of State who lives on the other side of the world.

Actually there have been many announcments from them, including the present PM during the last election campaign (you know the one we had last August) in which she said that Queen Elizabeth should be our last monarch, Julia Gillard says Queen Elizabeth should be Australia's last monarch | Herald Sun, a view held by many people.

I voted for the monarchy in 1999 but would vote for a republic now and in the future as I don't think having a foreigner as Head of State is appropriate for a modern country. To you I am a rebel. I prefer to see myself as an Australia you has changed their views on the monarchy and its role in Australia - fine in Britain but not here.

 

[Warren]

To describe republicans as rebels is over the top.

As a tongue in cheek expression it certainly found it's mark.

 

[jemagre]

To describe republicans as rebels is over the top. They are patriots who see a different future for their country than having a Head of State who lives on the other side of the world.

I have heard that argument used many times before about no foreign leader as head of another country. Why do you think that everyone wishes to wait until another monarch takes over before the switch to a republic? Is it easier for the government or is it more of a popularity issue? For example: the Queen is popular but Charles maybe is not? I am just curious.

Also, does anyone know about the Republic movement in the UK? How strong is that one?

 

[Madame Royale]

Also, does anyone know about the Republic movement in the UK? How strong is that one?

Ultimately, about as strong as a soggy teabag.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Ultimately, about as strong as a soggy teabag.

You've summed it up very well.

 

[Roslyn]

In the case of Australia and the Queen, I think it is the case that the Queen is popular and held in the highest regard. She has been Queen of Australia for nearly 60 years, so she was Queen before a very large chunk, if not the majority, of the population was born. She is also an attractive woman - beautiful in her youth - and has always behaved like a lady and has never done anything outrageous or been outspoken. I think many people believe it would be an insullt to her to take steps to dump her and they don't want to be rude to someone who reminds them of their mother or grandmother. Charles is seen as fair game, though, for various reasons.

And it is also easier for a government to put off the change for as long as possible. Changing us to a republic is going to take a lot of time and effort and will cost money. It's in the "too hard" basket for now.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As a tongue in cheek expression it certainly found it's mark.

As we only have the written words in front of us and no facial expressions or real knowledge of the posters we can't assume things are 'tongue in check' sorry - I have trouble with that when I can see the person and know them. Here everything can only be taken as literal - sorry for that but anything else isn't possible.

 

[AnnEliza]

Am I the only one who thinks if Charles inherits the throne, Britain will be a Republic in no time?

I'm rather surprised that you would join a forum of royal watchers when you have in your signature that you want all monarchies abolished, ESPECIALLY the Windsors.

 

[Al_bina]

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. ... [snipped]

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.

 

[jemagre]

In the case of Australia and the Queen, I think it is the case that the Queen is popular and held in the highest regard. She has been Queen of Australia for nearly 60 years, so she was Queen before a very large chunk, if not the majority, of the population was born. She is also an attractive woman - beautiful in her youth - and has always behaved like a lady and has never done anything outrageous or been outspoken. I think many people believe it would be an insullt to her to take steps to dump her and they don't want to be rude to someone who reminds them of their mother or grandmother. Charles is seen as fair game, though, for various reasons.

And it is also easier for a government to put off the change for as long as possible. Changing us to a republic is going to take a lot of time and effort and will cost money. It's in the "too hard" basket for now.

Thanks for the explanation. One wonder how the Queen has always been the face of decorum while her family has struggled. I am going to chalk that up to media attention which has had an impact on the way the family is viewed worldwide both in a good and bad way.

As for the whole republic bit and commenting on the forums. I don't think it is odd. Royals are often perceived to be celebrities. It is one thing to say I like somebody but another thing to say I am willing to pay for them

As an American, Al Bina, you made me laugh with your comments about the Governor.