The Monarchy under Charles

[Iluvbertie]

Sorry, there is nothing this family does that has any great value to life itself. The Queen does what she was taught to do, which is basically, nothing, but smile, be polite and cut ribbons. She has lived her life in an exemplary fashion and is very astute to politics.She appears interested, but is she, and, if she is not who needs her.

The Queen does more than that - she signs all the legislation and is consulted about all matters relevant to the government of the day. Her official role could be done without her ever appearing in public but it is the essential part of the role of the monarchy.

Prince Charles and Camilla do whatever it is they do. Camilla very little and Charles fashions himself as an critic of architecture. Many architectshave little respect for him. Yes, he was proponent for organic farming, but, then again, he can afford, the hand service.

Charles supports a number of different charities but especially The Princes Trust which has helped 1000s of people over the last 30+ years. He assists his mother in her role and he attends well over 500 engagements a year - more than any other member of the family. His wife does what the consort is supposed to do - support her husband but she also has a number of charities in her own right.

The Cambridges seem far more real. Kate is not full of herself and has a good sense of balance. She is not waited on hand and foot.

The Cambridges so far have done nothing much at all - they lack substance. Kate looks good in clothes but that is all she has achieved so far in her life - look good, a degree and a husband (most 29 year old women I know would be ashamed to have done so little with their life). William has a degree and a commission but so do many more men of his age. He does some charity work but hardly very much.

Not being waited on is not an indication of worth but more just getting used to things.

Kate loves the limelight but she also has the brains to know that she is the supporting cast and not the main focus of attention at this point in time.

 

[Kellydofc]

Sometimes I think that people don't take into account that Elizabeth could rule for another 10 to 20 years if she is as long lived as her mother. (On a side note I really miss the Queen Mum.) And then Charles could rule for a decade or two after her. Which means it will most likely be 20 to 40 years before William takes the throne. The whole world could change in that amount of time so it is certainly more than enough for William and Kate to grow into their roles as future monarchs. So wouldn't be nice if we all gave them that time and didn't automatically expect the heir to the heir, who really has no "official" duties and his spouse to jump into being involved in all sorts of royal duties.
I personally think that Charles will be a good king. After all, he has had 60 years to prepare and learn what his job entails. That's more than the rest of us get. I at least am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Mia_mae]

Why are people comparing Prince Charles, who is the actual heir, to his son who will have to wait bizilian years to get to the throne? lord!

And let's cut the BS please, like Buckingham Palace is worry about the new found attention?!! If HM or Prince Charles really didn't approve the tour, I doubt the couple would have booked it.
Monarchy needs media, they just want it in their own terms.

 

[COUNTESS]

You are right. They want the attention, otherwise they would not be taking this tour. The queen would not approve it. It is a media fling, becuase without the media, today, no one cares very much.

 

[jdcharlie]

The only way they will be judged as royals is if they start being more involved in their duties. So far they don't show as much interest in that aspect of their lives. Maybe it is the lack of those royal duties that makes me feel like the only duties they are doing are the ones they want to but sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to do as well. They have yet to prove that they have an unselfish side in that regards. This is something that they could learn from the senior royals. What is it they say...one must always appear interested even if one is not.

Even this upcoming tour doesn't sit well with me. Maybe its the big deal everyone is making about an overpriced dinner cooked by celebrity chef Giada. Sorry but I just don't hear as much about the senior royals doing such things. Then again the Queen seems to avoid that aspect of life as much as she can. I think that is a good thing. It shows she knows what is important in life.

Hopefully as the tour progress we will get more than just staged pictures and see a genuine effort to achieve something besides helping along the fashion industry.

How are they being selfish? They aren't full-time royals. They aren't required to be full-time royals. They are going to Canada on behalf of the Queen and will most likely do a fantastic job. At this point in his life, Charles was already the heir to the throne. William is not. He may not be for many many years. Therefore, he has more flexibility to do his own thing (i.e. search and rescue pilot) for awhile. He's not even required to be involved in charitable efforts, but he has slowly but surely built up a stable of charities.

Since the engagement, Kate and William began a charitable fund, launched a lifeboat, supported St. Andrews' fundraising efforts, supported young people and agriculture in N. Ireland, supported the Queen's fields initiative, etc. William visited flood and earthquake stricken NZ and Australia. Last week they helped raise money for children. Next week, they'll award medals to soldiers. They aren't doing these activities on a daily basis because they aren't full time royals, but these are the same type of things the other royals are doing, aren't they? And it would be difficult to claim that they haven't undertaken these activities with care and enthusiasm.

You can begrudge them the spotlight, but that's incredibly unfair. Besides, it benefits everyone. I've heard more about the senior royals since the engagement announcement than ever before. They are shining a light on the entire monarchy.

 

[Tyger]

I think Charles and William are apples and oranges. Charles has lived a life - he has done work in the world unlike any Prince of Wales before him - regardless of the disparaging remarks made by so many. In spite of everything, Charles has lived a life of substance - his parents should be proud.

In contrast, William is a light weight at this point. All show. Kate seems to be handling herself well, but its so early in the game. Dating and being the wife in this instance are two very different experiences, I would imagine. She is canny enough to understand what she needs to do - and she is likely getting well-advised - but I honestly have watched some of the videos and it seems to me that she is a bit overwhelmed. There's not much substance there with both of them - right now its just an image that gets 'filled in' by the observers.

Reading about the wedding parties - standing up to eat! - and then all the effort (it seems) to not participate in a royal life-style is, well, a tad....boring. I really question what the future will hold.

Charles has the sense of duty. I've said it before - it seems to me that he will be the last of the 'old world' royalty to be King. William strikes me as a young man who is doing everything to reject his inheritance - burying himself in being what he fancies is 'normal' with the result that he and Kate live very vacuous lives for people on the cusp of their 30th birthdays. They remind me (slightly) of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - just waiting out their lives with nothing really to do, nothing really that interests them.

 

[Zonk]

Please note that posts comparing pros and cons of a monarchy vs. republic have been moved to http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f164/monarchy-vs-republic-12736-9.html .

Zonk
British Forums Moderator

 

[Kataryn]

The only way they will be judged as royals is if they start being more involved in their duties. So far they don't show as much interest in that aspect of their lives. Maybe it is the lack of those royal duties that makes me feel like the only duties they are doing are the ones they want to but sometimes we have to do the things we don't want to do as well.

William is still in his pre-Working Royal-days as he has been allowed to have a profession of his own choice before he follows his father into the "working for charities while waiting for the REAL JOB"-life. Still he has already set up charities and taken over patronages - all that in the "free" time other people use to relax and gather new strength for their working life. So IMHO it is grossly unfair to say he doesn't do enough or doesn't show enough interest. As for his wife of two months... she is married for such a short time and needs to adjust to the workings of a Royal office, to learn what she can actively bring into the "firm". Why be so impatient with those two?

Charles became the hard-working Royal over decades and Anne on being young concentrated more on her career as a top sportswoman than on Royal duties. Give William and Catherine the same time and you'll see them emerge as hardworking Royals. At least that's what I think.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Or those that think the duke and duchess haven't done anything of real substance yet to justify them getting the throne. They have yet to get their hands "dirty". Maybe here in a few years they will start to really get involved in some events. Right now I get the impression they throw on some nice clothes (or not depending on your fashion opinion) and go out to give a photo-op. I don't get those kind-of vibes from royals like the queen, prince Charles or princess anne.

I completely agree. I have some reservations about the way the Prince of Wales conducted his personal life in the past, but there is no way I think that he deserved to be passed over in favor of William just because William has just had a nice wedding that captured the fancies of a lot of people!

Charles has worked hard and is a passionate, caring, highly capable man. I think he will make a very good King.

 

[olebabs]

Sadly I think that when he ascends the throne, he will actually be an old man. Much like King Edward 7th who was Prince of Wales for most of his life and only King for 10 years. I fear that he won't have the time to make his mark as a monarch and will only be a transitional figure.

I hope, though, that he will be able to give the monarchy as less cold impression. Forgive me, but to a foreigner, the Queen does not exactly radiate warmth.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sadly I think that when he ascends the throne, he will actually be an old man. Much like King Edward 7th who was Prince of Wales for most of his life and only King for 10 years. I fear that he won't have the time to make his mark as a monarch and will only be a transitional figure.

I hope, though, that he will be able to give the monarchy as less cold impression. Forgive me, but to a foreigner, the Queen does not exactly radiate warmth.

Charles, like his parents, has taken very good care of his health. I see no reason to think that he won't reach the same age that his mother reaches e.g. if the Queen lives to be 90 then there is no reason to think that Charles won't also each 90 - giving him a reign of 22 years.

Edward VII never took care of his health being a heavy smoker all his adult life and also a huge eater. Even so he still made it to 69 at a time when that was a reasonably long life.

 

[Osipi]

Sadly I think that when he ascends the throne, he will actually be an old man. Much like King Edward 7th who was Prince of Wales for most of his life and only King for 10 years. I fear that he won't have the time to make his mark as a monarch and will only be a transitional figure.

I hope, though, that he will be able to give the monarchy as less cold impression. Forgive me, but to a foreigner, the Queen does not exactly radiate warmth.

Although HM ascended the throne at a relatively young age and her reign has spanned close to 60 years now which is totally remarkable and she is well beloved the world over, I really don't think that she's changed much in how the monarchy is regarded from that of her father and his father before him. Perhaps this is the coldness that has been referred to in HM's demeanor in her public profile but we have to remember that she represents the nation and the ceremonies, the duties, the audiences are not HM on display as a personal entity but as a representative of the Crown. I see her demeanor more as regal than cold though. If you look at the pictures that have been taken over the years, I'd hope you'd see her warm and very endearing smile and how sometimes her eyes just seem to sparkle. As time passes and Charles becomes King and perhaps William after him, I think we're going to see that they both will step into the role of monarch and follow in the footsteps of the Queen remembering that their role is as representatives of a nation and not personally on public display.

 

[jemagre]

How are they being selfish? They aren't full-time royals. They aren't required to be full-time royals. They are going to Canada on behalf of the Queen and will most likely do a fantastic job. At this point in his life, Charles was already the heir to the throne. William is not. He may not be for many many years. Therefore, he has more flexibility to do his own thing (i.e. search and rescue pilot) for awhile. He's not even required to be involved in charitable efforts, but he has slowly but surely built up a stable of charities.

Since the engagement, Kate and William began a charitable fund, launched a lifeboat, supported St. Andrews' fundraising efforts, supported young people and agriculture in N. Ireland, supported the Queen's fields initiative, etc. William visited flood and earthquake stricken NZ and Australia. Last week they helped raise money for children. Next week, they'll award medals to soldiers. They aren't doing these activities on a daily basis because they aren't full time royals, but these are the same type of things the other royals are doing, aren't they? And it would be difficult to claim that they haven't undertaken these activities with care and enthusiasm.

You can begrudge them the spotlight, but that's incredibly unfair. Besides, it benefits everyone. I've heard more about the senior royals since the engagement announcement than ever before. They are shining a light on the entire monarchy.

The "charity fund" they started was designed to give away wedding money to charities that they picked out to receive it. A nice idea but not some huge deal. If anything they could have skipped that step and just requested people send the money directly to the charities. The university scholarships was a gift to them because they got married not because they thought of it. As for the lifeboat christening, they did not earn the money or even campaign for it. They went, William made a speech and Kate poured the drink over it in order to launch. Again nice but it is not very hands on but it was very "royal." While handing out medals is a great thing there is more you can do. Harry, for example, is very involved in veteran's affairs/rights. That is a very involved charity that has shown continued efforts.

As for raising money for charity that is fine but my argument was centered around the unwillingness to get their hands "dirty." It is very easy to show up and cut ribbons, which is what they have been doing. It is not so easy to stand-up and speak eloquently about a particular topic like AIDS, micro grants, or any other serious topic. It is not enough to just attend an event you need to show some depth as well.

Their upcoming tour with the polo matches and the celebrity dinners is proving to be much of the same. I hope to see some serious issues being discussed. They have the education to go out there. Even if they did not have the education they could have the willingness to improve what they know in order to help people out.

 

[Super Baroness]

As for raising money for charity that is fine but my argument was centered around the unwillingness to get their hands "dirty." It is very easy to show up and cut ribbons, which is what they have been doing. It is not so easy to stand-up and speak eloquently about a particular topic like AIDS, micro grants, or any other serious topic. It is not enough to just attend an event you need to show some depth as well.

Their upcoming tour with the polo matches and the celebrity dinners is proving to be much of the same. I hope to see some serious issues being discussed. They have the education to go out there. Even if they did not have the education they could have the willingness to improve what they know in order to help people out.

I would agree with with your general argument - if it was further down the road. I think "unwillingness" is the wrong word to use; they've been married, what, nearly two months? I don't really think it's fair to judge their public choices so early on, especially since the royal family is entering into summer when there are not as many engagements.

Also, I think it's worrisome the generalize their upcoming July tour using a day's worth of activities in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. Their main destination is Canada, where they will be staying nearly three times longer! I personally think it was a bad idea to tack on the California tour for that very reason - that's all people focus on. If anyone wants information on the serious side of the Cali tour, check out the lengthy statement by Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton. It's rather detailed on the topic. (going so off thread topic...apologies.)

 

[olebabs]

Please do not take this the wrong way. I have a great respect for the Queen and her work. That being said, I do not think it takes away from an authority figure to show a little of what is behind the facade. In fact it might make me respect her even more. Again, it could depend on cultural differences. We tend to be a little less formal in the Scandinavian countries and especially in Denmark where I'm from.

I just think, that if you can't even smile at your own grandsons wedding, perhaps you have taken your sence of duty too far.
And here is where I see the difference between HM and Charles.

Although HM ascended the throne at a relatively young age and her reign has spanned close to 60 years now which is totally remarkable and she is well beloved the world over, I really don't think that she's changed much in how the monarchy is regarded from that of her father and his father before him. Perhaps this is the coldness that has been referred to in HM's demeanor in her public profile but we have to remember that she represents the nation and the ceremonies, the duties, the audiences are not HM on display as a personal entity but as a representative of the Crown. I see her demeanor more as regal than cold though. If you look at the pictures that have been taken over the years, I'd hope you'd see her warm and very endearing smile and how sometimes her eyes just seem to sparkle. As time passes and Charles becomes King and perhaps William after him, I think we're going to see that they both will step into the role of monarch and follow in the footsteps of the Queen remembering that their role is as representatives of a nation and not personally on public display.

 

[American Dane]

they've been married, what, nearly two months? I don't really think it's fair to judge their public choices so early on, especially since the royal family is entering into summer when there are not as many engagements.

Also, I think it's worrisome the generalize their upcoming July tour using a day's worth of activities in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. Their main destination is Canada, where they will be staying nearly three times longer! I personally think it was a bad idea to tack on the California tour for that very reason - that's all people focus on.

That excuses Catherine's ease into the royal life but not William's lack of royal engagements.
Yes, William is not heir/not in Charles' place/etc., etc. but the thing is William will never be in Charles' place. He'll never be heir by age 4 since we're quite past that point. Only if Charles had had William at the same age as the Queen had had him or Charles became King the same age the Queen became monarch would there ever be a fair comparison.
William could increase his 'royal' life a little more, not saying he has to compete with his father's engagements now or even at the same age but he is quite lacking as an heir to an heir.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That excuses Catherine's ease into the royal life but not William's lack of royal engagements.
Yes, William is not heir/not in Charles' place/etc., etc. but the thing is William will never be in Charles' place. He'll never be heir by age 4 since we're quite past that point. Only if Charles had had William at the same age as the Queen had had him or Charles became King the same age the Queen became monarch would there ever be a fair comparison.
William could increase his 'royal' life a little more, not saying he has to compete with his father's engagements now or even at the same age but he is quite lacking as an heir to an heir.

William has a full-time job so when he does do royal duties it is in if off-duty time or his holiday time now - to increase his royal duties would mean either being a part-time officer or reducing his own break time from that job.

 

[MARG]

Please do not take this the wrong way. I have a great respect for the Queen and her work. That being said, I do not think it takes away from an authority figure to show a little of what is behind the facade. In fact it might make me respect her even more. Again, it could depend on cultural differences. We tend to be a little less formal in the Scandinavian countries and especially in Denmark where I'm from.

I just think, that if you can't even smile at your own grandsons wedding, perhaps you have taken your sence of duty too far.
And here is where I see the difference between HM and Charles.

I must have been watching a different feed because she certainly did smile at her grandson's wedding. Just not all the time.

In point of fact both William and Catherine were very serious during most of the service, fully concentrating on their wedding, the service itself and their vows. They were obviously happy but just not as demonstrative as their European neighbours either during the service or the carriage ride back to the palace.

But yes, we did get lucky during the "Balcony" scene! Two kisses no less!!

So yes, there is a cultural difference

 

[Meadow]

I think they are giving William and Kate a quiet start to Royal life and not be thrown in the deep end like Diana was. William has a full time job and he needs too he is the heir to the heir he will eventually do more Royal duties but for the time being I think Charles wants him to have a private life as possible. Kate could do a little more she isn't working and after the tour in the US which is so small so it doesn't overwhelm her it could be a good time for her to start doing a couple of things on her own. She has uni degree she should be able to handle cutting a ribbon by herself and she needs to find something to support besides William. I think I saw the Queen happy at the wedding at the right moments same with Kate and William. It was relaxed as far as Royal weddings go.

 

[Tiberivs]

Even if Charles didn't predecease his mother I think by now he understand that he's a failure.

He probably would ascend to the throne as the oldest British monarch, his reputation badly tarnish, especially from the time of his marriage to Diana (regardless of whom you thought is to be blame for this), and he will never be as popular as his grandfather George VI, the beloved war time king, or as well respected as his mother.

And if William keep his popularity, his reign shall became an insignificant footnote between those of two highly respected and popular monarchs.

 

[Kataryn]

Even if Charles didn't predecease his mother I think by now he understand that he's a failure.

Why should he? If someone wrote that who only half the hours worked for other people, charities, help for young people, hospitals, local businesses etc. that Charles has worked in his life I would think this person is crazy not to realise how much he or she had done for the community. There are soo many people who have a reason to be thankful to the prince while William is opnly starting his life as a charity patron.

Even if the tabloids are not always honest on reporting about the reception Charles and his wife Camilla receive when they arrive for a Royal engagement, then there is enough private coverage on YOU Tube to account that both are deeply loved and admired by many, many people. And many more will love them once they are benevolent king and queen. It's only partly their personality, another part is the aura of the monarchy.

So why should he tink he is a failure? Of course, there are people who cannot believe in their own worth, but I hope that neither Charles nor Camilla belong to them.

 

[Renata4711]

I wonder whether Charles would see it like that. I suspect that he feels he has made a contribution to the monarchy and the people.
He has carved out his niche and has created projects which will endure.

In any case, it's quite possible that the current Queen might live as long as the Queen Mother.....

 

[Tiberivs]

Why should he? If someone wrote that who only half the hours worked for other people, charities, help for young people, hospitals, local businesses etc. that Charles has worked in his life I would think this person is crazy not to realise how much he or she had done for the community. There are soo many people who have a reason to be thankful to the prince while William is opnly starting his life as a charity patron.

Even if the tabloids are not always honest on reporting about the reception Charles and his wife Camilla receive when they arrive for a Royal engagement, then there is enough private coverage on YOU Tube to account that both are deeply loved and admired by many, many people. And many more will love them once they are benevolent king and queen. It's only partly their personality, another part is the aura of the monarchy.

So why should he tink he is a failure? Of course, there are people who cannot believe in their own worth, but I hope that neither Charles nor Camilla belong to them.

1. His life mission is to be king, this what matter and not his activities as Prince of Wales.

2. Is unpopularity is very much a fact, maybe not as bad as some people try to make it but it is exist. Every article about him fill with negative comments from readers (and not just the anti-monarchist crowd), another proof is the widely popular demand to skip a generation and transfer the crown directly to William.

 

[Kataryn]

1. His life mission is to be king, this what matter and not his activities as Prince of Wales.

2. Is unpopularity is very much a fact, maybe not as bad as some people try to make it but it is exist. Every article about him fill with negative comments from readers (and not just the anti-monarchist crowd), another proof is the widely popular demand to skip a generation and transfer the crown directly to William.

Why should his life mission be to be king alone? As if no heir to a throne has ever done something worth remembering even if he didn't become king. Just think of the Black Prince... But even if it were thusly: why then is CHarles a failure? He never was king, so how do you (or he himself as you wanted him to realise that he is a failure already) judge his kingship?

No person is loved by anyone - and it is good that way. But when one day after Charles demise somebody opens the great book about his life and holds judgment - I guess there will be much more positive entries and much people speaking up for him than against him. He is neither God nor Superman, he is just a man born into a position who took the chances life gave him and used them to help others and the environment. He is honestly trying to do what he was born for: protect the UK and keep it in order for his successor. I doubt William will inherit one day a badly run kingdom due to his father's misdeeds (maybe because his father's government did not always decided on the right choice) but he will surely inherit the duchy of Cornwall run as good as possible with respect to its people and its land.

There are so many good things to say about Charles and even though he surely is not perfect but at least he tried. But then I believe he tried with his first wife as long as he could (as I said, he is a sinner, not a saint like most of us) and has shown that he is able to have a loving relationship with a wife and his children.

 

[Kataryn]

I wonder whether Charles would see it like that. I suspect that he feels he has made a contribution to the monarchy and the people.
He has carved out his niche and has created projects which will endure.

In any case, it's quite possible that the current Queen might live as long as the Queen Mother.....

But even then Charles would not have reached the life expectancy of around 78 in 2011 of the Uk and with his healthy lifestyle and the medical care he has had at his disposal all of his life he probably will become much older than that. While his mother falls into a category I once read an interesting article about: the widow or widower of a once happily married couple in a longterm marriage will not survive the other for very long. In general, that is (statistics). We just saw that with Otto von Habsburg, who only survived his wife of 60 years for one year. So we have to consider the Duke of Edinburgh as well as the fact that Charles has two long-living parents....

 

[Osipi]

Charles has lived a lifetime with knowing that one day he will be King. As the years pass by, I think all of us could look back on our lives and see areas where we made mistakes and also weigh the good we did also. Charles has never sat back and just waited for his time to reign to come. In fact, from what I know about Charles and how passionately he works on what is important to him, his passions probably would fuel his wish that his mother continues to have a long and healthy reign for many more years to come. By the time he DOES become King, he will have his programs running smoothly, have his thoughts and opinions out there and bearing fruit (organic of course - pun intended) and will be able to step into his role as King with ease.

One just has to look at all the photos day to day of his engagements and see how happy he is and how much he genuinely likes what it is he is doing. Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that historically he's done more as a Prince of Wales than many of his forerunners holding that title. This is definitely a man that did not sit back and say "when I am King I will..." but rather a man that saw a need and jumped into action implementing what was needed. As HM ages and Charles fills in more and more, we're going to see a man comfortable in his own skin and assured that he will do his best to be what he's been training for over 60 years to be.

 

[Catherine J]

I think Charles will make a good king.

There is no doubt that the craziness of the Diana years will affect his popularity, especially amongst the Diana "fans", but I think Charles is a good and decent man who is a very good Prince of Wales and will be thought a fine king - except by the rabid "he did her wrong" romance novel readers who carry the Diana torch with such ferocity.

From what I can see he is hard working, intelligent and interested. Sure he has his eccentricities and the now and again odd behavior we read about - but even HMTQ would have had such tabloid issues were she a young monarch in waiting during the so-called information age.

 

[Russophile]

I think Charles will make a good king.

There is no doubt that the craziness of the Diana years will affect his popularity, especially amongst the Diana "fans", but I think Charles is a good and decent man who is a very good Prince of Wales and will be thought a fine king - except by the rabid "he did her wrong" romance novel readers who carry the Diana torch with such ferocity.

From what I can see he is hard working, intelligent and interested. Sure he has his eccentricities and the now and again odd behavior we read about - but even HMTQ would have had such tabloid issues were she a young monarch in waiting during the so-called information age.

Copy that. And I would only add that with the Duchess of Cornwall by his side as a true helpmate, he can only be a successful monarch (though long may QEII reign!!).

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I wonder if he'll be a much more outspoken King than the current Queen is (he does like to give speeches and I, for one, think he's very good at it - and his causes are the ones the world should embrace). He seems to take his political role seriously (although staying within the bounds of ordinary discourse/use of media and availability of venues to make his points.

That would be great, really - to see him turn the Crown into a role where he could speak out as he does now, but with an even greater impact.

 

[CSENYC]

I for one would hope that Charles would step aside and not become King, largely due to his political views. I am politically on the right and have greatly enjoyed some of the things that he's done (such as not inviting any Labour PMs to William and Kate's wedding), but a King should not do such things--it's best that the citizenry have no idea what a monarch's political views are. Queen Elizabeth and King Michael of Romania are two of the best monarchs today since their political views are a total mystery.

A King's role is to be a national symbol, a uniter of people and a check on tyranny. When Charles spouts off his political views, he fails at the first two of those roles. If he wants to be active in the political realm, then he should run for elected office rather than serve as royalty.