The Monarchy under Charles

[Aliza]

I am against skipping Charles for William as I think it would harm the very fabric and foundations of the Monarchy. I also don't think it would be fair to William. I don't personally care what title Camilla will carry or currently carries, for that matter. (She is the Princess of Wales, whether Diana admirers such as myself, like it or not.) I think Charles will do his best to be a good King. Whether his definition of a good King will match the UK's or the Commonwealth, if he becomes Head of the Commonwealth, is another story. We will have to wait and see. Personally, I don't think he is cut out for the job, but I'd be delighted to be wrong. In the meantime, HM The Queen is the best monarch anyone could ask for and I hope her reign will continue for years to come with HM enjoying her current good health.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Personally, I don't think he is cut out for the job, but I'd be delighted to be wrong.

This is exactly the view held by many people in 1900 about another elderly Prince of Wales and we know how he turned out don't we???

He had done a lot less than Charles has for the good of his country but even so Charles isn't seen as up to the job - I really do wonder why?

He has worked tirelessly for his causes, he has done innumerable tours on behalf of his country and monarch, he has made many wonderful speeches etc.

If it is that modern politicians tell us that he talks to them - well that is part of his role - to know what is happening.

If it is because he late wife said so in her vitriolic tirade against the royal family - is that interview really credible evidence given the vindictive nature of the interview??

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The only difference between Charles and other Heads of the Church of England is that he took the time and effort to make an honest woman out of his mistress. If anything, Charles is one of the better royal men when it comes to marriage, fidelity etc. I'm sure we could all sit here and list the Kings of England who had women on the side as well as children, before and after the creation of the Church of England. Then there are the Popes who produced children and had mistresses while serving the church.
As someone who was born and raised in the US, I know first hand that just because a man is not faithful to his wife, does not mean he will be bad at his job; some of our best presidents have been cheaters.

 

[Renata4711]

Sorry but I think that just because Charles will have been prepared during his life, doesn't mean he has an open mind.
Apart from organic farming etc., he is mainly a figure of fun and he is lacking in authority. Sad, but true.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I used to think Charles was a figure of fun and not fit to be king, until I actully started to pay attention to him and realized he is smarter and worthy of respect for his causes and how he has not only tried to help England but the world in general. Once you get pass the headlines, he becomes quite an endearing human being. He just has the unfortunate status of being the heir to a woman who is living a very very long time. As a son he probably is happy about that, but as an heir, not so much.

 

[Daria_S]

I think Charles will do fine as a king. He certainly has a good role model in his mother, and I'm hoping to see him carry on some of her practices. As for him being the catalyst to the dissolution of the monarchy, I think that's maybe a little harsh. Monarchy in today's world is 'of the people' and 'by the people', and I bet if the United Kingdom and Commonwealth didn't want the institution anymore, there would be a way to get rid of it. The sad part is, Charles could be doing a great job, but it'll be all about the desire of the people and the government that will be existing at the time.

 

[shari-aree]

I think he is wonderful, I look forward to seeing him being King one day.

But not just yet!!


"long live the Queen - xoxox"

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Really, I don't see the big issue with Charles becoming king. What is this argument that he's not cut out for the job? What qualifications, other than birth, does it require?

Politically, he will have no real power, so he cannot change or propose any government laws or policies.. all he can do is advise.. and the leaders of Parliament can either take his advice or not. He will just be a symbol of government like his mother and his grandfather before him.

I think he may change some things with regard to royal protocol, but he is traditionalist enough to want to protect the privileged position of the monarchy, so I doubt he will rock the boat too much.

He is well aware of the effect his actions will have upon the future positions of his sons. And he knows that as long as the monarchy is beneficial to the people.. as long as they see its benefits to their country, it will remain.

It will be Charles' job to show his people that the monarchy is still relevant and that it does work for the people. And I think he has shown his willingness in that direction already.. through The Prince's Trust and all the other (many) charities he supports as Prince of Wales.

 

[fearghas]

Sorry but I think that just because Charles will have been prepared during his life, doesn't mean he has an open mind.
Apart from organic farming etc., he is mainly a figure of fun and he is lacking in authority. Sad, but true.

For someone who is lacking in authority, he seems to have quite an influence on people. His private letters certainly seem to work well

 

[Aliza]

For someone who is lacking in authority, he seems to have quite an influence on people. His private letters certainly seem to work well

But how many private letters can he write? He needs to be able to make the masses of ordinary Brits feel as though he represents them and understands them, to some extent.

His influence has been felt in architecture, for instance, but while commendable, it is not high on the British People's list of what needs to be fixed in these economic times.

Also, his style of living, so very different from his Mother's, makes him seem apart from the every day Brit. Maybe this will all change when he becomes King, I hope so. As I repeat myself again and again, I don't want to see him fail. Not for his own sake but for the sake of the Institution of the British Monarchy.

 

[Warren]

Wow, that was some digression...from Princess Elizabeth's desire to marry Lt Philip Mountbatten to Camilla's engagement ring to who did what to whom and when...and all points inbetween.

The moderators will not allow yet another thread to sink under the weight of the incessant and tiresome squabbling over Charles & Diana and Charles & Camilla. Therefore posts not relevant to the thread topic have been removed.

Warren
for the British Forum moderators

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Very interesting post, Aliza. I hadn't thought about the church entanglements of the "Camilla issue." King Charles III may well have to use some kingly power to get what he wants here - and he may not feel it's useful to try and do that.

Wait and see, in 15-20 years, we hope?

I thought the Church had cleared up the "Camilla issue." In the eyes of the CofE, they are legally married with no encumbrance. He was a widower when he married, so there should be no religious issue regarding Camilla.

The Church of England agreed in 2002 that divorced people could remarry in church under certain circumstances. However, because the Church views marriage to be lifelong, there is no automatic right to do so and it is left to the discretion of the Priest or Vicar.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

From my personal point of view, I'd have loathed seeing Camilla as Charles' Queen Consort if Diana were still alive. Since the Princess rests in peace and can not be hurt anymore, it really doesn't matter to me, although I'd be curious to know the viewpoint of Princes William and Harry.

This is an interesting viewpoint, Aliza, one that I had never considered. Thank you for bringing something new (to me) to the table.

From what I have read over the years, I have come to believe that many (most?) people actually hold the opposite opinion. With Diana gone people speculate endlessly about how she would have reacted to so many things. I do believe that were she still alive, she would have gone on to live such a full life, with so much happiness from other things, that the public would have long since stopped focusing on her unhappiness. I think this would have softened the public opinion of Charles and made him a more popular future monarch. I believe that were she still alive, seeing her prosper and heal her old wounds as both her and Charles created new lives for themselves would help the public move on, and therefore accept Camilla. In other words, I believe people would be considerably more accepting of Charles as monarch were Diana alive and people saw her doing well.

I feel that Charles will be a great king, although I doubt that he will be recognized for it. He is a man who is passionate about his work, and I believe that he will have this passion in being a king.

 

[EIIR]

But how many private letters can he write? He needs to be able to make the masses of ordinary Brits feel as though he represents them and understands them, to some extent.

His influence has been felt in architecture, for instance, but while commendable, it is not high on the British People's list of what needs to be fixed in these economic times.

Also, his style of living, so very different from his Mother's, makes him seem apart from the every day Brit. Maybe this will all change when he becomes King, I hope so. As I repeat myself again and again, I don't want to see him fail. Not for his own sake but for the sake of the Institution of the British Monarchy.

I think this post is deeply, deeply unfair to Charles. Limiting his charitable work to his interest in architecture is a gross understatement. We need only look at the Prince's Trust which has helped more than 600,000 young British people who feel hopeless to get involved in business, education or employment. I've been lucky enough to get involved with the Prince's Trust as the company I work for (which is one of the largest in the UK) is one of many who support the charity. These are young people who would otherwise be sitting on social welfare, not making any contribution to society. You're not in the UK but I can assure you that at a time when the unemployment rate among the 18-24 age group in the UK is at least 20%, we need the Prince's Trust now more than ever.

I've also been involved in another of the Prince's charities, Business in the Community, whereby we have donated our time and efforts to volunteer in the local community, helping to renovate schools and community buildings. Again, given the fact that the British government is essentially bankrupt and has to implement huge budget cuts, this kind of activity is enormously important.

These are just 2 examples of the direct benefits the people of the UK enjoy as a result of the Prince of Wales's drive and passion to improve the lot of his future subjects. There is no other Crown Prince or Princess who can come close to matching his achievements. And all this is before we take into consideration the many hundreds of millions of pounds Charles has raised for charitable good causes over the years.

I would go so far as to say that Britain has never had such a well qualified future monarch and one day I'll be very proud to say that he's my King.

 

[Daria_S]

I think this post is deeply, deeply unfair to Charles. Limiting his charitable work to his interest in architecture is a gross understatement. We need only look at the Prince's Trust which has helped more than 600,000 young British people who feel hopeless to get involved in business, education or employment. I've been lucky enough to get involved with the Prince's Trust as the company I work for (which is one of the largest in the UK) is one of many who support the charity. These are young people who would otherwise be sitting on social welfare, not making any contribution to society. You're not in the UK but I can assure you that at a time when the unemployment rate among the 18-24 age group in the UK is at least 20%, we need the Prince's Trust now more than ever.

I've also been involved in another of the Prince's charities, Business in the Community, whereby we have donated our time and efforts to volunteer in the local community, helping to renovate schools and community buildings. Again, given the fact that the British government is essentially bankrupt and has to implement huge budget cuts, this kind of activity is enormously important.

These are just 2 examples of the direct benefits the people of the UK enjoy as a result of the Prince of Wales's drive and passion to improve the lot of his future subjects. There is no other Crown Prince or Princess who can come close to matching his achievements. And all this is before we take into consideration the many hundreds of millions of pounds Charles has raised for charitable good causes over the years.

I would go so far as to say that Britain has never had such a well qualified future monarch and one day I'll be very proud to say that he's my King.

You said this very well. I think you bring to the surface something that people outside of the UK are unaware of. Here in the US, we only hear about His Highness's organic farming and passion for the environment. However, we only know about the Prince's Trust by name. I'm glad to hear he's helping so many people. That's admirable indeed.

 

[camelot23ca]

You said this very well. I think you bring to the surface something that people outside of the UK are unaware of. Here in the US, we only hear about His Highness's organic farming and passion for the environment. However, we only know about the Prince's Trust by name. I'm glad to hear he's helping so many people. That's admirable indeed.

I think Charles is one of those people who are more appreciated as time goes on. I don't know if he'll be a beloved king but I see him as being more and more respected as time goes on, especially once he becomes King and his full legacy is examined. Charles' life to me has seemed like one of unfortunate timing, in that he's always been overshadowed by someone, whether his formidable mother, his media savvy first wife, and now to a certain extent his more charismatic son and daughter in law. So I don't think he'll ever win any popularity contests but IMO popularity in and of itself doesn't mean much.

 

[fearghas]

I think it wouldnt hurt to compare Charles to another Prince of Wales who lived under similar conditions, his Great Great Grandfather, Edward VII.
The future Edward VII spent most of his life as PoW under a longlived, highlt respected Queen. He was King for only a short time and was highly regarded as a king.. He loved luxury had mistresses and a wife who was beloved by the public. IN many ways Charles has a similar character, but oh what a difference he has made of his life.

The future Edward VII really was a leech, a bad example. Our current PoW is a saint by copmparison.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think it wouldnt hurt to compare Charles to another Prince of Wales who lived under similar conditions, his Great Great Grandfather, Edward VII.
The future Edward VII spent most of his life as PoW under a longlived, highlt respected Queen. He was King for only a short time and was highly regarded as a king.. He loved luxury had mistresses and a wife who was beloved by the public. IN many ways Charles has a similar character, but oh what a difference he has made of his life.

The future Edward VII really was a leech, a bad example. Our current PoW is a saint by copmparison.

Edward VII also wasn't allowed to do very much by his mother so it is unfair to simply right off his time as PoW as a 'leech'. He wanted to be of use to his country but his mother simply refused to allow him to help her.

The present Queen, on the other hand, always actively encouraged Charles to be of use and to help her.

Similar circumstances but different approaches by the monarch's to the heir. A lesson learnt - by both Elizabeth and Charles - from the past.

When Edward was able to do things for the Queen he did so very well and was highly regarded within his own time by the people with whom he came into contact. He did a lot of the opening of stuff type duties but not the formal representation stuff.

I do think that if Albert had lived Edward would have been far more closely involved in the monarchy as a young man but Albert's death just as Edward was approaching adulthood (he was only just 20) meant that he wasn't brought into a working relationship with his mother and hence she never allowed him that role so he had to create a role for himself and was always blocked by his mother whenever there was any suggestion of him doing things that she should have done and refused to do or things that Albert had done.

Yes he lived the life of a rich 19th C gentlemen - but that is also what he was - so he lived amongst his own class and lived the way they did.

 

[Sam20045]

The Monarch and the Royal Family should be able to comment on politics and issues which affect their People. The Monarch should be the rightful Head of Government!

Also I believe when His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales becomes King...I believe he shall take the name George.

I also believe that Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cornwall will become Queen Consort as is her legal and right, as being the lawful and legitimate wife in the eyes of the law and the Church. The People must get used to His Royal Highness being on The Throne. I just hope he does not modernize and that he does not change the title of the Defender of the Faith to Defender of the Faiths. He will be the Supreme Governor of The Church of England...there is but one faith that is the State Religion and that is The Church of England.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Monarch and the Royal Family should be able to comment on politics and issues which affect their People. The Monarch should be the rightful Head of Government.

The monarch can comment on the issues affecting the people - and in fact does so - not to do so would be dereliction of their duty - but they do it in private in their discussions with the Prime Minister.

If they were still the Head of Government they wouldn't be the monarchs any more - they lost that right in 1649 and one of the conditions of the Restoration was that effective government rested with the parliament and not the king.

 

[Sam20045]

I wish there could be dual Head of Government....The Monarch and whomever the Prime Minister is

 

[Iluvbertie]

I wish there could be dual Head of Government....The Monarch and whomever the Prime Minister is

That is why we have a Head of State and Head of Government - two people - one who can truly represent the entire nation and one who has to be unpopular with some of the population because they have to lead the government in making unpopular decisions.

 

[Sam20045]

I mean the Monarch who is Sovereign and therefore in the Republican term Head of State acting as Head of Government also...Head of Government in co with the Prime Minister who is also Head of Government

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What point would that serve? The Prime Ministers seem to be doing a good enough job without a monarch becoming the head of government along with them. I think the only time a govt. system should be changed is if it is causing a problem. With England, it isn't broke so why fix it.

 

[fearghas]

Edward VII also wasn't allowed to do very much by his mother so it is unfair to simply right off his time as PoW as a 'leech'. He wanted to be of use to his country but his mother simply refused to allow him to help her.

The present Queen, on the other hand, always actively encouraged Charles to be of use and to help her.

Similar circumstances but different approaches by the monarch's to the heir. A lesson learnt - by both Elizabeth and Charles - from the past.

When Edward was able to do things for the Queen he did so very well and was highly regarded within his own time by the people with whom he came into contact. He did a lot of the opening of stuff type duties but not the formal representation stuff.

I do think that if Albert had lived Edward would have been far more closely involved in the monarchy as a young man but Albert's death just as Edward was approaching adulthood (he was only just 20) meant that he wasn't brought into a working relationship with his mother and hence she never allowed him that role so he had to create a role for himself and was always blocked by his mother whenever there was any suggestion of him doing things that she should have done and refused to do or things that Albert had done.

Yes he lived the life of a rich 19th C gentlemen - but that is also what he was - so he lived amongst his own class and lived the way they did.

I wouldnt deny that he did very well with what he had and certainly QV was very possesive about her role. As you say QEII and P Charles lappear to have learnt from that.

 

[Renata4711]

So, now we have a 21st century gentlewoman, with horses, corgis, wellington boots, and country estates.
Her son leads a similar life - albeit without corgis.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

 

[shari-aree]

I would go so far as to say that Britain has never had such a well qualified future monarch and one day I'll be very proud to say that he's my King.[/QUOTE]

And I too!

 

[PrincessKaimi]

The Royal Family of Britain is nothing, if not an incredible example of conserving wealth over generations. This is not a bad thing (don't we all want our kids to do well?) Until and unless we get rid of inheritance, the Royals represent those whose ancestors managed to rise to the top and hang on for dear life (sometimes in the most tangential ways; but always involving lineage, gender, birth order and legitimacy).

In so doing, they have also propelled history forward according to their will (if they could), but always, gradually losing ground to the rest of us. The rest of us, of course, include descendants of females, first borns, illegitimate kids and so on - many of whom sought better opportunities outside monarchic institutions.

I truly have admired the way that the British monarchs have adapted. They should win a prize for adaptation. If the trend continues, though, the monarchs could (almost) disappear - and then, all of the historical importance I refer to would be lost. That would be tragic.

 

[HRHHermione]

The Royal Family of Britain is nothing, if not an incredible example of conserving wealth over generations. This is not a bad thing (don't we all want our kids to do well?) Until and unless we get rid of inheritance, the Royals represent those whose ancestors managed to rise to the top and hang on for dear life (sometimes in the most tangential ways; but always involving lineage, gender, birth order and legitimacy).

In so doing, they have also propelled history forward according to their will (if they could), but always, gradually losing ground to the rest of us. The rest of us, of course, include descendants of females, first borns, illegitimate kids and so on - many of whom sought better opportunities outside monarchic institutions.

I truly have admired the way that the British monarchs have adapted. They should win a prize for adaptation. If the trend continues, though, the monarchs could (almost) disappear - and then, all of the historical importance I refer to would be lost. That would be tragic.

This post just beautifully expressed exactly how I feel about the monarchy. Thank you.

And I look forward to the reign of Charles when it's time. He's someone that I admire more and more as I learn about his interests and what he's accomplished.

 

[Tiberivs]

The Royal Family of Britain is nothing, if not an incredible example of conserving wealth over generations. This is not a bad thing (don't we all want our kids to do well?) Until and unless we get rid of inheritance, the Royals represent those whose ancestors managed to rise to the top and hang on for dear life (sometimes in the most tangential ways; but always involving lineage, gender, birth order and legitimacy).

In so doing, they have also propelled history forward according to their will (if they could), but always, gradually losing ground to the rest of us. The rest of us, of course, include descendants of females, first borns, illegitimate kids and so on - many of whom sought better opportunities outside monarchic institutions.

I truly have admired the way that the British monarchs have adapted. They should win a prize for adaptation. If the trend continues, though, the monarchs could (almost) disappear - and then, all of the historical importance I refer to would be lost. That would be tragic.

Let's keep in mind... the Hanovers (and by extension) the Windsors didn't "rise to the top", they were landed at the top and not because of merit and hard work but because George I was the closest protestant relative of Queen Anne.