The Monarchy under Charles

[Osipi]

You know, I would be. Yes. I am curious. I saw the documentary. Give a link to the thread when you start it up.

Will do! I will be getting the book the 1st of the month and will start a discussion in the book thread.

 

[princess-royal]

I am fully aware of his views on architecture - but he didn't do anything outside what he is allowed to do.

It was more a matter that other people think that as a royal he shouldn't be allowed to have any basic rights - including the right to express an opinion. He actually is allowed to do so and allowed to ask his friends to also express their opinions - that isn't political meddling but simple expressing of a human right. He has few enough of those compared to the rest of the population but he does have the right to express his opinion on non-politicial matters and architecture is just that - non-political.

If he comes out and says - 'the Lib-Dems should be supported over the Labour party' - that is political meddling and he can't do that (although you and I can). He can't make a comment on a political issue e.g. he can't comment on the government's attitude to university costs but he can express an opinion on what he likes aesthetically - that isn't politics.

Can you please point to political meddling as opposed to expressing a public opinion on a non-political matter - architecture isn't a political issue - the military, the economy, foreign affairs, taxation etc is.

He was ahead of the political parties with regard to the environment, expressing opinions on that matter before it became politicised so he is still able to express his opinion on that because it was in the public domain before most of the rest of the world cared.

What you want is for him to live in a coccoon and not express an opinion on anything as you are saying that him expressing an opinion is political.

Charles has frequently used his position to pressurise governments into making decisions - something that your ordinary Joe can't do, because the government doesn't listen to any old person who writes. To an extent the royals do live in a cocoon - they're neutral representatives. If Charles wants to be as popular as his wonderful mother he needs to take a step back. I'm not alone in this: he's sparked controversy that's been reported in national broadsheets. My point is that he lobbies ministers and receives special treatment - so in effect he's not trying to be like the rest of us, he's gaining access that the rest of us don't have. He has lobbied politically on issues other than architecture: I'd definitely recommend you look them up.

Unfortunately I feel that this is the very reason why so many people dislike him. There are many people who don't like those who are good at or know things, especially when it has nothing to do with sport, pop music or movie stars.
Charles has spent so much of his time actually achieving things, not bad for someone who doesnt actually have to do anything.

As a musician, poet, and literature student, I dispute that I'm sure we'd all love to cultivate our skills and hobbies, but some of us have work 9-5 and tight finances. I'm not saying that what Charles has done isn't admirable, but it's not superhuman either!

Why hasn't he had a 'real' job for decades? Because he was expected to give up the job he had in the navy to do royal duties - otherwise he would have remained in the navy for decades longer. That comment was simply uncalled for - due to being born who he was he wasn't allowed to have a paid job after his mid-late 20s but had to support his mother.

I think a Cambridge education the equal of Harvard - so Charles and Obama do have a similar education standard.

Although there are no reports of adultery from Obama there have been a number of presidents who have also committed adultery - a certain Mr Clinton comes to mind.

If you had actually read what he said he said that people should realise that not everyone has the ability to do everything - and his staff member took it to be exactly as you have done.

What he said was that not everyone can reach the top - e.g. not every child can be a doctor - they haven't got the brains for it - and they should realise that at some point in their lives.

A man who is a realist actually.

No Charles wouldn't grovel for votes - because he would prefer to be a farmer and thus not be involved in politics at all - but he has to take up that role when the time comes and will do so. He didn't choose to do so but having been born into the role he has spent his entire life preparing for it by serving the nation - unlike elected politicians who only go into the role for themselves. If you believe a politician has any other motive than personal aggrandisement then I am afraid you are living in dreamland.

I think when you insult a future Head of State who has worked hard at what he does for 40 years then you can't be taken in jest.

It would have happened years ago as well - it did at different times throughout his time as PoW because he has always genuinely cared for the people in these situations and has done more to help them personally than any government - as attested by his Princes' Trust and its work in these areas and he is going to increase that work now - both through the trust and his own pocket.

He most certainly has the qualities necessary to lead a nation - whatever they may be. He has compassion and a love of his country. He has an education. He has been at the centre of its life for his entire life. He is the best prepared future leader anywhere - due to the time he has had to prepare and to learn.

Because he was born who he was he has had no say over his life's eventual ending but he has carved a role for himself while he waits for his mother to die. He could have sat back and collected stamps and shot things (as George V did) or he could have shot things, gone to nightclubs, gambled, changed his mistresses as often as his socks, drunk and eaten to excess (as Edward VII did) but he didn't follow those examples. He worked to create a legacy - the Prince's Trust - he got involved in the nation in a real sense and has always tried to make a difference. That is what a leader does and he has done it consistently.

He made one bad decision - he married the wrong women 30 years ago and since then many people have written him off. That is so unfortunate for him as he has done so much good but all a lot of people want to judge him on was that awful decision to put duty to his country first and marry Diana.

Just to clear up, back then entry to top British universities wasn't really meritocratic and it was more about money and status than anything else. Charles's academic record is actually quite poor. As far as I'm aware, Obama got to Harvard on skill and aptitude, so it's not exactly the same. Charles got a 2:2, which really isn't that great.

 

[Tyger]

If Charles wants to be as popular as his wonderful mother he needs to take a step back.

Do you really want your Royals to not have a life? Do you really want to condemn a person to such a non-existence? Surely there must be a way to allow Royals to fully participate in the world they were born into without it being a problem. Surely. I do not envy the life HM has had to live to be 'wonderful' to her subjects.

Maybe the nature of Kingship and Queenship needs to be re-thought. One can't have it both - lambasted for being in a cocoon and then lambasted for being involved.

I'm not alone in this: he's sparked controversy that's been reported in national broadsheets. My point is that he lobbies ministers and receives special treatment - so in effect he's not trying to be like the rest of us, he's gaining access that the rest of us don't have. He has lobbied politically on issues other than architecture: I'd definitely recommend you look them up.

Is not debate good? Is Charles trying to be like the common joe? Is he 'suppose to be' - 'like the rest of us'? Which way is it going to be? It is an unequal world everywhere - would it not be a dereliction of responsibility, personally, for him not to act on his knowledge?

I just read some reviews of his book 'Harmony' on Amazon and I am very much looking forward to reading this book - and having the discussion here on TRF. I've long recognized that he is a significant synthesizer of ideas who has been acting on his insights - but I am starting to suspect it goes further.

It will be a shame if someone like this is smothered by outdated protocols of behavior for a British monarch - perhaps Charles will modernize the monarchy in ways startling.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I know in the US there are a lot of people who "use their position" to influence politicians. They aren't forcing them to do something, but use their money, celebrity, or family background to at least force a meeting. The regular Joe cannot do what Charles does, but there are a select few of non-royals who can. And I don't know if in the UK this is the way things go, but in the US lobbying is a way of political life.

 

[Osipi]

I know in the US there are a lot of people who "use their position" to influence politicians. They aren't forcing them to do something, but use their money, celebrity, or family background to at least force a meeting. The regular Joe cannot do what Charles does, but there are a select few of non-royals who can. And I don't know if in the UK this is the way things go, but in the US lobbying is a way of political life.

One thing I've heard stated several times is that Charles is a very avid letter writer. I think most likely too, a lot of folks will see his spidery handwriting and go "here's another one!".

 

[fearghas]

As a musician, poet, and literature student, I dispute that I'm sure we'd all love to cultivate our skills and hobbies, but some of us have work 9-5 and tight finances. I'm not saying that what Charles has done isn't admirable, but it's not superhuman either!

I wasn't saying anything like that at all. I was saying that he couold quite easily have sat back and done nothing with his life. He didnt have to do any of the things that he has done. And yet he still did. And do you dispute

 

[MARG]

I know in the US there are a lot of people who "use their position" to influence politicians. They aren't forcing them to do something, but use their money, celebrity, or family background to at least force a meeting. The regular Joe cannot do what Charles does, but there are a select few of non-royals who can. And I don't know if in the UK this is the way things go, but in the US lobbying is a way of political life.

The difference is that Charles has nothing personal to gain from his letter writing. He is not doing it for money he is doing it because he believes in it.

The politicians do not need to listen, he can't ask his mum to send them to the Tower. They vote in favour because along with Charles letters comes the media spotlight and a lot of national and local politicians look more than a little suspect in their decisions. They do not stand up to the harsh light of day.

As a footnote, I don't think Charles gives a rats about what people think of his lobbying. The truth will invariably get out and so far he hasn't been the one caught with his trotters in the trough!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Unfortunately Charles is in a lose-lose situtation. According to the constitution, the monarch will have keep out of discussions, not giving a personal opinion etc, basically what HM is doing.

Charles is a different person, with strong personal and passionate views and opinions on a variety of subjects that are bound to create controversy with public and society. This might be ok as CP but I dont think he will get away with this attitude as monarch.

Many people will be waiting for the moment to reign him in and shut him up on many issues, thumping on the constitution. I doubt Charles will be able "modernize" the monarchy in the direction of an outspoken monarch what comes close to the republican idea, most monarchs are non-political and representative figureheads only and those who have more power (eg the King of Jordan) are likely to be restricted rather than a representative monarch getting more power in the future.

Charles remaining outspoken will - in my opinion - put the monarchy into crisis since its against his constitutional role what is unlikely to be revised and Charles being shut up will rape his own character and bury many of his good ideas or opinions, what will make him an unhappy King.

 

[Tyger]

According to the constitution, the monarch will have keep out of discussions, not giving a personal opinion etc, basically what HM is doing.

Curious, what does this mean, because I really don't know. New territory for me. Does it mean HM can't waltz down to the House of Lords and openly engage in debate? (I suspect no). Or start writing editorials for The Times to bring in some cash money? (I suspect no). But I know she can tell the PM in their private meetings what she thinks - correct? I assume she can chatter away all she wants to her husband and children - and friends - correct? If that's the case what stops her from talking privately with all manner of folk - and how is it that we don't assume she is doing just that? I mean she has all these Heads of State over the years having sleep-overs at the palace?

What exactly is going to fall apart if a King or Queen openly expresses opinions? What is this 'rule' addressing? I have a fondness for the Prince Regent - didn't he express points of view? Didn't Victoria - and Albert? Doesn't the DoE?

 

[Burzg]

Just to clear up, back then entry to top British universities wasn't really meritocratic and it was more about money and status than anything else. Charles's academic record is actually quite poor. As far as I'm aware, Obama got to Harvard on skill and aptitude, so it's not exactly the same. Charles got a 2:2, which really isn't that great.

he get 2:2 ?

 

[Lumutqueen]

he get 2:2 ?

It's a lower second class honours degree given according to the British undergraduate degree classification. And I disagree with what princessroyal says as a 2:2 is a fantastic achievement and is better than great - it's incredible.

 

[Esmerelda]

It's a lower second class honours degree given according to the British undergraduate degree classification.

Yep. You need to get 50% though it night have been harder in those days I suppose.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Considering he spent a third of his final year having to go to another university to study Welsh for the Investiture he was put at a disadvantage to others in his year. He had two terms of study in his final year rather than the normal three terms.

 

[Tyger]

Anyway, the Queen doesn't have a degree and she's doing a great job as monarch. There's no degree in 'Kinging' so I don't see how academic qualifications are going to be relevant in Charles' performance as King.

That is scary - that a 'job' one is 'born into' requires one to not use one's full capacities. It really is a kind of slave-servitude in a gilded cage. Strange to realize it and have such in our times.

'My very chains and I grew friends,
So much a long communion tends
To make us what we are:—even I
Regained my freedom with a sigh.'

As Charles has said, his parents decided to give him a first class education - and it has resulted in who he is and how he proceeds in life.

No one has answered my post with all my questions - though I was being 'jokey' I was sincere - I do not see why Charles cannot have a personal life and conduct his personal life 'below the radar'. Why not? My point was that that is what the Queen does, not so? What others have done, not so?

All that we know about Charles' views being voiced is because of tabloid journalism making his personal business public and whipping up negative sentiment about it. Am I not correct on this? They don't break ranks about the Queen but Charles seems to be fair game. They are potentially going to try to create a straightjacket for Charles that doesn't even exist for the Queen - my speculation because no one answered my questions. Why would 'they' create a straightjacket? Because Charles is going to the root and stem of the ability of 'the some' to make money at the expense of the whole. I think I am starting to see something here.....

P.S. How can Charles' degree be described in one breath by one person as 'second-rate' and in the next breath by another person as 'honors'? How can there be such a disparity? What is at work in such a wide disagreement?

 

[Lumutqueen]

P.S. How can Charles' degree be described in one breath by one person as 'second-rate' and in the next breath by another person as 'honors'? How can there be such a disparity? What is at work in such a wide disagreement?

You mean princessroyal calling it not great and me calling it fantastic?

Prince Charles got a 2:2 Bachelor of Arts honours degree - you cannot get past the honours bit because they are all called that whether it's a first or third class one.
Charles got B's and C's in his A-Levels - which currently is rather hard to get and managed with those grades to get in Cambridge not sure what they wanted back then but now they're wanting A* all the way.

Apparently to some people that's not great - to me it's fantastic.

 

[Esmerelda]

You mean princessroyal calling it not great and me calling it fantastic?

Prince Charles got a 2:2 Bachelor of Arts honours degree - you cannot get past the honours bit because they are all called that whether it's a first or third class one.
Charles got B's and C's in his A-Levels - which currently is rather hard to get and managed with those grades to get in Cambridge not sure what they wanted back then but now they're wanting A* all the way.

Apparently to some people that's not great - to me it's fantastic.

Well, I have to disagree there as 25% of all grades were As in my year (2008) and 10% got all As. So currently Bs and Cs are not very hard to get. The percentage is rising all the time which is why they introduced the A* afterwards. It's true that exams were harder in Charles' day and in his day, Cambridge made more EE offers more often. Nowadays, it's at least AAA although Christ college does make EE offers to exceptional students. Average degree classifications vary by subject and university but a 2:1 is generally considered the target if you want to get a good job or get on a good postgraduate course nowadays. Of course, that could also have changed from Charles' day.

Why none of this bothers me is that the requirements of his future role do not necessarily correlate to his academic potential. It's not like Medicine or Law. I don't know whether Charles will be a good or bad King or somewhere in between. The point I am making is that whichever way the monarchy turns out under Charles will not be because he got a 2:2 forty-something years ago.

 

[Osipi]

All that we know about Charles' views being voiced is because of tabloid journalism making his personal business public and whipping up negative sentiment about it. Am I not correct on this? They don't break ranks about the Queen but Charles seems to be fair game. They are potentially going to try to create a straightjacket for Charles that doesn't even exist for the Queen - my speculation because no one answered my questions. Why would 'they' create a straightjacket? Because Charles is going to the root and stem of the ability of 'the some' to make money at the expense of the whole. I think I am starting to see something here.....

One other thing is that Charles' personal views and accomplishments are not just publicized in the tabloids and press but they've also been published. I have to remark at this time that I had hoped to post a listing of the books he's published over the years. What I did not expect to find actually that it would probably take me a good while to list each and every book he's had published and/or collaborated on. What I will do is at the end of this post is post the link for my search on Amazon.com and all the books will come up. I am totally amazed and at a loss for words. I knew he'd written books but I had no clue he was so well published over the years.

P.S. How can Charles' degree be described in one breath by one person as 'second-rate' and in the next breath by another person as 'honors'? How can there be such a disparity? What is at work in such a wide disagreement?

To me its just a fact that he's received a higher education. It is his own application of that learning which really matters in the long run and I think if we really bother to look, we would have to admit that Charles' education has been a life long ongoing thing.

Anyways, here's the book search I did. Enjoy!

Amazon.com: Charles Prince of Wales: Books

 

[Zonk]

Non relevant posts have been deleted.

Let's try to stay on topic.

 

[EIIR]

Well, I have to disagree there as 25% of all grades were As in my year (2008) and 10% got all As. So currently Bs and Cs are not very hard to get. The percentage is rising all the time which is why they introduced the A* afterwards. It's true that exams were harder in Charles' day and in his day, Cambridge made more EE offers more often. Nowadays, it's at least AAA although Christ college does make EE offers to exceptional students. Average degree classifications vary by subject and university but a 2:1 is generally considered the target if you want to get a good job or get on a good postgraduate course nowadays. Of course, that could also have changed from Charles' day.

Why none of this bothers me is that the requirements of his future role do not necessarily correlate to his academic potential. It's not like Medicine or Law. I don't know whether Charles will be a good or bad King or somewhere in between. The point I am making is that whichever way the monarchy turns out under Charles will not be because he got a 2:2 forty-something years ago.

What you must also remember with regards to Charles' school and university results is that he was doing A Levels when they were truly difficult. A Levels now are nowhere near as testing, no matter what the government says. Anyone who has ever analysed papers from 40 years ago with those of today has agreed that this is the case.

Also, schools and universities at that time were not concerned with league tables in the way they are now. It is in the interests of universities in particular to inflate the number of firsts and 2.1s they're handing out in order to move up the rankings. This never used to be the case.

Bs and Cs at A Level at the time Charles was doing them was a very commendable result.

 

[Lumutqueen]

but she is the daughter-in law of the late princess of wales.

But there is a current Princess of Wales who deserves to be colonel in chief, prior to Catherine. It is more likely that Camilla will never accept the royal and it will go to Catherine when her father in law becomes King.

 

[Baroness of Books]

But there is a current Princess of Wales who deserves to be colonel in chief, prior to Catherine. It is more likely that Camilla will never accept the royal and it will go to Catherine when her father in law becomes King.

I think most people tend to forget, or overlook, that Camilla is the Princess of Wales despite being known as the Duchess of Cornwall. That title was not taken away from her; she chooses not to use it.

 

[Kataryn]

I think most people tend to forget, or overlook, that Camilla is the Princess of Wales despite being known as Duchess of Cornwall. That title was not taken away from her; she chooses not to use it.

In a way it was both fate's and Diana's fault. Queen Mary had only been Princess of Wales from 1901 to 1910, Elizabeth the QM and Queen Elizabeth never were Princesses of Wales, while Edward VIII. had not married pre-abdication. Thus for most of the public the title of a Princess of Wales was something rather uncommon. When Charles married Diana, she could make the title her own as there was no real historical precendent in people's minds.

And Diana did a good job in making people believe that "The Princess of Wales" did not need a prince as husband but just was herself. Otherwise I can't explain why people post that Catherine should become Royal Colonal of the PWRR because she is "The Princess of Wales's daughter-in-law". Which is not true: she is the daughter-in-law of THe Prince of Wales who is himself married and has a princess-wife, even though said Princess of Wales chose not to use this title of hers.

 

[Osipi]

And Diana did a good job in making people believe that "The Princess of Wales" did not need a prince as husband but just was herself. Otherwise I can't explain why people post that Catherine should become Royal Colonal of the PWRR because she is "The Princess of Wales's daughter-in-law". Which is not true: she is the daughter-in-law of THe Prince of Wales who is himself married and has a princess-wife, even though said Princess of Wales chose not to use this title of hers.

My thoughts would be that in this type of a situation one would say that Kate's mother in law was A Princess of Wales as there is a current wife of The Prince of Wales that holds the title? Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can help out here?

 

[corazon]

I think most people tend to forget, or overlook, that Camilla is the Princess of Wales despite being known as the Duchess of Cornwall. That title was not taken away from her; she chooses not to use it.

she chooses not to use the title of princess os wales or was queen's desition?

 

[cinrit]

Out of respect for the memory of Diana, it was Camilla's choice not to use the title of Princess of Wales, and also out of respect for and understanding of those who loved Diana.

 

[corazon]

Out of respect for the memory of Diana, it was Camilla's choice not to use the title of Princess of Wales, and also out of respect for and understanding of those who loved Diana.

I can not remember the text of the announcement of the engagement, when they said they would be known as duchess. really I don`t remenber.
But I think that was queen`s election.
any way, I would have liked to see kate as a colonel. William come to malvinas the next month, kate will be in wales ???

 

[corazon]

I think most people tend to forget, or overlook, that Camilla is the Princess of Wales despite being known as the Duchess of Cornwall. That title was not taken away from her; she chooses not to use it.

sorry, the discussion about camilla's title is sooooo old like the title of lady louise. both are princess (camilla por marriage and louise born princess) but place said another thing. sorry for going out of discsuuion about catherine's current events

 

[cinrit]

I can not remember the text of the announcement of the engagement, when they said they would be known as duchess. really I don`t remenber.
But I think that was queen`s election.
any way, I would have liked to see kate as a colonel. William come to malvinas the next month, kate will be in wales ???

It was announced that the title of "Princess Consort" was considered instead of "Princess of Wales", but the decision was made not to use it. Perhaps that's what you're remembering. There was no decision by the Queen regarding the title of Duchess of Cornwall being used.

 

[corazon]

It was announced that the title of "Princess Consort" was considered instead of "Princess of Wales", but the decision was made not to use it. Perhaps that's what you're remembering. There was no decision by the Queen regarding the title of Duchess of Cornwall being used.

but the title of princess consort not was when charles become king?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Point is that AFAIK the regiment was not named for Diana but is a regiment in honour of the dynastic position of the wife of The Prince of Wales as the future queen.

From what I've heard, the current regiment was named in honour of Diana, Princess of Wales. It was formed in 1992.

But I think that was queen`s election.

Camilla chose to use the title The Duchess of Cornwall, certain people remark that she chose to use DOC to reflect that when Charles becomes King she would choose to be known by the 'lesser' title HRH The Princess Consort. However it is widely believed it is because of the POWs links to Diana.