The Monarchy under Charles

[Dman]

Charles have some brilliant ideas for the future of Britain, but you will read in the end, that there may be a struggle to keep his passion going once he's King. I happen to think Charles's passions will continue on into his Kingship.

Interview: The Prince of Wales, the crown planner-
Interview: The Prince of Wales, the crown planner - FT.com

 

[Marty91charmed]

Despite his non- poularity in the past years (now it's much better) I think he will be a great king. Good for him

 

[Dman]

Despite his non- poularity in the past years (now it's much better) I think he will be a great king. Good for him

He's a controversial character and even though his reign will be short, I think he's going to make a very fine King.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in another thread, please feel free to move if not.

The Prince of Wales is determined that his campaigning and charity work will continue even after he becomes King, emphasising the importance of what he calls “sticking to your guns.
In a rare interview Prince Charles let it be known that he wants the trusts and charities he has set up – whose work covers a broad range of social and environmental concerns – to carry on when he assumes the role of Monarch.
That raises the prospect of a future King Charles III being seen as a supporter of causes, some of which may come into conflict with the views of the public or even the Government of the day – a scenario that could cause complications in Britain’s constitutional monarchy.

Prince Charles intends to continue campaigning when he becomes King - Telegraph

 

[cepe]

yet again a headline that is misleading. He did not say that in the interview. The writer of the original article in the FT assumed that, and the Telegraph article ( lifted, wit credit) from the FT, states that what he actually said "has been interpreted as......".

HE actually says one of his family might take it on.

This is the press making a fact out of an assumption and intepretations.

Ggrrrrr

 

[Dman]

Prince Charles 'tried to influence government decisions'-
BBC News - Prince Charles 'tried to influence government decisions'

 

[Nico]

Time has proved I was right all along, says Prince Charles as he defends 40 years of outspoken ideas


Time has proved I was right all along, says Prince Charles as he defends 40 years of outspoken ideas | Mail Online

 

[wyevale]

Invariably he HAS been...

Time and time again the prince has championed ideas that have subsequently become popular and mainstream.

 

[COUNTESS]

And some which have not. Architects are not fond of his ideas and a planned community is, in this nation, certainly not new. A good idea, but not new, Organically grown food, was also not his idea, but has caught on in certain segments. It is expensive, so many people buy regular produce and produced meats etc. Charles has had some good intentions and has some good foresight. On the other hand he has little else to do.

 

[wyevale]

he has little else to do.

What ??? I really CANNOT let that pass... Perhaps you are unaware of The Prince's Trust: Inspiring young lives , which has made a huge difference to employment and training prospects for the young people of this country. In addition to his tireless work as Heir to the British throne...

Some Architects are unhappy as he has not, and will not roll over, supine to their vast self-agrandising, self publicising ideas to impose their huge 'visionary' schemes on London [in particular]. The Princes care for the built environment is very popular here, among people who are otherwise powerless in the face of corporate giants and faceless urban planners.

 

[Dman]

Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 2h
A spokeswoman for Prince Charles: "The Prince of Wales seeks to help people and communities here and abroad in whatever way he can".

Peter Hunt @BBCPeterHunt · 2h
A spokeswoman for Prince Charles: "We would not comment on private conversations".

The Royal Activist: Audio
In the 45 years since his investiture as Prince of Wales, Charles has created a unique role and career for himself as an activist on behalf of many causes. But is this activism compatible with the position of King? In Britain's constitutional monarchy, can Prince Charles remain an outspoken and passionate campaigner as he nears the throne, or should we expect a different style of monarchy in future, with a Royal Activist on the throne?

Elinor Goodman hears from close friends and colleagues of the Prince, as well as senior politicians with experience of how Prince Charles operates in Whitehall and beyond-
BBC Radio 4 - The Royal Activist

 

[MARG]

And some which have not. Architects are not fond of his ideas and a planned community is, in this nation, certainly not new. A good idea, but not new, Organically grown food, was also not his idea, but has caught on in certain segments. It is expensive, so many people buy regular produce and produced meats etc. Charles has had some good intentions and has some good foresight. On the other hand he has little else to do.

I find myself confounded by the necessity to belittle Charles life work. Yes some architects are not fond of his ideas, surprisingly some are. As for the orgainically grown food and sustainability in general, before Prince Charles stuck his neck out an turn Highgrove into a working example, orgainics got little to no good press. But Prince Charles publicly put his money where his mouth is and made it work for the most part.

Nothing is perfect as any half intelligent member of planet earth can attest but, I find your sniping intimation that he is merely a dilettante with too much time on his hands, humerous but quite enlightening.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I find myself confounded by the necessity to belittle Charles life work. Yes some architects are not fond of his ideas, surprisingly some are. As for the orgainically grown food and sustainability in general, before Prince Charles stuck his neck out an turn Highgrove into a working example, orgainics got little to no good press. But Prince Charles publicly put his money where his mouth is and made it work for the most part.

Nothing is perfect as any half intelligent member of planet earth can attest but, I find your sniping intimation that he is merely a dilettante with too much time on his hands, humerous but quite enlightening.

So true Marg.

Charles could have done what earlier Princes of Wales have done - lived the life of a socialite while waiting for his mother to die but no...he decided to change the role of the Prince of Wales into one of service to the nation and put his ideas into place such as The Princes Trust and the Dumfries project where people are getting real training in real jobs that can see them build careers for themselves rather than rely on government hand-outs.

Charles has strong opinions - as do many of the rest of us - and he hasn't been afraid to express them and he has been ridiculed for many of them - and in many cases he is now being proven correct.

 

[tamta]

Despite his non- poularity in the past years (now it's much better) I think he will be a great king. Good for him

I'm not sure how much better it really is. I've been in England since last October, and I am already tired of hearing and meeting people who want to see him "do the right thing" when his mother passes away and abdicate in favor of his son..

 

[tamta]

Altho' the British public seems to have accepted that Camilla WILL become Queen on her husbands accession, if you look at the comments on photos of her on the Facebook 'British Monarchy', and British Monarchist League' pages, the outpouring of bile against her is still really quite shocking !

It is interesting tho' that most of this enmity come from countries not connected to the British Monarchy, [principally from the United States, and South America]. I can only assume because St Diana is prectically WORSHIPPED in those countries ?

Fortunately public opinion in Britain and the other Realms and territories is ALL that matters....

Living in the UK, I seriously question that -as said in my post above. The best poll is the people you meet everyday, and in my experience, the verdict on Camilla becoming a queen is still very negative there. In any case, even if it's just a fragment of people who feel this way, it is undeniable that this matter shrinks the support basis of the monarchy somewhat; so I can't really understand why they should persist on it.. They can function absolutely sufficiently with him as King and her as Princess Consort -on the image of Victoria and Albert. The popular base accepting them as a married couple was already a big concession; why do they want to have it all -when it makes no practical difference anyway..

 

[Marty91charmed]

I'm not sure how much better it really is. I've been in England since last October, and I am already tired of hearing and meeting people who want to see him "do the right thing" when his mother passes away and abdicate in favor of his son..

it must be quite annoying... I think he will do wonderful things!
And IMO He wouldn't do a favor to the UK if he abdicated for William...

 

[PetticoatLane]

The overwhelming emotion of most people as regards whether Camilla should be Queen is indifference IMO. From my experience, people just aren't bothered whether she's Queen or not. That's how I know she's accepted. It makes no practical difference to their lives so why get worked up over it.

People said she and Charles would never marry because of public opinion, they said that when she did marry Charles she would never be accepted, that people would refuse to shake her hand or hurl abuse at her during her public engagements. That simply hasn't happened.

Having lived in the UK all my life, and in different parts of the UK, I regularly hear from people on the odd occasion that she comes up in conversation that their opinion of her has changed for the better. She'll never be loved by a big proportion of the population, but then the same could be said of, for example, Prince Philip. There's a growing affection for him now in his very old age, but he's never really been enormously popular.

 

[royalistbert]

Living in the UK, I seriously question that -as said in my post above. The best poll is the people you meet everyday, and in my experience, the verdict on Camilla becoming a queen is still very negative there. In any case, even if it's just a fragment of people who feel this way, it is undeniable that this matter shrinks the support basis of the monarchy somewhat; so I can't really understand why they should persist on it.. They can function absolutely sufficiently with him as King and her as Princess Consort -on the image of Victoria and Albert. The popular base accepting them as a married couple was already a big concession; why do they want to have it all -when it makes no practical difference anyway..

The only Princess consort in Europe. This is not Morocco.

 

[cinrit]

They can function absolutely sufficiently with him as King and her as Princess Consort -on the image of Victoria and Albert.

There is no such title as Princess Consort in the U.K., it would have to be created by Parliament, most likely. In any event, no matter what she chooses to be known as (I suppose she could be known as the Duchess of Lancaster), she will, in reality, be Queen Consort.

 

[cepe]

Once again Countess, your post shows that you have no understanding of the work of the BRF.

Below is a summary of an article from todays Times. It is about Dumfries House. It sets out how he hasnt just saved a signifcant house and furniture but is using it as an opportunity to bring new skills and employment to an area where there are high levels of unemployment.

SUMMARY
The Queen will visit Dumfries House in Scotland for a first-hand look at the Palladian pile that her son saved for the nation in a risky venture that appears to have paid off.
The Prince of Wales, who controversially bought the country house in Ayrshire in 2007 using a £20 million loan from his charities, has said that it is “beginning to achieve what I had originally hoped”.

It was considered a vanity project when he paid £45 million to save the home and Britain’s best collection of Thomas Chippendale furniture. However, Prince Charles has transformed the site to create a business, complete with cookery school and an outdoors centre as part of his efforts to regenerate the area.

The prince is also building an engineering centre at the site, and the loan from his Charities Foundation has been repaid. The plan includes converting cottages into guest rooms for weddings and has been lauded for providing local jobs.

The Queens visit will be seen as vindication of her son’s plan to regenerate the area.

Prince Charles told the Financial Times: “Just by getting things done on the estate, by bringing the house back to life, by starting to build different new things and do up buildings, using them for skills training purposes and raising aspirations and self-esteem — all the things that I wanted to do — bit by bit the atmosphere, that feeling or whatever begins to spread locally. Hopefully, it gradually starts to feed into rising levels of self-confidence.”

Dumfries House is employing and training many young people who come from families with three generations of unemployed, and the prince is on first-name terms with most of them.

Prince Charles has been praised locally for the transformation. Every gate was left open to ensure public access and he attracted £19 million in donations.

A £30 million endowment fund is being raised for the prince to give Dumfries House security in future. The upkeep is said to be £600,000 per year.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The overwhelming emotion of most people as regards whether Camilla should be Queen is indifference IMO. From my experience, people just aren't bothered whether she's Queen or not. That's how I know she's accepted. It makes no practical difference to their lives so why get worked up over it.

People said she and Charles would never marry because of public opinion, they said that when she did marry Charles she would never be accepted, that people would refuse to shake her hand or hurl abuse at her during her public engagements. That simply hasn't happened.

Having lived in the UK all my life, and in different parts of the UK, I regularly hear from people on the odd occasion that she comes up in conversation that their opinion of her has changed for the better. She'll never be loved by a big proportion of the population, but then the same could be said of, for example, Prince Philip. There's a growing affection for him now in his very old age, but he's never really been enormously popular.

This sounds reasonable to me. I suspect the fluctuations in recent polls are either the result of a bad sample or a change in wording, i.e., "queen" versus "queen consort."

My understanding is that when the time comes, Camilla will legally become Queen, regardless of the title she decides to use. The majority of people will either want her to be known as 'queen' or be opposed, but not really care that much.

At the same time, there will be a minority of people who will be rabidly and vocally opposed and the media will do its best to stir things up. Unfortunately, I think that Charles and Camilla may decide that she will use a lesser title because she won't want Charles reign to be overwhelmed by controversy over what is essentially a minor issue.

As the recent articles about his efforts with renovating the Dumfries property illustrates, Charles is dedicated to making a positive difference in people's life. He may become more popular if he played it safe and concentrated on photo ops with sick children--which would certainly do a lot of good--but he has decided to get involved in causes that aren't as media friendly but are still vitally important to the people involved.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

I'm sometimes rather skeptical of the popularity of the monarchy in the UK. Whenever you onto an article on Facebook or Daily Mail, about 99% of the comments are aimed against the royal family. The majority of them go on about how the royals are "parasites", how they should be shot for being "traitors", that the Queen and her family are just a load of "inbred Germans".
And with a big majority of the comments against HM and other members of the royal family it's makes me wonder if the monarchy is really as popular as people say it is.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Whenever a real poll is done - such as YouGov - it shows that the BRF is very popular and that thus things like the DM aren't all that reliable e.g. one story will have 60% in favour and 40% opposed and the next one the opposite. I have posted there and had mainly up arrows one day and for the exact some post the opposite the next day.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

Whenever a real poll is done - such as YouGov - it shows that the BRF is very popular and that thus things like the DM aren't all that reliable e.g. one story will have 60% in favour and 40% opposed and the next one the opposite. I have posted there and had mainly up arrows one day and for the exact some post the opposite the next day.

I never really like to doubt the popularity of the royal family, though some of the awful comments posted by people on things such as DM and FB make me wonder, one person even said that Prince George should be put in a bin! I'm all for freedom of speech, but comments like that are just downright horrible. Though I do believe that the at least 80% of Brits probably have a favourable view of the royal family, I believe many of those who post horrible things about the royals are very much on a minority, and hopefully always will be. As i said, if you favour a republican system then fine, you may give your opinion on that. However, people saying that HM & her family should be shot like the poor Romanov dynasty really are just despicable.

Though as you have said, polls done by several independent sources generally show the royal family's popularity is still very high, and long may it last.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

 

[US Royal Watcher]

I never really like to doubt the popularity of the royal family, though some of the awful comments posted by people on things such as DM and FB make me wonder, one person even said that Prince George should be put in a bin! I'm all for freedom of speech, but comments like that are just downright horrible. Though I do believe that the at least 80% of Brits probably have a favourable view of the royal family, I believe many of those who post horrible things about the royals are very much on a minority, and hopefully always will be. As i said, if you favour a republican system then fine, you may give your opinion on that. However, people saying that HM & her family should be shot like the poor Romanov dynasty really are just despicable.

Though as you have said, polls done by several independent sources generally show the royal family's popularity is still very high, and long may it last.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

My sense is that many of the negative comments on the Daily Mail website are posted by a few people using several online identities.

 

[Cris M]

My sense is that many of the negative comments on the Daily Mail website are posted by a few people using several online identities.

And if you look carefully you'll notice that the majority of the negative comments are from people who are not from the UK or the Commonwealth, the majority are from US or South America.

 

[royalistbert]

Go any article DM the amount of bile in the comment section is unreal. If public opinion was really like the DM comment section then the RF would be booed everywhere they would go.

 

[DukeJonathan81]

Go any article DM the amount of bile in the comment section is unreal. If public opinion was really like the DM comment section then the RF would be booed everywhere they would go.

Well, I suppose you have a point there.


Sent from my iPad using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

I find it interesting that in the recent article on Camilla - where she went to the shortbread factory I posted 9 comments of which only 4 were published and they are running at 99 green and 34 red arrows in total but last week on a similar article I posted about the same number of posts - again had 4 published and had 166 red arrows to 34 green and the tone of all 8 published posts was the same - supportive of Camilla.

Has her popularity changed that much in a week? No - but the posts that are being posted are being rated differently in each case.

 

[MARG]

Now why am I not surprised that only 4 posts were published each time, skewing the result for anyone reading the opinions.

The published opinions must have met the designated slant of the week criteria and, as you have shown, prove nothing about anything.