The Monarchy under Charles

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Tony Parsons: They don't make them like our Queen any more

Not the end of the British monarchy — because that will endure beyond all our lifetimes — but the very last monarch who will be a truly unifying force in our nation.

Tony Parsons are like me a big fan of the Queen, and until recently a big supporter of William and Kate. He has criticized Charles several times, but even he believes in the monarchy after the Queen's death and so do most experts.

 

[prefect]

No worries about the Queen

Regarding the picture in which Charles sits next to the Queen, it is obvious to me that William knows that Charles is closest to the Queen.

Position yourself in the place of Prince Andrew, he does not bother.
William does.

You see, William knows that Charles is thinking. But again, we do not bother. For, the Queen knows what Charles is thinking.

What if William does not bother what Charles is thinking? it could only mean one thing: he thinks for himself.

And now I am thinking: What if William would sit next to the Queen?
Then Charles would bother what William is thinking.

In conclusion, William likes Kate. Kate likes William. We like William. And I like the Queen. Who likes Charles?

There is no conspiracy in Royal circles. Resentment is obvious. The Queen is a little bit inconsistent. Hence, she tried to tell you something and the picture is evidence.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

A lot will depend on how far in the future the Queen passes, and the health of Charles at whatever age that is. The father out in the future it happens, I think that the coronation will be done quickly for the reasons mentioned, to dampen any republican sentiments, and to not give people a chance to mull over the fact we're getting an Edward the VIII re-boot( a king connected to a divorced woman) as king.

Once the ceremony's done and his face on the money, any debate would be academic at that point, whats the saying "if its to be done, best it be done quickly".

 

[Osipi]

A lot will depend on how far in the future the Queen passes, and the health of Charles at whatever age that is. The father out in the future it happens, I think that the coronation will be done quickly for the reasons mentioned, to dampen any republican sentiments, and to not give people a chance to mull over the fact we're getting an Edward the VIII re-boot( a king connected to a divorced woman) as king.

Once the ceremony's done and his face on the money, any debate would be academic at that point, whats the saying "if its to be done, best it be done quickly".

Attitudes towards divorce and remarriage are quite different now than they were in the 30s. I don't think this will be much of an issue at all when the time comes.

As far as the coronation goes, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the plans for the ceremony have already been worked out and ready to fly. The main fact though is that the moment QEII draws her last breath, Charles will be King. The coronation is just the icing on the cake so it really doesn't matter how soon it occurs. Same thing with the money. Its very possible that the plates have already been made to start printing currency with Charles' face on it. The BRF is a family that plans for the future down to the last detail quite a bit ahead of time.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Attitudes towards divorce and remarriage are quite different now than they were in the 30s. I don't think this will be much of an issue at all when the time comes.

For sure they've changed as the Queen signed off on him marrying Camilla, which if she'd intended it to be a sticking point, shed have said no, so shes ok with it. But for a family that likes to play the duty and tradition card, it smacks of hypocrisy. He should have had to flee like his predecessor, probably to Florence,Italy where like Diana said, he could go and sort himself out with his lady, painting and such, and leave the boys to carry on the family name and tradition.

Not a popular opinion on the forum, im sure, but it would be tradition for a PoW who marries a divorcee to step away from the throne. Besides if the Queen dies at the same age as the Queen Mother, Charles will be almost 80 then, hes got at best 15-20 years of declining health and ability, where William could have 60-70 years to reign, and at least for now, hes a better family man, and role model for the head of the church.

As for the coronation, its true, it doesnt "make" him king, but its a powerful agent of social consent to go along with the status quo, and for those reasons, it would be in his interest to do it sooner than later. While the public furor has cooled considerably since 1997, and people seem to be lapping up the BRF media management, so im sure things will go off without a hitch, but to use a sports analogy, his reign will be marked by an asterisk, clouded by the "war of the wales" and marrying Camilla.

He will be a tolerated king, cause that is the way of things, but people will be just waiting for William's turn, as far as a king that they will love far and wide.

 

[Jacknch]

Just a reminder that this thread is about the Monarchy Under Charles and not a debate as to his suitability to become king.

 

[VictoriaB]

He will be a tolerated king, cause that is the way of things, but people will be just waiting for William's turn, as far as a king that they will love far and wide.

You can't possibly know how people will view William when Charles becomes King because you don't know what will happen between then and now. Public opinion changes quickly.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

For sure they've changed as the Queen signed off on him marrying Camilla, which if she'd intended it to be a sticking point, shed have said no, so shes ok with it. But for a family that likes to play the duty and tradition card, it smacks of hypocrisy. He should have had to flee like his predecessor, probably to Florence,Italy where like Diana said, he could go and sort himself out with his lady, painting and such, and leave the boys to carry on the family name and tradition.

Not a popular opinion on the forum, im sure, but it would be tradition for a PoW who marries a divorcee to step away from the throne. Besides if the Queen dies at the same age as the Queen Mother, Charles will be almost 80 then, hes got at best 15-20 years of declining health and ability, where William could have 60-70 years to reign, and at least for now, hes a better family man, and role model for the head of the church.

That's just ridiculous, and remember: We live in 2016.

While the public furor has cooled considerably since 1997, and people seem to be lapping up the BRF media management, so im sure things will go off without a hitch, but to use a sports analogy, his reign will be marked by an asterisk, clouded by the "war of the wales" and marrying Camilla.

He will be a tolerated king, cause that is the way of things, but people will be just waiting for William's turn, as far as a king that they will love far and wide.

This shows how little you can about the British monarchy. Diana was pretty controversial before her death. She had turned a revered institution in to her own soap opera, she attacked her husband on television, she embarrassed the Queen and was putting the future of her sons at risk etc. I'm not saying that Charles was innocent, but he didn't attack Diana on TV or in front of the kids.

When it comes to her charity work: I think it took her several years to become patron of approximately 100 charities and she accepted many of them to boost her popularity during the 90s. She then (I think) dropped most of them.

And when it comes to her death: Most people today (even journalists) regrets the way they attacked/bullied the Queen in the days following Diana's death. And the monarchy is more popular today than it was during the Diana years. We've had record high support for the monarchy in several polls since 2002, some of over 80%.

When it comes to media: They are actually more critical than ever, and they have in recent months tried to make life miserable for William and Kate.

As Jacknch said: This thread is about the Monarchy Under Charles, but I couldn't resist to write something, and you don't need to answer me because I will not bother to discuss this nonsense.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The one thing we know from history is that a new monarch will be given a fair go due to the fact that that new monarch will be mourning a much loved parent.

In the 1890s there were many people who publicly asked how the future Edward VII would manage as King given his history - being named in a divorce (in those days the case was actually a court case and he was named as a co-respondent) and then again named in a gambling scandal so dragged through the mud in ways Charles has never been but ... he turned out to be a much loved King - as much because of his foibles and follies as for them.

Charles is very like him - cares about the people etc and when given the chance the public will show him how much they love and respect him (maybe more of the latter than the former).

As William enters middle age he will be less popular (that is the way of the royalty) and Charles will be seen as the wise caring man with even calls for the throne to bypass William and go to George (again something that has happened in many generations before e.g. the 1970s that was the call then).

 

[Mbruno]

As William enters middle age he will be less popular (that is the way of the royalty) and Charles will be seen as the wise caring man with even calls for the throne to bypass William and go to George .

I doubt there will ever be any serious calls for the throne to bypass William as George will still be in his 20s and may be not even out of university. much less married yet. It is perfectly acceptable for William to ascend the throne when he is in his 50s; what bothers some people is Charles ascending in his mid-70s or older.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I doubt there will ever be any serious calls for the throne to bypass William as George will still be in his 20s and may be not even out of university. much less married yet. It is perfectly acceptable for William to ascend the throne when he is in his 50s; what bothers some people is Charles ascending in his mid-70s or older.

I have a circle of British acquaintances. None of them seem concerned about anyone's age as Queen, or as King.

Not sure why the difference.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

The one thing we know from history is that a new monarch will be given a fair go due to the fact that that new monarch will be mourning a much loved parent.

In the 1890s there were many people who publicly asked how the future Edward VII would manage as King given his history - being named in a divorce (in those days the case was actually a court case and he was named as a co-respondent) and then again named in a gambling scandal so dragged through the mud in ways Charles has never been but ... he turned out to be a much loved King - as much because of his foibles and follies as for them.

Charles is very like him - cares about the people etc and when given the chance the public will show him how much they love and respect him (maybe more of the latter than the former).

As William enters middle age he will be less popular (that is the way of the royalty) and Charles will be seen as the wise caring man with even calls for the throne to bypass William and go to George (again something that has happened in many generations before e.g. the 1970s that was the call then).

We cannot compare the 1890s with present times, but I think you have much right in what you write.

As I predicted in another thread - In 20 years:

Charles and Camilla - (if living) will be the respected old monarch and consort.

William and Kate - Will be popular (more than Charles and Camilla), but perhaps not as interesting as their yong and very popular children.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt there will ever be any serious calls for the throne to bypass William as George will still be in his 20s and may be not even out of university. much less married yet. It is perfectly acceptable for William to ascend the throne when he is in his 50s; what bothers some people is Charles ascending in his mid-70s or older.

The very fact that George will be in his 20s is the reason for the calls for the throne to bypass a middle-aged William.

The British seem to like their monarchs old and thus wise and respected or young but while middle-aged they aren't so popular.

That was the case with the Queen - when Charles was in his 20s and early 30s there were calls for her to abdicate and then as he hit his late 30s and early 40s until now in his late 60s there calls were for the throne to go to William (even when William was still a minor).

This is nothing new - it is the way of things e.g. there were calls for Victoria to abdicate during the 1860s and early 1870s to sure up the monarchy when its popularity plummeted in the early years of her mourning and there was a young married couple to lead them ... but in time her popularity returned.

It isn't even about the individual but the institution regardless of the individual - the young and old are loved for differing reasons while the middle-aged are seen as boring and not inspiring enough.

 

[Curryong]

Perhaps because the perception is, and I'm not saying it's a correct one just the way of the world, that this is another old person ascending the throne. An old person succeeding another old person won't be so popular in the eyes of the public as they would have been had they come to the throne at twenty one, twenty five, or even thirty. There's a different feel about it.

I think it's probably natural for people to say to themselves "Well, Charles is seventy plus and so this reign isn't likely to be a long one" (whether that will be true or not) and so they will look forward to seeing someone under fifty on the throne, someone with young children, probably teenagers.

It's just that the vibe is different in the case of a young or youngish person becoming monarch, if I can put it that way, putting aside Charles and William's personal faults and virtues, for the moment. It just feels more like a new beginning, which is what it felt like in 1953 when commentators proclaimed a new Elizabethan Age, funny though that sounds now.

 

[Countessmeout]

I doubt there will ever be any serious calls for the throne to bypass William as George will still be in his 20s and may be not even out of university. much less married yet. It is perfectly acceptable for William to ascend the throne when he is in his 50s; what bothers some people is Charles ascending in his mid-70s or older.

The Charles concern is ridiculous IMO. What do people think 70 is senile and he will be needing a nurse wiping his drool? This isn't the old days when a king led his men into war.

Even if Charles comes to the throne at say 73 (if his mother lives to be 95), he could still have a 22 year reign if he lives as long as both parents. George is almost 3. If his grandfather lives to 95, he would be 30 when Charles dies. He would be well done university, have a few years of traditional military service done and possibly married or on the way. The married part isn't much of an issue, wouldn't be the first bachelor king.

 

[Lady Nimue]

We cannot compare the 1890s with present times, but I think you have much right in what you write.

As I predicted in another thread - In 20 years:

Charles and Camilla - (if living) will be the respected old monarch and consort.

William and Kate - Will be popular (more than Charles and Camilla), but perhaps not as interesting as their young and very popular children.

People never factor in the attractiveness of a Harry and Wife with babies in tow when William and Catherine's children are morose teenagers.

I could see a very popular Charles and Camilla, and some misgivings about the dour William in the face of a breezy Harry, young wife and babies. Just a thought.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

It just feels more like a new beginning, which is what it felt like in 1953 when commentators proclaimed a new Elizabethan Age, funny though that sounds now.

That isn't funny at all, because we are (as the prime minister and several experts says) living in the second Elizabethan era.

And when it comes to Charles age: The reason why people dislike Charles has nothing to do with his age. It has to do with that people think he interferes in politics all the time (which he don't do), and for some others it's about Diana.

But he is more popular than most politicians. In the 2016 Ipsos Mori poll on the monarchy: 60% said he was going to be a good king - 18% said they don't know - 22% said he was going to be a bad king. God number for him and up from 2006. And his approval rating vas at 78% in the Ipsos Mori poll on the monarchy in 2012.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

One of the things they enjoy about the Queen is how long shes served, I fear the monarchy under Charles will be a caretaker reign with everyones eyes on the watch. He will no doubt feel pressure to leave his mark on the short time he will have to rule.

 

[Lady Nimue]

One of the things they enjoy about the Queen is how long shes served, I fear the monarchy under Charles will be a caretaker reign with everyones eyes on the watch.

Will be very interesting! Charles is far more engaged in the world than his mother. He is conversant with the world's movers and shakers, being one himself via his progressive, life-long interests and accomplishments. I think you mis-judge how much Prince Charles is respected in the world. His reign will be very interesting.

He will no doubt feel pressure to leave his mark on the short time he will have to rule.

I doubt it, at least in the way I think you mean this, given he has already made a substantial difference in his country, and in the world, prior to being monarch.

Like every British monarch I assume he will do all he can to make sure he has a monarchy to hand off to his son and heir. But King Charles himself will be sorely missed when he passes on. Prince William will have large shoes to fill.

Just my view.

 

[Countessmeout]

I agree Lady Nim Charles has already done a great deal to leave a good impact on the UK and the world. It isn't like he has been sitting on his hands in the shadows, waiting for the crown, before he does anything. Even if he only reigns for 20 years or so, I see Charles as far more than a caretaker king, and he will leave his impression for generations to come.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I always love how people think Charles' reign will be short. Sure it won't be as long as his mother's but ... if her lives to the exact same age as his mother he will reign for over 20 years - hardly a short reign.

Given the longevity of his ancestors (sure both his grandfathers died young but neither of them took care of their health and they didn't have the health care we have today) he will have a decent length of reign.

I don't see William reigning for another 30 or so years.

In fact I think Britain is in for a series of 60+ kings at accession unless one decides to abdicate, or a tragedy strikes, or the country becomes a republic.

 

[Curryong]

We don't know when the Queen will pass on though. If it's next week, then Charles perhaps may well reign for twenty years, though good genetics isn't a cast iron guarantee that your own health is going to be excellent throughout old age.

If the Queen echoes her mother and lives to be 102 then Charles will be eighty when he ascends the throne and it might indeed be a fairly short reign of less than twenty years. For William to come to the throne at 60 plus, Charles would have to live to be 93 or 94 or more, and again, there's no guarantee of that.

The British public might regard a succession of aged or very mature men as Kings as being quite uninspiring actually.

 

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

Will be very interesting! Charles is far more engaged in the world than his mother. He is conversant with the world's movers and shakers, being one himself via his progressive, life-long interests and accomplishments. I think you mis-judge how much Prince Charles is respected in the world. His reign will be very interesting.


I doubt it, at least in the way I think you mean this, given he has already made a substantial difference in his country, and in the world, prior to being monarch.

Like every British monarch I assume he will do all he can to make sure he has a monarchy to hand off to his son and heir. But King Charles himself will be sorely missed when he passes on. Prince William will have large shoes to fill.

Just my view.

Time will have to tell on the engagement thing, one of the things that people (and even myself) like about the Queen is that she keeps her opinions to herself, theres a nice interview with Patrick Jephson about that we dont know the Queens views on global warming, organic gardening, paper vs plastic, coke or pepsi, etc. so to speak.

She stays above the frey of alot of things, something mr "black spider" letter will have a hard time doing, and i fear he'll go the other way in an effort to do as much in the short time he will have. But to be fair, the blame for that is at the queens feet, shes had ample time to school him on the art of doing as she does.

Also to be fair he's done a lot of things, but hes also had a lot of time and resources available to do so, and I think to be honest he was short changed a bit in that having to wait so long for his turn, he could have been given more of her duties to do. It seemed often he was left on his own to create things to do to fill the time, and that led to some of the things the press likes to mock him about.

In older times most monarchs didnt reign as long as Elizabeth has, and while i dont suggest she step down, on the contrary, I hope she lives as long as possible to allow things to play out. But I do think she should have given him " a taste" of the crown earlier, it might have boosted his ego and given his role more definition and avoided some of his personal problems, and as a result, helped the family as a whole and made his reign easier.

 

[miss whirley]

The very fact that George will be in his 20s is the reason for the calls for the throne to bypass a middle-aged William.

The British seem to like their monarchs old and thus wise and respected or young but while middle-aged they aren't so popular.

That was the case with the Queen - when Charles was in his 20s and early 30s there were calls for her to abdicate and then as he hit his late 30s and early 40s until now in his late 60s there calls were for the throne to go to William (even when William was still a minor).

This is nothing new - it is the way of things e.g. there were calls for Victoria to abdicate during the 1860s and early 1870s to sure up the monarchy when its popularity plummeted in the early years of her mourning and there was a young married couple to lead them ... but in time her popularity returned.

It isn't even about the individual but the institution regardless of the individual - the young and old are loved for differing reasons while the middle-aged are seen as boring and not inspiring enough.

I agree. Popularity works in cycles for the BRF.

William/Catherine/Harry will only be adored for about another 10 years then they'll hit a lull. William and Catherine will experience a rebound of affection in their mid-70's when they reach that cute, old person age. As Harry won't be the PoW or HM, he'll probably not get a rebound and instead he'll be largely forgotten about by the general public. The fate of all the younger siblings when they reach old age.

I think we'll see something similar with Charles. Over the next 5-10 years, the public will likely become more and more fond of Charles and Camilla. While Anne/Andrew/Edward continue their downward streak of relevance.

In 20 years, the polls will show Charles, George, and Charlotte as the most poplar royals. Whilst William, Catherine, and Harry will be least popular.

In 50 years, the polls will show William, Catherine, and their grandchildren as the most popular. George and Charlotte will have the lowest approval score.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

People never factor in the attractiveness of a Harry and Wife with babies in tow when William and Catherine's children are morose teenagers.

I could see a very popular Charles and Camilla, and some misgivings about the dour William in the face of a breezy Harry, young wife and babies. Just a thought.

You may be right.

Will be very interesting! Charles is far more engaged in the world than his mother. He is conversant with the world's movers and shakers, being one himself via his progressive, life-long interests and accomplishments. I think you mis-judge how much Prince Charles is respected in the world. His reign will be very interesting.

I doubt it, at least in the way I think you mean this, given he has already made a substantial difference in his country, and in the world, prior to being monarch.

Like every British monarch I assume he will do all he can to make sure he has a monarchy to hand off to his son and heir. But King Charles himself will be sorely missed when he passes on. Prince William will have large shoes to fill.

Just my view.

I am a big supporter/fan of Charles and everything he has done for the UK and the Commonwealth, and I am sure he will be a very good monarch.

But for me and many others will neither him, William or anyone else be able to replace our matchless Queen.

Our beloved, iconic, remarkable Elizabeth II is the UK and the Commonwealth and she is as Obama said a jewel to the world.

She is an international icon and the embodiment of royalty. She has dedicated her life to the UK and the Commonwealth, and have spent the last 63 years building relations and friendship between nations as no other. She's was known as the world's top diplomat until at least 2011 (when she almost stopped traveling) She was also with her parents, sister and Winston Churchill a symbol of peace during World War II.

She is as several of the so-called experts said on British/American/Canadian television during her 90th birthday celebrations and Jubilee celebrations in 2012 a symbol of continuity and goodness in the world. And as Baroness Scotland said during an interview: She is kind, caring, warm, forgiving and concerned with poor people, young people and people who are struggling.

Monarchs, Presidents, former Prime Ministers, former employees and family member have said the same and the Queen herself has mentioned it several times in her speeches over the years.

She is simply THE QUEEN and world leders around the world admirer her, and she make me proud to be half-British. We should be proud to live in this admirable lady's reign.

There will be no one like her again, and I agree with Tony Parsons that she will be the last monarch who will be a truly unifying force in our nation, but the monarchy will continue to endure in to future with Charles, William and George.

 

[MARG]

Time will have to tell on the engagement thing, one of the things that people (and even myself) like about the Queen is that she keeps her opinions to herself, theres a nice interview with Patrick Jephson about that we dont know the Queens views on global warming, organic gardening, paper vs plastic, coke or pepsi, etc. so to speak.

She stays above the frey of alot of things, something mr "black spider" letter will have a hard time doing, and i fear he'll go the other way in an effort to do as much in the short time he will have. But to be fair, the blame for that is at the queens feet, shes had ample time to school him on the art of doing as she does.

Also to be fair he's done a lot of things, but hes also had a lot of time and resources available to do so, and I think to be honest he was short changed a bit in that having to wait so long for his turn, he could have been given more of her duties to do. It seemed often he was left on his own to create things to do to fill the time, and that led to some of the things the press likes to mock him about.

In older times most monarchs didnt reign as long as Elizabeth has, and while i dont suggest she step down, on the contrary, I hope she lives as long as possible to allow things to play out. But I do think she should have given him " a taste" of the crown earlier, it might have boosted his ego and given his role more definition and avoided some of his personal problems, and as a result, helped the family as a whole and made his reign easier.

Did you miss the publishing of the "Black Spider Letters" and the fact that Charles letters were exposed for what they really were? While I'm a wuss when it comes to Badger culls, I nevertheless understand the need and there must be thousands of members of the Armed Forces and their families pleased to know that he went in to bat for their benefit re the lack of resources.

He is not the only one that has written letters about the ugly Chelsea Barracks plans, just the most well known and he is as entitled to write those letters as are any other members of the public. Whether or not the Ministers take any notice is a mystery to us all as their correspondence was not required to be released.

So keep on writing Charles. If nothing else it shows you are in the know as to what is happening in your own country and expressing your own opinion!

 

[Curryong]

Richard Palmer on his Twitter page May 10th, responding to a tweet about Sophie as Duchess of Edinburgh in public life.

'A senior Royal source told me a while ago that the view at BP is that Charles's siblings will not be funded when he is King.'

 

[Dman]

Richard Palmer on his Twitter page May 10th, responding to a tweet about Sophie as Duchess of Edinburgh in public life.

'A senior Royal source told me a while ago that the view at BP is that Charles's siblings will not be funded when he is King.'

I thought people already knew that. Seems like a good idea to me though.

 

[Countessmeout]

A good idea for Charles maybe, but to who else? Do you think Charles will get any less money then his mother did? No. The difference will be Charles and his sons will get all the money. How many charities will lose patrons? people complain they don't see royals enough. Does anyone think that Charles, his sons and Kate can handle even 1/10 of the work currently done by them, queen, DOE, Gloucesters, Kents, Princess Alexandra,Edward, Sophie, Anne and Andrew? Cant even play the 'save on security' as we know Andrew and Edward pay their own.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

You can't trust Richard Palmer, and as other royal cources and our member cepe has said: Charles isn't that kind of person, so he will never do that to them.

Anne, Edward and Sophie has worked tirelessly for the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth and (alltrohg he's not my favorite person) the same goes for Andrew. And I am sure that they will continue to do so, as long as they want.