Changing Perceptions of the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall

[cepe]

Countess, you have your view and I disagree with it. He established the Prince's Trust himself with his severance pay from the Navy - his idea and his alone. He has worked to assist the young unemployed of this country and has had great success. You fail to account for the fact that he could have sat on his hands and done nothing. The work that he has done in establishing charitable trusts has been an exemplar for others, including other royal families. He has personally donated money to people in distress, such as those in Wales who have recently been made homeless by flooding.
Working at a "Habitat for Humanity" would not move on the cause it represents one iota - instead he uses the influence he has to improve - by raising £100's millions of pounds. That is far more useful. I think each person should make the best effort to help others as they can. I can give a few ££'s and a few hours. He is better in my eyes for maximising his influence.

 

[Artemisia]

I completely agree with cepe.
To belittle Prince Charles' charity work is simply wrong.

 

[sirhon11234]

I've never particularly cared for Charles, I can't really relate to him. But I've always respected him for going green. Charles went green before it went mainstream, and many people ridiculed him, but he stuck to his guns. I do like Camilla a lot more though. She has tough skin which I respect.

 

[Daria_S]

Anyone wanting to see the real Charles need look no further than this recent documentary. He is an inspirational person.

Thank you for the fabulous documentary on the Dumfries House and His Highness's involvement with it . I've only been able to watch the first half so far (slow Internet), and I'm impressed. I love that Charles took on the project because he wanted to help the community, and I also admire the fact that he's not shy to say what he dislikes about doing something like this (raising money is a 'bother', as he put it, and I can understand how that can be). His sense of humor comes through as well (the interaction with little kids in the beginning of the film and then getting excited about saying 'bling' when viewing the new flats in the community nearby). This man definitely has his heart set on helping others. There's no doubt about that. Now, I'm hoping the second half of the video will load, so I can finish watching it.

Yes it was. It was formally publsihed in 1980 with proceeds going to the Princes Trust. I've known about it for years as I bought it for a nephew. Here's the wiki link about it

The Old Man of Lochnagar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you so much for the link! Just ordered the book on Amazon, and will hopefully use it in my classroom (it's never too early to start teaching the kids about other cultures and countries).

One thing I like about Charles is that he is who he is. He doesn't try to change with the times or iron out all his little quirks. I think he is a fairly complicated person, with a lot going on under the surface. He's extremely hard working and dedicated. IMO he is, and always has been, a good father, although sometimes I think he might not be the easiest person to have as a family member. I think he's an intelligent man who's made a success of what has to be a difficult position - life long heir to the throne.

On the other hand, I get the impression he's thin skinned and perhaps prone to pettiness. I also wonder if he lacks insight into how his own actions have contributed to the negative situations he's found himself in over the years.

I think this is probably one of my favorite traits of this particular royal. He isn't ashamed of his passions and interests, no matter how quirky and 'weird' they may seem to the rest of the world. He stays true to himself, regardless of criticism. He also strikes me as someone who is very loyal.

 

[Artemisia]

I cannot answer or EIIR, but I will for me.
No, I'm not OK with Countess, you or anyone at all making such comments.
It is one thing to dislike a royal; we all have different opinions which we are entitled to. But making offensive remarks for the sake of it - it's just low.

I've often commented on Camilla's and other royal ladies' appearances, favourably and critically, but will never consider offending women who cannot defend themselves. In fact, I tend to avoid any remarks that can pass and offensive (here and in real life) because they lead to no constructive discussion.

Please, do not regard this as a personal attack against you; it is not one - merely an observation. New as I may be to this forum, your dislike for Charles and Camilla is blatantly apparent even to me, which is fine. I respect you and respect your opinion, whether we agree, or not.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Hey guys just wanting to say let's stay on track ok? What kind of man is Charles, let's not replay the divorce debates again.
I'm still stuck on the fact that he wrote a book for his baby brother, that is so cute! I do frequently wonder what kind of brother he is and how they all interact. I believe he and Anne were once quite close.

 

[Artemisia]

Hey guys just wanting to say let's stay on track ok? What kind of man is Charles, let's not replay the divorce debates again.
I'm still stuck on the fact that he wrote a book for his baby brother, that is so cute! I do frequently wonder what kind of brother he is and how they all interact. I believe he and Anne were once quite close.

I hadn't been aware of the book before it was pointed out in this thread; a really sweet gesture of him to write a book for his little brothers.
In one of the interviews, Prince Charles mentioned that because of the age difference, he felt like a second father for Andrew and Edward.
As for Anne, in the early pictures of them they appear to be very close, with Charles appearing to have been a very protective big brother.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Hey guys just wanting to say let's stay on track ok? What kind of man is Charles, let's not replay the divorce debates again.

I'm sorry, XeniaCasaraghi, but I think the way each person perceives Charles' behavior in his marriage is a big factor in how to judge the kind of man he is. I believe the fact that he never publicly criticized Diana is a major indication that he is basically a good man and a good father. He certainly made some major mistakes in his marriage, but you can say that about every other divorced person, including Diana.

 

[Mirabel]

My impression of Charles?
Sensitive, perhaps overly so.
Kind, intelligent, often witty.
Arrogant, needy, entitled, extravagant (at least, compared to his mother).
Sincerely concerned with things like the environment, architecture, the history and the character of Britain.
Of all the Queen's children, he seems to me to be the one most suited to reign.

He did not appear at his best during that marriage, but then, who could under the circumstances?
Since then he has done his best to earn the respect and love of the British people, and I think he has come a long way towards achieving that goal.

When he finally succeeds to the throne, I suspect everyone (other than a few Diana fanatics who persist in thinking she's a candidate for sainthood) will support him and wish him well.

 

[Kataryn]

Charles is who he is. He has been given, by fate a position that allows him to do what he wants. So, he is nice and quite petulant at the same time. He was a miserable husband to his first wife ( he loved someone else and kept her as his lover) and a wonderful husband to his mistress whom, by fate, again, he could marry. Camilla is a target, because she was "the other woman" and to that end she was a problem in their lives. But, to realistic thought she never pushed her way in and it was Charles who was the problem for Diana. Diana was a fool, because she could have had him, he could have been the only villain. She chose otherwise. Charles has little regard for what is outside his realm. Don't tell me about the Princes's Trust. which was fabricated for him, at his name placed on it. You never see him in overalls in someone's home trying to physically help. He is above the fray. He will never work at a Habitat for Humanity, which even some of our presidents do. He doesn't get his hands dirty with human soil, nor does his mother. They smile and give a bit and that is their donation to travail. I, actually, have more respect for Camilla. I, think she knows how to get her hands dirty, in a good way, like Diana.

Oh, Countess, where to start...
Charles is a gardener. That it his hobby. Thus of course he has often dirty hands from gardening, we all have seen the pics of him actually working in his garden.
But why is it so important that he should do menial work when he can achieve so much more doing other things? In my book, for a future Head of State delegational skills are the most important things to have, for lets face it: Heads of State never muck out other people's stables. It doesn't matter if they are born to their position or voted into office - they are there to be proper figureheads at the top of a effectively working organisation. And Charles has been able to build up such a backbone organisation for his work and personal life.

Apart from his first wife, he has been able to get loyality from most people he surrounded himself with and while he might have been at the end of his tether with Diana at one point and after that became a miserable husband, one has to see that Diana became a miserable wife right on their honeymoon when the tantrums started and she turned out to be a completely different woman from the one Charles has proposed marriage to. In my book Diana, whether conscious or not, was a cheat from the beginning when it came to the image she projected of herself and her interestes compared to her true self and wishes.

And even then Charles was unused to such a situation and failed her, like she failed him. Does that make him a hypocrite or just a flawed human being? In my book he is like one of us, but one of the better sort: human but always trying to overcome his faults and to make a positive difference in life.

 

[Osipi]

I don't think that there's one among us that isn't aware of the period of time that surrounded Charles' first marriage but when we really think about it, what we base our opinions on are bits and pieces that have come across to us via various mediums and unless we were there and involved in the whole scenario, there's no way we'd ever have the total and complete story. We all have our own points of view on this time period and of course, our likes and dislikes and for the most part they are respected here. In delving into who Charles the man is, if we tend to focus on just one aspect of his lifetime and the other personages that affected it, we end up with a very narrow portrait of who this man really is.

I have to love his quirkiness too. Not many people I know still wear the same shoes they've had for over 40 years. In a way this points out to me that he takes care of things (ok.. ok.. perhaps he has someone that does the upkeep on the shoes) and is very meticulous about how things should be... a perfectionist. The only place I've heard of where things are haphazard and scattered all over is his office/study where he spends a lot of time dashing off his "black spider letters". Then there's the famous toilet seat that goes with him wherever he goes. I think I remember reading somewhere that he even collects them.

 

[Tyger]

Here is an interesting article from when Charles was turning 40 - in October 1988. Right at that 'crucial' moment in the marriage that we are very much aware of now. Some interesting text from the article follows the link -

LINK TO ARTICLE: Charles Turning 40: A Dangerous Age
At 40 Prince Charles Is Drifting Away from Diana and His Two Sons into a Separate Life

Even in October 1988, it was recognized:

"He has a record of achievement unmatched by any other Prince of Wales in British history."

He was getting some very good press - we tend to forget in the way dust gets kicked up to cloud history:

"Add to all that: ruddy good health, scorching charm, lively wit, ever-ready virility and a flair for the arts—he paints, pots and plays the cello with admirable skill. What more could a man want?"

He has held a steady course:

"Yet time and again this monarch-in-waiting has charged into dangerous terrain. Charles has championed scholarships for the poor, raised financing for start-up businesses and launched a nationwide campaign to protect the environment. "I don't just want to be seen trundling around," he has said. "I want to be involved in something that makes a difference." "

Significantly:

"At times the prince's initiatives have irritated the supremely irritable mistress of No. 10 Downing Street."

I have long had the suspicion that those bizarre leaked conversations between Camilla and Charles - recorded over a long period and patched together, was the work of some very malicious intent, someone keen on denigrating the monarchy - and Charles in particular. The then 'mistress of No. 10 Downing Street' has more than once crossed my mind as the initiator of that nastiness.

"Despite his achievements, Charles seems to agree ruefully with biographer Holden that his existence is essentially "a comfortable form of inherited imprisonment." "

"When asked how he sees himself he may answer with a wry smile, "Sometimes, I suppose, as a bit of a twit.""

Fascinating, it then begins the litany that already then was gaining steam. But what is of note here - and that revisionist social historians forget is that Charles always demonstrated love and caring of Diana - it was noticed and notable:

"Problems in the prince's marriage have added to his malaise. His once burning passion for Diana has faded to a chilly cinder, and the tender father who changed William's nappies and pushed his pram has hardened into a quasi-delinquent parent. "When the going with the children gets tough," says one close observer, "the prince gets going." Over the last year, Charles has spent long periods away from Diana, and it is now tacitly understood in royal circles that he has sought out the company of other women."

Dealing with the tragedy at Klosters and the death of his friend:

"Charles's admirable grace under pressure disarmed his detractors."

Then there is a litany of his negatives that we know all too well now - endlessly repeated without any of the good noted, but this insight - that we very likely have the Prince of Wales we have because of Mountbattan:

"At Mountbatten's insistence, Charles became the first Prince of Wales to complete a university education. ("I'm one of those stupid bums who never went," Philip grumped, "and I don't think it's done me any harm.") [...] Graduating at 21 with a respectable "second" in history."

There is this on his series of girlfriends - written in 1988, there is nary a mention of Camilla Shand:

"Most of Charlie's Angels (as the press called the ladies he dated) were high-born British beauties who traveled in his own smart set: Davina Sheffield, Fiona Watson, Camilla Fane and Lady Jane Wellesley. However, the grand passion of the prince's youth—the one woman he desperately wanted to wed—was Anna Wallace, a sexy Scottish lass with a rip-roaring sense of humor. Alas, Anna also had a fiery temper—not for nothing was she known as Whiplash Wallace—and one night at a palace ball it blew their affair to flinders. The prince carelessly ignored his ladylove for several hours, and when at last he went looking for her she was gone—forever. Charles was devastated."

There is this bit of evidence of just how harrowing it was to have Philip as the disapproving father:

"All things considered, Charles's military record was slightly better than his father's. Was Philip satisfied? Not for a minute. He continued to label his son "wet" (British for wimp) and to invent sadistic ways of "toughening him up." Just after Mountbatten's assassination, for instance, knowing that Charles was stricken with grief, Philip harped on the horrible event at the dinner table until Charles burst into tears. "Perhaps now," Philip sniffed, "he won't cry at the funeral." "

Here is an interesting summary of Charles and Diana's courtship and early marriage - again, revisionist social historians - like some Diana Fans I've encountered - fail to understand that Charles and Diana did share a love, despite her re-spin of their early married life:

"Diana caught him on the rebound. As a schoolgirl she had kept his picture pinned above her cot and once confessed to a friend, "I would love to be Princess of Wales." Hope got a boost when he began to date her sister, and when in turn he asked her out she was in seventh heaven. Charles was in despair. With Anna gone, he wondered if he would ever find a woman he loved enough to marry. One day he asked Queen Mother Elizabeth what he should do. Well aware that Diana adored him—and that older, more worldly paramours often had romantic histories that made them unacceptable to the palace—she made a historic suggestion.

And so the wheels of courtship began to turn. Diana was in love, Charles was in business—the business of sustaining the dynasty—and he was brutally truthful about his motives. When asked if he was in love, Charles made a face and replied churlishly: "Whatever 'in love' means." For almost a year he watched Diana as a director watches an actress reading for a part, and he was impressed. She had everything he needed in a wife and a queen: looks, moves, background, temperament. She was spirited, energetic, affectionate—and a virgin. So he gave her the job. It was almost as coldly calculated as that.

But something happened on the honeymoon. The man who came home from that two-week Mediterranean cruise had been shot through the heart by Cupid's arrow. He radiated a joy that persisted for several years. Charles was right by Diana's side when William arrived, and for a time he doted like a nanny. "He knows so much about babies," Diana teased. "I think he should have the next one." But by the time the next baby showed up, the splendor had faded. Charles was present when Harry was born, but immediately after the delivery rushed off to play polo."

Interestingly, that Charles was wandering was a matter of fact, not speculation, in 1988. In a discussion of Charles' possible amours at the time, several married women are mentioned (never Camilla). However, this is said of Diana, when we now know that at the time (1988) she was in her head-over-heels love affair with James Hewitt. Were Diana to have an affair she would risk her marriage - which was one of the reasons I thought the divorce happened, because she admitted publicly - to the nation - to being in love ("I adored him") and having an affair while married to the heir to the throne. The double standard is unfair but there it is:

"Diana herself is considered unlikely to start an affair. "Her position as Princess of Wales means more to her than anything in the world," says a friend. "There is no way she would risk this for a silly fling." "

Poignantly, the article ends with the promise of one or two more children - perhaps a little princess. What a different world it would have been for all concerned had that, in fact, happened:

"So what lies ahead for these star-crossed prisoners of privilege? Some friends of the royal couple maintain optimistically that the marriage has "bottomed out" and that "things can only get better." They may be right. Diana appears to be looking ahead with a measure of hope. "I'd love a daughter," she chirped some months ago. "You can dress them in such pretty clothes." And Charles, though he mutters sourly that "two noisy boys are enough," is known to want two more children. "Now that Fergie has had her baby," says a friend of the family, "Di may soon become pregnant again." That might resolve matters for Diana—if not for Charles. At 40, some men pull themselves together. Others lose their way. It's a dangerous age."

 

[sirhon11234]

I don't think that there's one among us that isn't aware of the period of time that surrounded Charles' first marriage but when we really think about it, what we base our opinions on are bits and pieces that have come across to us via various mediums and unless we were there and involved in the whole scenario, there's no way we'd ever have the total and complete story. We all have our own points of view on this time period and of course, our likes and dislikes and for the most part they are respected here. In delving into who Charles the man is, if we tend to focus on just one aspect of his lifetime and the other personages that affected it, we end up with a very narrow portrait of who this man really is.

Well said, thank you for writing this Osipi. I agree full heartily with everything especially the last sentence. It applies to Diana, Camilla, and really people in general.

 

[Jacknch]

When I think of the Prince of Wales, the first thing that comes to mind is his home at Highgrove and the incredible way in which he has created an enchanting place to live. With the organic kitchen garden and all the food produced locally for superb lunches and dinners and the amazing gardens to explore and enjoy afterwards. His life there must be magical and a joy away from the outside world. The interiors are regal yet cosy and crammed full of elegance and his idea of a home is one of traditional English charm and beauty. He has equisite taste. I see Charles as being quite traditional, set in his ways, creating a wonderful world and lifestyle around him, yet not a flashy one or one that is distasteful. Yet he is not stade or tired or lacking in charisma. Far from it. He is visionary, he sees things about the world that are wrong and he wants to do what he can to change it. He is creative and artistic and this purvades throughout all aspects of his life. I would find him fascinating to talk with.

 

[Madame Royale]

We share a similar impression of Charles (I find he's quite an organic character with a feel for natural beauty), although I see his taste for interiors as leaning more towards that of a late Victorian/early Edwardian clutter; of surfaces crowded with bric-a-brac and the rooms often crammed with furniture. He is to me a 'progressive Edwardian' at heart so it idealy fits his image by all accounts. It suits him and aptly portrays his personality.

And although I don't consider his taste (again, in regards to interior design) as being 'exquisite', I would describe it as being 'regally fitting'.

 

[sirhon11234]

Here is an interesting summary of Charles and Diana's courtship and early marriage - again, revisionist social historians - Diana Fans - fail to understand that Charles and Diana did share a love, despite her re-spin of their early married life:

Excuse me? I understand fully well that Charles and Diana did love each other. It may not have been on the same level as his love for Camilla is but it was there. There is footage and dozens upon dozens of photos that depicts their feelings together. There is one funny photo of Charles and Diana at a polo match where Charles pinched her buttocks.
One should be careful when making generalizations about different groups of people.

 

[Tyger]

Excuse me? [...] One should be careful when making generalizations about different groups of people.

Fair enough. I've altered the phrase to read: like some Diana fans I have encountered.

 

[maryr0249]

Here is an interesting article from when Charles was turning 40 - in October 1988. Right at that 'crucial' moment in the marriage that we are very much aware of now. Some interesting text from the article follows the link -

LINK TO ARTICLE: Charles Turning 40: A Dangerous Age
At 40 Prince Charles Is Drifting Away from Diana and His Two Sons into a Separate Life

That is an intriguing article. Four years later, two of the authors, Smith and Thorpe-Tracey, participated in writing another article about Charles' love life that put a different spin on things, one with lots of Camilla and no Anna.

Love on the Rocks - Affairs, The British Royals, Camilla Parker Bowles, Prince Charles, Princess Diana : People.com

Yet the 1988 article mentioned Lucia Santa Cruz, who popped up later, after C&C married, referred to as the person who introduced them in 1971.

Prince Charles takes Camilla to lunch with 'first girlfriend' in Chile - Telegraph

I'm strongly in favor of the idea that they met and became lovers in 1971. It's just another opinion. By the way (I think -rather, a wild romantic guess), here's a shot of the ring that appeared at the end of 2011 (30 years?). It isn't a plain gold band as I thought at first. And in another, it isn't her wedding band.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I'm strongly in favor of the idea that they met and became lovers in 1971. It's just another opinion. By the way (I think -rather, a wild romantic guess), here's a shot of the ring that appeared at the end of 2011 (30 years?). It isn't a plain gold band as I thought at first. And in another, it isn't her wedding band.[/QUOTE]

I also was wondering about the ring.

I thought Charles had given her back his wedding band as their relationship seemed strain she seemed so unhappy for several months. (Or she was wearing it because his finger was swollen.)

But since the Jubilee they seem happy and I thought it was a 40th anniversary gift of their 1st date or 1st kiss. (In recent pictures, the ring appears thicker than the one worn in the winter.)

They were formally introduced in August of 1971 but the ring appeared around November of 2011.

It would be an extremely romantic gesture if was an anniversary gift of their 1st kiss or 1st date.

That would say a lot about Charles if he remembered his 1st kiss with Camilla.

 

[Zonk]

Please note that off topic posts have been deleted.

Let's stay on topic...we don't need to rehash the Charles/Diana/Camilla triangle.

 

[Jacknch]

Just to say that the ring mentioned / in the image above is a Russian wedding ring, comprising of three inter-linked bands of yellow, rose and white gold. I believe Sarah, Duchess of York wore/wears one too on her little finger. Interestingly, the Russian Creed was sung at Charles and Camilla's wedding so it seems that Charles takes an interest in the culture of Russia.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

It's the Cartier Trinity ring that all the royal brides (ex. HM) wear (or have worn). On another note, but jewelry related, Cartier has a fab new Panthere necklace that is beyond exquisite.

 

[Madame Royale]

Err, why is this becoming a disucssion about a ring located on Camilla's pinky finger?

 

[cepe]

Err, why is this becoming a disucssion about a ring located on Camilla's pinky finger?

Good point this is a thread about Charles which I was enjoying.

 

[Artemisia]

The ring was presumably given to Camilla by Prince Charles and shows his caring and romantic side, and so is probably within the boundaries of this thread.

 

[Madame Royale]

Is 'the assumption of possibility' the only justified reason though? For all anyone knows the ring could have belonged to one of her grandparents or parents. Furthermore no one knows the significance of the ring, other than...

A ring with three bands intertwined is a Christian symbol. The three unsoldered bands represent the Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. A circle is an endless line, having no beginning and no end, symbolizing eternity or God.

Like cepe, I too was enjoying this thread and although I have momentarily partaken in the said discussion for the sake of providing at least some factual clarity, I hope others will continue to post their own considered impressions of Charles and not Camilla's jewellery which has a thread dedicated for that very purpose.

 

[Jacknch]

Err, why is this becoming a disucssion about a ring located on Camilla's pinky finger?

Because someone mentioned it and I thought I would state what I knew about the ring. It is regretable that I have spoiled the enjoyment of this thread for you both.

 

[EIIR]

Charles is who he is. He has been given, by fate a position that allows him to do what he wants. So, he is nice and quite petulant at the same time. He was a miserable husband to his first wife ( he loved someone else and kept her as his lover) and a wonderful husband to his mistress whom, by fate, again, he could marry. Camilla is a target, because she was "the other woman" and to that end she was a problem in their lives. But, to realistic thought she never pushed her way in and it was Charles who was the problem for Diana. Diana was a fool, because she could have had him, he could have been the only villain. She chose otherwise. Charles has little regard for what is outside his realm. Don't tell me about the Princes's Trust. which was fabricated for him, at his name placed on it. You never see him in overalls in someone's home trying to physically help. He is above the fray. He will never work at a Habitat for Humanity, which even some of our presidents do. He doesn't get his hands dirty with human soil, nor does his mother. They smile and give a bit and that is their donation to travail. I, actually, have more respect for Camilla. I, think she knows how to get her hands dirty, in a good way, like Diana.

This has to be one of the most amazing posts I've read on this forum, and I don't mean that in a good way. The way in which you contrive to belittle Charles personally, and his enormously successful Trust is quite stunning.

Anyone who knows anything about Charles knows about his passion for the Prince's Trust (and his other causes). He set it up himself and is the driving force behind it. He chose to concentrate his efforts on a part of society - young people not in employment, education or training (known in the UK as NEETs) - despite the fact that it has to be one of the most unfashionable causes in the country. Instead of flying to Africa on a private jet to be photographed with starving children, or wearing a pink tie or socks for breast cancer sufferers, he has taken on one of the most pressing social problems in this country.

In the recent documentary on Dumfries House, we saw a man more than willing to get his hands dirty. He undertook to save the house and its contents for the nation, despite it necessitating his taking on enormous financial liabilities. He was there in the middle of winter, in his wellies, planting trees in the mud. He's creating employment and opportunity in one of the most deprived parts of the UK. You could say, well why doesn't he 'get his hands dirty' by doing the work himself? But for him to do so, would hugely diminish the amount of good he can do. Does it make more sense for Charles to be stripping wallpaper or using his 'convening power' to raise over £100 million per year? The answer's obvious.

We can all judge Charles's personal life and the mistakes he's made. His charity work, however, is without equal in this or any other RF, and to claim otherwise is deeply unfair.

 

[Tyger]

Beautifully written and cogently expressed post, EIIR. Totally agree.

 

[fearghas]

. Does it make more sense for Charles to be stripping wallpaper or using his 'convening power' to raise over £100 million per year? The answer's obvious.

We can all judge Charles's personal life and the mistakes he's made. His charity work, however, is without equal in this or any other RF, and to claim otherwise is deeply unfair.

This reminds me of a story I read in one of the books about Queen Victorias descendants. (It a little bit of tangent but it is relevant). It's about Princess Luoise of Battenberg, Queen of Sweden, Prince Phillips Aunts. She is often described as down to earth, sensible, not impressed by her or others royal status and a great supporter of charity.
The story goes that one of her young nieces (one of Phillips sisters?) came across her Aunt sorting books for a charity drive. These werre books given to her by various royal relations and on the flyleaves of the books were inscriptions like " To my dearest niece Louise, may your birthday be a delight and you find this book a great inspiration, from your Aunt Alexandria R" and so on. These were books from Romanoff, Windsor, Hohenzollerns, Hessians and so forth. To the girls horror Louise was busy tearing off these valuable flyleaves. Her reasoning. "a signature at the front doesn't make the book a better read."
The Queen was busy turning books, which could have fetched $1000s of dollers each into something worthless that, if you were lucky, might get a doller or two.

Now which is the better charity driver, Charles or Louise? Louise was the sort of person who would get stuck in and pull wallpaper off, she probably was very good at putting it up as well. But she never really understood the value of her position.
Charles might not get his hands dirty by pulling down wallpaper, which face it any one can do, but he he knows the value of his name and position. He does an awful lot more by convincing people with the money and talent to do something than by doing it himself.