Charles & Camilla: How has your opinion changed since the wedding?

[ysbel]

randomlyKeira,

you live in London. Are you British? Will you be comfortable pledging allegiance to the King when Charles' time comes?

 

[randomlyKeira]

randomlyKeira,

you live in London. Are you British? Will you be comfortable pledging allegiance to the King when Charles' time comes?

I am British, and I will pledge allegiance to King Charles III (or King George VII as he's indicated he might wish to be called)... But I think it might be easier to pledge to Dreamboat Willy when he comes to be sovereign

 

[ysbel]

Ah, I see, randomlyKeira.

So what would your recommendations for Charles and Camilla to prepare themselves and make themselves worthy of the throne in the eyes of the people?

They're not going to have William's youth for girls to go crazy over them but what can they bring to the table to make a difference?

 

[randomlyKeira]

Ah, I see, randomlyKeira.

So what would your recommendations for Charles and Camilla to prepare themselves and make themselves worthy of the throne in the eyes of the people?

They're not going to have William's youth for girls to go crazy over them but what can they bring to the table to make a difference?

Well, I think that Charles would make an amazing monarch... He's been bread for it since he was born, and if certain people would look past what happened with Diana, then they would agree. Before Charles and Diana's romance fell apart, people thought that Charles would make a great King, and after everyone was still so captivated by Diana, that they "took her side" in a sense. Charles already has everything that someone would need to be the ruling King, he only has certain public disapproval going against him. But he really is a genuinely caring, and intelligent individual. He's a bit awkward, and non-modern, but the fact of royalty isn't meant to be modern, it dates back before recorded time.

And Camilla is really a nice woman if every person in the country and commonwealth were to meet her, which I know is impossible. She's funny, and supportive, which is what a consort is meant to be, a supporter to their spouse (again, a non-modern institution that the monarchy holds).

To sum up, I think that what Charles and Camilla really need is to in a way "distance" themselves from Diana. I loved Diana, but that really is the only thing that people hold against them, that Camilla was once not properly suited for Charles, and he had to marry Diana instead, and they kept on their affair on during their marriages. If people were to look past their affair, and the press would let them, I believe that the people in this country would learn to understand that Charles would make an excelent King...

(But the people who would think that of course would not be the people who are modernists, and wish to abolish monarchy on principal.)

 

[Al_bina]

...
I was thinking that Charles and Camilla could settle back as the monarchs and let William take center stage as the dashing future of the monarchy without jeopardizing the hereditary succession of the throne which jumping over Charles would do.
...
[snipped]

I fully concur with the above. It is wrong to change the succession rules without serious reasons. When it comes to the dim past, people should always keep in mind that (1) Princess Diana's son will continue the bloodline; and (2)Prince William needs time for good training, but not crash course.

 

[randomlyKeira]

I fully concur with the above. It is wrong to change the succession rules without serious reasons. When it comes to the dim past, people should always keep in mind that (1) Princess Diana's son will continue the bloodline; and (2)Prince William needs time for good training, but not crash course.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what both of you are suggesting, but the way I understand it is that you think Charles and Camilla should become King and consort, but let William take on the duties...

If I understand correctly, the only thing that would come of it is a further hatred towards the monarchy because they "aren't doing anything".

 

[Al_bina]

Prince Charles should ascend the throne. Prince William should take on Crown Prince's duties only and learn how to become a monarch. As for those, who would not like Price Charles to become a monarch, they should remember that nothing is eternal and Prince William will ascend the throne when the time comes.
I am not fan of the couple in question, at the same time I see no valid reasons for changing the succession order.

 

[randomlyKeira]

Prince Charles should ascend the throne. Prince William should take on Crown Prince's duties only and learn how to become a monarch. As for those, who would not like Price Charles to become a monarch, they should remember that nothing is eternal and Prince William will ascend the throne when the time comes.
I am not fan of the couple in question, at the same time I see no valid reasons for changing the succession order.

I still don't understand...

 

[love_cc]

I still don't understand...

She means that she does not like Prince Charles and Camilla much. But now she accept the fact that Prince Charles has the natural right to ascent the throne because he is the first born of the queen. And William of course should follow his father's step to take the Crown prince's duties when his father ascend the throne.

 

[randomlyKeira]

She means that she does not like Prince Charles and Camilla much. But now she accept the fact that Prince Charles has the natural right to ascent the throne because he is the first born of the queen. And William of course should follow his father's step to take the Crown prince's duties when his father ascend the throne.

Oooooohhhhhh...... I feel like an idiot.... She's tried to explain it to me about eight times, and I feel like a complete idiot...

 

[ysbel]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what both of you are suggesting, but the way I understand it is that you think Charles and Camilla should become King and consort, but let William take on the duties...

If I understand correctly, the only thing that would come of it is a further hatred towards the monarchy because they "aren't doing anything".

No, not really. At least I wasn't.

I was just thinking that Duke of Marmalade has a point in that Charles is losing his freshness by just waiting and waiting for the throne. However, he's not eternally young so he has to bring something else to the table other than the freshness of youth a William would bring.

I was also thinking that a sedate respectability is more appropriate for a monarch and consort and that the sparkle and excitement of youth is more appropriate for an heir and his consort.

 

[randomlyKeira]

No, not really. At least I wasn't.

I was just thinking that Duke of Marmalade has a point in that Charles is losing his freshness by just waiting and waiting for the throne. However, he's not eternally young so he has to bring something else to the table other than the freshness of youth a William would bring.

I was also thinking that a sedate respectability is more appropriate for a monarch and consort and that the sparkle and excitement of youth is more appropriate for an heir and his consort.

Okay, thank you for explaining... I agree...

 

[ysbel]

I just had dinner with a very nice couple: an Englishman and his American wife living in the states and asked him whether the monarchy could survive a King Charles.

He said most undoubtedly yes. He was of the opinion that once Charles becomes King, Charles will become invested with the majesty of the position of kingship and he thought that people's distaste at what transpired at his first marriage would become secondary to their desire to respect his position as King. He said that people would hesitate to speak ill of Charles when he is King for fear of undermining the institution of the monarchy.

He quoted that the monarchy is a very popular institution and people are hesitant to speak ill of the queen but he says that is because of the position she possesses. His quote was that you don't mess up your own house and for the Brits to criticize the Queen too harshly would be messing up their own house.

He was of the opinion that to criticize Charles thusly when Charles becomes King would be tantamount to the same thing.

It is but one man's opinion but I was thinking whether this would be the difference between men and women. We are mostly women on this forum and not so many men but I know that men grant respect based on position and once you gain a certain position (no matter how) men will tend to grant you the respect your position demands rather than the respect your personal conduct demands.

Since men are half of Britain's population would this difference between the sexes play a part in the reception a Charles and Camilla receive upon ascending the throne.

 

[randomlyKeira]

Well, opinions of the monarchy change from person to person, as genereal opinions do. I don't personally know anyone that is vocally against the monarchy, but the media does shove it into your face every now and then. But the people like that, that are supremely against the monarchy itself are the only ones to my knowledge would be completely against Charles being King. But public opinion of Charles isn't very high at this point, and neither is Camilla's, as this thread suggests... I had one aquaintance say that they would move out of the country should Camilla be Queen.

I don't really feel the way that your friend does about being afraid of speaking my mind about the Queen/King, of course there is general sense of respect, but I feel that they really are genuinely nice people, despite their moral errors in the past...

But I think that the country, as well as the commonwealth, will not outright protest when Charles reigns...

 

[wbenson]

He said most undoubtedly yes. He was of the opinion that once Charles becomes King, Charles will become invested with the majesty of the position of kingship and he thought that people's distaste at what transpired at his first marriage would become secondary to their desire to respect his position as King. He said that people would hesitate to speak ill of Charles when he is King for fear of undermining the institution of the monarchy.

Another thing to be considered is that at the moment the Queen draws her last breath, it will be C&C mania in the media. All eyes will be on them, and unless one of them kills a puppy on the palace balcony, it will only do good things for them.

 

[Elspeth]

He said most undoubtedly yes. He was of the opinion that once Charles becomes King, Charles will become invested with the majesty of the position of kingship and he thought that people's distaste at what transpired at his first marriage would become secondary to their desire to respect his position as King. He said that people would hesitate to speak ill of Charles when he is King for fear of undermining the institution of the monarchy.

I'm afraid that might not stop certain elements of the press, who are trying to do exactly that. It'll be interesting to see how much public opinion is against that sort of mischief-making. My guess is that since Charles and Camilla have been married several years already and Diana's memory is fading - I was surprised in one of the other threads to see how many people at TRF are too young to remember her directly - people might resist the attempts of the republican and tabloid newspapers to cause trouble. And if the trouble doesn't sell, the chances are that they'll stop trying. We can hope, anyway.

 

[milla Ca]

Sorry, but again i have to disagree with the statements that Charles is ´boring´ because he has to wait long to become King and William´s ´freshness´would qualify him to be ´the better King´.

Charles is the heir and he is exellent prepared to do the job and he works hard day by day.
His special interests ( organic farming, evironmental things, architecture, arts, supporting young people...) offer such a wide range, how can this man be boring?

William is young, that´s all. I hope he will learn, but at the moment he couldn´t fullfil this job.

I´m sure only because of the ´Diana-story´the question about whether Charles is fit to be King is in the discussion again and again.

Otherwise there is no reason to doubt that Charles will be the next King and an exellent one!

 

[Skydragon]

The Canadian poll Skydragon brought over was interesting. Here's a quote:

Unfortunately, this doddering old fool pasted an old poll, not the one intended.

Angus Reid Strategies : AngusReidStrategies News

A separate question asked Canadians about their thoughts on who should become King of the United Kingdom and Canada after the reign of Queen Elizabeth II comes to an end. Three-in-ten (29%) would like Prince William to take over, while 26 per cent believe Prince Charles—first in the line of succession—should be the King. A third of respondents (32%) maintain that there should be no monarch after the current one

So, it would appear that for some William is already losing his shine.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Unfortunately, this doddering old fool pasted an old poll, not the one intended.

Angus Reid Strategies : AngusReidStrategies News

So, it would appear that for some William is already losing his shine.

Well, he is boring. Charles was much more flashy and sparkling as a young prince in comparison and look what people think of him now that he is 60. Who says that Charles may not reach 100 years? In Germany, statistics claim that 10% of those who are 60 today will reach 100 years or more. I think that Britian and Germany are rather comparable when it comes to the aging of the population, so Charles' chances are quite good. Especially as his parents are still living, he leads a healthy life, loves his spouse, has animals and will continue to have an interesting job as long as he is capable in doing it. All aspects which help to increase the plausibility of living to an old age.

So it may well be that William will be a middle-aged PoW one day, seeing his daughter or son getting married and becoming a mother/father, making Charles great-granddad and Willie granddad - my, what a sparkling idea. And the youth of Britian will discuss if the sytsem of the Netherlands is not better than theirs, with the king/queen becoming souverain after finishing their training and giving over the crown to the next heir once it's time to retire.

IMHO the world must get used to old monarchs like it's common in Japan and to a long line of heirs who get old on waiting to get the top job while the rest of the world has to get their personal top job while they are still young.

 

[Skydragon]

Sorry, but again i have to disagree with the statements that Charles is ´boring´ because he has to wait long to become King and William´s ´freshness´would qualify him to be ´the better King´.

Charles is the heir and he is excellently prepared to do the job and he works hard day by day.
His special interests ( organic farming, environmental things, architecture, arts, supporting young people...) offer such a wide range, how can this man be boring?

William is young, that´s all. I hope he will learn, but at the moment he couldn´t fullfil this job.

I´m sure only because of the ´Diana-story´the question about whether Charles is fit to be King is in the discussion again and again.

Otherwise there is no reason to doubt that Charles will be the next King and an excellent one!

Charles is only boring to some. he isn't just a 'King in waiting', he is active in all manner of subjects, Not least the environmental issues, which are taught in the majority of schools now. The organic movement is growing, with stores falling over themselves to promote organic produce and despite the praise heaped by some on modern architecture, he speaks for a lot of people who think the plans, for most of it should have been put in the bin.

William may seem the 'ideal', young heir at the moment but he too will age and what will happen then? Will people be saying that now Charles is king, perhaps we should by pass William?

Charles has the knowledge and experience to become our next monarch, William has done... what exactly?

Well, I think that Charles would make an amazing monarch... He's been bread for it since he was born

I don't think we could say he was bred for it, but he has certainly received extensive training for the position.

 

[Roslyn]

I'm going to go out on a limb to say that IMO HM has been there too long. She's past her use-by date and is stagnating, at the expense of her son and the Monarchy generally. I wish she'd cede responsibility to Charles so he can start doing that which he has been trained to do, with precious little support and encouragement from his mother and father, since he was a child.

 

[rmay286]

Charles is only boring to some. he isn't just a 'King in waiting', he is active in all manner of subjects, Not least the environmental issues, which are taught in the majority of schools now. The organic movement is growing, with stores falling over themselves to promote organic produce and despite the praise heaped by some on modern architecture, he speaks for a lot of people who think the plans, for most of it should have been put in the bin.

William may seem the 'ideal', young heir at the moment but he too will age and what will happen then? Will people be saying that now Charles is king, perhaps we should by pass William?

Charles has the knowledge and experience to become our next monarch, William has done... what exactly?
I don't think we could say he was bred for it, but he has certainly received extensive training for the position.

I agree that Charles takes his job seriously, so I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be a hardworking king. I think, though, that a fair number of people care less about who can get the job done, than who seems fresh and exciting and can bring "renewal". The current Democratic campaign in the US is a good example: one candidate has a past that includes some scandal but also presumably a lot of useful experience. The other candidate is younger, less experienced, but more charismatic. And the country seems pretty closely split on who they think would make a better president.

I totally agree that people will be less enthused about William as he gets older, though. Maybe that's already why there has been a small decrease in support for him to directly succeed Queen Elizabeth.

I was thinking, nowadays monarchs can easily be expected to live into their nineties...given the Queen Mother's longevity, it wouldn't be surprising if Queen Elizabeth passed 100. By that time Charles will be nearly 80...then if he lives into his nineties (also a strong possibility given his father and mother's health in their eighties) William will be in his sixties when he becomes king.

And on it will go, a chain of elderly monarchs. This makes me wonder if abdication at a certain age won't eventually become the norm for a monarch. How active can a 80, 90, 100 year-old monarch be compared to a younger one?

 

[Mermaid1962]

That's the way I feel about things as well. The Queen should reign till she dies; Prince Charles becomes King for awhile but obviously not for as long as his mother; William uses that time to learn to be King, marry, and establish his own home and family.

She means that she does not like Prince Charles and Camilla much. But now she accept the fact that Prince Charles has the natural right to ascent the throne because he is the first born of the queen. And William of course should follow his father's step to take the Crown prince's duties when his father ascend the throne.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Queen should reign till she dies; Prince Charles becomes King for awhile but obviously not for as long as his mother;

Problem is that Charles (and after him William and William's eldest child and so on) will always have been "around" for some time, as heir or as souverain - no matter: being focus in the public eye. Thus the perception is bound to change but which way?

 

[Skydragon]

I was thinking, nowadays monarchs can easily be expected to live into their nineties...given the Queen Mother's longevity, it wouldn't be surprising if Queen Elizabeth passed 100. By that time Charles will be nearly 80...then if he lives into his nineties (also a strong possibility given his father and mother's health in their eighties) William will be in his sixties when he becomes king.

And on it will go, a chain of elderly monarchs. This makes me wonder if abdication at a certain age won't eventually become the norm for a monarch. How active can a 80, 90, 100 year-old monarch be compared to a younger one?

Williams maternal grandparents did not live to an incredibly ripe old age, Johnny was only 68 when he died and Frances was also 68, so longevity does not run in the Spencer genes.

I hope HM does not become as dotty as the QM appeared to become, that would be rather sad.

 

[Russophile]

Problem is that Charles (and after him William and William's eldest child and so on) will always have been "around" for some time, as heir or as souverain - no matter: being focus in the public eye. Thus the perception is bound to change but which way?

Well so what? (Not trying to be argumentative here, just blunt. Sorry!) This happened before with Edward VII. It's nothing new. HM is just this century's Victoria. (And Long Live The Queen! )

I haven't been on this weekend, but Duke of Marmalade, so what if PC talks to his plants? That's not dotty! I talk to my house plants. I talk to my basil and tomatoes in the garden. I talk to my dog. I talk to myself. I'm a regular chatterbox so no wonder my grandfather called me a "Wind bag!"

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Well so what? (Not trying to be argumentative here, just blunt. Sorry!) This happened before with Edward VII. It's nothing new. HM is just this century's Victoria. (And Long Live The Queen! )

I haven't been on this weekend, but Duke of Marmalade, so what if PC talks to his plants? That's not dotty! I talk to my house plants. I talk to my basil and tomatoes in the garden. I talk to my dog. I talk to myself. I'm a regular chatterbox so no wonder my grandfather called me a "Wind bag!"

As lomg as you don't stop talking to Mr. Russo, all should be well.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Williams maternal grandparents did not live to an incredibly ripe old age, Johnny was only 68 when he died and Frances was also 68, so longevity does not run in the Spencer genes.

I hope HM does not become as dotty as the QM appeared to become, that would be rather sad.

I guess the government already has plans what to do in case the queen gets any kind of health problem. There are many scenarios plausible, so I am convinced each as been spoken about. I wonder what the public reaction would be, though, if HM ends like her sister?

 

[Russophile]

As lomg as you don't stop talking to Mr. Russo, all should be well.

I think sometimes Mr. Russo would LIKE me to shut up!

In the movie, The Queen, they had a whole scenario of what they were going to do if the Queen Mum passed and had that slapped together for Princess Diana.
When Charles married Camilla, do they have a whole burial scenario ready to go for her as well??

 

[Elspeth]

I'm sure they do. They have a whole department of people dealing with protocol matters.