The Monarchy under Charles

[camelot23ca]

I wonder if he'll be a much more outspoken King than the current Queen is (he does like to give speeches and I, for one, think he's very good at it - and his causes are the ones the world should embrace). He seems to take his political role seriously (although staying within the bounds of ordinary discourse/use of media and availability of venues to make his points.

That would be great, really - to see him turn the Crown into a role where he could speak out as he does now, but with an even greater impact.

I actually think Charles being unable to resist the temptation to speak out is the one thing most likely to come between him and a successful reign. The British monarch, as head of state, can't be seen as having any sort of agenda to push.

I think Charles seems like an intelligent man with an interesting point of view on different issues. There are ways he could incorporate some of his pet causes and interests into his reign as king and I think as long as he doesn't do it in a way that could be construed as political or partisan it would be fine. But it's a fine line and I wonder if Charles is too self indulgent to understand where that line is and why he absolutely can't cross it.

 

[NGalitzine]

Charles has had a very long time in training. He is probably better prepared for kingship that any of his predecessors in history. I am very sure he understands the constraints that will take over his life the moment he accends the throne.

 

[COUNTESS]

One never knows, until one is faced with the "real" situation. Charles is Charles, an overindulged, never openly loved child, who married his real mother. How he handles his kingship, will be evident, when he is faced with it. Do not surmise.

 

[Anna Catherine]

One never knows, until one is faced with the "real" situation. Charles is Charles, an overindulged, never openly loved child, who married his real mother. How he handles his kingship, will be evident, when he is faced with it. Do not surmise.

I think it's really important we be really respectful of people and not listen to tabloids and rumours. I think Charles has made his mistakes and yes he probably was spoiled, but I don't think that diminshes the things he has done through advocacy and charity work. He isn't my favorite really, but I do respect him. Also, I think Camilla makes him immensely happy and he seems more comfortable with his life and with himself than ever. That said:
I really don't think Charles is too overly political now. Sure he gives his opinion here and there and supports and advocates for different causes, but I think that is what makes him admirable. I think he will be a different kind of king and advocate and bring to light many causes and issues often overlooked.

 

[muriel]

I for one would hope that Charles would step aside and not become King, largely due to his political views. I am politically on the right and have greatly enjoyed some of the things that he's done (such as not inviting any Labour PMs to William and Kate's wedding), but a King should not do such things--it's best that the citizenry have no idea what a monarch's political views are. Queen Elizabeth and King Michael of Romania are two of the best monarchs today since their political views are a total mystery.

A King's role is to be a national symbol, a uniter of people and a check on tyranny. When Charles spouts off his political views, he fails at the first two of those roles. If he wants to be active in the political realm, then he should run for elected office rather than serve as royalty.

Are you able to provide an example of when Charles has spouted a "political view"? IMO he has never let his own political views be known, and has always engaged with the governments of the day, irrespective of their political leanings. He may set out his thoughts on some of the matters of the day, but never in a political way.

The only former PMs invited to the royal wedding were Garter Knights, both Blair and Brown were not. The Garter is in the gift of HM, and not the PoW.

 

[Kataryn]

When Charles spouts off his political views, he fails at the first two of those roles. If he wants to be active in the political realm, then he should run for elected office rather than serve as royalty.

Charles at the moment is not the souverain but a peer of the realm. Which was an active political role till the reform of the House of Lords and would allow him today to actively run for political office.

The main idea to create Royal Dukes was for the Crown to get political influence through creating Royal commoner princes into peers with a right to a seat and to vote in the House of Lords which for a long time had been the more influencial chamber of British parliament. More often than no this possibility was not used as the Royal family always felt they should be above politics, but it served as a kind of threat to parliament that they could in fact be active there if they wanted.

Charles AFAIK never took his seat at the Lords but he is a politcally interested and active man- which he should be. Because even though he tries in a political way to do what his ancestors did as well: care for their subjects and the country, he tries to do it above the system of party politics - he is himself his opwn "interest group" and he lobbies and acts according to his belief. He advises openly, when as king he will advice behind the Royal curtain, but it's the advice that counts from someone who by tradition was born to be the keeper of the kingdom.

 

[Renata4711]

I'm sorry to say this, but I hope that Charles does not become King in my lifetime...

 

[CSENYC]

Are you able to provide an example of when Charles has spouted a "political view"?

Sure, for one:

'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Charles urges environmentalists | Mail Online

Royal mania continues: Prince Charles heads to the Hill - On Congress - POLITICO.com

And lots more. I agree with many of his views, but he should stay out of these matters.

 

[Renata4711]

That presents him with an unsolvable problem.
Someone once said, "Life is politics, and politics is life".

Which bits of "life" would he be allowed to get involved in ?

 

[muriel]

Sure, for one:

'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Charles urges environmentalists | Mail Online

Royal mania continues: Prince Charles heads to the Hill - On Congress - POLITICO.com

And lots more. I agree with many of his views, but he should stay out of these matters.

I am not sure how highlighting environemental concerns represents a political view - would you like to explain your point?

 

[Kataryn]

I am not sure how highlighting environemental concerns represents a political view - would you like to explain your point?

IMHO it is absolutely legitimate for a future king to be concerned for the environment - it is his kingdom after all and when the environment is threatened it is his job and duty to do something against it, IMHO. It's not about walking once a year into parliament wearing a crown on his head but it's about protecting his people and his country for future generations.

 

[Daisiesforever]

Do you really think that Charles looks relaxed and happy? I think he is just becoming too old and "fuddy duddy" to care much about anything really. He reminds me more and more of his father each day. His concepts of organic gardening prove that he is not politically droven at all. Does he have it in him to keep all our splendid traditions going that have become the all inspiring foundations of our country? I am not so certain any more. Being a King is a job, a duty, a sense of responsibility. A person to admire who brings a wealth patriotism to our land. It is not a fun and games role at all nor is it about dressing up in crowns and tiaras either.

 

[Osipi]

Do you really think that Charles looks relaxed and happy? I think he is just becoming too old and "fuddy duddy" to care much about anything really.

I do think he looks relaxed and happy at this stage of his life. He's at an age now where most men are actively planning their retirement to sail into their happy golden years, but like the other elderly people in the Windsor family, he shows no inclination of slowing down. When you think about it, as working royals, the Queen, DoE, Charles and Anne have schedules and commitments that would daunt the majority of people in their age groups. Happy? Oh yes! Almost daily our own Iceflower keeps us up to date on Charles' engagements. I've come to notice that for the majority of the photos snapped of Charles show a genuinely happy man that is enjoying where he is.

Charles cares about things that matter to him. Organic farming and the environment is one. He's out there promoting it, supporting it and even writing books about it (Harmony was released last year I believe). As well as getting down and getting dirty at Highgrove, he's also in the position where he feels he can do something about it. As with his other passions (look at the list of organizations the Prince's Trust covers), he's also very vocal and is a very avid letter writer. For me, putting together his interests show him to be concerned about his country and his people and the things that affect them. A bit of info: The Prince's Trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CSENYC]

I am not sure how highlighting environemental concerns represents a political view - would you like to explain your point?

Prince Charles lobbied members of Congress in the US for his environmental views. That's clearly political- if trying to persuade legislators to adopt a viewpoint isn't political, what is?

 

[Russophile]

Do you really think that Charles looks relaxed and happy? I think he is just becoming too old and "fuddy duddy" to care much about anything really. He reminds me more and more of his father each day. His concepts of organic gardening prove that he is not politically droven at all. Does he have it in him to keep all our splendid traditions going that have become the all inspiring foundations of our country? I am not so certain any more. Being a King is a job, a duty, a sense of responsibility. A person to admire who brings a wealth patriotism to our land. It is not a fun and games role at all nor is it about dressing up in crowns and tiaras either.

I think Charles has more of a handle on the situatino and the position than any of us knows. I am looking forward to King Charles though I agree with some posters that he ought to keep his political views in check.

 

[MARG]

. . . . . . Charles is Charles, an overindulged, never openly loved child, who married his real mother. . . . . . . .

Pop Psyc 101? Would you care to share your reference for the above?

I have to wonder what were you thinking?

• I agree that Charles is most certainly Charles, but did you think he might have been cloned or replaced by a replicant?
• Overindulged? Certainly he did not lack in the essentials, rather like most children of privilige, so this is what? Good, bad, indifferent?
• Never openly loved child? Are you saying that because our Queen and her Consert followed the cultural norms of their time and did not hug, cuddle, kiss and tickle in public that he is lacking some essential quality? Emotionally or intellectually crippled?
• Who married his mother? Sick! Time to resit that paper I think.

 

[COUNTESS]

Pop Psyc 101? Would you care to share your reference for the above?


I have to wonder what were you thinking?

• I agree that Charles is most certainly Charles, but did you think he might have been cloned or replaced by a replicant?
• Overindulged? Certainly he did not lack in the essentials, rather like most children of privilige, so this is what? Good, bad, indifferent?
• Never openly loved child? Are you saying that because our Queen and her Consert followed the cultural norms of their time and did not hug, cuddle, kiss and tickle in public that he is lacking some essential quality? Emotionally or intellectually crippled?
• Who married his mother? Sick! Time to resit that paper I think.

First of all he is who he is. Good, bad or indiffernet.
Yes, he was overindulged, because he comes from utter privilege. I don't think he even cracks his own egg. There are those from privilege, in our country, who, actually, work. Drive their own cars and take care of themselves, but I digress. He is the one who claimed he had a terrible childhood, not I. He had it written in a book. Dimbeldy. So, it must have bothered him. And, I do feel sorry for him. I don't think he was hugged or kissed or cuddled by his parents in private, either. Cultural norms of the time? Or cold BRF norms. He was closest to his grandmother. I think that is where and his nanny, he got his affection. That is a shame. I don't know the word "resit" And he married Camilla, because she gave him unconditional love and affection. That is not a crime. It is an attribute. She stayed loyal and loving. Say what you will about Diana, she opened a door for him and the BRF to show they were real people. Her sons knew they were loved.

 

[muriel]

Prince Charles lobbied members of Congress in the US for his environmental views. That's clearly political- if trying to persuade legislators to adopt a viewpoint isn't political, what is?

1) As Charles is not a member of the royal family of the US, he is perfectly within his rights to meet with anybody in the US, or even lobby them. He does not need to be apolitical in the US, even though he is.

2) Meeting a member of Parliament to discuss environmental concerns cannot be considered being political. Environmental issues are hardly what might be considered party political issues.

 

[Renata4711]

I'm not keen on Charles, but I agree with Muriel's viewpoint.

 

[CSENYC]

1) As Charles is not a member of the royal family of the US, he is perfectly within his rights to meet with anybody in the US, or even lobby them. He does not need to be apolitical in the US, even though he is.

2) Meeting a member of Parliament to discuss environmental concerns cannot be considered being political. Environmental issues are hardly what might be considered party political issues.

OK, to each his/her own.

Environmental issues (and things like Prince Charles' statements that we should follow "the Islamic way" for environmental matters), and other statements of his, would be highly politicized in the US, even if they wouldn't be in the UK. I don't know how they'd fare in the other Commonwealth realms.

I don't see that it matters where he engages in political discourse, as such things would surely be reported back home.

Prince Charles may well be allowed to say what he says, but I just really don't think it's wise. If a monarch takes stands on issues but isn't accountable to the electorate, then the result could be to get rid of the monarchy. I don't want that.

 

[EIIR]

The idea that the Queen is apolitical is a complete fallacy. She does not partake in party politics which is exactly as it should be. Neither does Charles.

An example of the Queen exerting political influence is in the leak in the last few days that Buckingham Palace was 'flabbergasted' that David Cameron hired Andy Coulson, previously of News International. This kind of leak can only have come from the very upper echelons of Buckingham Palace and I would suggest with the Queen's tacit if not overt approval.

Her political involvement has ranged from further strategically placed 'leaks' letting it be known that the Queen took various PMs to task over the funding and equipping of the military. The judgements governments make over how to spend taxpayers money are fundamentally political judgements. Another example is where she stated during a very high profile speech to MPs, at a time when the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales was being prepared, that she had been crowned 'Queen of the United Kingdom of GB and NI'. A not-so-subtle indication that she was not particularly in favour of devolution as it threatens the break up of the UK.

I have zero issue with this kind of political activity. We are all political beings. You can be utterly certain that the Queen makes her views very well known to all the government ministers during private audiences.

The 'meddling' of Charles, and the Queen for that matter, happens because they both care very deeply for the future of our nation. They also both, at this stage in their lives, have an awful lot of experience of public life in the UK. So long as they're not getting into Conservative v Labour style party politics I'm happy for the status quo to continue.

 

[Anna Catherine]

Very true. Don't forget the monarch gets letters as well from people with concerns which she can send off to the right individuals or response in some way herself. Their duty is directly to the people and the people's concerns and their representation of the people nationally and abroad. The Queen does express her opinion and is always updated of the ongoings of Parliament and the government. She is extremely important for the people even more so than even her "subjects", for lack of better word, even realize or appreciate. I watched a video about her daily duties as monarch and her life which she narrated. i was really interesting and eyeopening. I understand the monarchy and its significance in a totally different way.

 

[Royal Fan]

wonder if he will be Charles III or George VII

 

[Renata4711]

The Family may have got used to Camilla, but they may underestimate the pent-up feelings of the British people regarding her.
There will be no crowning of Camilla.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Family may have got used to Camilla, but they may underestimate the pent-up feelings of the British people regarding her.
There will be no crowning of Camilla.

Pent up feelings? No Crowning? Can you prove any of your assumptions?

 

[Tyger]

The Family may have got used to Camilla, but they may underestimate the pent-up feelings of the British people regarding her. There will be no crowning of Camilla.

This will always puzzle me - why it is that 'the public' will presume to know Diana 'more' than the people who really did know her in life?

What would be the root cause of 'pent-up feelings' about Camilla by the public in the first place? As far as I know Camilla was a private individual and never spoke publicly until her marriage.

Correct me if I'm wrong - the wife of Charles will be crowned Queen when he becomes King. Has there ever been a situation where the 'mood' of the public - and a fraction of the public - has determined the succession? If the 'mood' of a part of the general public were to impact something as personal (marriage) and fundamental as crowning, would that not then be a fundamental change in the monarchy? Is that the way changes are made - by 'mood' of a part of the general public? Is the statement that she will never be crowned Queen realistic?

 

[muriel]

The Family may have got used to Camilla, but they may underestimate the pent-up feelings of the British people regarding her.
There will be no crowning of Camilla.

Those seem like harsh words to me.

I personally believe that as time goes by and the British public get to know Camilla a bit more than they previously did, they will warm to her, just as they already have. There will always be a small rabid group of Diana supporters will object lightly, but I suspect the vast majority of us have moved on, and are happy to see our future monarch happy in his personal life.

 

[Daisiesforever]

The Family may have got used to Camilla, but they may underestimate the pent-up feelings of the British people regarding her. There will be no crowning of Camilla.

I think I do agree with you Renata. It is not a case of who Camilla is but RATHER how she came to the present position she holds. From a bankrupt mistress to a Dutchess is quite a leap for any individual. I often wonder if she would still be with Charles if he had not "bailed" her out of her financial disaster.

Lilly Langtry never became Queen so why should Camilla? Charles may insist that she be crowned but I doubt if she will ever be truely accepted by the people as Queen. The support of the monarchy does after all lie in the hands of the people. This has nothing to do with Diana but rather our proud British heritage.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Lilly Langtry never became Queen because she never married the King. Kind of can't compare the two people, the only thing they have in common were that they were both referred to as mistresses.

Our proud british heritage, what does that have to do with Camilla being crowned Queen? You think our heritage tells us to hate mistresses and divorcees?

She didn't exactly make the supposed leap over night, she has earned the respect of the royal family and the public, which is quite clear in my mind because people don't come out in full force and protest at the fact that Camilla exists in the way she does in the royal family.

In my mind, she will be crowned Queen, Diana lovers and general moaners will natter away for a few weeks then disappear. Just like at the engagement and wedding.

 

[Renata4711]

My three-liner consists of statements made not by me, but by many hundreds made - over many years - by people who have very strong feelings regarding the possible crowning of Camilla.

Personally I don't care whether she is crowned or not.