Which countries would you like to see Charles & Camilla visit over the next few years

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Patra

Well, for selfish reasons, I'd love to see Prince Charles, and DoC visit the United States, for a state dinner at the White House with Barac and Michelle Obama, that would be fantastic. One can dream, right?

I am afraid it can only be a state dinner with tiaras etc if C&C visit at King and consort.

[Saragli]

Yea it would be muriel. Thats why I would love for the Obama's to make a state visit to the UK, especially at Windsor Castle. What are the chances of this since the last visit was in 2002 by George Bush. Is 7+ years enough of a gap to warrant a state visit?

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Princejohnny25

Yea it would be muriel. Thats why I would love for the Obama's to make a state visit to the UK, especially at Windsor Castle. What are the chances of this since the last visit was in 2002 by George Bush. Is 7+ years enough of a gap to warrant a state visit?

Thats certainly a possibility, but it will have to wait till we have a new government in place in Downing St.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by cd255

I thought they were very well received in Canada.

I've seen that statement on these forums a few times, too...that Charles and Camilla's visit was a great success. I don't know what the measure of success is for these visits and I don't have many memories of coverage of past royal visits to Canada, but I do remember that Charles, William and Harry visited Canada in 1998 and I thought that visit attracted more attention than this visit. Of course, that was when William was seventeen and very attractive to a lot of girls!

I know that not everyone is a supporter of Charles and Camilla to the same extent, and I know that my own feelings about them might colour my perceptions about them, but I'm trying to be very objective here--I don't think Charles and Camilla's visit went badly except for the protests in Quebec, but I don't think it was a resounding success, either. I don't think many or most Canadians cared either way, and it's not just to do with diminished support for a British head of state, although that's part of it: but people are not hugely enthusiastic about Charles. More Canadians support the Queen than they do Charles. I don't think the visit made most Canadians more interested in or more supportive of the monarchy, so if that's the basis for a successful royal visit, I don't think Charles and Camilla's visit was one. On the other hand, I don't think the visit worsened anyone's perceptions of the monarchy either, so if that qualifies as success, then I'd say the visit did succeed.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by rmay286

I've seen that statement on these forums a few times, too...that Charles and Camilla's visit was a great success. I don't know what the measure of success is for these visits and I don't have many memories of coverage of past royal visits to Canada, but I do remember that Charles, William and Harry visited Canada in 1998 and I thought that visit attracted more attention than this visit. Of course, that was when William was seventeen and very attractive to a lot of girls!

I know that not everyone is a supporter of Charles and Camilla to the same extent, and I know that my own feelings about them might colour my perceptions about them, but I'm trying to be very objective here--I don't think Charles and Camilla's visit went badly except for the protests in Quebec, but I don't think it was a resounding success, either. I don't think many or most Canadians cared either way, and it's not just to do with diminished support for a British head of state, although that's part of it: but people are not hugely enthusiastic about Charles. More Canadians support the Queen than they do Charles. I don't think the visit made most Canadians more interested in or more supportive of the monarchy, so if that's the basis for a successful royal visit, I don't think Charles and Camilla's visit was one. On the other hand, I don't think the visit worsened anyone's perceptions of the monarchy either, so if that qualifies as success, then I'd say the visit did succeed.

I dont think I could disagree with any of your comments. The reality is that Canadians are pretty disaffected wrt the BRF. Whilst HM is held is high esteem, it is going to take a continued process of engaging with the Canadians by C&C, and to some extent, William and his wife, to see a positive response. I suspect this was just the start of that process.

[scooter]

Royalty in the News » Blog Archive » Protests and Low Turnouts as Charles & Camilla End Canadian Tour

Royalty in the News » Blog Archive » Charles & Camilla Begin Canadian Visit

Royalty in the News » Blog Archive » Charles & Camilla’s Memorable Events in Newfoundland

CBC News - Montreal - Protesters stall royals in Montreal

DiManno: Royals test our taste for monarchy - thestar.com

http://www.express.co.uk/post/view13...adians-at-home

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/720036

Royal couple fail to dazzle like Diana - thestar.com

The royal heir farce | Mike Strobel | Columnists | News | Toronto Sun

Looks like there are plenty of people who have the same lack of enthusiasm for Charles and Camilla in Canada. I stand by my earlier post that we will see a rapid spinoff of the Commonwealth should Charles outlive his mother. Each of those articles is much more enthusiastic about any other royal coming to visit, especially William or Harry.

[Vicki J]

I'm sorry but most of the links(?) you have provided are just blogs or columnists, not news articles, i.e. they are one persons view. The Express is well known as the Di Express in the UK and isnt likely to have a pro Prince Charles article from what I've heard about it in the news. it's not a paper I have ever been tempted to buy and the link won't open for some reason. I think one of the Canadian posters has already said The Star is a pro republican paper and 3 of the links are from The Star.

It is a sad fact of life that people prefer the young and I wonder if the Canadians would be enthusiastic about a 48 year old Diana either.

[scooter]

All articles written by any columnists no matter the paper are one person's view. When there are so many of the same view, it starts to add up, IMO.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Vicki J

It is a sad fact of life that people prefer the young and I wonder if the Canadians would be enthusiastic about a 48 year old Diana either.

Quite right. I think it was a combination of a couple in their 60s, the November weather and some of the issues I have mentioned earlier. IMO This trip by C&C is the first step of a larger process of re-engagement between the BRF and Canada.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by scooter

All articles written by any columnists no matter the paper are one person's view.

Sure, though IMO newspapers only tend to publish work with columnists whose views are congruent with the editorial view of the said publuication.

[AuroraB]

Try the Charles and Camilla visit to Canada thread . Any number of articles were published - from local to national.
Quebec is an entity unto itself, so dislike of any member of the BRF is to be expected.

[rmay286]

Originally Posted by AuroraB

Try the Charles and Camilla visit to Canada thread . Any number of articles were published - from local to national.
Quebec is an entity unto itself, so dislike of any member of the BRF is to be expected.

I live a few miles away from Quebec, and I still sometimes think it could be another continent. I wouldn't take opinions from Quebec as too representative of the rest of Canada.

Originally Posted by muriel

Quite right. I think it was a combination of a couple in their 60s, the November weather and some of the issues I have mentioned earlier. IMO This trip by C&C is the first step of a larger process of re-engagement between the BRF and Canada.

That's true, those are all reasons for why the visit wasn't resoundingly successful. I do agree with Scooter that most Canadians would rather see someone other than C & C visit. I'm really happy to hear that the Queen and Prince Philip are coming to Canada next summer, and I think a lot of people will be more enthused about that visit.

That said, I just can't see Canada getting rid of the monarchy any time soon. First, to get rid of the monarchy would require a constitutional change, which doesn't happen easily in Canada. Second, the Conservative party has been in power for almost four years and with the current political alignment, it looks like it might be in power for a few more. And the Conservative party is openly pro-monarchist, as are a lot of its supporters. Most importantly though, during the American War of Independence, many United Empire Loyalists settled in Canada. So some of our oldest families have a history of being loyal to the Crown. I saw that point mentioned elsewhere on the Internet as an explanation for why Canadians tend to be less strongly republican than Americans, and I thought it was interesting and it made some sense.

[scooter]

Perhaps it's just my memory, but I seem to recall all of the previous visits of QEII's children as being very enthusiastically received, both long ago and much more recently. Is my memory failing me? Even Edward, who could not be discribed as charismatic by any stretch, got a warm welcome the last time. It is, of course, problematic that it is the Heir and his wife who have such high unfavorable ratings in Canada. One artice put it as 50% unfavorable for Charles....George W Bush territory.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by scooter

Perhaps it's just my memory, but I seem to recall all of the previous visits of QEII's children as being very enthusiastically received, both long ago and much more recently. Is my memory failing me? Even Edward, who could not be discribed as charismatic by any stretch, got a warm welcome the last time. It is, of course, problematic that it is the Heir and his wife who have such high unfavorable ratings in Canada. One artice put it as 50% unfavorable for Charles....George W Bush territory.

One problem I have with many of your posts is your own clearly anti-Charles perspective which to me, as an historian, also says that you are more actively going to look for anti-Charles stories.

There were many stories showing support.

Here is Australia support for Charles would be low but then support for a republic is quite high and I doubt if he will ever be King here as I do think we will become a republic within the present reign, simply because to wait for some inderterminate date in the future isn't healthy for a country trying to make its way in a region with a foreign Head of State.

Canada is different and the royals do make far more visits there than here, partly because they know that it is much harder for Canada to become a republic than Australia.

William will get a good reception here next month but he is young and Diana's son (and many people forget that he is 2nd in line to the throne through his father not his mother - being Diana's son isn't why he is important - being Charles' son is) and thus they will turn out to see him.

From the reports that I read Charles and Camilla attracted the sort of crowds I would expect at that time of the year, their age and the fact that many Canadians have other things going on in their lives that a visit from a foreign royal isn't the entertainment of choice - to stand outside for hours to get a passing glimpse of a royal isn't my idea of a fun way to spend the day.

Although I have become a republican as far as Australia is concerned I do support Charles and Camilla as a royal couple who do a wonderful job in Britain.

As for the rest of the countries of which the Queen is monarch many have or will move away from that situation, not because of lack of feelings for the individual concerned but more because they feel that to be a truly independent country you have to have your own Head of State.

[Saragli]

The visit to Canada was never going to attract the crowds that Diana or a younger generation would receive. But I wouldn't say it was lackluster either. I'm currently back in the states and live on the border, CBC always had coverage of the visit on their newscast. I even remember one of the blogs done by a lass called Rosie toned down her anti-CC tone by the end of the visit.

But I think it was on Remembrance Day that the visit proved to be entirely relevant. It was the Canadian Government together in one place, honoring the past and present. The GG, the heir, the PM, the military, and the people. And when one of the readers mentioned that Charles grandfather, King George VI was here to dedicate the original monument. I realized the continuity of the monarchy and how it is living history. I really saw Charles the King that day, and I dont think the monarchy will be in any trouble when he does become King. Im sure of that now.

The Monarchy has much deeper roots in Canada than any other Realm. So it will be a long while before Canada becomes a republic. Australia however just doenst have that conection to the monarchy, but it would be tricky to find another instituion that would as smoothly as the current one does. However, I think Australia will be the testing ground. As soon as the find something that works for them, Im sure that the other realms will follow. Its only natural. Until then, CC should be involved in the Commonwealth as much as possible. Because, currently, He will be King, and will most likely become Head of the Commonwealth as well.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

One problem I have with many of your posts is your own clearly anti-Charles perspective which to me, as an historian, also says that you are more actively going to look for anti-Charles stories.

There were many stories showing support.

Here is Australia support for Charles would be low but then support for a republic is quite high and I doubt if he will ever be King here as I do think we will become a republic within the present reign, simply because to wait for some inderterminate date in the future isn't healthy for a country trying to make its way in a region with a foreign Head of State.

Canada is different and the royals do make far more visits there than here, partly because they know that it is much harder for Canada to become a republic than Australia.

William will get a good reception here next month but he is young and Diana's son (and many people forget that he is 2nd in line to the throne through his father not his mother - being Diana's son isn't why he is important - being Charles' son is) and thus they will turn out to see him.

From the reports that I read Charles and Camilla attracted the sort of crowds I would expect at that time of the year, their age and the fact that many Canadians have other things going on in their lives that a visit from a foreign royal isn't the entertainment of choice - to stand outside for hours to get a passing glimpse of a royal isn't my idea of a fun way to spend the day.

Although I have become a republican as far as Australia is concerned I do support Charles and Camilla as a royal couple who do a wonderful job in Britain.

As for the rest of the countries of which the Queen is monarch many have or will move away from that situation, not because of lack of feelings for the individual concerned but more because they feel that to be a truly independent country you have to have your own Head of State.

I am sorry that you do not care for my posts or my opinions. However, I did back up my point with many articles. All of them talked about the lack of crowds. Also, my comparison was to siblings of Charles' tours, not William. How do you account for the fact that Edward and Sophie were warmly welcomed and Charles and Camilla were not?

Perhaps, as you are sure there were many pro charles stories showing support of the tour and no doubt multitudes cheering them, you would post them for us. I look forward to reading them.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by scooter

I am sorry that you do not care for my posts or my opinions. However, I did back up my point with many articles. All of them talked about the lack of crowds. Also, my comparison was to siblings of Charles' tours, not William. How do you account for the fact that Edward and Sophie were warmly welcomed and Charles and Camilla were not?

Perhaps, as you are sure there were many pro charles stories showing support of the tour and no doubt multitudes cheering them, you would post them for us. I look forward to reading them.

I didn't say that I didn't care for your posts or opinions. Only that I see you as a rabid anti-Charles who always finds negative things to say about him. As soon as I see your name in a post about Charles I know it will be negative because that is your attitude to him.

There is an entire thread on this board devoted to the tour with positive posts and links so I don't see a need to link you to that thread as I know that you are capable of reading them for yourself.

[scooter]

I dont know that I'm rabidly anti charles. I do however judge him based upon his actions. Apparantly I am not the only one who feels that way, given how little inclination people had to come out an see him. I shall go read through the other thread and see if there are any article which refute the ones I posted.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by scooter

I dont know that I'm rabidly anti charles. I do however judge him based upon his actions.

What actions of Charles' might you be referring to? Providing thought leadership in the fields of architectural and environmental preservation, or the success he has had as a charitable entrepreneur?

[scooter]

Do you really want me to list them? Seriously? I'm happy to do so, but that conversation has a way of getting the Moderator involved.