Will Charles Ever Reign?

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Ysbel - well put. Just brilliantly put actually. If only the Diana-nuts of this world would take it on board.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, given that feelings are running high on both sides of this debate, it probably isn't productive to start getting into the terminology of "Diana nuts" and "Diana haters," even though the argument does unfortunately seem to be rather polarised and doesn't seem to be moderating over the years.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Elspeth - I should have been more precise. I meant these fanatics who hold Diana up as a Saint and can see absolutely no wrong in her.

 

[branchg]

Well, I think people are being a bit harsh on Diana. While there is no question she could be very manipulative and often acted inappropriately, Diana was also very unwell emotionally. She was suffering from bulimia and depression, both serious problems which predated her marriage to Prince Charles, and some of her behavior was certainly not her true character.

The Princess was also a creation of the media that built her up to superstardom icon status in order to sell newspapers and magazines. Like anyone who becomes a star and courts attention, she became trapped in the spotlight and didn't consider the consequences on her marriage (and most tragically, her life) and her duty to the monarchy took a backseat.

Diana lost her perspective and made a serious mistake with the Panorama interview, which was the final nail in the coffin for her remaining married. Had she lived though, I believe she would have returned to being a very productive member of the royal family and fully supportive of the Queen and Charles.

 

[ysbel]

Well, I think people are being a bit harsh on Diana. While there is no question she could be very manipulative and often acted inappropriately, Diana was also very unwell emotionally. She was suffering from bulimia and depression, both serious problems which predated her marriage to Prince Charles, and some of her behavior was certainly not her true character.

The Princess was also a creation of the media that built her up to superstardom icon status in order to sell newspapers and magazines. Like anyone who becomes a star and courts attention, she became trapped in the spotlight and didn't consider the consequences on her marriage (and most tragically, her life) and her duty to the monarchy took a backseat.

Diana lost her perspective and made a serious mistake with the Panorama interview, which was the final nail in the coffin for her remaining married. Had she lived though, I believe she would have returned to being a very productive member of the royal family and fully supportive of the Queen and Charles.

This is very true branchg and I have said the same in some other threads. I do believe however that the whole Diana-phenomenon hurt the monarchy (and Diana) more than it helped as your post so eloquently illustrates.

 

[Saragli]

Diana did hurt the monarchy and I think became obssesed with the power she had over people and how she was able to use the media. But, from what I saw she was changning after the divorce and I also agree had she lived she probably would have become stronger and a better part of the royal family. But we cant dwell on the what if's. When Charles becomes King does he have the power by Royal Decree to change the title Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith. I know the title was given by the Pope and I dont know how it is handled.

 

[Idriel]

Beatrix fan: Now that Charles is 'freed' from Diana, he is not much more popular. And not just because of the whole Camilla story. He is often described as arrogant, remote, out of touch, self-centered and uncharismatic (and did gave much display of these traits of character IMO). So I don't think his star would have shinned brightly with or without Di at his side.
Also, Charles is 50 (or more?), he is not going to learn anything now, nor he is going to change. The Charles we see today will be the King the Brits will have (or not...). It's like Marmite: Love it or Hate it (not literally obviously).

Prince Jonnhy: humm... Evita over Diana? How interesting... A woman who won her way to power by sleeping around with moneyed men (and it's not the sleeping around part which annoy me), the wife of a blood thirsty dictator, who used to used large part of her 'charity money' to buy tons of furs (such a necessity in cold Argentina don't you think?) and expensive jewels, who welcomed Nazi in Argentina after the collapse of Germany? Whatever... to each its one.

Branchq: knowing (and respecting) your views on Diana, I admire your post. It is great IMO.

 

[Saragli]

Evita is more intresting to me than Diana. Her situation is what makes me choose her. We all have flaws. But the fact that she loved her husband yet went out crusading to save the argentinian people is what attracts me to her. The people loved her and I like her contradicitons. I dont know loads about Diana or Evita but from what I know Evita is more intresting. The goverment allowed the Nazis into argentina. You did not want to get on the bad side of either Evita or Diana. Both could ruin your lives. They are a lot a like. But, lets stick with talking about Charles.

He is often described as arrogant, remote, out of touch, self-centered and uncharismatic

Most rich and older people are arrogant and remote. Charisma is a trait your born with. You can try to imitate it but it wont look natural. That is his biggest flaw in a leadership postion. If looking out for yourself and wanting to live your life is self-centered than so is everyone else in the royal family. Charles is a very modern man but he likes to keep traditions and live a simple life. Charles was talking about alternative medicine and organic foods before the celebrities were. He is ahead of his time but lacks the charism to influence people. Charles will be different when he becomes King. There will be a lot of restrictions. There will be no more stances and personal views from the Prince.

 

[ysbel]

I see nothing wrong with being critical. The difference between critical and trashing is that critical has some grain of truth to it.

So Charles is aloof and out of touch, I can believe that. That's not trashing.

So Diana used her star power against her husband, I can believe that too. That's not trashing either.

As far as being harsh to Diana, the question was is her star power good for the monarchy. Some say yes and some equally say no. Saying the Diana phenomenon is not good for the monarchy is not the same thing as trashing her.

.

 

[Idriel]

Idriel, for someone who decries the 'incredible trashing feast' you seem to be able to throw enough trash of your own.

On who? A particular poster or on Evita?
If it's on a poster I apologise and if you point out the offensive part I will edit my post.
If it's on Evita, I stand by every single word as these are facts and not opinions. I can back up with serious historical sources if you want but you'll have to give me some time.

Forgive me my cynicism.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

 

[ysbel]

Idriel,

I went back and edited my post. What I meant was your description of Charles. The 'trashing' of Diana seemed no worse than your post about Charles. None of it was trashing IMHO and I changed my post to reflect it.

I agree with you about Evita.

 

[Idriel]

Idriel,

I went back and edited my post. What I meant was your description of Charles. The 'trashing' of Diana seemed no worse than your post about Charles. None of it was trashing IMHO and I changed my post to reflect it.

I understand your point, thank you for the clarification. I edited my post as well. I read again all the posts and realised that what made me really see 'red' what the Evita part. Sorry, I over reacted.

Charles needs a woman who will look elegant and dignified, take the posies, wave to the crowds, attend the cenotaph, sit with the boring dignitaries at dinner and be there for other members of the Royal Family.

IMHO Camilla possess neither the first of the second of the qualities you listed.
Also, I wonder how long will the British tax payers be willing to pay for a waving entity. I might be naive (I know I am actually) but I (want to) believe there is more about the Monarchy (or a Consort).

 

[ysbel]

I understand your point, thank you for the clarification. I edited my post as well. I read again all the posts and realised that what made me really see 'red' what the Evita part. Sorry, I over reacted.

IMHO Camilla possess neither the first of the second of the qualities you listed.
Also, I wonder how long will the British tax payers be willing to pay for a waving entity. I might be naive (I know I am actually) but I (want to) believe there is more about the Monarchy (or a Consort).

No problem Idriel. What an interesting afternoon this had been. I'm just thankful that we have this forum where people really care about stuff like this rather than my regular friends who just roll their eyes whenever I start in.

I too wish for more than a waving entity. I think Charles and Camilla can offer their subjects a stable and happy marriage where they mutually support each other.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

IMHO Camilla possess neither the first of the second of the qualities you listed.
Also, I wonder how long will the British tax payers be willing to pay for a waving entity. I might be naive (I know I am actually) but I (want to) believe there is more about the Monarchy (or a Consort).

The British Tax-Payers have paid for waving entities for years! The Queen Mother for example. We adored her but once her daughter was on the throne, her official role was gone. She was the Queen's Mother. The woman in the pretty pastel hats who waved and never spoke. Any criticism of her was very rightly shunned and she was a true national treasure. There's more to the Monarchy than waving but for a consort? Not really. She cuts ribbons and takes flowers from children. And thats it.

 

[Elspeth]

The Queen Mother has acted as a Counsellor of State in both George VI's reign and Elizabeth II's reign, although I think the latter was probably a rather unusual case because the Queen came to the throne so young and her children weren't old enough to act in that capacity.

 

[ysbel]

Elspeth, what exactly does a Counsellor of State do?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

The Queen Mother has acted as a Counsellor of State in both George VI's reign and Elizabeth II's reign, although I think the latter was probably a rather unusual case because the Queen came to the throne so young and her children weren't old enough to act in that capacity

Accepted but it's hardly a major role or a regular one, aside from cutting ribbons and visiting schools.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When the Queen is out of the country, or otherwise incapacitated, at least one of the Counsellors of State must be in the country in order to exercise the duties of the monarch. As the Queen has done some very long tours, in the early years of her reign in particular, the role of the Counsellor of State could have been onerous for that period.

The Counsellors of State are the next five adults in line to the throne, and I believe the spouse of the monarch. If the latter then the current Counsellors are Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. Edward will lose his place next year when Princess Beatrice turns 18. When Charles becomes King presumably his father will continue in that role (assuming he is still alive), Camilla will become one and Eugenie, if over 18, or Edward will fill the numbers again.

 

[ysbel]

Thanks chrissy. I found some more info about the Privy Council at wikipedia.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is a body of advisors to the British Sovereign. Formerly, the Council was a powerful institution, but is now largely ceremonial. Most of its power is held by one of its committees, the Cabinet. The Council also performs judicial functions, which are for the most part delegated to the Judicial Committee.

The Sovereign, when acting on the Council's advice, is known as the King-in-Council or Queen-in-Council. The members of the Council are collectively known as The Lords of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council (sometimes The Lords and others of...). The chief officer of the body is the Lord President of the Council, who is the fourth highest Great Officer of State, a member of the Cabinet, and normally, the Leader of either the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Another important official is the Clerk, whose signature is appended to all orders made in the Council.

Both "Privy Counsellor" and "Privy Councillor" may be correctly used to refer to a member of the Council. The former, however, is preferred by the Privy Council Office.

 

[Elspeth]

"Accepted but it's hardly a major role or a regular one, aside from cutting ribbons and visiting schools."

Oh, yes - the Queen Mum had the cutting-ribbons thing down to a fine art.

Really, the public appearances must get awfully boring; the Queen Mother had the great talent of never letting it show.

 

[Elspeth]

The Privy Council isn't the same thing as the Counsellors of State; there are a lot more members of the Privy Council, and they meet when the Queen is in the country, they don't just act when she's away.

 

[ysbel]

The Privy Council isn't the same thing as the Counsellors of State; there are a lot more members of the Privy Council, and they meet when the Queen is in the country, they don't just act when she's away.

But I think the Counsellors of State are a subset of the Privy Council, right, Elspeth?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Oh, yes - the Queen Mum had the cutting-ribbons thing down to a fine art.

Really, the public appearances must get awfully boring; the Queen Mother had the great talent of never letting it show.

Definately! She was a legend. I couldn't look excited and cheerful every time I was sent to meet boring people and christen ships. She must have been terribly bored - she was a real treasure and I don't dispute that. But once she'd done the legal bit - she did become a waver and little else.

 

[caroline mathilda]

I hope you don't think that those of us who live in other realms shouldn't also be considered when you say 'it's we Brits who should make the decision and not the outsiders who like to watch'. Afterall any decision affects us as much as the Brits.
Not at all. I'm all for those abroad taking an interest - I do it myself with many Monarchies but it's wrong for Americans, Lithuanians, Slovakians or any other non-commonwealth individual to say things like, "He shouldn't be King" because it won't affect them in the slightest and if we think he's good enough to be King then thats all there is to it.

Remember this is a global society and we all take an interest in what is going on in other countries. As is human nature, people express all sorts of opinions on issues which might not directly concern them. Ig, "everybody" has an opinion on political issues in the States even those which might not have international impact.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Remember this is a global society and we all take an interest in what is going on in other countries.

I don't think I made myself clear. I take an interest in the Danish Monarchy. But I wouldn't dream of saying, "Prince Frederik shouldn't be King - he isn't good enough etc etc".Because I'm not a Danish citizen and it has nothing to do with me whatsoever, however big my interest is.

There's a big difference between taking an interest in another country and interfering. So, although you're entitled to your views on things that happen in Britain, if you don't live here, I'd find it a little bit irritating to hear you saying things like 'Charles won't be a good King' or 'Britain deserves better' because thats for us to decide. Not foreigners will a interest in Royalty.

 

[caroline mathilda]

There's a big difference between taking an interest in another country and interfering. So, although you're entitled to your views on things that happen in Britain, if you don't live here, I'd find it a little bit irritating to hear you saying things like 'Charles won't be a good King' or 'Britain deserves better' because thats for us to decide. Not foreigners will a interest in Royalty.

I hardly think that expressing one's opinion is interfering.

If "foreigners" with an interest in royalty who are thus rendering their views are such an irritant, being on a Royal discussion board as this must be particularly dreadful for those with a monarchy.

 

[ysbel]

If "foreigners" with an interest in royalty who are thus rendering their views are such an irritant, being on a Royal discussion board as this must be particularly dreadful for those with a monarchy.

caroline mathilda, I have to hand it to you. You're a master at your craft always with 'le mot juste'! Your only loss is being born 200 years after the grand court of Marie Antoinette which would have given your gifts their true and proper glory. Alas, you have to make do with the poor wits of us mortals.

 

[Margrethe II]

I hardly think that expressing one's opinion is interfering.

If "foreigners" with an interest in royalty who are thus rendering their views are such an irritant, being on a Royal discussion board as this must be particularly dreadful for those with a monarchy.

Could'nt have said it better Caroline Mathilda Perfectly expressed with every word. I agree with ysbel, you would have been such an influential face at the Court of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

Keep on doing what it is you do because you do it brilliantly!

"MII"

 

[ysbel]

Keep on doing what it is you do because you do it brilliantly!

"MII"

Ah margrethe II, I see someone else who loves to play the game! yes brilliant is certainly one word for it. You see it is only an innocent game if we all know the game we're playing. As long as we all know, no one can get hurt.

So play on, dear ladies, and let the best wit win!

 

[Elspeth]

I think everybody in these discussions is entitled to express their opinion about the topics as long as they do so within the forum rules and guidelines. Equally, people are entitled to ignore the posts of anyone whose opinions they don't feel are relevant.