Will Charles Ever Reign?

[Elspeth]

I find it interesting that some people seem to believe fervently that William is the savior of the monarchy and would be a wonderful king, yet he is a very young adult who has no accomplishments to speak of. He is not prepared in any way for the throne. He is not ready for a lifetime of duty and loss of personal freedom. He is still growing up and finding his character.

A monarchy is above politics and popularity contests. Once you start playing around with the concept of a hereditary throne, it's time to bury it once and for all.

He's Diana's son. That's all that matters to some people.

 

[grevinnan]

Although Charles is the rightful heir to the throne - consider this option; The Queen dies and Charles is a cranky old man of questionable health and the republican movement is very strong. William is in his prime, lovely wife and great kids. There will be a vey tough question as to who should take over. Considering the longevity of the Brittish royals, Charles occassional less than thoughtful and diplomatic ramblings and an increasing scrutiny of the monarchies everywhere - it is everones guess what will happen when the next chenge of the crown takes place. Of course, it is all speculation - the future may have something in store that will suprise us all.

 

[Elspeth]

The same argument could have been made in 1901, but Edward VII served the country well during his reign.

Plus, I somehow doubt that the people wanting the crown to skip straight from the Queen to William would be arguing for Charles to be set aside if Diana was still around, even if Charles was in his 70s and in poor health at the time the Queen died. All the same arguments against Charles would pale into insignificance when set against the prospect of Queen Diana.

This is just about punishing Charles for Diana's sake and trying to get her son on the throne so it appears that she's still living through him. And giving Camilla a slap in the face in the process. It doesn't matter to the "we want William" supporters whether Charles is healthy, competent, or anything else, it just matters that he be punished and Diana be glorified.

 

[Skydragon]

William is in his prime, lovely wife and great kids. quote]

Charles is in his prime, lovely wife, great kids, barring accident, he will be our next King, even if it is only for 5-10 years. Longevity applies to him as well. William could still turn out to be an absolute maniac, would you still want him then?

 

[branchg]

How do we know William will turn out so great and wonderful with a lovely wife and kids? What if he becomes as selfish and narcisstic as his mother was? What if he marries and then gets divorced? What if he's involved in a major controversy or scandal?

There's many things that can happen along the way, including death. That's why the concept of the hereditary monarchy is so important, regardless of who occupies the throne. "The King is Dead, Long Live the King"

 

[Margrethe II]

as selfish and narcisstic as his mother was?

Oh...and you knew her?

"MII"

 

[ksenia]

Rude

Don't start bad mouthing the woman- ESPECIALLY if you did not know her. Even if you did it is polite not to speak ill of the dead.

 

[Elspeth]

It may not be polite, but as long as it stays within the rules of the site, it's permitted.

 

[Skydragon]

Don't start bad mouthing the woman- ESPECIALLY if you did not know her. Even if you did it is polite not to speak ill of the dead.

Don't you think it is far less polite to speak ill of the living, especially Charles and Camilla, who have to listen to some seemingly misguided people rubbishing them all the time. They are acting correctly by not answering back and revealing their 'version' to the public all the time.
They will make a wonderful King and Queen.

 

[Margrethe II]

Yes, but at least Charles and Camilla have the opportunity to defend themselves if they wish, or see fit. Diana does not!

I am sure this is what ksenia means, and I agree.

"MII"

 

[Skydragon]

Yes, but at least Charles and Camilla have the opportunity to defend themselves if they wish, or see fit.
I am sure this is what ksenia means, and I agree.

"MII"

Charles and Camilla will never defend themselves, they are rightly, trying to bring back and maintain the dignity of the UK monarchy.

 

[Margrethe II]

Charles and Camilla are rightly, trying to bring back and maintain the dignity of the UK monarchy.

I'm not going to get into a big debate over it or anything, but you cant deny the fact that Diana is most certainly not in a position to defend herself when her name is still being dragged through the media scrum to this day. All I said was that Charles and Camilla can deffend themselves if and when they think it appropriate, the same cannot be said for the late Princess of Wales.

I think it comes down to common deceny really. One should'nt slander anothers name when they are dead and burried, its rather sick.

This is the point that I believe was being made.

"MII"

 

[rosalyn]

I hope Charles will never be a king. He is not fit to be one, no guts to stand to his mother for the woman(Camilla) he loves and made Diana's life a living hell.

 

[Tzu An]

but you cant deny the fact that Diana is most certainly not in a position to defend herself when her name is still being dragged through the media scrum to this day.

Diana had no problem dragging her husband's name through the mud, Camilla's name through the mud, and the reputation of the royal family through the mud. No qualms about feediing authors and tabloid editors lies and contradictions.

If it ever gets to the stage of a Popularity Poll Monarchy then it's time the throw the game away.

Exactly. Besides, Charles at the very least has done his duty.

Too many kings had bad records and Charles is really a good Prince of Wales at his position. He is delicated to his job and always wants to do more work for the country and people. The failure of his first marriage is too complex to understand. I just he can find his peace and be a more effective Prince of Wales in the coming years.

I agree. He was also the first and only royal to give blood after donations dropped due to the AIDS scare. As for his marriage, from what I've read Diana had some serious issues, the main manifestation being Bulimia. Her unstable behavior was also a contributing factor as well. Being with someone who is emotionally unstable and has unrealistic ideas in regards to a relationship is difficult and unhealthy. I speak from experience.

It is already a foregone conclusion that Camilla is a smashing success as the wife of Prince Charles and the public is rapidly coming around towards acceptance of her. As she continues to take on more duties, the natural road will be one of admiration and respect for her qualities.

I agree. Furthermore there should be no reason that Camilla should not be called Princess of Wales. Flame me all you want, just because she isn't a glamerous fashion icon is no reason to deny her a rightful title. Plus Diana willingly divorced Charles, in fact was the one who wanted it in the first place.

What troubles me personally is the position of the Monarch as the figurative head of a Christian church-and he commited adultery. I believe Charles should have shown the mother of his children more respect even if their marriage wasn't working out

I can't remember Charles leaking nasty stories about his wife to the press, or nasty stories about her family. Furthermore Diana had more affairs and many, many Princes of Wales have had mistresses.

Has anyone considered that Camilla might just be the injured party in it all?

Amen to that! I agree that Camilla has suffered tremendously. She's been branded a demonic Rottweiler and harassed by a press that does not think Camilla is attractive enough to be royalty. Furthermore she was accused of every single evil trait in the book by a bulimic headcase who had delusions of grandeur. Furthermore I believe that Charles really loved Diana, but things did not work out and Diana kept blaming Camilla for all the problems.

Camilla became this hated public figure because she was the other woman.

And not even an attractive "other woman" to boot! The press made allowances for Diana because she was their little darling.

Charles and Camilla NEVER publically denegrated Diana. Charles made one public comment that he had become unfaithful in his marriage once the marriage was irrevocably broken. That's it - no pointing fingers, no assigning blame. At the time, the statement was criticized for hurting Diana, but Diana had already out-ed his affair with Andrew Morton's book. She knew well about the affair by then. Camilla has never publically spoken about Diana and I doubt she ever will. Most of what you hear about C&C's affair comes from Diana and being hurt like she was, she was hardly an objective observer. Diana made a conscious choice to expose the inner workings of her relationship with Charles; it was a mistake IMHO, because once she got over the hurt I don't think she would have wanted constant reminders (books, Panorama interview) of how she felt during that hurtful time.

I agree. Charles often said that his wife was sick and couldn't help herself and never used his friends to strike back. He's taken too much flack and blame for Diana's underlying problems. He also had the guts to admit to his adultry, the first I think of many heirs to admit to having an affair on the side.

In fact, in public, he showed respect to his wife.

He always appeared with her at public engagements and various other occasions, never Camilla. Yes I agree Camilla played hostess at Highgrove, but Diana never cared to be there unless she absolutely had to.

We're not fanatics. We just want to see her in her rightful place. If she is married to our King then she is our Queen and to against tradition to please those stuck in the past makes a complete farce out of the Monarchy. If she isn't good enough to be Queen then she isn't good enough to Princess Consort either. She IS the Princess of Wales and I call her that because again, thats her rightful title and I refuse to go against tradition to please the ghost of a dead ex-wife.

Right on! Diana willlingly relinquished her status in the royal family. She threw it away and her memory needs to stop being humored.

To start fooling around with the style and title of a female consort is to put a nail in the coffin in the monarchy. If she was worthy to marry Charles and become a Royal Highness, then she is worthy to be Queen.

And she's more than been proven worthy of the title.

Even now, some people criticised him for intervening issues like NHS, education, environmental issues, religional conflicts.He is the Prince of Wales and he is supposed to stay away from these controversies. But Charles felt he had a big responsiblity for the society, the people and the future because he was born on the position. Then he uses his advantages in his money and his position to achieve what he believes valuable in 5-10 years.He is aware his controversies and the difficulties he may face but he will still pursuit what he believes in the future. He is much tougher and stoic nowadays. He may be proven ahead of our time someday.

He began fretting about the plight of the underprivileged far sooner than Diana did, which irritated his father the Duke of Endinburgh. He's a man who is ridiculed by men for giving up what they thought was the most beautiful woman in the world, and Camilla is crucified because females don't want to live their lives vicariously through her.

 

[tiaraprin]

This is just about punishing Charles for Diana's sake and trying to get her son on the throne so it appears that she's still living through him. And giving Camilla a slap in the face in the process. It doesn't matter to the "we want William" supporters whether Charles is healthy, competent, or anything else, it just matters that he be punished and Diana be glorified.

Let's take Diana, William, and Camilla out of the equation then. Charles is quite selfish, spoiled, and self-absorbed--many authors have testified to this, including Penny Junor. He is a man at nearly 60 years of age who still doesn't know who he is besides being the POW. He has an incredible penchant for meddling in government affairs and voicing these opinions when the Monarch MUST be above the fray. He is vulnerable to any person he somehow takes a liking to and defends and promotes them to the detriment of the monarchy i.e. Michael Fawcett.

This doesn't sound like great King material to me.

 

[branchg]

Charles is hardly the first POW to express political opinions or take up certain causes in the public arena. Being the heir to the British throne for a lifetime is essentially a very difficult position, with little to do but wait for your parent to die. The rest is up to you to define, assuming the Sovereign allows you to do anything.

History has shown that most of the time, in fact, the Prince of Wales gets into trouble of various kinds, had a very bad relationship with their parent and Sovereign, and difficult political controversies with various Parliaments and PM's.

 

[Skydragon]

He is a man at nearly 60 years of age who still doesn't know who he is besides being the POW.

He know's exactly who he is - HRH The Prince of Wales, King in waiting.

He has an incredible penchant for meddling in government affairs and voicing these opinions when the Monarch MUST be above the fray.

He is voicing an opinion, ministers and the public are free to ignore him.

He is vulnerable to any person he somehow takes a liking to and defends and promotes them to the detriment of the monarchy i.e. Michael Fawcett.

Loyalty to your friends is something to be admired in anyone.

 

[Iluvbertie]

.....the Monarch MUST be above the fray......

BUT and it is a big BUT Charles ISN'T the monarch.

With the exception of George V I can't think of any POW in the last couple of hundred years or so who hasn't expressed their views publicly to the government.

Edward VIII was telling the government and people that the government had to do something about the state of the working class people during the depression.

Edward VII even wanted to vote of bills in the House of Lords in order to change housing laws for the working class.

Charles is doing what he is allowed to do - express an opinion on matters that are close to his heart.

WHEN he becomes monarch and only when that happens will he have to keep these views to his private meetings with his ministers.

 

[Margrethe II]

Diana had no problem dragging her husband's name through the mud, Camilla's name through the mud, and the reputation of the royal family through the mud. No qualms about feediing authors and tabloid editors lies and contradictions.

For god sake, They were all alive then! I am talking about a woman who has since ceased to live. It is wrong to slander someone who has died in such a way!! This is what a contributor did and I think it wrong.

I have made perfectly clear that I am not a hardcore Diana fan (yes, I admired her and thought alot of her) but I still recognised her faults.

The fact of the matter is that if one is willing to slander someone after they have died, they are pathetic human beings themselves!

"MII"

 

[branchg]

For god sake, They were all alive then! I am talking about a woman who has since ceased to live. It is wrong to slander someone who has died in such a way!!

It's also wrong to blame Charles, and Charles alone, for the failure of a marriage that failed for actions attributable to both of them, and claim he is now unfit to be King and should renounce his rights in favor of William.

He has the right to move on with his life and be happy with the woman he probably should have married in the first place, but for various reasons at the time, did not. If the Government, the Queen, the Church and the Princes felt it was time to move on, then Camilla should be accepted and given the respect she deserves (as Diana received) as the wife of the Prince of Wales.

The truth is Diana did more to bring the monarchy to its knees since the Abdication, with her incessant courting of the press and media at the expense of the royal family. She later regretted this, but the damage was done.

 

[ysbel]

For god sake, They were all alive then! I am talking about a woman who has since ceased to live. It is wrong to slander someone who has died in such a way!! This is what a contributor did and I think it wrong.

I have made perfectly clear that I am not a hardcore Diana fan (yes, I admired her and thought alot of her) but I still recognised her faults.

The fact of the matter is that if one is willing to slander someone after they have died, they are pathetic human beings themselves!

"MII"

Hi Margrethe,

I totally agree with you that slander against the dead is something to be discouraged. Or against the living for that matter. I don't make the distinction. Its still slander.

Slander-Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.

But if someone is spreading false rumours against Diana or Charles or Camilla or anyone else, the best defense is the truth.

So if you see something false said against someone in these forums, by all means challenge it. Make the person defend what they're saying.

The statement that Diana was selfish and a narcissist is so broad its one of these statements that don't fall easily into a true or false category.

Were Diana and Charles selfish at some point? If they're like most people, probably yes.

Was she a narcissist?

narcissism - A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.

From her public actions, I can see some of these traits. We don't know what was going on in her head but there was an article comparing Diana with Mother Theresa shortly after they died, and it discussed Diana's-pre-occupation with self (Andrew Morton book, Panorama interview) as opposed to Mother Theresa's lack of pre-occupation with self. Mother Theresa did not like to talk about herself, period. BTW, the article was very complimentary to Diana and the writer thought that Diana's approach to life was better than Mother Theresa's.

Yes, its an interpretation, yes, it may not be 100% true, but its a long shot to say its totally false. So IMHO, it doesn't fall into the slander category.

BTW, people are still calling Charles selfish and I disagree but I don't assume its slander. Its a different interpretation of the same actions of Charles' by two people. What makes it not slander is that people are not intentionally spreading something they know is false. If they were, that would be slander and that should be condemned no matter who does it and whether the person described is living or dead.

 

[Margrethe II]

It's also wrong to blame Charles, and Charles alone, for the failure of a marriage that failed for actions attributable to both of them, and claim he is now unfit to be King and should renounce his rights in favor of William.

He has the right to move on with his life and be happy with the woman he probably should have married in the first place, but for various reasons at the time, did not. If the Government, the Queen, the Church and the Princes felt it was time to move on, then Camilla should be accepted and given the respect she deserves (as Diana received) as the wife of the Prince of Wales.

The truth is Diana did more to bring the monarchy to its knees since the Abdication, with her incessant courting of the press and media at the expense of the royal family. She later regretted this, but the damage was done.

What on earth are you on about???

Where did I blame Charles? Where did I state that I wanted the throne to be inherited by William instead of his father?

To be perfectly honest I really dont know why you retorted this to me...

If you want facts, the fact is there were three who contributed to the crises in the royal family and the disolvement of the marriage, and to blame Diana for most of the troubles is absolutely rediculous. I never once said that Diana was not to blame or had no part in it. She was to blame as much as her husband was.

As far as I am concerned the three of them were as bad as each other and brought disgrace upon the House of Windsor (Mountbatten-Windsor for those who would protest otherwise) and the Monarchy as a modern day institution.

"MII"

 

[Margrethe II]

Hi Margrethe, I totally agree with you that slander against the dead is something to be discouraged. Or against the living for that matter. I don't make the distinction. Its still slander.

Thankyou, ysbel.

Finally there is someone who understands what I was saying.

"MII"

 

[love_cc]

People do need to see Charles, Diana and Camilla's flaws. But the death of Diana put her into an unbeatable situation. People forgot and forgave the mistakes Diana made because she died so young and she was so perfect in her image and humanity that won over their hearts. On the other hand, they would still accuse Charles and Camilla selfish and cold-blood even there are plenty good in them. People does not see the point.

Charles, Camilla and Diana are all selfish in their happiness and feelings. They want their happiness first and put the responsibility for the family and the duty for the monarchy aside. They three are too emotional people although Camilla is better at controlling her moods. It was just a big unfortune because Charles and Diana's marriage was too difficult to work out because of the huge difference in interests and similarity in characters. Both of them just the other to love more but they cannot offer more. Camilla is able to love Charles more so she has Charles and she needs Charles to secure her feelings from her failed marriage. The problem in Camilla's marriage was the first domino and I do think it has been written in the fate. Charles should have married Camilla in 1970s even it was very diffcult to achieve. They missed each other at the first place and everything went wrong afterwards. I really felt sorry for Charles and Camilla because they were not too young to meet but too difficult to be together because of all conventions.God bless them.

 

[Skydragon]

If you want facts, the fact is there were three who contributed to the crises in the royal family and the disolvement of the marriage, and to blame Diana for most of the troubles is absolutely rediculous.

If you want facts, you have to consider Diana's affairs with Hewitt & Gilbey at the very least, in being part of the equation and of course the book she 'helped' with.
The fact is that although some people are not totally behind Camilla becoming Queen, at the moment, (this is already changing), the majority of Brits are behind Charles becoming King.

 

[Margrethe II]

If you want facts, you have to consider Diana's affairs with Hewitt & Gilbey at the very least, in being part of the equation and of course the book she 'helped' with.
The fact is that although some people are not totally behind Camilla becoming Queen, at the moment, (this is already changing), the majority of Brits are behind Charles becoming King.

Firstly, Had Charles not ensued his relationship with Camilla, Diana herself would have no doubt remained faithful. Hence my statement 'There were three'. Maybe I should have put 5 after the fact?

I do not condone nor do I ignore the fact that Diana herself participated in adulterous relationships, and the fact that she, herself, leaked a sufficient amount of damaging information leading to the publication of Andrew Morton's book.

I do recall a certain 'Camilla Gate' though... And although not legally supplied to the media it nonetheless was extremely damaging towards the Princes of Wales' credibility, not to mention utterly & completely repulsive. Very bad taste (no pun intended).

Where have I said that Charles isn't being supported? Why did you tell me this? I'm sorry, but such information is worthless to me as (1) I already know it and (2) statistics and public opinion are always changing...

There is no doubt that Charles shall be the next Sovereign, and there is more than likely every possibility that Camilla shall become his Queen Consort (and yes, I am not at all fond of the idea of Camilla being granted the title Queen, even though she shall automatically assume this position upon her husbands succession), but one must take this as it comes, and if so, so be it.

Let me make it clear again...I believe Charles shall become King and I think its the way it should be. I have never disputed or said otherwise!!


"MII"

P.S. Nice signature...

 

[Skydragon]

Diana herself would have no doubt remained faithful.

Unlikely. It is a case of who did what first and not a subject really for this thread, IMO.

she, herself, leaked a sufficient amount of damaging information leading to the publication of Andrew Morton's book.

She IMO totally scewed the 'information' she and her friends gave to discredit the Prince and to try to cover her 'indiscretions'.

I do recall a certain 'Camilla Gate' though

As I recall Squidgygate

 

[Warren]

We're just going round in circles here, and nothing new is being added.
This endless tit-for-tat becomes tiresome very quickly.

Warren
British Forums Moderator

 

[Zonk]

This is turning into the Charles/Camilla/Diana thread and not productive in my opinion. Isn't the topic...Will Charles Ever Reign?

 

[ysbel]

Thankyou, ysbel.

Finally there is someone who understands what I was saying.

"MII"

My pleasure, Margrethe. This little community of royal followers is very good at routing out any baldfaced lies that get posted here and it makes it a more intelligent place for discussion.People here have a wealth of knowledge that I haven't found anywhere else.

Still, I would hate for the contributions of members here to get shut down because they say something less than positive about a royal just because the royal is dead. If they say something that is off the wall and totally unsupported and vile against a royal, then that is totally different.