Will Charles Ever Reign?

[ysbel]

What is the practice of Kazakhstan, Al bina? Do people refrain from speaking of the dead at all or do they refrain from speaking only ill of the dead.

In the West its generally considered ill mannered to speak ill of the dead right after they die - its considered poor taste for the grieving family to have to hear such things so soon after the death when they are going through funeral arrangements. But after some time passes-a few years, then it is considered acceptable to speak ill of the dead as long as what is said is truthful.

 

[Avalon]

Chrissy57,
I strongly believe that the dead should be left alone. The truth, whatever you have meant by this concept, should be told to those who are still in this world. I think our opinions reflect difference in the cultural backgrounds.
I wish I lived in the UK and knew better about influence Prince Charles or any other member of the British Royal family has got at the state level. From my standpoint, the British king/queen “is holding the now largely ceremonial position of head of state” (Wikipedia, n.d.). How will the life of usual inhabitants of the British Isles change, if the royalty disappears tomorrow due to some magic, let us say?
I like the British Royal family for their speech accent and the Ascot race.
I hope I have adequately replied to your questions.

That's interesting. I think we should try more not to speak ill of people, who are alive. Our words can hurt them, unlike those, who are dead.
I'm not saying bashing death is acceptable, but surely if you speak the truth about living people, it is just as fine to speak the truth of the dead people.

 

[Al_bina]

Such a topical issue ....

Dear members of the Forum from different parts of the world,
It strikes me to learn that I have raised such a topical question.
In Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries people avoid to discuss the dead partly due to cultural traditions and partly due to superstitions (I know it may look peculiar). There are annual commemoration parties held by the family members, which are viewed as an appropriate place and time to remember good or bad deeds of the dead. Still family members do not engage into scrupulous examination, remembering the rule “Say nothing but good about the dead”.
I am not sure how it is done in Armenia. The post-Soviet territories have undergone major changes and excavated many new traditions from the past.
However, I do admit that flaws and virtues of any public figure are magnified many times and subjected to value judgments. Given the above, Princess of Diana did use the approach “All is fair in love and war” like any other average woman would do in her situation. However, the heat of the battle with the British Royal family and Price Charles adversely affected her perception of consequences that her deeds might have in the future. She should have taken a couple of lessons on how to deal with mistresses from the royal ladies of the Gulf countries.
Finally, the topic covering the ways to discuss the dead has nothing to do with the theme of this thread. My final opinion of the subject matter is as follows. Yes, Prince Charles is very likely to become the next King of the UK. The most loyal fans of Princess Diana can do nothing EFFECTIVE to prevent him from ascending the throne.

 

[Elspeth]

They can do nothing legal, at any rate. A deranged partisan with a gun or a bomb could do any amount of damage.

 

[scooter]

He made one wrong decision - a 'real' decision at that mind you - to marry the wrong woman.

Not so much the wrong woman, but that he was in love then and now with another woman. It's pretty had to make any marriage work if one partner is secretly, or not so secretly, in love with someone else. I have also read many, many times that Charles was wearing Camilla's cufflinks when he stood in front of the altar that day in July 1981 and that he spent the night before the wedding with Camilla. How does any 19 year old bride deal with that?

But Charles certainly had the opportunity to marry Camilla the first time around and for what ever reason didn't. I have read several theories why he didn't. What do you all think is the reason? Certainly heart ache for all parties involved would have been avoided.

 

[love_cc]

Charles and Camilla did not spend the night before the wedding together. It was a myth. Andrew PB, Charles's velet, Lady Susan Hussay disputed it because Charles stayed with her until very late then went to his bedroom. And about the cuff-links, it was probably very painful for Diana but she had to get over it because Charles was her husband and she should have never expressed her distrust in him even she had doubts and avoided have rows with him at all.It was the frequent rows and the fights really destoyed their marriage and their incompatiblity caused their unhappiness.

It was almost impossible for Charles to marry Camilla at the first place. It would not happen. She lacked the essential conditions to be a princess:virgin, sweet, young,beautiful, titled, and deep-rooted family connections with the BRF and approvals from Queen Mother and Lord Mountbatten.No one had expected Charles and Camilla's affairs turned out like this not even themselves.Diana was too possessive toward Charles and she simply cannot accept the fact that Camilla was Charles' best friend who cannot be replaced in his life and Charles needs Camilla's constant support in his life. The problem is always there because Charles needs sustainable and devoted support for him which Diana was unable to provide for him because she needed it as well.

 

[ysbel]

Not so much the wrong woman, but that he was in love then and now with another woman.

Well if Camilla is the 'right' woman for Charles, I think its safe to say that Diana was the 'wrong' woman for Charles regardless of whether Charles was in love with another woman when he married Diana.

Camilla and Diana are completely different in appearance, outlook, manner, values, interests. Charles would indeed be an amazing man if he could be sexually and emotionally attracted to both Diana and Camilla but I believe it is humanly impossible for one man.

 

[ysbel]

Dear members of the Forum from different parts of the world,
It strikes me to learn that I have raised such a topical question.
In Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries people avoid to discuss the dead partly due to cultural traditions and partly due to superstitions (I know it may look peculiar). There are annual commemoration parties held by the family members, which are viewed as an appropriate place and time to remember good or bad deeds of the dead. Still family members do not engage into scrupulous examination, remembering the rule “Say nothing but good about the dead”.
I am not sure how it is done in Armenia. The post-Soviet territories have undergone major changes and excavated many new traditions from the past.
However, I do admit that flaws and virtues of any public figure are magnified many times and subjected to value judgments. Given the above, Princess of Diana did use the approach “All is fair in love and war” like any other average woman would do in her situation. However, the heat of the battle with the British Royal family and Price Charles adversely affected her perception of consequences that her deeds might have in the future. She should have taken a couple of lessons on how to deal with mistresses from the royal ladies of the Gulf countries.
Finally, the topic covering the ways to discuss the dead has nothing to do with the theme of this thread. My final opinion of the subject matter is as follows. Yes, Prince Charles is very likely to become the next King of the UK. The most loyal fans of Princess Diana can do nothing EFFECTIVE to prevent him from ascending the throne.

Thanks for explaining Al_bina. I always find it interesting to read about different customs in different parts of the world.

Its interesting that you say an average woman would have done what Diana has done and taken the motto of "All is fair in love and war" I wouldn't say that any of my friends would have taken that motto, they just tended to drop the jerks once they had been betrayed and moved on.

Cheers.

 

[scooter]

Charles and Camilla did not spend the night before the wedding together. It was a myth. Andrew PB, Charles's velet, Lady Susan Hussay disputed it because Charles stayed with her until very late then went to his bedroom. And about the cuff-links, it was probably very painful for Diana but she had to get over it because Charles was her husband and she should have never expressed her distrust in him even she had doubts and avoided have rows with him at all.It was the frequent rows and the fights really destoyed their marriage and their incompatiblity caused their unhappiness.

It was almost impossible for Charles to marry Camilla at the first place. It would not happen. She lacked the essential conditions to be a princess:virgin, sweet, young,beautiful, titled, and deep-rooted family connections with the BRF and approvals from Queen Mother and Lord Mountbatten.No one had expected Charles and Camilla's affairs turned out like this not even themselves.Diana was too possessive toward Charles and she simply cannot accept the fact that Camilla was Charles' best friend who cannot be replaced in his life and Charles needs Camilla's constant support in his life. The problem is always there because Charles needs sustainable and devoted support for him which Diana was unable to provide for him because she needed it as well.

So, she should have just gotten over it and 'trusted her husband and never expressed doubts and caused a fight'? I think that is expecting more than humanly possible from any wife. As far as Camilla being Charles' 'best friend' I dont think best friend was the issue. There are certain 'services' not normally contained in the 'best friend' brief which were plainly in evidence. If you are really suggesting that 'the rows' were not directly related to this issue I think you should go back and read a lot of the books/articles from the era. You cannot seperate one from the other. Remember in physics every action has a direct and opposite reaction.

Look, I'm not a partisan of one or any side of this triangle/square/pentagon, but it REALLY annoys me when one side or the other tries to rewrite/whitewash history. If Camilla was the non negotiable love of his life, then lets not pretend that everything was hunky-dory until D 'spontaniously lost her mind'. Quie honestly, If you read Dimblebly's authorized biography of Prince Charles, he is quoted as saying that he was not in love with Diana at the time of the marriage and was simply marrying an 'appropriate girl to bear children'. Pesonally, in that situation, I would have 'spontaniously lost my mind' too.

As far as Camilla's not being eligable to be the princess bride in the 70's, why do you think that the things that made her ineligable at the time are now ok to make her the duchess bride? I think he should have married her the 1st time when he had a chance.But, since he didn't, and he was still in love with Camilla when he married the princess bride, let's not cast the blame on the other people in the situation, whether Diana or the courtiers who 'wouldn't let Charles marry Camilla' the first time through. Charles was a grown man (I think 34) when he married Diana. Old enough to know his own mind, dont you think?

 

[Elspeth]

This thread isn't turning into a rehash of the Charles-Camilla-Diana fight to the death, I hope.

 

[ysbel]

Look, I'm not a partisan of one or any side of this triangle/square/pentagon, but it REALLY annoys me when one side or the other tries to rewrite/whitewash history. If Camilla was the non negotiable love of his life, then lets not pretend that everything was hunky-dory until D 'spontaniously lost her mind'.

This isn't the first time I've heard the statement 'whitewash the past' in regards to people's views of Charles and Camilla, and quite frankly I think its unfair.

It is one's privilege to view statements that Charles and Camilla were simply good friends as an attempt to whitewash the past; however, one should probably know that Diana's version of the events at the time of her wedding changed a bit with time and went from being blissfully happy walking up the aisle to stories of dreading to find Camilla sitting prominently in the pew.

Its true that Charles and Camilla later got together but with the two different versions of her early marriage, it is an equally fair assumption that Diana's first version of her wedding rather than her second was the truthful one.

But differing accounts of their early marriage shouldn't have any impact on Charles inheriting the throne.

 

[Skydragon]

As far as Camilla's not being eligable to be the princess bride in the 70's, why do you think that the things that made her ineligable at the time are now ok to make her the duchess bride?

I don't think anyone could understand the machinations that were going on behind the scenes, of other people putting in their tuppence worth. You had Lady Fermoy putting forward her granddaughters (I don't think she was too concerned which, but she was prepared to back her son in law over her daughter to further her ambitions), Mountbatten putting forward his and of course all the ones who never got past the first hurdle.

There was also the suspicion that Camilla was in fact too closely related to Charles and that children from such a union could be affected.

The rows were not originally because of Charles friendship with Camilla, more because Diana was unable to accept that Charles duty to attend events he had agreed to go to, could not be cancelled just because she fancied a day together. It must have been hard for her, to realise that she was no longer a free person.

We are not talking about physics are we, we are talking about humans and human emotions and that can't be quantified, as for the later story of Camilla being right 'there', from the aisle, Diana would have been hard put to spot anyone in the back rows, let alone actually recognise them.

It is immaterial how many books people read on the 'subject', because the public will never know what happened.

Lets also not forget that Charles was and is the royal, both Diana and Camilla were/are only members because they were/are married to him.

 

[pinkie40]

I think Charles will reign but his reign will not be pleasant in some matters....I think there will be more focus upon Republican issues and those matters will gain in popularity in the far reaches of the Commonwealth. The only saving grace will be that Charles will be elderly and he will probably have to rely heavily upon William carrying out a multitude of duties for his father which will balance out the cries of total Republicanism.

Charles is an incredibly charming man but lacks the poker faced diplomatic skills HMTQ has....

 

[Polly]

Just a small point here, Pinkie40.

Prince Charles has an abundance of diplomatic skills and kindheartedness which may not always be apparent. e.g.

Two years ago, one of my cousins and her family were in the UK and hoping to see as many members of the RF as possible. Learning that the PoW was due somewhere or other, she and her family undertook an inconvenient journey to be at the same place. When the Prince arrived he was running late and hurried past the waiting crowd with a wave. My cousin (typically strong-willed and an up-front Australian) called out: 'hey, Charles! Over here! We're Australians and we've come a bloody long way to see you'! The Prince stopped in his tracks, turned around, and walked over to Lesley, shook her hand, shook the children's hands, and chatted to them all for a few minutes. Of course, such a pleasant and gracious gesture wasn't reported in the press. He's alright, is Charles. My personal view is that he's popular in Australia but that, rightly or wrongly, since his marriage, his popularity has suffered, and I think it grossly unfair.

Hurrying through a lot of posts which I've missed over the last few weeks I noted one on this thread which claimed that Charles may be jealous of William.

Last Thursday night on the ABC (Oz equivalent of the BBC) a program was screened which claimed that Charles was jealous of William, who's immensely popular. Comments continued along the lines that William is very much his mother's son (he's just like her), that Charles accepts these qualities in his son (well, he'd be an odd parent if he didn't, I think); that with William on the scene, who on earth would be interested in two such old fogies as Charles and Camilla?; that William is cast by the RF as the 'saviour' of the monarchy; that the RF adores Kate; that the RF despairs of Harry who, on the whole, is pretty dumb (unlike William) and who always knew he'd never be allowed to go to Iraq; and, importantly, that everywhere they go, William shines down Charles, just as his mother did and that Charles suffers this, philosophically.

My point here is, really, that when respectable and responsible broadcasters screen these nonsense programs, it's inevitable that ordinary people will start to assume that there is some sort of jealousy between the Heir and his son. Further, it's not a new story, nor is it completely unimaginable, which makes me wonder if there is indeed any serious project afoot to deny Charles the throne.

Simply, my view is that if an hereditary monarchy is to be maintained then Charles and only Charles, can be the next King, assuming that he doesn't pre-decease his mother. If the monarchy skips a generation for any reason whatsoever, then it will be it's death-knoll.

 

[love_cc]

Polly,thank you for the information of the program. I missed it on thursday. My view has never changed on this topic. Prince Charles and only Charles can be the next king if he doesn't pre-decease his mother.He will a good king becasue he always taks his duty very seriously.

I don't think Charles would create any unhappy thing between his sons and him. IMO he suffered a lot from his own problems with his father. He has the first-hand experience that how painful the can be for his sons and himself. I think his parenting style is an open mind and understanding style not a very strict style. I would like to have such a father as well. He really seems to be a nice and funny and sweet character man.

 

[pinkie40]

I was in the presence of Prince Charles when he was in Dallas in February 1986 when he presented an award. My ex and his life partner attended several of the events in Philadelphia by invitation as my ex has supported several of HRH's charities over the past 30 years. Prince Charles' friends include some of the most powerful people on Earth so he will be supported with a great powerbase when he becomes King.

Prince Charles might face issues that will only take life after his mother's death. Hopefully, those issues are already being anticipated and Prince Charles is dealing with them delicately to make the tramsition from HMTQ's reign to his reign as smooth as possible.

If the public outcry is so powerful to make his wife refrain from attending a memorial service, we should take heed there could be much more such outcries against the Royal Family....especially a few select members.

The House of Windsor is a very strong entity and Charles will become King upon the death of the present Queen....I sort of hope he takes on the name of George VII rather than Charles III.

 

[kiltmaker]

I'm new and catching up on all these threads,but I do believe the law is the law and Charles should reign on the death of the Queen, but what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry! Personally, while the law is the law and should be followed, in my heart I'd like to see ANDREW up on the throne..and we all know THAT won't happen!

 

[wbenson]

what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry!

Tough for the Queen then.

 

[jcbcode99]

Wonderfully amusing and titilating discussion, but the topic at hand is reallly a simple one--Will Charles Ever Reign?
Well, I think it is kind of a rhetorical question because the Monarchy is set up in such a way that when the Monarch dies, the next in line (the Heir, in this case the PoW) automatically assumes the throne. So, it would appear that Charles will inherit throne upon the death of his mother. William will then be declared the Prince of Wales, and will produce and heir. After King Charles dies, King William will ascend the throne. After William dies, his heir will ascend the throne, and so forth and so on. Unless Charles abdicates, and I just do not see him doing that, William will have to wait. And, frankly, WHY would William want to ascend to the throne at such a young age?

 

[jcbcode99]

Originally Posted by kiltmaker
what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry!

It is not the Queen's decision to make. It's a birthright, specifically, Charles' birthright and then William's.

 

[Madame Royale]

...is that he's popular in Australia

As popular as would be expected given his personage. He has not endeared himself to any great length and indeed most remain indifferent to 'Charlie'. Not in a negative way and neither is it anything to rave about. 'We' don't not like him but neither is he someone 'we' seem intent on hearing about on the whole.

His made trips and of course spent time in Australia tending to his own education but to say his 'popular' amongst Australian's wouldn't be, I think, an inaccruate account (respectively of course, Polly )

I'm not saying he isn't thought of nicely, just doesn't conjure up any real feeling amongst most.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Wonderfully amusing and titilating discussion, but the topic at hand is reallly a simple one--Will Charles Ever Reign?
Well, I think it is kind of a rhetorical question because the Monarchy is set up in such a way that when the Monarch dies, the next in line (the Heir, in this case the PoW) automatically assumes the throne. So, it would appear that Charles will inherit throne upon the death of his mother. William will then be declared the Prince of Wales, and will produce and heir. After King Charles dies, King William will ascend the throne. After William dies, his heir will ascend the throne, and so forth and so on. Unless Charles abdicates, and I just do not see him doing that, William will have to wait. And, frankly, WHY would William want to ascend to the throne at such a young age?

Actually we don't know if William will ever be Prince of Wales.

On his father's accession he will immediately become the Duke of Cornwall etc but... it is up to Charles to decide if, and when, he creates his son POW. With growing Welsh nationalism it is possible that the Welsh Assembly may advise the new king that they don't want a POW in which case Charles will be the last one.

The title Prince of Wales is NOT automatic unlike that of Duke of Cornwall.

 

[principessa]

I think Charles will reign. He will get king in the next 15 years. And he will be a great king of the United kingdom.

 

[jcbcode99]

It seems to me that there have been Princes of Wales since 1218; and now, they want to stop? I thought that Welsh nationalism is a desire to protect the national heritage of Wales. Part of that heritage is the Prince of Wales--who is involved in many different charities in Wales. I find it hard to believe that the country of Wales would do away with a centuries old title that works for their advantage.

 

[kiltmaker]

Originally Posted by kiltmaker
what if her Majesty decides that she would prefer William to be King? What a quandry!

It is not the Queen's decision to make. It's a birthright, specifically, Charles' birthright and then William's.

True true, I'd still like to see Andrew up there on the throne though

 

[Jo of Palatine]

It seems to me that there have been Princes of Wales since 1218; and now, they want to stop? I thought that Welsh nationalism is a desire to protect the national heritage of Wales. Part of that heritage is the Prince of Wales--who is involved in many different charities in Wales. I find it hard to believe that the country of Wales would do away with a centuries old title that works for their advantage.

Problem is that the English king Edward I. finally conquered Wales in 1282 and had the last Welsh prince of Wales tortured, maimed, drawn and quartered in front of a both fascinated and horrified crowd of Weshmen. In 1284 Wales became incorporated into England and in 1301 Edward created his eldest son Edward the first "Prince of Wales" of England. One can understand that still many Welshmen resent this title and its historical meaning, even if they like Charles personally.

 

[jcbcode99]

EGADS! That is very brutal--but why now? Can Wales decide that they don't want to have the title used anymore? Is it a legal title? How would this work?
Personally, I think it is not wise to dispense with the title. Regardless of the history, it cannot be disagreed that more recent holders of the title have doen good with it, and future holders, in theory, would use it in such a way as to benefit Wales.

And, my Dear Kiltmaker, I too adore Andrew--but really, some of those "ladies" he runs around with as a future Queen Consort?? Tsk Tsk.......but, Andrew is a charmer. He'd have no trouble charming me, that's for sure.

 

[wbenson]

The Assembly doesn't have the power to dispose of a title. They can symbolically vote in favour of its abolition, but it in no way binds the Sovereign. It may weigh in the decision process, but it has no legal effect.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Assembly doesn't have the power to dispose of a title. They can symbolically vote in favour of its abolition, but it in no way binds the Sovereign. It may weigh in the decision process, but it has no legal effect.

However, if the Assembly did express a desire for the King not to use the title the King would be unwise, as a constitutional monarch bound to accept the advice of his ministers (including his Welsh minister) to go against that advice.

If the Welsh Assembly did tell Charles that they didn't want the Prince of Wales title to be given to an English prince (who has been seen actively supporting English sporting teams against Welsh ones for example) then Charles would really be bound to follow that advice, just as if the English/British PM advised him to do something.

I wouldn't be surprised if that scenario actually unfolded and that William never became Prince of Wales but spent his years as heir to the throne as Duke of Cornwall.

 

[jcbcode99]

That sounds like lot of "ifs" to me; are we just speculating here? Has this been mentioned regularly? Does the Welsh Assembly want to take the title away? I've been searching on and off all day and I can't find anything that says they do--that doesn't mean anything, but if it were a predominant situation, then there would be more information out there about it, wouldn't there?
Chrissy57, I am very curious now! Do you have any information you might be able to post about this brewing topic? I'm fascinated and must know more!