The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Monarchy under Charles (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-monarchy-under-charles-16252.html)

hofburg 02-24-2006 12:56 PM

The Monarchy under Charles
 
An article from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/in...=1&oref=slogin

Skydragon 02-24-2006 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hofburg
An article from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/in...=1&oref=slogin

Correctly.

While he is PoW, he is speaking out on matters that do concern a lot of ordinary people.

Quote:

He accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of making "decisions based on market research and focus groups,"
Absolutely true and something that concerns ordinary people. Most of these 'focus groups' have no idea and no experience on the subjects they are advising on. How can someone on a 250K salary have any idea what someone on 20K salary does or thinks.
Quote:

An antagonist of much of contemporary architecture, he called a proposed extension to the National Gallery "a monstrous carbuncle" some years ago and said of the new British Library, then under construction, "How can you tell it is a library?"
Brilliant and needed saying on behalf of ordinary people.
Quote:

The note, later leaked by the disgruntled (and unpromoted) employee, went on to disparage "child-centered learning" in schools that "tells people that they can all be pop stars or High Court judges or brilliant TV personalities or even infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or effort or having natural ability."
Again brilliant observation.
Quote:

But public opinion does not seem universally behind the prince on this one.
From what I have heard and read, this statement is wrong.

It is the job of the Prince to speak for his nation and I believe he knows that once he is King, it will be harder to stand up for his people. He will still do his best for us but, I believe will accept the limitations put upon him as monarch.

ysbel 02-24-2006 03:34 PM

Since Charles has his own forum, I'm putting this thread in there.

Carry on with the conversation. It looks to be interesting. :)

Iluvbertie 02-24-2006 04:26 PM

I have always believed that the Prince of Wales has more leeway to make statements about people and politics (without taking sides of course) than the monarch.

Once he becomes king he will have to keep his counsel more but I would expect William to take up some of the causes of interest at the time - even some on behalf of his father.

love_cc 02-24-2006 06:48 PM

I think Prince Charles knows what is important to be a good monarch, how to be neutural about all politics. He agrees that his mother the QEII is a model monarch and he will learn to be a model monarch like his mother, but currently he is the Prince of Wales, so he tried to use his position to influence others, to persuade them to see what he regards beneficial for the people. I think Prince Charles has a great ambition about his achievements being Prince of Wales. He does not want to be playboy Prince but a dutiful Prince with great respects from his people. He truly cares his people and wants to help them. Prince Charles wants to be a People's Prince.

It is much easier to be a playboy Prince of Wales but Charles is too serious to be that. He always seeks the goal of his life and want to find his self-worth not only waiting the death of his mother and crowned as the King. So Prince Charles chooses to walk betwen lines to use his position to do what he thinks important. It could be an accuse of "abuse of power' or meldding the politics by those disagree with his view but it is important to those who needs his support. It is a very tough life as a Prince of Wales who wants to make achievements but who has no real power.

hofburg 02-25-2006 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Since Charles has his own forum, I'm putting this thread in there.

Carry on with the conversation. It looks to be interesting. :)

Thank you Ysbel, I haven't noticed that thread.

hofburg 02-26-2006 11:18 AM

Another excellent article:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...055994,00.html

BeatrixFan 02-26-2006 11:42 AM

What makes it excellent? Because it's a bash at the Prince of Wales?

ysbel 02-26-2006 11:55 AM

This is silly, IMHO.

The Queen and Prince of Wales are part of the government already. It's their role in a constitutional monarchy. Anyone in government is going to have some influence no matter how small no matter how pared down their official responsibilities are. Its naive to think otherwise.

The only danger they face is where they actively work against the will of the people but his latest diaries are 7 years old and it looks like Charles didn't try to influence the situation in Hong Kong at all at the time so his actions were consistent with the constitutional role of a monarch.

All a tempest in a teapot.

hofburg 02-26-2006 12:41 PM

I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.

Idriel 02-26-2006 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by love_cc
I think Prince Charles knows what is important to be a good monarch, how to be neutural about all politics.

this is the problem about Charles. He has obviously no concept of neutrality. Or correction, public neutrality.
He is far too old to change now, and I find very naive to think his methods will be different once he access the Throne.
All that, IMO, is just a way of pampering is own bruised ego: 'I am an influential person, I am a rebel, People are going to recognise my genius once I'm dead (whatever, Trevor)'.
The thing is, there is a difference between being controversial and being respected, just like there is a difference between publicising one's opinion on every single issue, and being influential.
His mother masters those subtle nuances, and I am sure every single words she says (in privacy and secrecy) is listened to carefully. He hasn't a clue.
I actually am convinced all his outcries have undermined is credibility and made him a easy laughing stock among a part of the British population.
It is sad because EII does a fantastic job to let him a strong an respected Crown. I wonder what can of heritage he will let to William.

BeatrixFan 02-26-2006 12:58 PM

Quote:

His mother masters those subtle nuances, and I am sure every single words she says (in privacy and secrecy) is listened to carefully. He hasn't a clue.
I think that he has got a clue. He's a brilliant Prince of Wales - possibly the best. His work with the Prince's Trust, his work with the people in the countryside - it all adds up. Charles showed that he understood farming to such a high degree that he had a solution for foot and mouth which the Government didnt listen to and therefore the situation got worse. It was only when they tried a plan similar to Charles's that the situation was ended. He's had over 40 years of learning, watching, meeting and working - it's unfair to say he hasn't got a clue. After all he's gone through, he's remained a hard worker and he has the interests of Britain at heart.

Quote:

I actually am convinced all his outcries have undermined is credibility and made him a easy laughing stock among a part of the British population.
Okay, you live in France so I wouldn't be so hasty as to judge the views of the British population. The British people are seeing Charles in a different light. Before he was never seen. His talents, his charm, his intelligence were overshadowed by his ex-wife. She took his glory and turned the attention to her. He never got a look in. Now it's different. Now he's happy and it shows. His new wife forms the part of a team that is winning everyone over. Camilla has been accepted. Charles has now got a chance to show his flair and his style because he has the love and support he needs without the one who gives it trying to steal his thunder.

This latest fuss has actually made people praise Charles. On every radio station, on every TV debate and in most of the newspapers they have all praised him - "Good on Charles". Why? Because we British are sick of being told that our past is wrong and that we should be ashamed of it. We are sick of being told that Europe is our only option. We are sick and annoyed with a Government that doesn't listen. Charles commented on all three of those things and more and he spoke for the people, and if that isn't the role of a King then I don't know what is.

He is an amazing man. His comments on people recognising his legacy when he's gone are the words of someone who has been pushed to the back of the classroom every time. Now it's time to let the real Charles shine through and the British people love it. He isn't thick - he understands what neutrality is and he understands what speaking out for your people means. He understands what it is to be in a position of influence and to do nothing when one could so easily help and make changes.

So, it isn't sad at all in my opinion. The Queen has been a wonderful monarch. Her son will be just as good. He has the mind, the strength and the courage of a true Prince of Wales and a true Briton - and we can't possibly go wrong with him as our figure head.

Elspeth 02-26-2006 01:14 PM

Quote:

I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.
However, she's Queen and she's been Queen since the age of 25. Prince Charles is a middle-aged man pushing 60, with decades of being used to being around the government. If the Queen had been the heir for so long, the chances are that she might have behaved somewhat differently. The sovereign is in a different position from the other senior royals.

Idriel 02-26-2006 01:30 PM

I am French but I live in England.
Yet that’s not really the point as I don’t take my British friends' opinions on the Monarchy to be that of the ‘British Public’ in general. Because if I did I would be convinced the Monarchy has about two months to live: every time I try to launch a conversation on the Windsor, I get bored looks and remarks like: ‘What is the point anyway?'.
You have a point through, it is not easy to get a wide idea of what the opinion think. The press give a deformed image, opinions differs, polls are not reliable.
But what you reproach me, you do. You tend to make your own opinions look widely accepted. Charles ‘ opinions are brilliants, Camilla is accepted, etc.
I don’t see any hint of this around me, a lot of journalist in this country, at least, seem to disagree with those statements, and I doubt you have sampled the whole population on those subjects. So unless you provide more substance to prove your statement, they will remains your opinions, and your opinions only to me.
No hard feelings hopefully.

BeatrixFan 02-26-2006 01:40 PM

I gave substance. I told you that the gauge of British opinion I've measured has been by listening to various radio stations, reading through newspapers, magazines and by TV interviews. Also, TV debate programmes, the morning magazine programmes - there has been a definate shift in public opinion that you can't miss.

ysbel 02-26-2006 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hofburg
I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.

Well the obvious difference is that Elizabeth II is the monarch whereas Charles is not.

Even so, the Queen has not refrained from speaking her opinion. When the conflict with Northern Ireland was very severe, she said publicly that she had been crowned Queen of Northern Ireland. It was considered a political statement.

Another time when Margaret Thatcher had dismissed some claims that an area of England had been hard hit by her economic policies, the Queen paid a visit to the area and when she came back, she told people, that there was nothing there (meaning it had been hard hit) This statement was widely disseminated at a time when the relationship between Thatcher and the Queen were very publicly somewhat tense.

ysbel 02-26-2006 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
Because if I did I would be convinced the Monarchy has about two months to live: every time I try to launch a conversation on the Windsor, I get bored looks and remarks like: ‘What is the point anyway?'

I've gotten that too from the Brits I work with, some of them in our London office but they hardly mention Charles as a reason this is happening. But when you ask them, they like Charles and Camilla and sometimes agree with what he says. They just think its irrelevant since the government is trying to strip down the monarchy which I think would happen no matter what Charles did.

Skydragon 02-26-2006 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hofburg
I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.

Much as I honour the Queen, I have to disagree with you. The Queen is 80, she comes from an era that is derided and long gone. Her views can hardly be considered modern, that's why she has so many advisors to her advisors. She is still doing a brilliant job but, Charles seems to be far more relevant to the people of Britain.

Charles is doing a briliiant job as Prince of Wales and every person I have spoken to, without fail, backs him. He has done and has tried to do more for the common man and woman than the entire government.

Most pubs you go in to and at most social gatherings, (if you mention the diaries), people call all journalists a host of unprintable names and then toast 'Good old Charlie'.

It is only the media who are trying to make out that Charles is interferring in politics, everyone else realises that like anyone, he is just offering his opinion on various situations and that is one of the jobs of any Prince of Wales!

Harry's polo shirt 05-05-2006 09:52 PM

I think he takes it very seriously. He has done great things for the public in many counties.

Roslyn 05-08-2006 04:41 AM

I think it's wonderful that people are talking about Charles and what he thinks and what he's doing.

I don't think he's ever looked more relaxed or happier than he has in the last 12 months.

MARG 05-08-2006 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn
I think it's wonderful that people are talking about Charles and what he thinks and what he's doing.

I don't think he's ever looked more relaxed or happier than he has in the last 12 months.

Well said Roslyn. The Prince of Wales does indeed look happier this last year. It is noted in all sorts of small and subtle ways that 'Oh! He has got a sense of humour!' or, as in Egypt earlier this year, that 'he is a credit to his country'.

About time too. :) :) :)

BeatrixFan 05-08-2006 01:09 PM

I think Charles has done something that he never gets praise for but is possibly the greatest achievement of his life. He has made a role for the Prince of Wales. Before, it was just a title but now, it's a job and we know what to expect from the Prince of Wales. I think he'll take that onto his role as King.

Panther2000 05-18-2006 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idriel
I am French but I live in England.
Yet that’s not really the point as I don’t take my British friends' opinions on the Monarchy to be that of the ‘British Public’ in general. Because if I did I would be convinced the Monarchy has about two months to live: every time I try to launch a conversation on the Windsor, I get bored looks and remarks like: ‘What is the point anyway?'.
You have a point through, it is not easy to get a wide idea of what the opinion think. The press give a deformed image, opinions differs, polls are not reliable.
But what you reproach me, you do. You tend to make your own opinions look widely accepted. Charles ‘ opinions are brilliants, Camilla is accepted, etc.
I don’t see any hint of this around me, a lot of journalist in this country, at least, seem to disagree with those statements, and I doubt you have sampled the whole population on those subjects. So unless you provide more substance to prove your statement, they will remains your opinions, and your opinions only to me.

Does the Happy dance. I second & move your motion. :D :p

Huddo 03-10-2008 10:39 PM

The Monarchy under Charles
 
I heard somewhere that when charles steps up to the throne that he intends to scale down the Royal Family!.....does that mean some people will loose their titles?....

Madame Royale 03-10-2008 11:22 PM

Well I certainly can't imagine him revoking any styles and titles given to those members of his family, by birth (brothers, sister, nieces and nephews).

But perhpas he will look more to an immediate royal family?

Himself, Camilla, William (William's wife), Harry (Harry's wife), grand children etc...

wbenson 03-11-2008 12:09 AM

The royal family will scale down naturally unless William or Harry have more than 1 or 2 children each. After the Queen's children and all of the royal descendants of George V die, there will be Beatrice, Eugenie, William, Harry, the descendants of William, and the descendants of Harry (assuming no untimely deaths). That's much smaller than we have now.

He may take away duties from some of the other members, though. Nothing in law says that being an HRH means that you have to receive public funds or perform any duties. I think that would be a massive blow for the visibility of the family, though.

Russophile 03-11-2008 01:46 PM

I'll bet the titles stay, but the income won't. Whatever income they used to get from the civil list won't be there any more and royals will have to *gasp* get. . . a . . . job. . . ! :eek:

wbenson 03-11-2008 11:19 PM

They don't get any income now from the civil list (only remuneration for official duties, and probably some cheap housing thrown in, but I doubt they would be thrown out), so their situations will stay the same.

muriel 03-12-2008 10:59 AM

I personally do think there will be a gradual reshaping of the monarchy in the years to come. Some of this has already started under the Queen.

> "Active" members of the royal family will be C&C, William and family, and to a lesser extent, Harry & family. Hopefully, Harry will probably continue to serve in the army for most of his life, exonerating him from public engagements. His wife may be called upon to play a somewhat supporting role to Camilla and William's wife, as appropriate.

> I suspect Anne will continue to work hard, as long as she reasonably can. Her children do not carry out royal engagements, and are unlikely to want to start now.

> I suspect Andrew, Edward and Sophie will gradually do even less than they currently do. They will be provided for financially (through trust fuinds the queen will leave for them, or through the private funds of the monarch, but not the state) so that they are not short of funds.

> I doubt if Beatrice and Eugenie will ever carry out any meaningful royal engagements on their own - other than perhaps, appearing with the royal family at Sandringham at Christmas (if that continues once Charles ascends the throne!) and occassionally on the balcony at Buck House. They too, will receve some money from the Queen in trust funds, and ultimately from their fathers estate, but outside of that, I don't see a monarchy under Charles subsidising their existence.

> Everybody gets to keep their titles, but I suspect there will be some pressure on B & E to drop the Princess title - which I think they will fight to keep!

Would be happy to hear everybody's views.

LadyCat 03-12-2008 11:18 AM

You're probably pretty close Muriel. Except for the titles of B & E. I think Eugenie may give hers up without a fuss, however I feel Andrew (probably at the insistence of Sarah) will fight for keeping them. Call me jaded, but Sarah has nothing to talk about and sell herself with if she is no longer the mother of two princesses.

Cat

normalil 03-12-2008 12:06 PM

I think Princess Anne will carry on working as long as she can. Her children don't have royal titles, and i think she was wise to do that. I don't see Beatrice or Eungenie doing anything except party.
I do feel that the Royal Family will change hugely after POW succeeds. There is still such bad feeling toward C and C, (unfairly I think.) It seems that almost everyone, whether Royalist or not, admits that the Queen is a great monarch, and she is viewed with such respect. This is bound to change when she is gone...(a long way off yet hopefully.)

Russophile 03-12-2008 07:27 PM

What's Charles going to do about all those castles, etc.? That's a lot of money to upkeep. Balmoral is theirs, isn't Windsor as well? Costs a lot of money to heat and light. Will they become museums to offset the costs?

BeatrixFan 03-12-2008 07:30 PM

I doubt it. I think Charles will spend alot more time at the Castle of Mey rather than Balmoral. Windsor Castle is open to the public at the moment but I can't see the Royal Family 'moving out'. They like it too much.

Russophile 03-12-2008 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 741495)
I doubt it. I think Charles will spend alot more time at the Castle of Mey rather than Balmoral. Windsor Castle is open to the public at the moment but I can't see the Royal Family 'moving out'. They like it too much.

Didn't the Queen Mum own the Castle of Mey?

BeatrixFan 03-12-2008 07:34 PM

Yup. Now it belongs to Charles AFAIK.

Elspeth 03-12-2008 07:39 PM

I think it's been given over to the Castle of Mey Trust or something.

According to the Wikipedia page, Prince Charles and Camilla stay there for a couple of weeks at the end of July.

Castle of Mey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Castle of Mey

Russophile 03-12-2008 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 741498)
Yup. Now it belongs to Charles AFAIK.

AFAIK?? :??:
It's a beautiful castle. Have they modernized it? Does anybody know how much money it takes to run a castle?

Mermaid1962 03-12-2008 07:50 PM

Are you asking what AFAIK means?

"As far as I know."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 741501)
AFAIK?? :??:
It's a beautiful castle. Have they modernized it? Does anybody know how much money it takes to run a castle?


Royal Fan 03-12-2008 08:39 PM

I Hope William is Invested Prince of Wales in Wales Like his Father .Wonder if The King will Be Charles III or George VII

Huddo 03-12-2008 09:31 PM

do you think they shoud go along the lines of the Norwegian Monarchy where only the heir and his children have the HRH title whereas everyone else such as Martha Louise and her Aunts have a lessor title?.....

Empress 03-12-2008 09:37 PM

I would really hate to see the monarchies dwindle to less than the current number. It would really be a sad day when we only had immediate members with titles.

BeatrixFan 03-12-2008 09:51 PM

I think in the future though it may be nessecary. I mean, Denmark has a smaller RF than Britain but Denmark is smaller than the UK so it makes sense. It's either a doubled work load for a smaller family or an equal half work load for a larger family. I personally think that the first option is going to be the best choice. Although by rights they should, alot of the public don't know who the Kents and Gloucesters are and so they don't recieve recognition. That wont change until the media cover the 'minor' Royals more. And if they do that, the RF is criticised for being too big. It's a Catch 22 situation. I think it's inevitable that the family will get smaller once the older generation dies off.

sirhon11234 03-12-2008 10:01 PM

But the downsizing of HRH is already going to happen. Once TRHS The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die the HRH will forever be dropped from the titles and their sons will be known as "His Grace". But then what will happen with all those jewels.

I doubt Beatrice and Eugenie will drop their titles.

BeatrixFan 03-12-2008 10:21 PM

Oh exactly. The HRHs will go, so will their duties and perks. I can't see any Royals dropping their titles. The jewels will stay with the families just as the Westminsters have jewels.

Empress 03-12-2008 10:25 PM

Well, titles will not pass on through Beatrix and Eugenie, so the only grandchildren of the Queen who will pass on titles are Harry and Wills, and now James, although his title is not strictly royal I suppose. So that will of course make the "family" smaller, since QEII only had one sibling, and her children do not carry royal titles as well.

Hopefully Wills and Harry will have large families of well behaved children so that we will have more royal titles again, instead of seeing them all disappear back into the Crown.

Russophile 03-13-2008 12:42 PM

That would be very interesting indeed! And what of their children? Would they marry into other royal families?
Less royals means more demand. Simple equation of economics of supply and demand! :biggrin:

muriel 03-14-2008 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyCat (Post 741152)
You're probably pretty close Muriel. Except for the titles of B & E. I think Eugenie may give hers up without a fuss, however I feel Andrew (probably at the insistence of Sarah) will fight for keeping them. Call me jaded, but Sarah has nothing to talk about and sell herself with if she is no longer the mother of two princesses.

Cat

Couldn't disagree with you. I suspect Andrew will fight for titles for his girls. B&E will have to work very hard to be veiwed in the eyes of the public as assets to the royal family, which I suspect is the only way they can retain any public relevance. Them each doing a spread on Talter on their 18th birthday are certainly ominous signs............... of them morphing into C list celebs!

As grand daughters of the Queen, they may enjoy having huge birthday parties at Windsor, but they are going to loose all of that in a few years time. The nearest they will be making it to a royal residence will be Royal Lodge.

muriel 03-14-2008 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 741493)
What's Charles going to do about all those castles, etc.? That's a lot of money to upkeep. Balmoral is theirs, isn't Windsor as well? Costs a lot of money to heat and light. Will they become museums to offset the costs?

I think the royal properties will stay, but will probably be worked a bit harder to raise revenues. There may be a bit of a realignment of properties within the family.
> Windsor is owned by the state, but is very closely identified with the royal family. I suspect C&C will spend most weekends there, like the Queen.
> Sandringham and Balmoral and privately owned by the family and will probably continue to be used. Charkes wil probably send quite a lot of money doing the two properties up, and converting them to Highgrove style eco-houses with orghanic gardens etc
> Highgrove (owned by the Duchy of Cornwall), Birkhall and the new place in Wales (not ready yet, to be run partly as a B&B) will be freed up, to be used by the next generation
> The Castle of Mey, as pointed out, has been bequethed to the nation and is now operated by a Trust. Its a beautiful building, but is not very big
> Gen next (Wills and Harry) and their respective families will need to be accomodated. Depending on how long the Queen lives, it may be that Wills moves to the property being developed by the Duchy of Cornwall near Hereford. That leaves Harry, who will probably get given a cottage some place. Once Charles succeeds to the throne, the boys will probably be reaccomodated. They are likely to want properties in the Cotswolds or the West country as that is where they grew up and where most of their friends are. They will probably both end up with a flat each in London - in either Buck House, Clarence House or St James'. Once Charles moves to Buckingham Palace, Wills will probably move to Clarence House
> It has been suggested previously that Charles may prefer to continue to live at Clarence House and use Buck House as "the office." I personally doubt it - he is not a man known for modest living, and is unlikely to turn down the chance to put his stamp on the building
> It will be interesting to see who inherits Highgrove (Wills or Harry), and whether Charles will be able to give up his beloved house and gardens which he has lovingly nurtured over the last 25 years.

Happy to hear how others feel.

Jo of Palatine 03-14-2008 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 742122)
I

Happy to hear how others feel.

Muriel, IMHO a real problem in the whole discussion is that while in Britain is is absolutely self-explainable that kids inherit their parent's posession, it it not recognised by the public that the Royals gave over their inheritance in exchange to some priviledges in the 1700. So while the public thinks the Royals are taking from them, the reverse is true when the laws of the Uk are administered as they are. The so-called "Crown estate" makes at the moemnt about 5 times the gains that the government invests into the RF. If the Royals were no longer considered Royals but ancient landowners like the Westminsters or other peers, they could have a marvellous time. But if the politcal trend would turn against the Westminsters, the whole of Britian would be turned upside-down, so I guess it's much easier to focus on the Windsors...

Russophile 03-14-2008 07:49 PM

I read an article recently that a lot of businessmen/women are demanding high class amenities when they travel and there has been a big demand for castle-style housing with all the perks. HRH can go that way with some of the properties. . .

muriel 03-17-2008 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 742136)
Muriel, IMHO a real problem in the whole discussion is that while in Britain is is absolutely self-explainable that kids inherit their parent's posession, it it not recognised by the public that the Royals gave over their inheritance in exchange to some priviledges in the 1700. So while the public thinks the Royals are taking from them, the reverse is true when the laws of the Uk are administered as they are. The so-called "Crown estate" makes at the moemnt about 5 times the gains that the government invests into the RF. If the Royals were no longer considered Royals but ancient landowners like the Westminsters or other peers, they could have a marvellous time. But if the politcal trend would turn against the Westminsters, the whole of Britian would be turned upside-down, so I guess it's much easier to focus on the Windsors...

Quite right, the "costs" or value the BRF bring to Briatin certainly need to be seen in light of the history, as you so rightly point out.

muriel 03-20-2008 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 742329)
I read an article recently that a lot of businessmen/women are demanding high class amenities when they travel and there has been a big demand for castle-style housing with all the perks. HRH can go that way with some of the properties. . .

Russophile - I hate to say it, but the thought of Windsor or Sandringham operating as some form of an upmarket B&B is quite ridiculous!

scooter 03-20-2008 06:56 PM

One thing I would love to see in Charles' reign would be a whole new era of the Royal gardens at various residences. I doubt he would radically overhaul earlier sections of the garden, but I could easily envision whole new gardens where there are none presently. I admire both his and Highgrove's gardeners green thumb's tremendously. There are several great books on it. In fact in's where the Royalty shelf and the Gardening shelf intersect in my library.:flowers:

Mermaid1962 03-20-2008 07:11 PM

The next step would be "The Windsors: The Reality Show." :smile:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan (Post 744227)
I Agree seems odd


Russophile 03-21-2008 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 744174)
Russophile - I hate to say it, but the thought of Windsor or Sandringham operating as some form of an upmarket B&B is quite ridiculous!

Ya never know, they may need the bucks! :lol:

PrinceOfCanada 03-21-2008 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 740962)
They don't get any income now from the civil list (only remuneration for official duties, and probably some cheap housing thrown in, but I doubt they would be thrown out), so their situations will stay the same.

Actually, the only members of the family that receive Civil List payments free and clear are HM, HRH Prince Philip, and HRH Prince Charles. The others do receive payment for official duties, but HM repays it out of the Privy Purse.

PrinceOfCanada 03-21-2008 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 742136)
Muriel, IMHO a real problem in the whole discussion is that while in Britain is is absolutely self-explainable that kids inherit their parent's posession, it it not recognised by the public that the Royals gave over their inheritance in exchange to some priviledges in the 1700. So while the public thinks the Royals are taking from them, the reverse is true ... (snip)

FINALLY! Someone else who understands that the Monarchy costs the citizens of the UK precisely nothing. In fact, it is HM who is giving her inherited revenues (Crown Estate, not the Duchy of Lancaster) to run her government!

AuroraB 03-22-2008 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 744690)
Actually, the only members of the family that receive Civil List payments free and clear are HM, HRH Prince Philip, and HRH Prince Charles. The others do receive payment for official duties, but HM repays it out of the Privy Purse.

Close, only HM and HRH Prince Philip are receipients on the Civil List. POW's income is from the Duchy of Cornwall. :flowers:

PrinceOfCanada 03-22-2008 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AuroraB (Post 744707)
Close, only HM and HRH Prince Philip are receipients on the Civil List. POW's income is from the Duchy of Cornwall. :flowers:

I know he has that personal income, but my understanding is that his official duties are covered by the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid.

Elspeth 03-22-2008 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 744691)
FINALLY! Someone else who understands that the Monarchy costs the citizens of the UK precisely nothing. In fact, it is HM who is giving her inherited revenues (Crown Estate, not the Duchy of Lancaster) to run her government!

I think you'll find that a lot of the regular posters here understand about the Crown Estate. It's when you get out into the real world where people don't know and often don't care about the Crown Estate, the Civil List, the Privy Purse, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, they just think the royal family are freeloaders, and a lot of people still don't know that the Queen pays tax on her private income.

PrinceOfCanada 03-22-2008 01:11 AM

I dunno, Elspeth.. reading through a lot of posts here has showed me that many, many members don't understand how it actually works. Comments such as "If the British taxpayers are paying for the monarchy..." and so forth are quite common, I think.

wbenson 03-22-2008 01:35 AM

If the monarchy ended, would the Crown Estates actually revert to being the personal property of the ex-monarch, though? It seems like it could easily be argued that it's become, like the palaces, something along the lines of "state property" due to the near unbreakable convention that each monarch surrender it. Did Edward VIII have to sell it when he abdicated, or did it automatically change hands? If it's the latter, I don't think it could really be considered personal property.

Elspeth 03-22-2008 01:36 AM

The Civil List does come out of public funds, as do the funds for royal travel and so on, so in that respect it's true that the monarchy is paid for by the taxpayer. The Crown Estate assets and income are the other side of that equation, which quite a few of the posters do know about even when they're grumbling about the cost to the taxpayer - they're just disregarding that side of the equation for the sake of the argument.

PrinceOfCanada 03-22-2008 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 744721)
If the monarchy ended, would the Crown Estates actually revert to being the personal property of the ex-monarch, though? It seems like it could easily be argued that it's become, like the palaces, something along the lines of "state property" due to the near unbreakable convention that each monarch surrender it. Did Edward VIII have to sell it when he abdicated, or did it automatically change hands? If it's the latter, I don't think it could really be considered personal property.

My argument would run thus:

The CE belongs to the Sovereign.
The Sovereign voluntarily (via constitutional convention) surrenders the revenues.
Parliament votes (the traitorous bastards!) to abolish the monarchy.
All Sovereign property reverts to the person. That would, in my estimation, be the CE (as the CE is personally ceded), but no Windsor or Buck House, for example (as those are held by the State).

wbenson 03-22-2008 02:42 AM

Is the Crown Estate personally ceded though? Did Elizabeth who happened to be the Queen cede it or did the Queen who happened also to be Elizabeth cede it? (Does the monarch cede it in a personal role or in an official role?)

If it's specifically property of the monarch (and cannot be the property of anyone else) as opposed to the property of the person who happens to be the monarch (and could diverge from that), I would think it would be the same as the palaces.

I'll have to look into what happened when Edward VIII abdicated in regards to that. If he automatically lost it, I would think that in the event of a republic, the state would keep it.

PrinceOfCanada 03-22-2008 11:45 AM

My understanding is that the Sovereign inherits it at Accession, and then renews the arrangement. I wouldn't say it's the same as the palaces, though; they are 'held in trust for the people of the UK', same as the Royal Collection (though I imagine there could be a very pretty fight about that, since most items in the Collection were purchased privately AFAIK). The CE is essentially personal property.

serenissima 04-23-2008 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyCat (Post 741152)
You're probably pretty close Muriel. Except for the titles of B & E. I think Eugenie may give hers up without a fuss, however I feel Andrew (probably at the insistence of Sarah) will fight for keeping them. Call me jaded, but Sarah has nothing to talk about and sell herself with if she is no longer the mother of two princesses.

Cat

Oh, I remember now a couple of years ago, this was talked about. The Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie would have their HRH Princess ... bits taken away in due course and some people were feeling sorry for them. I think it was something to do with the Wessexs decided to style their daughter Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor or something and this triggered the idea of getting rid of those girls' HRH styles etc.

Anyway, they won't be able to pass their HRHs to their children, so, why not let them keep their HRH bit ?

serenissima 04-23-2008 08:15 PM

Anyway, the monarchy under Charles may be a very short one. Having said that he eats a lot of organic vegetables from his own patch, he may live longer. Oh, he and his wife love mutton, apparently, so they may get some coronary diseases induced by the unsaturated fat.

LadyCat 04-23-2008 08:34 PM

Undoubtedly, he will not reign as long as his mother -- since he had his children in his 30s, his son will probably have a longer reign. I am rather anxious to see how Charles fairs as King. Not to wish the Queen ill though!

Cat

serenissima 04-24-2008 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyCat (Post 757875)
Undoubtedly, he will not reign as long as his mother -- since he had his children in his 30s, his son will probably have a longer reign. I am rather anxious to see how Charles fairs as King. Not to wish the Queen ill though!

Cat

Oh, whenever I sing the National Anthem, I do mean "Long to reign over us" bit. Those clergy people who are close to the Queen in their service say that she sees her office is as an ordained ministry that she will never think of anything like an early retirement before her own demise as in abdication.

Jo of Palatine 04-24-2008 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 744728)
My argument would run thus:

The CE belongs to the Sovereign.
The Sovereign voluntarily (via constitutional convention) surrenders the revenues.
Parliament votes (the traitorous bastards!) to abolish the monarchy.
All Sovereign property reverts to the person. That would, in my estimation, be the CE (as the CE is personally ceded), but no Windsor or Buck House, for example (as those are held by the State).

It's a bit different as there was a contract about handling over the CE in exchange for the payments from the Civil list. So far the queen by her own choice has accepted a change to that contract insofar as she gets much less money in exchange but still lets the CE be part of the public purse.

Once Britain becomes a republic it will remain to be seen how the contract has to be ended and who gets what on ending it. The could do it like Bavaria did it when the former kingdom became a republic: the Royal family kept all their personal possessions that were easily to identify as private. As it was impossible for many things and estates to figure out if the king had bought them as a private person or as the souverain (especially in times hwen there was no difference between the king and the state), these possessions became public property and the State of Bavaria mad a contract with the Royal family to establish a foundation for the benefit of the family of Wittelsbach. This foundation is called "Wittelbacher Ausgleichfond" - meaning Compensation fund for the Wittelsbach family - and the State put in money, estates or the right to use certain parts of certain estates while the rest was opened to the public, all valued at an amount the State and the family had agreed on. Today the Wittelsbach manage this fund with the help of state officials and all revenues are going to support the family. As could be seen from a recent interviewiiwth the Head of the House, The Duke of Bavaria, all sides are perfectly comfortable with it - so much that the family decided to introduce part of their private possessions into this fund in order to make it easier for the public to have access to it - eg the art collections.

I could imagine a similar concept for the Crown Estate - a kind of compensation fund for the benefit of the Windsors in case the monarchy is being abolished.

Jo of Palatine 04-24-2008 08:21 AM

From the Crown estates Homepage: Our History

"By 1760, when George III acceded to the throne, (...)
taxes had become the prime source of revenue for the United Kingdom and Parliament administered the country, so an agreement was reached that The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - today known as the Civil List. This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign.
In 1955 a Government Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve recommended that to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land, the latter should be renamed The Crown Estate and should be managed by an independent board. These recommendations were implemented by The Crown Estate Acts of 1956 and 1961."

As English common law is based on the fact that "The king never dies" -meaning that there is no interregnum between reigns, be they ended through death or the signing of an abdiction document, the moment a new king/queen accedes to the throne, the agreement has to be repeated by the new souverain. That means that the agreement automatically comes to an end when a reign ends - because of death, abdication or abolition of the monarchy.

The fact that they even introduced a new bill in 1961 in order "to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land", means that it is agreed that the Crown Estate belongs to the king/queen and not to the government. IMHo, of course.

serenissima 04-24-2008 09:17 AM

[quote=Jo of Palatine;758027]It's a bit different as there was a contract about handling over the CE in exchange for the payments from the Civil list. So far the queen by her own choice has accepted a change to that contract insofar as she gets much less money in exchange but still lets the CE be part of the public purse. quote]

Oh, I can say this for certain that the Church of England is no longer funded by the state. Mrs Thatcher decided to take that away from the church in 1980's that the Church House did such a bad bad investment in order to find their own financial source but that went very very badly indeed. Now, many parish churches are closed or sold away to be converted into some luxury flats etc or simply demolished to build some new flats etc. Places such as St Paul's in London etc struggle to keep up their colloosal buildings.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England but not the spiritual head of it. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of All England and the Archbishop of York is the Primate of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the President of the Anglican Communion world wide. In fact, the Queen's role in the affairs of the Church of England is very much a nominal one now. She does not have her part in the course of the General Synod etc that are later dealt by the parliament for, say, even the use of a new prayer book in the Church of England has to be agreed by the parlaiment (though the church does not receive any financial support from the state any longer) However, her title the Fidei defensor is more political since it was confered upon the English monarch by the parliament that the sovereign has to be a member of the Church of England.

Jo of Palatine 04-24-2008 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenissima (Post 758058)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 758027)
It's a bit different as there was a contract about handling over the CE in exchange for the payments from the Civil list. So far the queen by her own choice has accepted a change to that contract insofar as she gets much less money in exchange but still lets the CE be part of the public purse.

Oh, I can say this for certain that the Church of England is no longer funded by the state.

snip rest of message

I don't understand why you are talking about the Church of England now?

serenissima 04-24-2008 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 758066)
I don't understand why you are talking about the Church of England now?

Oh, because I was under the impression that you thought that the Church of England was funded by the public sector.

PrinceOfCanada 04-24-2008 10:01 AM

Quote:

As English common law is based on the fact that "The king never dies" -meaning that there is no interregnum between reigns, be they ended through death or the signing of an abdiction document, the moment a new king/queen accedes to the throne, the agreement has to be repeated by the new souverain. That means that the agreement automatically comes to an end when a reign ends - because of death, abdication or abolition of the monarchy.
What a perfectly logical way of looking at it. Thank you!

the1mcgraws 04-24-2008 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huddo (Post 740430)
I heard somewhere that when charles steps up to the throne that he intends to scale down the Royal Family!.....does that mean some people will loose their titles?....

No I don't think so. I think he will probably do it by attrition. It will be similar probably to what has happened with Prince Edward's offspring.

the1mcgraws 04-24-2008 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenissima (Post 757961)
Oh, whenever I sing the National Anthem, I do mean "Long to reign over us" bit. Those clergy people who are close to the Queen in their service say that she sees her office is as an ordained ministry that she will never think of anything like an early retirement before her own demise as in abdication.

I cannot imagine that the Queen will ever abdicate. At least I hope not.
She has been good for the country. And based ont he age of her mother, I cannot imagine she is going anywhere anytime soon. Frankly.....I think Charles is destined to have a very short reign and I think he knows that.

Skydragon 04-25-2008 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenissima (Post 758058)
Now, many parish churches are closed or sold away to be converted into some luxury flats etc or simply demolished to build some new flats etc. Places such as St Paul's in London etc struggle to keep up their colloosal buildings.

The CoE and the Catholic church are among the richest institutions in the country, the reason the churches are being sold off is due to lack of church goers which equals a lack of local funds.
Church of England stores up riches on Earth | Business | The Guardian

Jo of Palatine 04-25-2008 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenissima (Post 758076)
Oh, because I was under the impression that you thought that the Church of England was funded by the public sector.

Really? How come? I can't recall having ever said anything about the CoE and money...

tommy1716 04-25-2008 06:21 AM

I keep wondering about the idea of a slimmed down monarchy - from what the media says and the general impression overall it might seem that Charles is not particularly close to his siblings and nieces and nephews, so this means he might see it as acceptable to "cut out" some members of the family in the sense of public engagements and public roles, but do you think the public and the media would accept Charles effectively telling Ann to stop working? Especaiily as for example, Camilla doesn't work nearly as hard as Ann. Wouldn't it just make Charles look, well, vindictive?

PrinceOfCanada 04-25-2008 07:56 AM

Quote:

I cannot imagine that the Queen will ever abdicate. At least I hope not.
She won't. This has been said time and time and time again. HM's reign will end with her death, period. Even if (God forbid!) she becomes incapacitated, there will be a Regency, not an abdication.

Kezza 04-25-2008 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tommy1716 (Post 758422)
I keep wondering about the idea of a slimmed down monarchy - from what the media says and the general impression overall it might seem that Charles is not particularly close to his siblings and nieces and nephews, so this means he might see it as acceptable to "cut out" some members of the family in the sense of public engagements and public roles, but do you think the public and the media would accept Charles effectively telling Ann to stop working? Especaiily as for example, Camilla doesn't work nearly as hard as Ann. Wouldn't it just make Charles look, well, vindictive?

That's my worry with Charles as king, because I do tend to think Charles is Jealous of his siblings. I do think he might be vindicitive towards them, which will cause a massive scandal.

I think Charles is his own worst enemy at times.

Which of Charles siblings would Charles be more vindictive towards, I have a hunch it will be towards the Wessex's family.:ohmy:

tinkerbell1948 04-25-2008 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kezza (Post 758466)
That's my worry with Charles as king, because I do tend to think Charles is Jealous of his siblings. I do think he might be vindicitive towards them, which will cause a massive scandal.

Kezza what do you base your thoughts on? It just never occurred to me that Charles would be jealous of Anne, Andrew and Edward

Jo of Palatine 04-25-2008 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kezza (Post 758466)
That's my worry with Charles as king, because I do tend to think Charles is Jealous of his siblings. I do think he might be vindicitive towards them, which will cause a massive scandal.

I think Charles is his own worst enemy at times.

Which of Charles siblings would Charles be more vindictive towards, I have a hunch it will be towards the Wessex's family.:ohmy:

Even if you're right: what can he do to them? HM will make provisions in her will for all her children and in public life Charles is bound by the rules. But somehow I at least don't see him as vindictive at all.

Kezza 04-25-2008 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinkerbell1948 (Post 758469)
Kezza what do you base your thoughts on? It just never occurred to me that Charles would be jealous of Anne, Andrew and Edward

I get the feeling at times he is a bit jealous of them because the three of them to some extent get more loving attention from either The Queen or Prince Phillip in some way. I don't think Charles has ever had the same level of closeness to his parents, than what his younger siblings have had. Maybe some of that has been down to him.

For Example I think the Queen is closer to Andrew and Edward and Prince Phillip's favourite child is Anne and Favourite son is Edward.

That's just a feeling I get, but I could be wrong.:lol:

Jo of Palatine 04-25-2008 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kezza (Post 758473)
I get the feeling at times he is a bit jealous of them because the three of them to some extent get more loving attention from either The Queen or Prince Phillip in some way. I don't think Charles has ever had the same level of closeness to his parents, than what his younger siblings have had. Maybe some of that has been down to him.

For Example I think the Queen is closer to Andrew and Edward and Prince Phillip's favourite child is Anne and Favourite son is Edward.

That's just a feeling I get, but I could be wrong.:lol:

Yes, maybe, but he is close to 60 now and has a loving family of his own, so I doubt he worries about such things, as they to a degree happen in all families.As he is the heir it could well be that it's the other way round...

Maybe he feels he had been treated harsher than the others but then he must see there was a reason behind it. And his choice of darling wife (the second, of course!) tells me a lot about who he regarded as his real mother, which was the Queen Mum. IMHO, of course.

tommy1716 04-25-2008 05:36 PM

I think part of Charles' apperance of being vidicitive to his siblings is the fault of his staff. I rememeber that after the whole Ardent TV filming Prince Willaim at Uni fiasco that it was reported that Charles aides had briefied the media against Ed and Sophie.

I just feel that Charles likes being centre of attention and thus when he ebcomes King will want all the attention upon him, CAmilla, HArry and William. Thus we would probably like his siblings to stop performing, at least so many, public engagements. Whilst doing this to Ed and Andy might not be so controversial i think telling Ann to stop would be seen as simply petty, she's worked so hard for so long that she has earned the right to do as she pleases.

Can you just imagine Anne still working when Charles is King? I mean you'd have "Queen" Camilla performing a few engagements a month and the King's sister performing 600+ a year. I don't think Charles will let that sisutation happen, so the only answer is to get Ann to drop her engagements.

Here are some links to some stories:

Knives out for spin doctor as royals feud | UK news | The Observer
Has the puppet-master of St James's finally pulled one string too many? - Telegraph
It was me what spun it | UK news | The Guardian
Revealed: the vicious feud behind that Charles row | the Daily Mail
Philip turns on Wills in TV row | the Daily Mail

love_cc 04-25-2008 05:50 PM

I doubt Prince Charles can do anything to stop Princess Anne and he won't do. Princess Anne is very much her own person and even in their childhood it was Princess Anne who play the leader role. Prince Charles will not and will be not able to put any pressure on Princess Anne. I am quite sure about this.

Basically I don't see the problems of his siblings keeping their works in Charles' reign. It is about the royal family's integrated valuation and I don't see Prince Charles to change that. He may be not happy about the way he was/is treated by his parents but I don't think he would do anything to jepodise the stablilty of the monarchy and damage the image of the monarchy.

Even the royal silbings rivals are always there in private, there will be public peace among them.

BeatrixFan 04-25-2008 06:03 PM

I think Charles and Anne are quite close. I can't see there being any rivalry there.

tommy1716 04-25-2008 06:15 PM

I have to admit when it comes to Anne i think Charles and she get on well privatley, but i still think wen it comes ot public duties and the performing of lack of my Ann and Camilla, Charles aides at least, might seek to find a solution to avoid any embrassing comparisons. However i think Charles might personally like to see Ed disspear off the public royal map.

Royal Fan 04-26-2008 12:55 AM

Compared to her Coronation how Large is Charles expected to be will his sons wear robes ect ect some up how you think it might turn out.

Madame Royale 04-26-2008 01:17 AM

I just hope the pomp and ceremony which was seen at his mother's coronation remains. It's been said he wishes to wear his naval unfirom instead of the traditional garb, and that I can handle, but I won't be at all impressed if the royal ladies of Europe, Asia and Africa turn up without their parure's and suites.

A coronation, for the masses, is as much about show as it is about adherence, sanctity and tradition.

I expect Anne to dress like a man though...she does it so well...:biggrin:

wbenson 04-26-2008 01:27 AM

I wonder if they'll make coronation robes for all the peers or if they'll just have them come in their parliamentary robes.

Skydragon 04-26-2008 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 758630)
I think Charles and Anne are quite close. I can't see there being any rivalry there.

You don't ask your sibling to name your child if you don't like them. So I too believe that Charles and Anne are close, I also believe that Anne gets on really well with Camilla.

There is bound to be a slight distance between the older two and the younger two, but I don't think it is anything more than a slight generation gap. there may have been big arguments in the past (we don't know that definitely), but as with any family, there are always going to be minor falling outs.

Long live King Tom, Dick or George as long as Charles is happy with it! :biggrin:

Monika_ 07-19-2008 08:43 PM

Camilla's legacy
 
Does anyone have any thoughts on what her legacy will be?

acdc1 07-19-2008 09:10 PM

Don't get me wrong- I really like Camilla. I think that she is a wonderful woman who loves her family and is loyal to the royal family and her country. She also does lots of good works.

However, I think that she will be remembered most often as the woman who had an affair with Prince Charles and/or wrecked his marriage with Diana. Yes, it is only one of the reasons why the marriage didn't work. But, for some, it is the strongest or most important.

Elspeth 07-19-2008 09:50 PM

Too early to tell, IMO. If Charles dies before the Queen, Camilla's legacy will be different from her legacy if she spends a number of years as Queen Consort; her legacy as Queen Consort would be different from her legacy as Princess Consort. At this point it's largely conjecture.

Winnie 07-19-2008 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acdc1 (Post 801086)
Don't get me wrong- I really like Camilla. I think that she is a wonderful woman who loves her family and is loyal to the royal family and her country. She also does lots of good works.

However, I think that she will be remembered most often as the woman who had an affair with Prince Charles and/or wrecked his marriage with Diana. Yes, it is only one of the reasons why the marriage didn't work. But, for some, it is the strongest or most important.

I agree, and it is rather a shame -- but people just won't let things die a natural death. Happens in EVERY country at one time or another.

Al_bina 07-19-2008 10:05 PM

I tend to agree with acdc1. Duchess of Cornwall's legacy will always be marred by her earlier reputation.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises