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)

jcbcode99 07-19-2008 11:06 PM

Well, I do think that as time passes her legacy as "the woman who had an affair with Charles and wrecked his marriage to Diana" will be considerably diminished in light of what she chooses to become involved in. I think she will long be remembered for her charity work with osteoporosis, for example. However, to think that Camilla will ever really be seperated from Diana is foolish--because the three of them are forever linked together. But, I think that as years pass that connection will give way to an appreciation for the Duchess and for her years of standing by Charles--even when ridiculed and maligned by many.

Mermaid1962 07-19-2008 11:49 PM

Camilla will be remembered as the Consort of King Charles III; but unless she does something extraordinary on her own, that might be the only thing she'll be remembered for. She won't have any children in common with Charles for her to be remembered by; i.e. her DNA won't be part of the Royal Family.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 801103)
Well, I do think that as time passes her legacy as "the woman who had an affair with Charles and wrecked his marriage to Diana" will be considerably diminished in light of what she chooses to become involved in. I think she will long be remembered for her charity work with osteoporosis, for example. However, to think that Camilla will ever really be seperated from Diana is foolish--because the three of them are forever linked together. But, I think that as years pass that connection will give way to an appreciation for the Duchess and for her years of standing by Charles--even when ridiculed and maligned by many.

Yes, I agree, as you might imagine, with the add on that she will also be remembered as the woman who seems to have made the Prince a happy and happily married man.

But it won't just be for her outstanding work to bring Osteoporosis into the 'news', but her involvement with Brook, the War Memorial Trust & Barnardos, to name just a few. She seems to involve herself with many of the smaller charities as well, the ones that are forgotten by many people. So her legacy will be different things to different people.

Of course her main legacy will be that of Queen to Charles' King! :wub:

Madame Royale 07-20-2008 07:06 AM

Quote:

Too early to tell, IMO.
So so true.

Yet on the other hand...:biggrin:

I'm not so sure her main legacy would be that of a Queen, if so crowned one. I can't 'see' Camilla being Queen, if so crowned one, long enough to create a legacy in such a way which would make her time spent as Queen stand out, or be something extraordinary. I could be wrong of course, I just can't invision it at this point in time. Perhaps because she isn't one yet?..lol. Possibly so. Most likely. We'll see.

Whatever her legacy, I hope she's portrayed fairly and with warmth.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 801093)
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.

There must be hope, after all, Charles and Camilla have only been married for three years and three months and already we are thinking and talking of her legacy! :lol:

Monika_ 07-20-2008 09:03 AM

Thanks for all the feedback. I really enjoyed reading the comments and I think they are pretty well balanced.

My own opinion echoes some of what has already been stated. I've never disputed Camilla's affect on Charles or her discretion. She appears to be down-to-earth and easy to get along with. She could even be fun to have as friend. I will give her the credit she deserves. I also agree that it is early to 'seal the deal' on her legacy, however, I think the predominant theme will be her place in the Wales' marriage and the resulting impact on the monarchy.

Thanks again for all the feedback! :smile:

love_cc 07-20-2008 10:13 AM

I think Camilla will be regarded the love of Prince Charles' life and an enduring influencer in most of his adult life. Camilla's supportive and calm influence will be compared to QE the Queen Mother's influence on King George VI.

However I think Camilla may be suggested to be an enduring and crucual influencer in Prince Charle's life: after Queen mother, Lord Mountbatten, and Sir Laurens Van der poster. If in the future we will be able to have great access to Prince Charles's personal journals, exchanged notes between him and Camilla, the assessement of Camilla's influence will have more substances. I always think Camilla will be assumed her position in Charles's life is not only about love, but also her long-term unqiue understandings in his most ideas and his passions in building a greater society while making his own marks in history.

Again, I do think Camilla shares the Queen Mother's certain traits in helping Charles to realise his dreams which endures his affections and gratitudes which sustains and deepens their ties.

ysbel 07-20-2008 11:26 AM

Consorts generally have more enduring influence in private. The Queen Mother had one legacy with the public as the Queen Mum but she had a far greater legacy in private as the matriarch of the family; this legacy was far more powerful and I'm beginning to agree with Elspeth that her influence in the private realm wasn't so good.

It seems Camilla's greatest legacy will be her influence on other members of the royal family; first, of course, Charles, and then of course her stepsons. If she is really as close to William and Harry as they appear to be, then her influence on the future of the British monarchy could be great.

I still think her legacy (or Diana's for that matter) is not as important as the legacy that Charles and William as future monarchs make. Diana and/or Camilla could both have great legacies but unless Charles and William have their own legacies and their own influence on the Crown; their influence is as best peripheral.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 801238)
CI still think her legacy (or Diana's for that matter) is not as important as the legacy that Charles and William as future monarchs make.

Indeed, because without Charles neither woman would be known and without Charles there would be no William.:flowers:

Jo of Palatine 07-20-2008 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 801238)
I still think her legacy (or Diana's for that matter) is not as important as the legacy that Charles and William as future monarchs make. Diana and/or Camilla could both have great legacies but unless Charles and William have their own legacies and their own influence on the Crown; their influence is as best peripheral.

My thoughts exactly. We have yet to see Charles as king. What kind of influence will he actively bring to Britain once he is in the top position himself? What will he achieve, what kind of definition of kingdom will he bring to the 21.century? What kind of legacy will he leave Britain?

Diana was IMHO very much at fault when she didn't understand that to make a strong and lasting impact any organization needs one prominent figurehead. That's it with the monarchy and that's the same for charities. I seem to recall that the difficulties between Charles and Diana started when she refused to see that there culd not be two charity organizations at the same time under the label "BRF- Wales line". When she was denied her own "The Princess' Trust" she started to upstage Charles instead of accepting that her support would have meant so much to the Prince's Trust. (Sources: Morton, Dimbleby). Camilla won't ever upstage Charles, she supports his charities, she supports the monarchy, she does all she can and finds herself other rewards than those who cater to her vanity. Sorry to sound so harsh towards Diana but Charles has done so much for Britain, so many thoughts and ideas considered and put to use much earlier than others - for me the height of unfairness was when Diana claimed he was not fit to be a king because he couldn't form a real bond with his people. And that ugly label still sticks!

We'll see what will happen once he is king. And only then we will be able to pas any judgment on Camilla's legacy. For her role in that so very personal triangle will be considered rather unimportant for the historians and later generations, but if it turns out she was the soul-mate of a great king, then she'll have a legacy. Even if this only means that trust and support is more important than selfishness and vanity.

CasiraghiTrio 07-20-2008 01:16 PM

I can only say what I imagine will be, or already is, Camilla's legacy based on what she means to me. To me, she is the unabashed, prevailing against the odds, here to stay, here to be happy, and here to be herself Camilla.
I admire her because she is totally herself, but unlike some people in royalty who "be themselves," she is also always appropriate. She is out doing her work the way she does it naturally and not to please anyone, yet she does it with consideration of everyone's temperaments and never is offensive or obnoxious. She is a perfect "royal" in that sense.

Amelia 07-20-2008 01:26 PM

I think Camilla's legacy will depend a little on how old she is when she dies. She is only 60/61, so, God willing, she has many years ahead of her yet. Even if she only with us for the next twenty years there will be a whole generation of people who didn't experience the whole drama of the 90's but who will have lived in a world with the Duchess carrying out her duties supporting her husband and eventually her King and that will probably be the legacy she leaves behind. However, if she were to die in the near future I think that she would probably be forever known to quite a few as the third person in Charles and Diana's marriage.

ysbel 07-20-2008 01:42 PM

Charles' legacy as King
 
With so many threads of what legacies the royal ladies will leave, I think its time to discuss what legacy Charles will leave since it was his title that put the ladies in a position to leave a legacy at all.

To start off, I know there's a possibility that Charles will not be King; however, its pointless IMO to discuss what legacy he will leave if he does not become King or if he abdicates shortly after assuming the throne.

So let's assume that Charles will be King and he will be King long enough to leave a legacy - good or bad - from his era as King. It could be a few years or many, just long enough in your opinion for him to leave a legacy.

So what legacy do you think that Charles will leave as King?

ysbel 07-20-2008 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 801254)
Indeed, because without Charles neither woman would be known and without Charles there would be no William.:flowers:

Quote:

My thoughts exactly. We have yet to see Charles as king. What kind of influence will he actively bring to Britain once he is in the top position himself? What will he achieve, what kind of definition of kingdom will he bring to the 21.century? What kind of legacy will he leave Britain?
Hmmm, looks like its time for a new thread ;) :) .

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...ing-17888.html

Jo of Palatine 07-20-2008 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 801280)

So what legacy do you think that Charles will leave as King?

His legacy IMHO will be a very British one: he will have encouraged people to believe in themselves, he will have shown his utmost support for those who aim to better themselves and he will have shown the Britons that no matter how many golden spoons were put in your baby mouth, you still have a duty to fulfill, you still have to work for the community and you still can do something to keep this community of mankind going on.

He will have stood proud and strong and convinced of his agenda. He will have worked hard to put this agenda to live for the sake of his subjects. For me, his being king will only top his work as an outstanding Prince of Wales, so I believe his being king will only strengthen his contribution to society which already is something to be proud of. :flowers:

BMC 07-20-2008 02:08 PM

I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

Jo of Palatine 07-20-2008 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMC (Post 801293)
I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

But there is already so much achievement connected to his name, so he won't have to start at level Zero. He will put the King's stamp on the things he cares about, probably change some things and be always good for some hefty surprise, I guess.

ysbel 07-20-2008 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMC (Post 801293)
I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.

You're right BMC, there is the possibility that Charles will not be King long enough to create a legacy at all. However, if we make that assumption, there's no use to have a thread to discuss why Charles won't live long enough to leave a legacy.

This is why I asked other members to assume that he WILL be on the throne long enough to create a lasting legacy.

So if you assume that he will be King long enough to create a legacy - good or bad - what do you think that legacy will be?

acdc1 07-20-2008 03:35 PM

I do think that Camilla's legacy will be different with different generations. For those who remember the 80's and 90's, Charles and Camilla's affair and Charles & Diana's marriage and divorce, Camilla will be known mostly as "the other woman", because, at that time, that's the most well-known thing she was. Of course, some will view her as a conniving homewrecker, while others will see her as a tragic figure. For those in the generation who were born in the 90's and today, she will probably be known as the Prince of Wales' wife, and, when Charles succeeds the throne (allowing that he or Camilla do not predecease Queen Elizabeth), she will be known as the Princess Consort or Queen Consort, and for all of the good things she does, charities, etc.

milla Ca 07-20-2008 03:52 PM

I don´t think that Charles´ legacy will only made of his years when he will be King.
All the good important work he does as the Prince of Wales will not end and will be not forgotten when he climbs the throne.
Although his duties than will be different in some parts ( i´m sure i will miss his critical statements in many cases) we will not see a ´new´ Charles.
He will be the caring King, i´m sure, and we also will see some changes to a more modern monarchy and ( and agree with Jo) some surprises nobody knows yet.
(IMO:smile:)

So his legacy ( in the peoples mind) will be one of his whole life, of a man who works for a better world and who cares for the people first.
( I hope:flowers:)

In historical books/chronicals the people later will read about a Prince who had to wait long for his reign, who had a failed first marriage, and about a King Charles and Queen Camilla who were adored by the people and who pointed the way to the future of the British monarchy during their accession to the throne.
( I hope:angel:)

milla Ca 07-20-2008 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acdc1 (Post 801322)
I do think that Camilla's legacy will be different with different generations.

Sorry, but don´t agree.
I´m sure the ´Diana/ Charles/ Camilla´ story, who seems to be so important for many today, will be more and more stand in the background for the coming generations.

Camilla´s legacy will be made in the years when she will be Queen. If the reign of King Charles will be successful, popular, great ( and i have no doubt it will be :biggrin:) then the Queen by his site will play an important role ( like Prince Philip does it now or the late Queen Mother did it) and this time will write her legacy.

brandon 07-20-2008 04:15 PM

In the first place, his legacy as King begins when he becomes King, not in actions before that. His earlier actions might be part of his "life's legacy" or something like that in a broader view which biographers will deal with in the distant future. Other than that, a legacy doesn't come from issues surrounding marriages, so it's unfortunate for him that some people rush to mention that one way or another when they speculate about how history will judge him. All modern monarchs claim that they work for a better country and society, but it's really about how they carry out their constitutional role as the monarch, which is often more limited than their freer days when they were just the heir. His mother has respect from everybody, so if he can measure up to half of what she has achieved in respect earned then he will be doing well enough in his role already. A monarch isn't a pop star and doesn't require to be "adored" or any of these other things. "Caring"? Depends what you mean and what the reasoning is behind it. The main thing he needs to care about is to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner and that will be the best legacy he can achieve.

milla Ca 07-20-2008 04:32 PM

Of course your´re right when you say that ´the legacy of a King begins whe he becomes King´ but do you really think you can fade of 60 (and more years) of the Prince of Wales. His legacy will be always made of his life.
For me is ´to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner´not enough for a modern monarchy. A King/ Queen has to be today a ´people´s monarch´and be so much more than only a representer. It´s IMO the only way the monarchy can survive, and i´m sure Charles will go this way.:flowers:

PrinceOfCanada 07-20-2008 04:36 PM

I think, unfortunately perhaps, whatever legacy he leaves behind will be eclipsed for quite some time by the legacy of his mother. Look at Victoria as an excellent example of this; the only one of her descendants prior to EII that is even remotely remarkable in historical terms is the Duke of Windsor. And we all know how that turned out.

Charles is known for being outspoken, for being passionate, for even (gasp!) having political opinions and (shock!) saying them. All of that has to stop, immediately, as soon as he accedes to the throne. With good reason, of course; his duty at that point will be to be neutral.

I think his great legacy will really be William and (especially) Harry. Harry is in the enviable position of having power and prestige and an audience--and the ability to speak his mind. One hopes he will follow in his father's footsteps.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milla Ca (Post 801348)
Of course your´re right when you say that ´the legacy of a King begins when he becomes King´ but do you really think you can fade of 60 (and more years) of the Prince of Wales. His legacy will be always made of his life.
For me is ´to represent the institution he is head of in a non-controversial manner´not enough for a modern monarchy. A King/ Queen has to be today a ´people´s monarch´and be so much more than only a representer. It´s IMO the only way the monarchy can survive, and i´m sure Charles will go this way.:flowers:

You are right, everything that went before cannot and will not be dismissed. Of the many causes Charles will be remembered for, will be his support of organic farming, his calls for sustainable energy etc. People will remember that it was King Charles who started 'The Princes Trust', an organisation that has helped thousands of youngsters. Life doesn't stop and then restart when he becomes King.:flowers:
Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceofCanada (Post 801351)
I think his great legacy will really be William and (especially) Harry. Harry is in the enviable position of having power and prestige and an audience--and the ability to speak his mind. One hopes he will follow in his father's footsteps

I think that would be impossible to say at this stage. William is an unknown quantity, he could turn out to the another hate figure, it doesn't take much to turn the public against you. Look at Charles, he was the darling of the UK and Commonwealth at one time. There is no guarantee that Harry will not fall by the wayside again because of the prohibition of being a 'real' soldier.

Elspeth 07-20-2008 05:25 PM

As with Camilla, I don't think we can tell what sort of legacy he'll leave as King. His legacy as Prince of Wales looks to be pretty secure - he's made more of that position than most if not all of his predecessors, although I'm afraid that at least for the next few years his marital problems will dominate his legacy (although I don't see that situation lasting for the longer term). But his legacy as King? There are too many unknowns, IMO. Goodness knows what sort of situation he'll inherit - the way things are going, we could be in the middle of some sort of war, and that would make a great difference to his legacy compared with being King during peacetime. There could be a strong republican movement by then, especially if Australia, New Zealand, and/or Canada decide to get rid of the monarchy after the end of the Queen's reign and especially if Britain is in a major recession and the editors of the tabloid papers continue their vendetta against Charles and whip up people's feelings about subsidising a parasitic monarchy or whatever the excuse would be. It's also possible that the Commonwealth won't survive the Queen by very much. I think the world is in too turbulent a state to be able to project that far forward at this point.

Monika_ 07-20-2008 05:25 PM

I should think one aspect of it would be his steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side, as Queen or as Princess Consort. It really doesn't matter, but that will be a large piece of the pie as for any analysis of his legacy is concerned.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acdc1 (Post 801322)
I do think that Camilla's legacy will be different with different generations. For those who remember the 80's and 90's, Charles and Camilla's affair and Charles & Diana's marriage and divorce, Camilla will be known mostly as "the other woman", because, at that time, that's the most well-known thing she was. Of course, some will view her as a conniving homewrecker, while others will see her as a tragic figure.

For many who remember the 80's/90's, as time has gone by, they realise that they were being misled by the media. Many more were never taken in by the lies, so it is unfair, IMO, to say that's the thing she will be remembered for by most. Some of those that blamed Camilla for the breakup of Charles' marriage, have had a chance to experience live for themselves and realised that things are not always as clear as they thought. :flowers: Of course Camilla was not in the public eye in the 80's anyway, it was during the Panaorama interview that she was brought into the marriage debacle, so we are talking a very short timescale.
Quote:

For those in the generation who were born in the 90's and today, she will probably be known as the Prince of Wales' wife, and, when Charles succeeds the throne (allowing that he or Camilla do not predecease Queen Elizabeth), she will be known as the Princess Consort or Queen Consort, and for all of the good things she does, charities, etc.
Thats the silly thing, many who were born from '93 would not know the story anyway, only the snippets from mothers perhaps or the colouful books they are given to read. Therefore they will probably view Camilla as the woman married to a happy prince.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milla Ca (Post 801343)
Sorry, but don´t agree.
I´m sure the ´Diana/ Charles/ Camilla´ story, who seems to be so important for many today, will be more and more stand in the background for the coming generations.

Yes indeed, apart from on here and presumably other forums, and the tabloids with their occasional attack, very few make comparisons between the two women or discuss the old Camilla/Charles/Diana/??? mess.
Quote:

Camilla´s legacy will be made in the years when she will be Queen. If the reign of King Charles will be successful, popular, great ( and i have no doubt it will be :biggrin:) then the Queen by his site will play an important role ( like Prince Philip does it now or the late Queen Mother did it) and this time will write her legacy.
Hear, Hear! :wub:

ysbel 07-20-2008 05:56 PM

All very interesting replies. :smile:

I agree with those who claimed that Charles' legacy as King would start when he becomes King. However I do see a way for his efforts up-to-date to put him in a better position to leave a legacy.

The issues that he has cared most about - the environment, alternative forms of energy - are now coming to the forefront of the general public's consciencenous. Right now because of gas prices, companies are seriously looking into alternatively fuelled cars. If this public attention is not just a fad but brings about some real change in how people lead their lives, then Charles could have been said to be on the forefront of a monumental change in public perception. It won't matter IMO whether he himself was instrumental in the change because people on the forefront get credit whether they played a major part or not.

If this new way of living becomes standard by the time he becomes King, then he can take steps to make Buckingham Palace more green and thus appear as he's just following in the steps of public opinion (ie, acting non-controversial) while all along people will know with Charles it won't be a public relations exercise because of his previous commitments.

Already because of the growing awareness of environmental issues, I've seen two non royalty focused articles that praise Charles for being ahead of the curve. No mention of his personal troubles was made in either article. That is not to say that people forgot his personal life, but it does appear for some that the environmental issue is important enough to focus on that entirely to the expense of his personal troubles.

If the number of people that care about this grows, Charles will become more relevant to the common man and the issue will become less and less controversial thereby letting Charles as King have greater influence.

Of course, as King, he will have to curtail his public statements but if the groundwork is already made, he won't have to say much.

brandon 07-20-2008 06:14 PM

He doesn't need to have steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side because she's been there in some degree since around 1984 at least. We could have another thread about the meaning of "steadfast" for some, but let's leave that aside here. He should be so lucky as to be considered to have a legacy that begins and ends with his actual reign, because the rest of it is too controversial and not the type of baggage to even want to be considered as part of a monarch's legacy, unless one is inclined to whitewash all of it. In fact, he's very much being given a chance to remake himself if people are fair enough to consider him on the merits of an actual reign than the rest of what's gone on. No one "hates" Charles, I think some people are projecting their own emotions into a question about legacy that if you really care about Charles is best confined to the way he carries out his role once it begins. "Modern" monarchy? I don't think that will begin until William is King. There are things he's decided to do as Prince of Wales that personally I agree with in the environmental sphere although these are not practicable for many if not most people as far as "organic". Elsewhere I've stated that I thought it was a good thing he wasn't going to those shameful Beijing Olympics, as the heir to the throne of a country which in fact will be attending the Olympics I think it was deliberate on his part. So there are social and political decisions he's made that I find commendable. It's not a black-and-white thing and few legacies are.

Iluvbertie 07-20-2008 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMC (Post 801293)
I am doubtful that the future King will reign long enough to leave a lasting legacy.

HM the Queen is 82 years old and (thankfully) in excellent health. She could easily live to be as old as her mother. The Prince of Wales is in his late 50s and if the Queen does live another 20 years or so he will be in his late 70s when he becomes King. IMO he won't have enough time to leave his stamp on things.


Charles is also in very good health and has the genes of his grand-mother and both his parents who are into their 80s.

It is perfectly possible that he could live for 20 or so years after his mother and thus have a very good time to leave a legacy.

Edward VII's reign was so short, in my opinion, mainly because he didn't take good care of his body e.g. smoked way too much as well as ate too much and thus he died at 69.

In fact if you look back through Charles royal ancestors over the last 100 years (I don't know enough about the Queen Mother's family to comment) the main reason they haven't lived into their 80s seems to be associated with unhealthy practices such as smoking (or in the case of one great-grandfather getting assassinated) e.g. both grandfathers smoked heavily and died young.

A lot of people seem to think that Charles can't, or won't live to a ripe old age whereas I suspect that he will, and certainly hope so. I would love to see him have a reign of 20+ years and to do that he will have to live probably into his 90s.

Al_bina 07-20-2008 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel (Post 801400)
...
If this new way of living becomes standard by the time he becomes King, then he can take steps to make Buckingham Palace more green ... [snipped]

I am not sure that it is possible to make the Buckingham Palace greener. It is a historical site, which is to be preserved for generations to come. I hope there will be no solar panels that will "uglify" this magnificent Palace.
Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 801412)
[snipped] Elsewhere I've stated that I thought it was a good thing he wasn't going to those shameful Beijing Olympics, as the heir to the throne of a country which in fact will be attending the Olympics I think it was deliberate on his part. So there are social and political decisions he's made that I find commendable. It's not a black-and-white thing and few legacies are.

Does China really care about Prince Charles not attending the Olympic Games? I do not think so. The Chinese Government is fully aware of Prince Charles’s attitudes about the country. Chinese lean more towards practicality. The main point is that the Chinese authorities will do their best capitalizing on the situation by extracting donations and payments from Prince Charles’ Youth foundation in China.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 801416)
I am not sure that it is possible to make the Buckingham Palace greener. It is a historical site, which is to be preserved for generations to come. I hope there will be no solar panels that will "uglify" this magnificent Palace.

The solar panels do not have to be on the roof, they can be at the back or a side. Lightbulbs could be upgraded, insulation made from sheepswool, all sorts of greener alternatives.

Skydragon 07-20-2008 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 801412)
No one "hates" Charles, I think some people are projecting their own emotions into a question about legacy that if you really care about Charles is best confined to the way he carries out his role once it begins.

During the war of the Wales's, Charles was indeed a hate figure, for the most part that has faded away. Of course we are all giving our opinions, I don't see it as projecting emotion into it at all and even that would not alter a persons view of what his legacy may be. Just because it is different from yours, doesn't make it less valid. The comment of 'if you really care about Charles', has no place in this conversation, IMO.

As some of us have said, his legacy as Prince of Wales won't simply be discarded when he becomes King, it will all be bound together.

PrinceOfCanada 07-20-2008 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 801418)
The solar panels do not have to be on the roof, they can be at the back or a side. Lightbulbs could be upgraded, insulation made from sheepswool, all sorts of greener alternatives.

Actually, solar panels on the roofs are much more easily hidden than anywhere else.

Lightbulbs in most of the State areas in the Palace have already been replaced with highly efficient LEDs. I would imagine that Charles would attempt to put in some sort of greywater reclamation system, same as at Highgrove and Clarence House.

fearghas 07-20-2008 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 801414)
...A lot of people seem to think that Charles can't, or won't live to a ripe old age whereas I suspect that he will, and certainly hope so.

I;m glad that you mentioned this because everyone seems to assume that the Queen will live for ages but not Charles. I've never understood their assumption as Charles has every liklihood of living into his 90s, especially as modern medicine has improved greatly since the Georges and Edwatds.

fearghas 07-20-2008 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 801351)
I think, unfortunately perhaps, whatever legacy he leaves behind will be eclipsed for quite some time by the legacy of his mother. Look at Victoria as an excellent example of this; the only one of her descendants prior to EII that is even remotely remarkable in historical terms is the Duke of Windsor. And we all know how that turned out.

Incorrect I feel. George V will always be the WWI King, the one who turned his back on his German roots, created the house of Windsor and brought Great Britian through to victory. His legacy is very strong there. George VI reapraised the same role during WWII. He stood steadfast in his determination to bring Britain through that war. He is king of bthe second world war. Peopke may not remember their names, though many do, but they do know that of these Kings.

PrinceOfCanada 07-20-2008 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 801436)
I;m glad that you mentioned this because everyone seems to assume that the Queen will live for ages but not Charles. I've never understood their assumption as Charles has every liklihood of living into his 90s, especially as modern medicine has improved greatly since the Georges and Edwatds.

Men don't live as long as women do, on average.

Elspeth 07-20-2008 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 801412)
He doesn't need to have steadfast determination to have Camilla by his side because she's been there in some degree since around 1984 at least. We could have another thread about the meaning of "steadfast" for some, but let's leave that aside here.

Good idea.

Quote:

He should be so lucky as to be considered to have a legacy that begins and ends with his actual reign, because the rest of it is too controversial and not the type of baggage to even want to be considered as part of a monarch's legacy, unless one is inclined to whitewash all of it.
I don't think it's a matter of luck. His legacy as king will largely if not entirely begin and end with his reign. His overall legacy is a different matter, but that isn't the topic of this thread.

Quote:

In fact, he's very much being given a chance to remake himself if people are fair enough to consider him on the merits of an actual reign than the rest of what's gone on.
In terms of his legacy as Prince of Wales, I don't see where anything very much needs to be remade. Between his causes and his charities, he's done more as Prince of Wales than most of his predecessors. The legacy of his personal life is a different matter, and I'm afraid for a while it's going to dominate, but it still doesn't negate everything he's done in his role as Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall.

Quote:

No one "hates" Charles,
Oh, some people do. We've had people show up here seething with hatred for him. The reason you aren't seeing it in the threads is that when people won't stop with the "he deserves to die a slow, painful death and I wish he'd die soon" stuff they don't tend to last long as members. People on both sides of the Charles-Diana debate can let their emotions rule their judgement.

brandon 07-20-2008 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 801436)
I;m glad that you mentioned this because everyone seems to assume that the Queen will live for ages but not Charles. I've never understood their assumption as Charles has every liklihood of living into his 90s, especially as modern medicine has improved greatly since the Georges and Edwatds.

The fact is that medical science hasn't reached the point yet of being able to tell what diseases or disabilities are imprinted on an individual's DNA lifeline, or however we say it. Life is full of randomness, even once we know what our medical profiles are, so the true likelihood is that nothing will ever be advanced to the point of guaranteeing a long life. You can only improve the odds. So to say "every likelihood" is just as much as an assumption about the future as anything else.

Monika_ 07-20-2008 08:08 PM

I understand your point, Elspeth, but IMO the word 'hate' is often attributed to those who perhaps simply don't 'respect' some of Charles' choices in life. Personally, I don't hate the man and I recognize that he has been forward-thinking in many respects. I just think some of his actions have harmed the monarchy. I don't think he has exemplified the level of self-sacrifice that HM has.

acdc1 07-20-2008 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 801386)
For many who remember the 80's/90's, as time has gone by, they realise that they were being misled by the media. Many more were never taken in by the lies, so it is unfair, IMO, to say that's the thing she will be remembered for by most. Some of those that blamed Camilla for the breakup of Charles' marriage, have had a chance to experience live for themselves and realised that things are not always as clear as they thought.

I agree with you 100% in this fact. I did not like Camilla before, because I considered her a homewrecker, but when I read into the situation I saw that it was indeed misled by the media, and there were many other facts I had not considered as well (i.e. Diana's affairs). I've come to realize that Camilla really is a good person, and to me, her legacy will be based on much more than what happened twenty or thirty years ago.

Monika_ 07-20-2008 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acdc1 (Post 801448)
I agree with you 100% in this fact. I did not like Camilla before, because I considered her a homewrecker, but when I read into the situation I saw that it was indeed misled by the media, and there were many other facts I had not considered as well (i.e. Diana's affairs). I've come to realize that Camilla really is a good person, and to me, her legacy will be based on much more than what happened twenty or thirty years ago.

By chance, did you check the chronological order of the events involved before you came to this conclusion? Just wondering...
Quote:

Originally Posted by milla Ca (Post 801343)
Camilla´s legacy will be made in the years when she will be Queen...

I respectfully disagree. A person's legacy does not start when they are 60+. It's a combination of what they have done and accomplished throughout their lives. To state that her legacy will be made when (if) she is Queen, seems to suggest that anything prior to that is insignificant.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 801386)
...it was during the Panaorama interview that she was brought into the marriage debacle...

I believe Charles mentioned the subject in the Dimbleby interview in 1994.

Mermaid1962 07-20-2008 08:38 PM

And Morton certainly made very, very strong suggestions in the direction that Camilla was Charles' mistress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monika_ (Post 801457)
I believe Charles mentioned the subject in the Dimbleby interview in 1994.


Monika_ 07-20-2008 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 (Post 801458)
And Morton certainly made very, very strong suggestions in the direction that Camilla was Charles' mistress.

Okay, agreed. :smile: But does the time and place of the revelation change the facts in any way?

Winnie 07-20-2008 08:44 PM

I think that time will certainly change people's opinion of Camilla. My parents thought that Mrs. Simpson was awful and destroyed Edward VIII and almost the crown -- my children think that Edward VIII was wonderful and mentality superior to take love over job he never really wanted just because he was born into that family -- me, I don't care either way.

Time changes people's opinion of history

Winnie 07-20-2008 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monika_ (Post 801446)
I understand your point, Elspeth, but IMO the word 'hate' is often attributed to those who perhaps simply don't 'respect' some of Charles' choices in life. Personally, I don't hate the man and I recognize that he has been forward-thinking in many respects. I just think some of his actions have harmed the monarchy. I don't think he has exemplified the level of self-sacrifice that HM has.

I really, really agree with you. I like Charles (especially now) but I do believe that he does not project any self-sacrifice -- not that it is his fault, due to his position in life -- but I don't believe that he [seems as] "strong" as his parents. The Queen's morals, character & respect from the entire world are second to none. She will be an almost impossible act to follow.

udyusa 07-20-2008 09:00 PM

Sorry but I don't believe that time or place changes anything. What happened happened, and History will not change the facts. Camilla was, and will always be, the mistress. It won't make her 'awful' but it Is a fact. Simple as that.

Sister Morphine 07-20-2008 09:03 PM

I don't think anyone is trying to say that her past will change. You're right in that she is what she is, and that is what she'll always be. But there's more to her than that, there's always been more to her than that and when she's Queen (and she will be), there will be more to her then.


Everyone screws up in life, she's no exception. No one should have behaved in this situation the way they did, but they did and that's that. But you can't keep her shackled to that all her life. You have to be willing to say "You've atoned, let's all move on" and get on with it. I think that's what people are saying. Her legacy when she's passed on should not be merely one sentence: "His Majesty's Mistress".

TheTruth 07-20-2008 09:26 PM

I see the little debate on Mistress Camilla has erupted again. For those who aren't aware of it, Camilla has been married for three years now. It's very unfortunate to see that this subject is the only some seem to remember of. I hope it's not another attempt to start a CCD fight :whistling:

TheTruth
British Forum Moderator.

Roslyn 07-20-2008 10:41 PM

Are we really going down this path again?

Time to distract everyone with the new, extra-cute smilie: :hamster:

ZaJa 07-20-2008 11:17 PM

Camilla's legacy is not set in stone. I dislike the idea that she is going to be remembered as the mistress or the wife. Human beings are so complex I hate it when people put others in a box. The wife, the mistress, etc etc. She had had her good moments and her bad ones. Poor judgment and good judgment. No one is just one thing. Her legacy, for those that value the complexity of human life and experience will view her as many things and not just one thing or one period in her life. :)

jcbcode99 07-21-2008 01:27 AM

Prince Charles has done more than just marry two women-and some individuals believe that the extent of his legacy is tied up to just those two events then I truly feel sorry for those persons. Let's look at Charles' legacy for a moment--he has founded about 16 charities--THe Prince's Trust, for example. He is patron of hundreds of charities--and he is dedicated to becoming environmentally responsible. I truly believe his efforts will one day garner him a Nobel nomination, if not prize. I think we should look at that.

Elspeth 07-21-2008 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monika_ (Post 801446)
I understand your point, Elspeth, but IMO the word 'hate' is often attributed to those who perhaps simply don't 'respect' some of Charles' choices in life.

While that's true, I was talking about the people who come to this forum (to say nothing about going to other forums and blogs where such things are treated more leniently than they are here) to salivate about the prospect of Charles dying before his mother, preferably in as painful a way as possible. Believe me, I know the difference between lack of respect and virulent hatred, and I've seen virulent hatred directed toward Charles.

brandon 07-21-2008 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcbcode99 (Post 801496)
Prince Charles has done more than just marry two women-and some individuals believe that the extent of his legacy is tied up to just those two events then I truly feel sorry for those persons. Let's look at Charles' legacy for a moment--he has founded about 16 charities--THe Prince's Trust, for example. He is patron of hundreds of charities--and he is dedicated to becoming environmentally responsible. I truly believe his efforts will one day garner him a Nobel nomination, if not prize. I think we should look at that.


Welll he should have done more than just marry two women having lived to sixty odd years and had plenty of time on his hands to do other things. What he's done as Prince of Wales over a many years is a different matter than what he might do as King which is a different topic entirely. Just the Nobel Prize? Not a request to the Pope for canonization?:rofl::rofl:

Elspeth 07-21-2008 02:39 AM

Not if he wants to stay King....

brandon 07-21-2008 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 801441)
Good idea.



I don't think it's a matter of luck. His legacy as king will largely if not entirely begin and end with his reign. His overall legacy is a different matter, but that isn't the topic of this thread.



I never said it was "a matter of luck". I said she was luck-y that anyone was willing still to withhold judgment about the legacy of his reign until it actually begins. One would expect him to be involved with charities and causes all these years because that's just about mandatory that heirs to thrones spend much of their time prominent in those things Especially and exactly because he didn't want a comparison drawn between himself and Edward VII as Prince of Wales. I wasn't the one trying to discuss his overall legacy nor his legacy as Prince of Wales. The rest of what you have to say in this post has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about. so I won't answer it. And I've read plenty of boards too, so I know what the truth is.

Iluvbertie 07-21-2008 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 801439)
Men don't live as long as women do, on average.

True but why?

Historically it is because of wars killing them at younger ages, along with the type of work they did.

For most women, childbirth and disease were the main reasons for early deaths whereas men had to face other dangers thus resulting in a shorter life expectancy. Once a woman passed her childbearing years her chances of a long life increased markedly throughout history. Men, however, didn't stop doing the things that killed them in their mid-late 40s and therefore still had a higher chance of dying younger than woman.

Even today more men die in car and work related accidents and other 'dangerous' activities resulting in lower life expectancy than women.

Average life expectancy is based on the whole population not on individual cases and Charles is no longer doing the more dangerous aspects of his life e.g. the 'action' man activities of his youth. As a result his healthy diet and lifestyle are increasing his chances of living to a very old age.

His genes point that way as well - both parents are in their 80s so there is a very good chance that Charles will also live as long as his mother and even longer.

Iluvbertie 07-21-2008 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 801442)
The fact is that medical science hasn't reached the point yet of being able to tell what diseases or disabilities are imprinted on an individual's DNA lifeline, or however we say it. Life is full of randomness, even once we know what our medical profiles are, so the true likelihood is that nothing will ever be advanced to the point of guaranteeing a long life. You can only improve the odds. So to say "every likelihood" is just as much as an assumption about the future as anything else.

Charles is increasing the likelihood though through his healthy lifestyle.

Madame Royale 07-21-2008 03:18 AM

Quote:

And I've read plenty of boards too, so I know what the truth is.
One would think such conviction quite frivilous.

Because 'we' read a variety of boards, does not then mean 'we' are provided with an entirely fastidious account of what actually happens in the lives of those we speak of.

We are (the majority of, I'd profess to say) all people on the outer and our discussions rely largely on opinion, with the occasional biographical extraction thrown in for good measure of accuracy. Or some degree of.

In the pursuit of truth, a royal forum wouldn't necessarily be the first port of call..hehe.

Elspeth 07-21-2008 03:45 AM

Exactly. But on the other hand, everybody who's been here for a while knows that this board is the one where you can find TheTruth anyway.:biggrin:

Menarue 07-21-2008 03:48 AM

I just wish that I could get the "Tampax" episode out of my head, then I could be far more objective.
I tried, I can´t, so I must leave the "Admire Charles" thread.

Elspeth 07-21-2008 03:51 AM

This is the Charles's legacy thread, not the Admire Charles thread.

milla Ca 07-21-2008 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 801529)
I just wish that I could get the "Tampax" episode out of my head, then I could be far more objective.
I tried, I can´t, so I must leave the "Admire Charles" thread.

You don´t have to leave, because i´m sure the so ´human sides´ of Charles ,will play an important role when later people judge about his legacy.

Skydragon 07-21-2008 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada (Post 801424)
Actually, solar panels on the roofs are much more easily hidden than anywhere else.

But not allowed on a listed building.:smile:

ysbel 07-21-2008 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 801530)
This is the Charles's legacy thread, not the Admire Charles thread.

Thanks for beating me to it. No, I didn't mean to start an Admire Charles thread. He's done a few things I don't admire but isn't that true of everybody in the public sphere? I also didn't want to start a thread speculating whether Charles would live long enough to leave a legacy because this would make the thread rather pointless and there is already a thread about that.

To answer monika's point about self-sacrifice, I do think Charles has shown self-sacrifice in the way that royals have historically shown self-sacrifice - in public. The Queen herself defined self-sacrifice and taking the job that was handed to you and doing it for the best of your ability with a sense of purpose for the rest of your life and I think that Charles has done that. No one can accuse him of just going through the motions of his duties as Prince. Even with his first marriage, he married the right sort of girl that was expected of him, treated her position with respect while in public, carried on with his royal duties as many and as few as the Queen as monarch has given him. In that way, he has been very traditionally self-sacrificing as a royal, although I guess there were times when he wished that he had never made that 'perfect' marriage.

Of course, I think no one can show the self-sacrifice that the Queen has but then that means Charles, Anne, Andrew, Diana, Sarah , William, Harry, etc. The Queen was raised with the sensibilities of the generation before her and with each generation the sense of self-sacrifice does seem to diminish. Charles and Anne show more responsiblity to their positions IMO than Diana and Sarah did and Diana showed more responsibility than William and Harry do.

Skydragon 07-21-2008 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTruth (Post 801467)
For those who aren't aware of it, Camilla has been married for three years now.

Three years and three months!:lol::flowers:

Camilla's legacy will include her charity work and of course the support of Charles, as a man, Prince and King. As a mother and a stepmother to William and Harry, she will be remembered as having supported them in their personal lives, Royal lives and their charitable endeavours. She will probably be remembered as a doting grandparent to all her grandchildren, royal or commoner. :flowers:

:hamster: :rofl:

ysbel 07-21-2008 06:04 AM

I do see as problematic some of his outspoken statements because that is part of his personality. That's why I said that if the environmental movement becomes part of everyday life for most people, he will have lucked out in his views on the environment. Once the majority of the public accepts a certain view, it no longer is controversial to express them.

Actions like a public distancing from the China Olympics would be hard to do as monarch. As Head of State, the monarch is the representive of Britain towards all other sovereign states, even China.

love_cc 07-21-2008 09:41 AM

I have read a book called "Break the cycle" which just stated that Prince Charles will be always praised for him supporting the disadvantaged and then his sense of community services. In an other book, "the radical prince" which covers Prince Charles's ideas in all fields and even try to integrate these ideas into a interrelated network which covers many areas of our daily life: health, built environment, agruiculture, culture, religion and etc.

I put Prince's charities as his greatest legacies because not only himself intiatiated these charties but they cover different fields. For most public, his most famous charity organisations will be Prince's trust and business in the commuities and his environmental initiatives. However once people are allowed to have some specialised area understanding,they will gradually see Prince Charles' unque views in various fields from medical to agriculture, from education to art... He will be rememebered as a man with mutiple talents...Prince Charles will be regarded as a sustainable and philosophy prince.

I think Prince Charles will play a role who tries to bridge different religions into a multi-cultural society which allows more openess, friendliness and tolerance among religions and different culture.... Until now, Islamic culture and western civilised cultures seemed to be his focus. However he may play a role to bridge western cultures and eastern cultures...this time India cultures and Chinese cultures as representives....

sirhon11234 07-21-2008 09:49 AM

Of course Camilla will be remembered as a doting step-grandparent to Diana's grandchildren.

Madame Royale 07-21-2008 11:45 AM

Quote:

Exactly. But on the other hand, everybody who's been here for a while knows that this board is the one where you can find TheTruth anyway.:biggrin:
Haha..so true..:smile:

Skydragon 07-21-2008 01:24 PM

{response to deleted posts removed - Elspeth}

Charles is a popular speaker on a variety of subjects, many that were seen as 'weird' and although these will have to stop, I remain of the opinion that the work he has done as Prince of Wales will form part of his legacy as King. In the years to come, I believe his subjects will see him as a caring monarch and a hard working one.

Most of us seem to be talking about his charity work being part of his legacy in one way or another, how many can name 10 or so charities that HM is actively involved in?

jcbcode99 07-21-2008 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 801509)
Welll he should have done more than just marry two women having lived to sixty odd years and had plenty of time on his hands to do other things. What he's done as Prince of Wales over a many years is a different matter than what he might do as King which is a different topic entirely. Just the Nobel Prize? Not a request to the Pope for canonization?:rofl::rofl:

As King I would imagine that the things which he has been passionate about would continue to be important to him--so it isn't likely that he will suddenly give up the charities he founded--all 16--or the charities of which he is patron--about 350 or so, nor will he suddenly not care about the environment. What he has done as the Prince of Wales will not fall by the wayside once he is King and I think it is inconceivable and a little naive to only look at what he will do as King. Elizabeth II became Queen quite young and never had the chance to cultivate interests as Princess Elizabeth. Charles has had the chance to develop mature, passionate interests which I am certain he will continue to address and support once he ascends the throne.

Menarue 07-21-2008 01:44 PM

Henry VIII is mainly remembered for having 6 wives and beheading two. The Church matter seems to come after that.
Prince Charles perhaps will be remembered for having a mistress and making her Queen. Perhaps that will be the first memory of him in the future. Unfortunate but very probable.

Skydragon 07-21-2008 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 801699)
Henry VIII is mainly remembered for having 6 wives and beheading two. The Church matter seems to come after that.
Prince Charles perhaps will be remembered for having a mistress and making her Queen. Perhaps that will be the first memory of him in the future. Unfortunate but very probable.

The difference is that Charles was only married to his first wife for a relatively short time and that at a time he was merely a Prince. Henry was married as King each time. Already there are people that only know Camilla as his wife and there will presumably be many more by the time he is King.

Royal Fan 07-21-2008 02:09 PM

His legacy will be whatever he makes it IMHO

Al_bina 07-21-2008 02:13 PM

And still ...I would say that Menarue is correct. The very first thing, which will come to other generations, will be the war of Wales, and then all other good things he did during his lifetime as Prince or King.

CasiraghiTrio 07-21-2008 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by udyusa (Post 801464)
Sorry but I don't believe that time or place changes anything. What happened happened, and History will not change the facts. Camilla was, and will always be, the mistress. It won't make her 'awful' but it Is a fact. Simple as that.

I don't think there is anything "simple" about the whole story of Charles' first marriage, nor about his enduring relationship with his now-second wife. There are very few details about either story (and still more details which overlap into the other) which are gray and immensely complicated. That is why there are so many opinions about it. That is why people still have debates about it. Because one person's conjecture is Bs to another person. And there so many lies, half-truths, and unaccountable gossip in the pot. The one thing that is 100% certainty is that all three of the principal characters were human, with all the attendant human weaknesses, blindness, and egos. And so the lesson or moral, if you will, I suppose, is that all three deserve our compassion and graciousness.

Jo of Palatine 07-21-2008 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 801713)
And still ...I would say that Menarue is correct. The very first thing, which will come to other generations, will be the war of Wales, and then all other good things he did during his lifetime as Prince or King.

IMHO it depends on the people reflecting about King Charles. I agree that tabloid readers probably will think first of the War of the Waleses which has no historical importance at all so far: it didn't change neither succession nor the existance of the monarchy. I also assume that readers of historical novels will find that authors will put their main interest in the CCD-triangle - though I'm not sure that Diana will emerge the Saint and Camilla the Witch because that's against the eternal law of Happily Ever After. Rather vice versa, I'd say.

But more intellectual approaches to the reign of King Charles (may it be far, far away in the future and may it last long!) will in all likelihood find more important points of interests. Charles' life so far has so much to offer for a political historian, so already books could be written about him without mentioning Diana and Camilla in more than a biographic footnote like: Married 1981-1996: Lady Diana Spencer; Married 2005 - present Camilla Shand. And after some years on these forums I'd say I'd love to read such a book. ;)

Elspeth 07-21-2008 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 801699)
Henry VIII is mainly remembered for having 6 wives and beheading two. The Church matter seems to come after that.
Prince Charles perhaps will be remembered for having a mistress and making her Queen. Perhaps that will be the first memory of him in the future. Unfortunate but very probable.

That's how he's remembered popularly. But his legacy certainly includes his efforts to break the domination of the Catholic clergy on the country and the introduction of the Church of England. Any halfway serious biography of him is going to address a lot more than the fact he married so many times.

Skydragon 08-24-2008 01:26 PM

Prince William is being groomed to become the next British Monarch under an ‘arrangement’ that may see the first-in-line Prince Charles stepping aside.

https://www.expressindia.com/latest-n...onarch/352752/

I would point out that the original article comes from the Daily Star! :whistling::whistling:

ysbel 08-24-2008 01:29 PM

The Queen may be modernising but I don't think she'd modernise that much. If she's so against abdication, I can't imagine she would agree to leaving her throne to her grandson and skipping over her heir.

wbenson 08-24-2008 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 815322)
Prince William is being groomed to become the next British Monarch under an ‘arrangement’ that may see the first-in-line Prince Charles stepping aside.

https://www.expressindia.com/latest-n...onarch/352752/

:rofl::rofl:

I needed that.

But seriously, where do they pull this garbage from?

milla Ca 08-25-2008 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 815322)
Prince William is being groomed to become the next British Monarch under an ‘arrangement’ that may see the first-in-line Prince Charles stepping aside.

https://www.expressindia.com/latest-n...onarch/352752/

I would point out that the original article comes from the Daily Star! :whistling::whistling:

In Germany an articles like that is a typical headline made for the ´Sommerloch´...:whistling:( it means that there are no interesting/serious news during the summerbreak...so some funny or stupid headlines will be created...:cool:)

MARG 08-25-2008 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 815493)
:rofl::rofl:

I needed that.

so did I! :ohmy::lol::rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 815493)
But seriously, where do they pull this garbage from?

From a galaxy far, far away . . . . . . . :whistling::ermm::lol::rofl:

Russophile 08-25-2008 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 815493)
:rofl::rofl:

I needed that.

But seriously, where do they pull this garbage from?

Unfortunately, wishful thinking. I think Charles is going to be a good monarch. He's shown all the signs of being quite capable.
What makes them think that William WANTS to take his father's place??

Al_bina 08-25-2008 09:51 PM

Just my personal opinion ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 815322)
Prince William is being groomed to become the next British Monarch under an ‘arrangement’ that may see the first-in-line Prince Charles stepping aside ... [snipped]

It remains to be seen ...
As for the monarchy under Prince Charles, it will be usual, traditional as the monarchy is supposed to be ... Prince Charles will be a placid King. It would be fair to presume that being a King will significantly constrain his controversial comments.

muriel 08-26-2008 05:29 AM

Skipping a generation.....
 
The article was clearly not based on many facts, but it did raise an interesting thought. Whilst Charles may make a great monarch, him being "in the way" will mean that it is still a long time before Will gets to be King - and some may argue, that Britain will loose out on the opportunity to have a young and youthful monarch, who may invigorate the monarchy, and help bring it closer to the people. Being a traditonalist and not one to tinker with the traditional rules of monarchy, I would have thought that this was not a line of thought I was likely to push. The question really is that Will has the potential to be a real asset to the monarchy - and the question is how the BRF capitalises on it. Key amongst this will be for him to find and develop a meaningful role for himself and his wife - so that his "wait9ing" time is spend productively, and in a manner that will make him earn the respect of the people of the country.

MARG 08-26-2008 09:51 AM

Skipping a Generation
 
I think it's about time that the fictional faction pushing for William to elbow his father out of the way so we can all have a young, attractive, inexperienced, wonderkid King, checked their demographics. :whistling:

The UK, like most western countries, is facing an ageing population. Speaking as one of the millions in my age group I can honestly say that I am diverted by the Royal verson of "The Young and the Restless" however, when push comes to shove, I don't want a Kid on the throne for no other reason than his father is older and therefore redundant. :ohmy:

Isn't age discrimination against the law over there? :doh:

Besides, the "Kid" hasn't shown what he's made of yet! And we can be absolutely sure that love him or hate him, "King" Charles will be making his own decisions based on his own experience and life lessons. Noone is going to manipulate him with any ease. :boxing:

In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that our next King will be his own man and, breaking with tradition, continue to speak out for sustainability, spaces for living instead of concrete jungles, local farming versus Monsanto et al. etc, ad nauseum. :graduate:

Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago that Charles topped a poll of those that care for the countryside? How soon these yellow journo's forget. Oh wait, you have to actually know something to be able to "forget" it and since these guys are incapable of accurately researching a story let alone doing any reasearch whatsoever, my guess is we will just have to wait for the next thrilling installment of "Jealous Throbs the Heart at Court". I think the chapter heading is "Hamlet/William: Hopelessly misunderstood or just plain brainless!" :rofl:

Iluvbertie 08-26-2008 09:59 AM

Back in the 1970s, when Charles was the young 20 something, there were calls for the Queen to abdicate so that the country could have a 'young with it' king on the throne who wouldn't have to wait for too long before he took over.

Sound familiar anyone!!

Russophile 08-26-2008 08:52 PM

Well I think Charles will be a fine Monarch. Unfortunately, for him to get there somebody has to die first and I'm not liking that thought. . . . :ermm:

MARG 08-27-2008 12:22 AM

:previous: Me neither Russo. :verysad:

Mermaid1962 08-27-2008 03:38 PM

Me neither. She's the only monarch I've known and an icon in this nation.:flowers:


Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 816119)
:previous: Me neither Russo. :verysad:


Skydragon 09-14-2008 05:34 AM

I couldn't really find anywhere to put this -

PRINCE Charles is secretly plotting to make Camilla our QUEEN, the News of the World can sensationally reveal.

Prince Charles is secretly plotting to make Camilla our QUEEN | Royals | News | News Of The World

Oh right, NotW, it must be entirely accurate then! :whistling::rofl::rofl:

Madame Royale 09-14-2008 06:12 AM

The will of the day, shall have it's way.

Though there's nothing seceret about the fact that she'll automatically assume the style and title of Her Majesty Queen upon her husbands succession. Unless of course the 'matter', is dealt with prior.

I'm glade to be impartial where this topic is concerned, however. Sure, I have my preference and one I'd welcome right to the end, but lets be honest. Her title will hardly make or break my liking of her. I see something considerate and warm in her...something which has for many years, due to unfortunate circumstances, remained hidden or obscure, I believe.

And I confess. How imposing does she look in the article's photoshop...:rose:

As for Australia, I'm pretty certain most could hardly care. The spouse of the monarch has not a single constitutional right, and bears no relevance whatsoever within this Commonwealth. They are obliged all styles and titles in accordance with British legislature, nothing more.

I'm starting to think it unlikely Charles will even become King of Australia, though if he were to inherit this indapendant crown, it would be a short stay I think. But who for president??...lol.

The matter of Camilla will have little, if any, effect on Australia's governmental future.

Menarue 09-14-2008 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 823300)
I couldn't really find anywhere to put this -

PRINCE Charles is secretly plotting to make Camilla our QUEEN, the News of the World can sensationally reveal.

Prince Charles is secretly plotting to make Camilla our QUEEN | Royals | News | News Of The World

Oh right, NotW, it must be entirely accurate then! :whistling::rofl::rofl:

What is so secret for goodness´ sake, he married her. When he becomes King she will be Queen whether she is called Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Consort, or "Nothing". The King´s wife is Queen... (well there was the little detail of Mrs Fitzherbert!)

Jo of Palatine 09-14-2008 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 823325)
What is so secret for goodness´ sake, he married her. When he becomes King she will be Queen whether she is called Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Consort, or "Nothing". The King´s wife is Queen... (well there was the little detail of Mrs Fitzherbert!)

AFAIK George IV. had already "divorced" Mrs. Fitzherbert when he became king plus their marriage was invalid according to the law of these times, otherwise George would have lost his place in the succession as Maria Fitzherbert was a Roman Catholic. Plus she was not an ambitious woman: when William IV. ascended the throne he offered her the title of duchess in her own right for her services to his late brother and she refused.

sthreats 09-14-2008 07:37 AM

I agree. There was a similar discussion in July 08 'Title for Camilla' thread. As the King's wife she is Queen . I think people know she would not rule etc. It is a psychological thing -Camilla won't be THE QUEEN. I think a lot of this is press manipulation to stir up antimonarchy feelings and sell papers.

Menarue 09-14-2008 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 823331)
AFAIK George IV. had already "divorced" Mrs. Fitzherbert when he became king plus their marriage was invalid according to the law of these times, otherwise George would have lost his place in the succession as Maria Fitzherbert was a Roman Catholic. Plus she was not an ambitious woman: when William IV. ascended the throne he offered her the title of duchess in her own right for her services to his late brother and she refused.

That is what they said(the divorced part) and that saved him from being called a bigamist :whistling:. I believe he carried her portrait to the end of his days.
I believe that by the time Charles becomes King all will be forgotten and it will be Long Live Queen Camilla.
The lady grows on you, I never thought I would say that but.....never say never.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises