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)

sirhon11234 09-14-2008 09:38 AM

I doubt all will be forgotten, but public opinion will soften over time. It already has.

pinkie40 09-14-2008 05:17 PM

I really feel sad for Prince Charles. It's going to be a right royal mess when HMTQ passes away.

(Camilla being crowned might be the least of his worries then)

He is within every right wanting to have Camilla crowned and be officially given her correct title in God's house, yet I still believe the angry mob will be vicious and outpspoken.


It might come down to the thought that both he and his advisors believe that if they have survived and thrived over other "scandals", then surely the adoring public will gasp and bite their tongue upon seeing Camilla in a flowing gown and coronation robes.

In the end, I firmly believe, dignity and decorum will prevail and a beautiful, multifaith coronation decorated with organic flowers from Highgrove's hot house will ensue for C&C.

Roslyn 09-14-2008 07:50 PM

Inspired by the article about Charles' "plot" this morning's "Sunrise" TV show had a telephone poll asking whether or not people thought Camilla should be Queen in due course. Something in the order of 88% voted "no". I don't know the number of callers or the extent to which republicanism motivated people to call, but, for what it is, I thought the result of the poll was interesting.

Madame Royale 09-14-2008 08:06 PM

I missed that. Thanks Roslyn.

An expected outcome from an Australian audience, even though she'll never be our Queen/Princess Consort.

Iluvbertie 09-14-2008 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale (Post 823560)
I missed that. Thanks Roslyn.

An expected outcome from an Australian daudience, even though she'll never be our Queen/Princess Consort.

She will be if we haven't become a Republic by then (which I think we will given the Queen's present health.)

I suspect that as the economy worsens the government will try to distract people by bringing the republican debate to the forefront and either have a series of plebiscites to find out what sort of republic people want or just a straight vote on a popularly elected president at the same time as the next federal election tying the hands of a new government.

Madame Royale 09-14-2008 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 823565)
She will be if we haven't become a Republic by then

Thats not correct I'm affraid.

taken from my previous post...

Quote:

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.
Camilla will never be Queen/Princess Consort of Australia, whether we remain a monarchy or not. The only member of the BRF to hold any constitutional office is the sovereign. Remaining family members, including the spouse, are foreign royalty.

seajat 09-14-2008 10:59 PM

I feel sorry for him too. I don't think Charles and Camilla realize that these are probably the 'best' days of their lives. When he takes the #1 spot, all bets will be off.

I think the media is 'sort of' restrained in their current coverage of the monarchy because they do actually have respect for the queen. She hasn't really ever put a foot wrong in over 55 years on the throne, so I think they have some decorum (whatever that means!) when writing about the monarchy because they really don't want to insult her. She's done a good job.

Also, the queen has never really ever let people know what her private thoughts are on anything. That allows her to stay above the fray, which has the benefit of making her almost untouchable to criticism.

But there is NO love lost between Charles and the media. They are going to attack him every single day. Every time he opens his mouth to give an opinion, he's going to get torn down as someone who is full of himself, arrogant, and self-rightious. Over the years he's railed against all sorts of things publicy (bad architecture, global warming, GM foods, etc). By giving his opinions, it opens him up to being attacked and he will be attacked. It's going to be the mentality of "how dare you tell me how to live. Who do you think you are!"

The attacks will be doubly vicious because we now have this monster called the internet. This didn't exist for most of the queens reign. Any person in any country on this planet will be able to fling their hatred, jealouly, and envy of the monarchy to millions of other people. He will be crucified a million times over every day by websites, blogs, vlogs, chat rooms, etc.

I just keep coming back to the idea that 'this is as good as it gets' for him. It's not going to get better. Once he gets the 'top job', he'll be out the frying pan and directly into the fire. It's not going to be pretty.

Elspeth 09-14-2008 11:46 PM

Yes, it's going to be much harder for him, partly because he's had so much longer than the Queen before succeeding to the throne and partly because the press is so much more aggressive. On the other hand, if the heir to the throne can't speak out about substantive things, it really is going to look even more as though he's a time-wasting pleasure seeker, and William's already being tarred with that particular brush.

Roslyn 09-15-2008 12:11 AM

I tend to think that the position and mystique of being the Sovereign will protect Charles from attack from all but the most disrespectful, aggressive, republican, media forces once he becomes King, no matter how much they may be tempted. Only time will tell, of course, and a lot will depend on how Charles behaves once he becomes King.

Madame Royale 09-15-2008 02:04 AM

It's inevitable that such a move, when having been proposed otherwise by Clarence House for the poast 4 years, will anger a good many people throughout Britain and the Commonwealth. The problem is once a controversial topic, always a controversial topic and that if any such proposal was good enough to suggest, then surely it's good enough to eventuate.

The coming months could well be (not to say they shall) a restless time for Clarence House. Something which is known to those of us who better understand such logistics, will not necessarily be received with such understanding by the broader scope who remain relatively unaware, except for what they read in tabloid magazines or what they are told via royal press releases, etc. Our enthusiasm means we take an interest in the workings of monarchy, but let us be honest, we are a minority.

A great many folk support the institution, but as has been seen before, when they feel either let down or mislead, the winds can change. Perhaps momentarily...who can ever be certain.

Charlotte1 09-15-2008 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 823556)
Inspired by the article about Charles' "plot" this morning's "Sunrise" TV show had a telephone poll asking whether or not people thought Camilla should be Queen in due course. Something in the order of 88% voted "no". I don't know the number of callers or the extent to which republicanism motivated people to call, but, for what it is, I thought the result of the poll was interesting.

Just as scientific a poll, Yahoo7 is running one of 'princess title for Camilla' it was up to 81% no, so then the implication is that 81% of people who voted thought she should have the queen title.

Skydragon 09-15-2008 02:17 PM

I find these various polls hilarious. Either they have phoned 1000 people and based the opinions of 61 million (in the UK) on the results from the 1000, or they are click to vote (You can click as many times as you want as long as you clear your cookies) or phone in, again as many times as you want.

A friend of mine is a whizz with polls and how many you would actually need to ask to get a real idea, but even to this simpleton, the ones I have mentioned don't appear to be very scientific!:biggrin:

Al_bina 09-15-2008 02:29 PM

If the recent article in News of the World have got the tiniest grain of truth, it could be viewed as the water testing by the Clarence House. As for news and polls of such nature in general, they are annoying and faulty. Given the current developments in the economic environment, who really cares about the title of the second wife of the Heir Apparent? I wonder why the Clarence House tends to create awkward situation out of nothing.
Personally I would like to see King Charles and his wife entertaining Chinese Prime Minister...

Russophile 09-15-2008 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 823950)
I find these various polls hilarious. Either they have phoned 1000 people and based the opinions of 61 million (in the UK) on the results from the 1000, or they are click to vote (You can click as many times as you want as long as you clear your cookies) or phone in, again as many times as you want.

A friend of mine is a whizz with polls and how many you would actually need to ask to get a real idea, but even to this simpleton, the ones I have mentioned don't appear to be very scientific!:biggrin:

80% of statistics are made up on the spot 60% of the time. . . .:whistling:

muriel 09-16-2008 04:41 AM

I think Queen Camilla's time will come, we just have to wait!!!

Menarue 09-16-2008 04:51 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.

I think that Edward VIII did sell his property(but which properties I am not sure) to his brother when he abdicated, it was to provide money for him to live off. He was worried that he would be left penniless (his worry all his life even though he was a millionaire) and this sale was supposed to compensate for the fact that as the heir to the throne only his brothers and sister were mentioned in George V´s will.

branchg 09-27-2008 01:09 PM

The only properties Edward VIII sold were Balmoral and Sandringham, both of which belonged to him under his father's will as the eldest son and successor to the throne. He did not receive any additional bequests from George V because as The Duke of Cornwall, he had received its income for years as the heir, while his brothers did not. The properties were valued at 300,000 sterling, but this lump-sum was not paid directly to The Duke, rather an equivalent amount was used to purchase War Loan bonds to generate 11,000 pounds annually in tax-free income. His brother supplemented this income with an allowance of 10,000 sterling per year.

Keep in mind The Duke had lied about his personal means when George VI initially agreed to a 25,000 sterling annual income, stating he only had 5,000 per year, when his fortune was worth over 1 million sterling from years of income from the Duchy of Cornwall. This does not include substantial sums of money he spent from his brief time as King from the Duchy of Lancaster, most of which was used to purchase jewels for Wallis.

The Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent each received about 1 million sterling in trust (about $30 million today) from their father's estate, believed to be limited to the income only, with the grandchildren inheriting the principal. Unfortunately, due to World War II, currency controls and inflation, much of this money was greatly diminished by the early 50's.

The Crown Estate is inalienable from the State, although it technically belongs to the Crown in the person of the Sovereign. If the monarchy was abolished, those assets would remain with the Exchequer.

milla Ca 11-16-2008 05:43 AM

Prince Charles: Ready for active service

November 16

It was always expected that when he finally came to the throne, the 'interfering' Charles would fall silent. Now the constitutionally explosive idea is taking root that he should continue to speak out on public issues, writes his biographer

Jonathan Dimbleby

Prince Charles: Ready for active service - Times Online

Menarue 11-16-2008 06:02 AM

From what I have read about the Duke of Windsor he was very shocked to find he was not left any money in his father´s will, his father had expected him to follow him and be King and of course there was all the money he had received from the Duchy of Cornwall.
The royal family and advisers were suddenly faced with a King who was abdicating and wanted compensation and after much talk they decided to "buy" the two properties that could be considered private, Sandringham and Balmoral from him, as well as giving him what was a generous allowance. He continued to count himself as a poor man and if we can believe some of his biographers although he was always very generous with the Duchess if there were some way he could get out of paying he would, especially expensive restaurants he would, and he was always ready for a discount.
The French were especially good to him and he paid what was considered a "peppercorn" rent for his sumptious mansion in Paris. He led a frivolous life but he seemed to enjoy it although he never stopped complaining almost to the day he died.

Skydragon 11-16-2008 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milla Ca (Post 854081)
It was always expected that when he finally came to the throne, the 'interfering' Charles would fall silent. Now the constitutionally explosive idea is taking root that he should continue to speak out on public issues, writes his biographer

Jonathan Dimbleby

Prince Charles: Ready for active service - Times Online

Thanks for posting this claim by Dimbleby, a claim I hasten to add that was denied by Clarence House according to reports by the BBC & ITV & Charles: rethink of sovereign's role - Liverpool Echo.co.uk.
Quote:

Clarence House denied there was any truth in the reports and said people should refer to comments made by the prince himself. Asked by the BBC, for a recent documentary celebrating his 60th birthday, if he would continue to campaign in his role as king, he said: "I don't know. I don't know - probably not in the same way.

Emeralds and Opals 11-16-2008 05:16 PM

Sunday Express | UK News :: EXCLUSIVE: Charles 'to rule at 65’ as Queen 'steps aside'

Lilla 11-16-2008 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeralds and Opals (Post 854296)

If spokesmen at Buckingham Palace are to be trusted, which I do think they are, it is noteworthy to read this statement (also according to the Sunday Express) made last night by a Buckingham Palace spokesman:

“The Queen has always made it clear that she will not step down and that hasn’t changed.”

That is a rather firm statement leaving no doors open for regret.

Royal Fan 11-17-2008 02:06 AM

So unless she pases when hes 65 he wont be King that what your saying?

Elspeth 11-17-2008 02:58 AM

No, she isn't saying that. She's just saying that the Queen won't abdicate, she'll continue as Queen for her whole life, just as she promised to do on her 21st birthday.

Lilla 11-17-2008 03:25 AM

Exactly, Elspet :flowers:

Except that it isn't me saying that. It is a Buckingham Palace spokesman.

Jo of Palatine 11-17-2008 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon (Post 854107)
Thanks for posting this claim by Dimbleby, a claim I hasten to add that was denied by Clarence House according to reports by the BBC & ITV & Charles: rethink of sovereign's role - Liverpool Echo.co.uk.

I doubt Charles has any interest in a public discussion of his way to be king now. Why should he? He will be able to reign by the power of his personality, he will still be able to influence the government through his right to advise and I bet those politicians who will have to deal with him will learn that the king intends to see results.

OTOH I don't think Charles can be interested in a formal change of kingship for the next generations - what about william? so far he is not even interested in starting his Royal duties but prefers a pilot's duty, he is not yet learning how to care for the Duchy of Cornwall once it's his enterprise and he seems to be much less political than Charles. So where is the sense in annoying his mother and getting into a danger zone, when the purpose he would do it for is short-lived and potentially dangerous for his heirs?

milla Ca 11-17-2008 12:00 PM

When Charles will be King i think there´ll be changes: He has a strong personality and the in same way he is now a special Prince of Wales he´ll be in many ways a special King.

I think it´s the ´normal´ way that Clarence House denied this kind of reports or articles, although i can imagine that Charles could be interested in the public mind about possible ´reforms´, about his ´aktive role´as a King or about the question to be´defender of faith´, or ´the faith´.

It seems that more people start to think about the time he´ll be King and if the dicussion about it runs in a way with sustance and knowledge ( and not on a tabloid level) it can be interesting for us and maybe for him too.(IMO).

Skydragon 11-26-2008 07:09 AM

Prince Charles will be right to speak out once he becomes King.

It is true that by doing so he will risk the future of the Crown. But, if he fails to rock the Royal boat, the Monarchy will in any case be finished soon

PETER HITCHENS: Speak out Charles, our teenage politicians never will | Mail Online

MARG 11-27-2008 10:02 AM

I agree. I would hate to see such a passionate campaigner silenced in any way. Even if it does cause the fur to fly, I think it will be worth it to have a King with a "Personality".

muriel 11-27-2008 10:21 AM

I think Charles is wise enough to use his "power to convene" judiciously, once he is King. I do think he will let his thoughts on matters close to his heart be heard. He is also a shrewd enough PR operator to know how he must use the next years in assessing public opinion for such a potential King, and to the extent he needs to, manage public opinion in this regard.

In some ways, I agree with the view in the article in the Mail that, perhaps, the time has come for the next monarch to be slightly more vocal to reinvigorate the monarchy.

wbenson 10-07-2010 05:33 AM

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Prince Charles: I’ll be a breath of fresh heir and if my parents don’t like it, bad luck

Prince Charles has given his strongest signal yet that he plans to break with tradition and be as outspoken when king as he is now.

The heir to the throne sees the role of a constitutional monarch in the 21st century as very different from the example his mother has set, he makes clear.

wbenson 10-07-2010 05:36 AM

Prince Charles uses book Harmony to pledge a duty to the environment | Mail Online

Prince Charles has already said he will take the title of Defender of the Faith when he becomes King.

But now the Prince of Wales has pledged to dedicate himself to becoming the Defender of Nature.

Prince of Wales wants to be 'defender of nature' - Telegraph

As heir to the throne Prince Charles will one day be given the title Defender of Faith.

But as his job, he says he intends to become the defender of nature

Duchessmary 10-07-2010 11:52 AM

Fresh heir? How? I can't imagine it. Just hearing him talk puts me to sleep. :pigsfly:

NoorMeansLight 10-07-2010 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 1144791)
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Prince Charles: I’ll be a breath of fresh heir and if my parents don’t like it, bad luck

Prince Charles has given his strongest signal yet that he plans to break with tradition and be as outspoken when king as he is now.

The heir to the throne sees the role of a constitutional monarch in the 21st century as very different from the example his mother has set, he makes clear.

This is not exactly what P Charles said, right? :smile: I can see the BRF's fortune being reduced after he becomes King. Which is fair as a big part of the property still belongs to the Crown out of regard for HM, the Queen.

Lumutqueen 10-07-2010 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoorMeansLight (Post 1144962)
This is not exactly what P Charles said, right? :smile:

It says that this has come from an interview to be published on Friday in Vanity Fair. :ermm:

NoorMeansLight 10-08-2010 08:40 AM

I know that. It's impossible for me to find the new VF issue here. Could someone, please, post the article when it becomes available online? :flowers:

Lumutqueen 10-08-2010 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoorMeansLight (Post 1145284)
I know that. It's impossible for me to find the new VF issue here. Could someone, please, post the article when it becomes available online? :flowers:

Maybe this.
Exclusive: Prince Charles on the Environment, the Monarchy, His Family, and Islam | VF Daily | Vanity Fair

MissP 10-08-2010 06:21 PM

Thanks Lumutqueen!

For what it's worth, I like Charles. He has causes that he's passionate about and gets stuck in. He became involved in environmental issues LONG before they became fashionable.So yes, he often behaves like an embarrassing Dad at a wedding but he has carved out a role for himself, and isn't just being a 'monarch in waiting' and for that I applaud him. I think he'll be a great King; different to his mother which is a good thing (not because she's bad, just he needs his own identity) and I think he'll continue saying what he thinks, and championing causes that he cares about, and being a good ambassador at home and abroad.

Osipi 10-09-2010 06:59 AM

I agree with you here.

Charles is coming into his own and it will reflect on the monarchy he holds and personally I like it. Even being American, I think I've watched Charles' path more than I have our own presidents. Perhaps because it's a longer one. I'm still wading through the Dimbleby biography that was written way back when and there's so much insight into Charles in that book that is not about Diana.

Defender of Nature. yes. (no druish joke here) I can see him being that. Also the Defender of Faith. By the time he does sit as King, I really do think he'll be concerned with more of the global effects of things that will not only affect the UK but all of us. Presidents and PMs and politics come and go.. wax and wane but actually a man dedicated to preserving our planet and the folks that live on it rank high in my book. If being King means he has to be silenced and just be a figurehead, its time for a republic.

He was given big ears for a reason.. perhaps he hears and senses things most of us don't.

Perhaps

Iluvbertie 10-09-2010 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1145544)
If being King means he has to be silenced and just be a figurehead, its time for a republic.

The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.

Osipi 10-09-2010 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1145554)
The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.

That is exactly my point. Being the Prince of Wales he stood on issues and wrote a lot of letters and voiced an opinion and gave ideas. As King he'd of course defer his opinions on UK political matters to the PM but do you really think he'd put what he believes in strongly aside?

My thought was he'd be more concerned about the global issues rather than taking sides with the UK political parties. Something along the lines that any political party wouldn't find fault with and that's not an easy road.

Osipi 10-09-2010 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1145554)
The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.

Off the wall question. what happens to the Prince's Trust when Charles does become King? He can no longer be the patron right? Or.. does it become the King's Trust?

Madame Royale 10-09-2010 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1145554)
The British system only works with a monarch whose mouth is shut - they have no role in politics and have to do and say what the government of the day tell them - publicly.

Anything the monarch wants to say on any issue must be said in private to the PM only.

I quite agree. The system has lasted thing long because of it's fundamental obligation to refrain from interfering.

Change that, and they'll find themselves in a most precarious set of circumstances.

Lumutqueen 10-09-2010 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1145567)
Off the wall question. what happens to the Prince's Trust when Charles does become King? He can no longer be the patron right? Or.. does it become the King's Trust?

The Queen has patronages, and I don't see why The Prince's Trust cannot carry on.

Osipi 10-09-2010 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1145589)
The Queen has patronages, and I don't see why The Prince's Trust cannot carry on.

That's true too.. just wondered if it'd be renamed the King's trust.

With all that's been said lately do you all think there is a real possibility that Charles will try and enact Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith?

Lumutqueen 10-09-2010 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1145600)
That's true too.. just wondered if it'd be renamed the King's trust.

With all that's been said lately do you all think there is a real possibility that Charles will try and enact Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith?

I think it's a definete possibility and he'll cling to it with the edges of his teeth until someone gives the definete No.
It may do, or Charles may choose to pass it onto one of his sons.

Madame Royale 10-09-2010 11:51 AM

I think it rather rediculous myself. Unless church and state are seperated, it's entirely unlikley that Charles shall not be known as Deffender of the Faith.

Let him set an example of religious tolerance, showing initiative to be educated and understand faiths' that are not his own, but let us not underestimate his insignificance when it comes to the matter of religion overall. To be called Deffender of Faith? I mean seriously, what would be next? Mother Earth's Deffender of 'Harmony'?

It's all just so unconstitutionally sound.

Essentially, I wouldn't be straying too far from mummy's example if Charles is serious about attaining the throne and keeping it.

He has a lot to offer I think, but there's ways of doing things and theres ways of not doing things. Here's hoping he gets it right.

Vecchiolarry 10-09-2010 12:30 PM

Hi,

I totally agree that King Charles needs to publically keep his mouth shut and his opinions to himself... He should only give speeches approved by the government and Parliament!!!

The Monarch has the power (perogative) 'to advise' the Prime Minister; and that is done in private with their weekly meeting(s)...

He would be well advised to follow "Mummy's" example, as she is exemplary as a Constitutional Monarch and she has not put a foot wrong in 58 years!!!

Larry

Osipi 10-09-2010 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry (Post 1145625)
Hi,

I totally agree that King Charles needs to publically keep his mouth shut and his opinions to himself... He should only give speeches approved by the government and Parliament!!!

The Monarch has the power (perogative) 'to advise' the Prime Minister; and that is done in private with their weekly meeting(s)...

He would be well advised to follow "Mummy's" example, as she is exemplary as a Constitutional Monarch and she has not put a foot wrong in 58 years!!!

Larry

She's got Philip that opens mouth and inserts foot.. But seriously here...

I don't see Charles as being so naive that he'd be hollering "save the squirrel" from Buckingham balcony and he's probably wise enough to know what is expected as a constitutional monarch and will do it to perfection. But.... as a King and meeting other influential personas of state and countries, in private I don't think they're going to be talking about mulch and how fast tomatoes grow (unless they're at Highgrove).

I do see him staying well away from being opinionated on political matters and perhaps doing a quip or two ala Philip to insinuate but as a monarch, he will be very much like his mum. He'll also be wishing he could be at Highgrove and just diggin in the dirt and having dirty fingernails. .. just as HM loves her time at rest.

I do hope he does not ever lose his passion for what he believes in and I do think as King, it may not be official but what he knows, he will share with those that wish to listen and it won't be over the fence as we are doing now. Over a good wine in waterfod crystal maybe in his study. There is a lot of passion in Charles and I really hope it doesn't stop when a crown hits his head. I think that's what he was trying to say in the VF article.

Lumutqueen 10-14-2010 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147258)
Charles needs to recast his image once he becomes king, and there will be no better opportunity then when he does ascend the throne.

Why does he need to re-cast his image?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147269)
You forget Prince Arthur, first husband of Catherine of Aragon. And also Arthur, Duke of Brittany who was supposed to be king before King John.

Im sure there are many more not listed on Wiki.

Those two named people were not Monarchs.

Keystone 10-14-2010 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1147287)
There have been comments by some friends that he might take George VII certainly but not in any of the biographies that I have. Can you please identfy which biographer?

I don't remember exactly who it was, it was statements he was making during Charles' marriage to Camilla as a guest commentator on CNN and MSNBC, and I think I saw him on ABC too. Either way, it was his idea for which I wholey subscribe to for the points he had made (the one's appearently not popular here, lol)
Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1147297)
The Welsh nationalistic movement is pretty muted, bit I can't see a relevant linkage between the arugument for and against a separate Welsh nation, and the reign of Charles / George VII / .....

There is no relevant linkage between the argument for an independent Wales and Charles, except that you had asked…
Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1147263)
Why do you support separate kingdoms of England, Wales and Scotland?

On a passing statement that I had made at the end of the post outlining why I thought he would chose George over Charles, in which I had stated: “I would restore a Welsh monarchy for Wales, and for Scotland a restored Stewart dynast. Otherwise, I would Wales and Scotland were independent republics.”

To your comment asking why do I support Welsh independence I replied …
Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147268)
I don't want to derail the topic but I guess I opened the door, eh? lol

As for Wales, I guess I've never gotten over the 1284 Edwardian Conquest of my homeland? From my perspective, the English crown acquired Wales in a similar manner as Iraq tried to take Kuwait in the First Gulf War, or any aggressive country conquers another. Only...the the UN of the day (Catholic Church) acquiesced to it. I feel robbed of my history. I believe the Welsh would be better off economically had we been able to develop our own interests and keep investments within the country rather then siphoned off elsewhere. I believe Wales would be in a comparable position today as Denmark is next to Germany.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1147297)
The Welsh nationalistic movement is pretty muted, bit I can't see a relevant linkage between the arugument for and against a separate Welsh nation, and the reign of Charles / George VII / .....

The "Welsh Independence Movement" is far from muted! It is the second largest political party in the Welsh Assembly and forms the junior partner in the current Welsh government. From a UK parliamentary perspective, one could drive from the mouth of the Tywi estauary on the Severn Sea (Bristol Channel) and head northbound to Caernarfon in Gwynedd on the Irish Sea and still not leave "Plaid Cymru country". Read up on it’s history.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1147319)
Why does he need to re-cast his image?

I don't really need to go into this do I? Not amongst us? But, really Charles is known as an eccentric philanderer, despite his hard word for charities. Nothing like his coronation to better recast his image from the dithering playboy prince to one of a serious constitutional monarch and leader.

Trust me, its all about managing one’s image. The press has always been brutal for Charles, it will not stop once he become’s king and he enacts his agenda (once for which I am supportive of). A “Charles III” with the precedents of the other two and Prince Charles own personal life will be the end of the English monarchy in my opinion. And believe me, the press will associate a “Charles III” with the other two and all the machinations and philandering of Charles III’s life will be associated in the public mind with the other two.

A “George VII” has all the advantages of linking Charles with the rule of his grandfather and great grandfather. It’s simply a rebranding of his image, if done right. A benefit of this would be clearly George VI’s performance during WWII, and the nostalgia that comes along with it.

Ultimately, it’s all about word association, rather then anything like superstition. Rightly or wrongly, the name Charles is linked with baggage for him both historically and in his younger years. George VII offers a clear, definitive, masculine break from all of that. One which I support.

I would bet my best luggage on the fact that he will take George as his regal name, as much as I would bet that Camilla will be queen!

Lumutqueen 10-14-2010 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147408)
I don't really need to go into this do I? Not amongst us? But, really Charles is known as an eccentric philanderer, despite his hard word for charities. Nothing like his coronation to better recast his image from the dithering playboy prince to one of a serious constitutional monarch and leader.



This is the thread about the Monarchy under Charles, your saying he needs to change when he becomes King. So why not discuss it? If you didn't want to be challenged, why say it?
"Dithering playboy Prince" he's been married to one woman for 5 years, and when he was married previously, he only cheated on Diana with only one woman, and that was Camilla. He may have been as playboy when he was in his 20's but I don't think anyone, no newspaper has called him that?
I coronation, isn't going to change who he is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147408)
Trust me, its all about managing one’s image. The press has always been brutal for Charles, it will not stop once he become’s king and he enacts his agenda (once for which I am supportive of). A “Charles III” with the precedents of the other two and Prince Charles own personal life will be the end of the English monarchy in my opinion. And believe me, the press will associate a “Charles III” with the other two and all the machinations and philandering of Charles III’s life will be associated in the public mind with the other two.

Brutal I think is the wrong word, they have been critical of him, especially when Diana died.
I doubt in this day and age, people will remember or even know who Charles I and II were, let alone what happened in their reign. Unless you follow royalty, and follow it very very closely, they won't know about Charles two named ancestors.
The press will not even know Charles I and II, they won't compare them to Prince Charles at all, Queen Elizabeth II has never been compared to Queen Elizabeth I has she? Or has any other Monarch been compared to someone else who shared the same name?
I know the press of this country, and they will be interested in the here and now, not the past.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147408)
A “George VII” has all the advantages of linking Charles with the rule of his grandfather and great grandfather. It’s simply a rebranding of his image, if done right. A benefit of this would be clearly George VI’s performance during WWII, and the nostalgia that comes along with it.

Why does he want to link to his grandfather and great-grandfathers reign, he should carve out his own reign, show the world, as you put it, that he isn't a "philandering eccentric".
The people who remember WWII and George VI are Monarchists, and people who fought in the war. The war isn't taught in British Schools anymore, and certainly not in reference to George VI's involvement. Nobody lower than the age of 75 perhaps will remember. So what would be the point?
Also, Charles could only be like George VI was in the war, if we have another war.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147408)
Ultimately, it’s all about word association, rather then anything like superstition. Rightly or wrongly, the name Charles is linked with baggage for him both historically and in his younger years. George VII offers a clear, definitive, masculine break from all of that. One which I support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keystone (Post 1147408)

I would bet my best luggage on the fact that he will take George as his regal name, as much as I would bet that Camilla will be queen!

I completely disagree, no one remembers the baggage of the name Charles, and when he becomes King the old stories of his affair with Camilla, death of Diana and possible the talking to plants. But nothing that won't go away.
A name does not change a person, and as you've said doesn't forget the past.
If Elizabeth and Phillip had wanted Charles to become King George VII, then i'm sure they would have named him George.
Camilla will be his Queen, and Charles will be King Charles III.

nascarlucy 10-15-2010 10:50 PM

It will be interesting to see how they word his coronation. A New Charlian Age perhaps.

Osipi 10-18-2010 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1148015)
It will be interesting to see how they word his coronation. A New Charlian Age perhaps.

There would definitely be a new need for a source to describe what the reign under Charles will be. I don't think in any way it could or can be related to past history.

I do think thought that as a regnant, it'd be best if he does use the name he's carried for almost 62 years now. Charles III. I really can't see him being bothered at all with whatever past history Charles' reigns have done nor do I think he'd really hide his own self under a different name just for public opinion.

I do think what we're going to see with Charles as a king is one that follows his mother's example yet along with that incorporates his own passions where he can.

Perhaps in 300 years from now as we delve into ancient myths and legends and learn about the Green Man that the druids worshiped, there will also be a mention of a Green King?

https://hubpages.com/hub/The-Green-Ma...-The-Green-Man

KittyAtlanta 10-18-2010 05:08 PM

Just a word to all the Republican-leaning posters. Should you become a republic, you will never see any of the money allocated to things "royal" about which everyone crabs. It will be absorbed by the giant, grinding political machine. . .and you will no longer have anything special. Think twice.

Nico 11-19-2010 05:19 PM

The POW crossed the bridge today:

BBC News - Prince Charles says Camilla 'may become Queen'

More discussions and troubles to come i guess...bad timing Charly, really bad timing...

A preview of the inteview from msnbc :

Today Show Video Player

And here we are :

Camilla could be Queen: Charles breaks five-year silence on future role of his second wife | Mail Online

Thena 11-19-2010 06:22 PM

Without having seen the interview, it sounds like Charles needs to prepare better for those unexpected questions. There was a script that his PR people stick to on that question, but in the heat of the moment, it seems Charles forgot the script!

Iluvbertie 11-19-2010 07:20 PM

He really didn't say anything different to what has already been said either publicly or privately. We will have to wait and see.

The wording at the time was 'intended' but we all know intentions can change. Even at the time Tony Blair said that she would be Queen Camilla when asked in parliament.

BellaFay 11-19-2010 08:22 PM

I totally agree with you. This interview was actually given over 3 months ago (in early August). It has only now been dug up by the Daily Mail & Nicholas Whitchell (neither of them fans of Prince Charles & Camilla) to try to manufacture controversy where there is none. The latest opinion poll has shown that fewer than a quarter of those polled want Prince William to succeed to the throne in place of Prince Charles.

grevinnan 11-19-2010 10:59 PM

Camilla will be Queen when Charles ascends the throne. The past is now of no consequence. She is the rightful queen and should be titled as such.

Lady Ann 11-19-2010 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine (Post 1163011)
Her official title will NEVER be HRH Princess Catherine of Wales. Catherine is not a princess in her own right. All these dumb writers have to do is read Wikipedia to figure that out.


I just watched an TV program with the POW and the man giving the interview called Diana. Princess Diana right to Charles. He still cringes when they mention her name...any way my point is they never (the press) get titles and styles correct...So they get paid to know the facts but dont take the time to research a name:ermm:

CasiraghiTrio 11-20-2010 03:29 AM

Charles was hesitant to say too much, or too little?about being King or about Camilla being, or not being Queen. That's just an example of how deeply and seriously he considers things. He's very careful. He knows that things are always changing. Nothing is static. Life is always transforming. Laws are rewritten. Laws become obsolete. The world marches on. He is a wise man. God bless the Prince of Wales.

Iluvbertie 11-20-2010 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann (Post 1163021)
I just watched an TV program with the POW and the man giving the interview called Diana. Princess Diana right to Charles. He still cringes when they mention her name...any way my point is they never (the press) get titles and styles correct...So they get paid to know the facts but dont take the time to research a name:ermm:

Was it the name or the title that caused him to cringe? She would correct people who called her Princess Diana as she knew that it wasn't correct and Charles is such a stickler for correct titles etc that I think he might have been more cringing at the continued ignorance of the people asking that they couldn't get her title correct. He was reportedly on good terms with her when she died and she is the mother of his sons so I don't think he would be cringing at her name at all.

texankitcat 11-20-2010 10:00 AM

Did anyone see the interview on NBC Dateline last night with Prince Charles? I had the impression from the questions posed and how he responded that he isn't too keen on becoming King. He knows that he has a certain amount of freedom as the Prince of Wales to pursue his environmental passions and speak out about the issues that are most important to him, and he knows that once he becomes King, he will need to be nuetral rather than make political or public stands for the things he is passionate about.

I have to wonder if Prince Charles WILL ascend to the throne once the Queen passes. He is very much set in his ways and as such will find it very difficult to mold himself into the role a King must adhere to. He isn't a young man and I think if he is forced to give up the passions that have drive him now, he will be extremely unhappy.

Lady Ann 11-20-2010 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1163108)
Was it the name or the title that caused him to cringe? She would correct people who called her Princess Diana as she knew that it wasn't correct and Charles is such a stickler for correct titles etc that I think he might have been more cringing at the continued ignorance of the people asking that they couldn't get her title correct. He was reportedly on good terms with her when she died and she is the mother of his sons so I don't think he would be cringing at her name at all.


you may be correct, but he was promoting a new book he wrote I don't understand why here in the US and other places they always have to bring her into it.
https://www.google.com/url?url=http:/...bAisJcGhvLZUPg

Lumutqueen 11-20-2010 12:03 PM

I guess this is about the Monarchy under King Charles.

Camilla could be Queen: Charles breaks five-year silence on future role of his second wife | Mail Online

grevinnan 11-20-2010 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1163219)

Would the issue whether the wife of Charles should be styled Queen ever have been discussed if he still were married to Diana?

Assuming no tradegies, Camilla will one day be married to the King whether we like her or not.

Iluvbertie 11-20-2010 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texankitcat (Post 1163171)
I have to wonder if Prince Charles WILL ascend to the throne once the Queen passes. He is very much set in his ways and as such will find it very difficult to mold himself into the role a King must adhere to. He isn't a young man and I think if he is forced to give up the passions that have drive him now, he will be extremely unhappy.


When the Queen passes he automatically ascends the throne. He has no say in the matter. If he doesn't want to do it he will have to get the legislation passed during the present reign. He won't do that. Really it is like any other job - good and bad parts. He knows what he can't do in his job (like I know things I can't do in mine) and will fit into that mold when the time comes. He also expresses a lack of enthusiasm at times because it means that his mother will have died. For those of us who have lost our mothers that is a traumatic occasion at whatever age it happens and for Charles at 62 it will be an awful day.

purple_Lulu 11-21-2010 03:26 AM

Charles has been heir apparent virtually his entire life, the prospect of being king is "part of his DNA" to use revolting current corporate-speak. And word is he is rather keen on the idea and has been planning his own coronation for years. Tales have been told of "don't you know who I am, I'm going to be king one day" style rants; I doubt there's much chance of Charles stepping aside when his time comes.

Warren 11-21-2010 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purple_Lulu (Post 1163649)
Tales have been told of "don't you know who I am, I'm going to be king one day" style rants;

What tales may they be? What "don't you know who I am?" rants? Do tell.
Reliable sources would be good too. :smile:

Quote:

I doubt there's much chance of Charles stepping aside when his time comes.
It'll be a bit late "when his time comes" as the way it works is "The Queen is dead. Long love the King!".
His accession as Monarch is immediate upon the death of his mother.

Lumutqueen 11-21-2010 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grevinnan (Post 1163304)
Would the issue whether the wife of Charles should be styled Queen ever have been discussed if he still were married to Diana?

Assuming no tradegies, Camilla will one day be married to the King whether we like her or not.

No, Diana would have been Queen Diana no discussion whatsoever.

Princejohnny25 11-21-2010 10:16 AM

BBC News - Cameron: 'Too early' to say if Camilla could be Queen

wbenson 11-21-2010 03:01 PM

David Cameron hints that he would support Duchess of Cornwall as queen - Telegraph

The Prime Minister was asked whether he would support the idea after the Prince of Wales indicated for the first time that she could become Queen Camilla when he ascends the throne.

Asked whether he was "up for Queen Camilla", Mr Cameron said it was "too early for decisions" but acknowledged that it was a subject that would be discussed at some point.

He said: "I'm a big Camilla fan."

Amelia 11-21-2010 04:12 PM

:previous:
I'm not sure I agree with him that it is too early for discussions. It might actually be better to settle it once and for all - is the wife of The King going to be called Queen or not?

Roslyn 11-21-2010 04:13 PM

I don't think these polls should be asking people who they want to see as the next monarch, because they might begin to think they have some choice in the matter. It is not an elected monarchy; provided he survives his mother, Charles will become king the moment her Majesty dies. His wife will become Queen Consort at that moment, too. The only question to be determined is whether Camilla is to ber known as something other than Queen Consort.

FasterB 11-21-2010 04:17 PM

Why wouldn´t Camilla be known as Queen? She will, after all, be married to a king.

I am aware of the status of Philip and our own Henrik being Prince Consorts and not kings. But a king is the person who rules the land and that lies in the title. It does not lie in the title of the Queen.

Pleas enlighten me :)

Roslyn 11-21-2010 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amelia (Post 1164011)
I'm not sure I agree with him that it is too early for discussions. It might actually be better to settle it once and for all - is the wife of The King going to be called Queen or not?

I agree. When will be the right time? When HM has died and Charles is King? It will be a bit too late then, because Camilla will be Queen and a decision that she is not to be called Queen will be like a demotion. And it would be rather unseemly to have such a discussion, which will no doubt involve some name-calling and unpleasant dredging up of incidents in the past, when the members of the RF and the people are still grieving the loss of their long-serving and very much loved mother and grandmother and monarch.

Amelia 11-21-2010 04:25 PM

:previous:
Absolutely. Then there's the whole question of what happens after Charles and Camilla. Do we have a King and his princess consort, then go back to having King William and Queen Catherine or is it princess consort from now on. The need to decide, draw a line under it and let everybody move on.

Lumutqueen 11-21-2010 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasterB (Post 1164016)
Why wouldn´t Camilla be known as Queen? She will, after all, be married to a king.

I am aware of the status of Philip and our own Henrik being Prince Consorts and not kings. But a king is the person who rules the land and that lies in the title. It does not lie in the title of the Queen.

Pleas enlighten me :)

Because Charles has had Diana as a wife previously, and the story behind him and Camilla. Yes she will be married to the King, and therefore will be Queen. But I honestly think that government/monarchy in a sense are afraid of what the public will say.

FasterB 11-21-2010 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1164039)
Because Charles has had Diana as a wife previously, and the story behind him and Camilla. Yes she will be married to the King, and therefore will be Queen. But I honestly think that government/monarchy in a sense are afraid of what the public will say.

Ahh, so she will, by title, be queen, but will be known as Duchess or something else? :ermm:

Charlotte_Aster 11-21-2010 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasterB (Post 1164046)
Ahh, so she will, by title, be queen, but will be known as Duchess or something else? :ermm:

I think it was announced in the time of their engagement that Camilla will be styled as HRH Princess Consort in the event of Charles's becoming king.
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lumutqueen 11-21-2010 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasterB (Post 1164046)
Ahh, so she will, by title, be queen, but will be known as Duchess or something else? :ermm:

Charles agreed she would be HRH The Princess Consort.
However, he seems to be going back on what he said.
Personally, she should be Queen Camilla.

scooter 11-21-2010 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1164039)
Because Charles has had Diana as a wife previously, and the story behind him and Camilla. Yes she will be married to the King, and therefore will be Queen. But I honestly think that government/monarchy in a sense are afraid of what the public will say.

Well they should be 'afraid of what the public will say'. Because if the public wont have that woman as Queen, they may well say thanks but no thanks to the whole thing. Then where will Charles be? If Charles' choice is either dont try to make Camilla Queen and the public tolerates the twosome vs try to make her Queen and run the risk of being told to get lost all together, that's something he needs to consider. That's leaving aside the whole defender of the faith issue regarding a 'Queen' with a prior living husband.

Sister Morphine 11-21-2010 05:52 PM

Charles should never have agreed to downgrade Camilla's title. Pardon my language, but the very idea of it is asinine. The wife of the King is the Queen. That's how it works. Camilla and Charles are married now, not shacking up or meeting for late-night booty calls or anything else. She's his wife, he's her husband. When he becomes King, she is the Queen. Anything less is really insulting because let's be frank here -- it takes two to screw up a marriage. Charles is as guilty for the breakdown in his marriage as Camilla is, so why should she be the only one "punished" for it?

If people can't accept that they're married and that what is legally entitled to be hers is hers now......those people can just go fly a kite. It's time to grow up and realize that life moves on whether you like it or not. If the idea of his wife being called Queen Camilla is so offensive to you just because they had once been extramarital paramours, oh well. Royalty throughout history, not just in England, is rife with Kings and Queens who couldn't keep their goodies to themselves. They're human, they did something they shouldn't have, they atoned for it, they got married.

Making her go by the title "Princess Consort" is akin to making her walk around with a scarlet letter pinned to her blouse. Hello, it's not the 1600s anymore.

Iluvbertie 11-21-2010 06:15 PM

:previous:
Very well said.

The wording at the time was 'intends' not 'will' and there is a subtle difference there allowing for the decision to be that she will be Queen Consort, as she should be, but that will depend on the situation at the time.

Osipi 11-21-2010 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine (Post 1164076)
Charles should never have agreed to downgrade Camilla's title...

I totally agree with you on all points here but have a question.

Isn't it possible that the intent to call Camilla "Princess Consort" came about because at her request? IIRC back at the time of Charles and Camilla's wedding, she was the one that requested the style of Duchess of Cornwall over The Princess of Wales. I'm thinking that perhaps she did this not only out of respect for Diana and to avoid any uproar at that time, but perhaps also Camilla wasn't very fond of being thrust into the limelight. We've all seen what a wonderful job she's been doing and the rapport she's had with people at the functions she goes to and I think she'll make a wonderful Queen Consort but perhaps she'll prefer Princess Consort where to her it would seem more like she's Charles' support system always one step behind her man. If she was Princess Consort, she'd not be HM The Princess Consort correct?

Its been a long day here and my mind is a bit comfuzzled. :eek:

Lumutqueen 11-21-2010 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1164065)
Well they should be 'afraid of what the public will say'. Because if the public wont have that woman as Queen, they may well say thanks but no thanks to the whole thing. Then where will Charles be? If Charles' choice is either dont try to make Camilla Queen and the public tolerates the twosome vs try to make her Queen and run the risk of being told to get lost all together, that's something he needs to consider. That's leaving aside the whole defender of the faith issue regarding a 'Queen' with a prior living husband.

People didn't want them to marry, but they did. The public aren't going to be that bothered if Camilla becomes Queen or not. IMO, this isn't a situation that is going to overthrow the monarchy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1164113)
I totally agree with you on all points here but have a question.

Isn't it possible that the intent to call Camilla "Princess Consort" came about because at her request? IIRC back at the time of Charles and Camilla's wedding, she was the one that requested the style of Duchess of Cornwall over The Princess of Wales. I'm thinking that perhaps she did this not only out of respect for Diana and to avoid any uproar at that time, but perhaps also Camilla wasn't very fond of being thrust into the limelight. We've all seen what a wonderful job she's been doing and the rapport she's had with people at the functions she goes to and I think she'll make a wonderful Queen Consort but perhaps she'll prefer Princess Consort where to her it would seem more like she's Charles' support system always one step behind her man. If she was Princess Consort, she'd not be HM The Princess Consort correct?

Its been a long day here and my mind is a bit comfuzzled. :eek:

It's fine Osipi. Don't know if I can answer this fully, but I shall try.
It is of course possible that Camilla has asked to be The Princess Consort, rather than Queen because she knows what could possible happen.
I also agree that Camilla chose DofC as her main title, to ease herself into the public favour. Being The Princess Consort would possible help her do this again when Charles becomes King.

I think she'd be HRH The Princess Consort, not 100%.

She'll be the wife of The King, therefore, in my eyes, should be The Queen.

georgiea 11-21-2010 07:06 PM

I thought Clarence House said the Duchess would go by the title Princess Consort and not Queen when Prince Charles becomes King of England.

I do feel that the topic should have never come up until Prince Charles becomes King. It would have given people time to know the Duchess. Now if they switch titles Prince Charles looks like a lair.:ermm:

Lumutqueen 11-21-2010 07:07 PM

Well Charles himself is the one who made the statements about titles, so it is his mistake to bear.
Don't know about the Clarence House situation.

This issue needs to be sorted and organised before HM passes away, seeing as Charles becomes King the minute she passes.

Roslyn 11-21-2010 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi
Isn't it possible that the intent to call Camilla "Princess Consort" came about because at her request?

I think you could be right about Camilla not wanting the limelight. However I also think she could have a relatively low key roll as Queen Consort. We haven't had one of those for a while, and Camilla has set the scene with the way she has discharged her duties as Duchess of Cornwall.

If she's going to be HM she will have to be Queen, I think, and if she's to be anything less than Queen then legislation will be required, and there is that issue of whether it is to be specific to her situation. Legislators are reluctant to introduce legislation that applies to one person only, and I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that all future wives of British Kings should have a lesser status than Queen.

georgiea 11-21-2010 07:23 PM

From the perspective of an American I don't see anything wrong with Princess Consort. The Duchess was perfectly happy to be a Duchess instead of a Princess. I think they made more to it then was necessary. And change to it now would look like the BRF was pulling one over on it's subjects. I think they need Parliament to rule on the subject.

scooter 11-21-2010 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1164084)
Very well said.

The wording at the time was 'intends' not 'will' and there is a subtle difference there allowing for the decision to be that she will be Queen Consort, as she should be, but that will depend on the situation at the time.

Or that he was being deliberately disingenuous at the time to smooth the way to allow him to marry the tremendously unpopular Camilla.

Madame Royale 11-21-2010 08:52 PM

:previous: The thought has crossed my mind too, I'll confess.

I've never quite understood why it should have been 'intended' instead of 'will be known' as it doesn't occur to me as an issue that should be left 'hanging' with uncertainty, and I can understand why some may think there is perhaps an agenda. I can't envisage the Duchess of Cornwall's popularity continuing to grow at any real rate some 5 years after marriage so I'm not sure what it is they are expecting to change, perhaps socially, that would effect the issue.

It's still my impression that although accepted, it's more about being tolerated than supported by the community in her role as such. People are resolved to the fact she's here to stay, and I dont feel theres much more to it than that. Naturally people will smile, curtsy, shake hands and extend pleasantries, but those who have a high public and thought provoking profile often seem to have a momentary impact on those around them, and as such, people who find themselves in their presence become quite captivated with the indavidual. I've seen it happen before with various well known, high profiled Australian's who have a rather 'controversial' history. People, in the moment, become rather awe struck and that is a fairly normal response.

I don't doubt there are those who think favourably of the Duchess and would find it a great pleasure to meet her, because I myself would be the same.

However, the situation at the time of succession (in my mind) is not likely to be so dissimlar to what it is now in regards to the Duchess. How could it be really? Surely something (?) would need to happen to cause any change of opinion and generally when that occurs, it isn't for the better. Either that or they are hoping a couple of generations will die out and any objection with them :biggrin:

Or maybe they anticipate an indifference to the issue after so many years?

It can happen, theres a good chance it may not happen, it should happen (imo, and my reasons for supporting it are well documented in the 'Title for Camilla' thread I believe), but it really depends on the intentions of those concerned.

Frideswide 11-21-2010 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1164132)
Or that he was being deliberately disingenuous at the time to smooth the way to allow him to marry the tremendously unpopular Camilla.

She may have been "tremendously unpopular" with some people, but that view was by no means universal here.

Sister Morphine 11-21-2010 09:23 PM

She was only "tremendously unpopular" amongst people who blamed her entirely for the Wales' failed marriage, completely ignoring the fact that Charles was as much to blame as anyone was. No one in my mind, had a preponderance of guilt there. They all behaved badly, as a result, both marriages ended. Unfortunately Diana tragically died and as a result, some people canonized her and anything that has to do with her, is seen as unsuitable for Camilla to be a part of. That includes the titles rightfully owed to her as the wife of the Prince of Wales, anything concerning her two stepsons, etc,.

No one is a victim here, they're all adults, they all knew what they were doing......but the way that Camilla has been treated/viewed by some people is really incredibly horrible and I would at some point like there to be some apology offered to her for it. It's ridiculous.

scooter 11-21-2010 11:32 PM

Excuse me, did either of you read the remarks from the public at large attached to the Queen's Facebook recently? There are MANY people who dislike/have no respect for Camilla. This board is NOT an accurate representation of how Camilla is viewed at large. In the real world, there are no moderators.

NotAPretender 11-22-2010 12:09 AM

The monarchy under Charles, if his behaviour to date is any indication, will be an absolute panorama of well-rewarded lying and dissembling.

The man would not know what the truth was if it raised up and bit him on the ankles. And for all the hand-wringing about politicians being slimy, they are mere babes when compared to the duplicity of which Charles seems incredibly comfortable in living.

The kindest thing about the monarchy under Charles is that it's probably not going to be a hard-drinking one. And that's about as much as I can muster in the way of compliments.

Jacknch 11-22-2010 04:57 AM

Charles' reign will be a relatively short one given that he is likely to be nearing 80 years of age when he becomes king. How much he can develop or change the monarchy (or have the capacity to do so) in that time is therefore anyone's guess. Because of this, I am inclined to say that it will not matter so much what Camilla is known as or becomes because the reign will be so short and people will be looking even more intently towards William's reign.

I certainly do not mind Camilla becoming Queen, but I do have a strong feeling that she does not want the title whether she in entitled to it or not.

Iluvbertie 11-22-2010 05:18 AM

I agree that Charles' reign won't be as long as his mother's but see no reason why it shouldn't be about 20 years or so. If his mother can live to 100 so can he meaning he comes to the throne in 17 years aged 79 and reigns for 21 years with William then becoming King aged 65.

Charles' ancestry shows that men who look after themselves live very long lives and the women definitely do - Philip is nearing 90 and shows no signs of not making another 10 years himself. Philip's father and the Queen's father were both smokers and drinkers and Charles is neither of these. Going back further, particuarly on the male line, Philip's male line grandfather was assassinated so we don't know how long he would have lived but he was already in his 70s and his father also lived a very long life.

I see no reason, on health grounds, for Charles not to have a reign approaching 20 years.

Lumutqueen 11-22-2010 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1164200)
Excuse me, did either of you read the remarks from the public at large attached to the Queen's Facebook recently? There are MANY people who dislike/have no respect for Camilla. This board is NOT an accurate representation of how Camilla is viewed at large. In the real world, there are no moderators.

I wouldn't say there were MANY people who don't like Camilla. People who wrote on that facebook page were most likely bored.
The public as a whole, has accepted Camilla.
If people want to say on this forum that they don't like Camilla, they are at full liberty to do so. Calling her rude names, saying she caused Diana's death or anything to do with the Wales' failed marriage is rude and out of order. Seeing as no one on here, or in the real world except Charles and Camilla know exactly what went on.

Cameron backs 'Queen Camilla': But the public want William to leapfrog Charles | Mail Online

Quote:

Less than a third of the public believe Charles should become King, in a sign that they want the monarchy to skip a generation and revitalise itself.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises