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)

MARG 11-22-2010 06:04 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.

How very astute of you, Scooter. I must own you are indeed correct. This board is not the real world . . . . . . . . . any more than Facebook is! The "real world" is irrelevant. Much as it must gall you, only Great Britain and the Commonwealth count in this case!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1164212)
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.

Hm! Well-rewarded lying and dissembling? This is as fine a piece of vitriol as I have read in a long tIme, I foresee a long career of soap scripts in your future. How positively charming of you to libel and slander my future King and his Consort. Facts please! Evidence would also be a very nice change!

In the real world the people of Great Britain and those of the Commonwealth neither know nor care about the opinions of "Yanks" over there! They will make their own decisions about their new King and Consort in their own b***** time and they do not need "told" how they should feel irrespective of the view of the world at large, and will not allow their opinions to be swayed either way by people who, to be quite frank, are totally unimportant and have neither right nor relevance as to who will Reign (not Rule) over them!

Charlotte1 11-22-2010 06:58 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.

There were also rude and insulting comments written about the Queen and Prince Philip, among them calling them 'inbreds'. If you're going to use the facebook site to show that people were insulting Camilla, then don't be selective to promote your agenda. Other royals were also insulted! It was a group of anti-monarchists who attacked the site.

muriel 11-22-2010 07:07 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.

IMO its very easy to form incorrect views on how the British people feel about Camilla and the BRF if you principally rely on the internet and the tabloids for information. In my experience, most British people are largely happy with the BRF and with Camilla - that is the real world (and the only one that really matters), and not the internet!

georgiea 11-22-2010 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1164344)
IMO its very easy to form incorrect views on how the British people feel about Camilla and the BRF if you principally rely on the internet and the tabloids for information. In my experience, most British people are largely happy with the BRF and with Camilla - that is the real world (and the only one that really matters), and not the internet!

If the above statement true, then Prince Charles should ask the Parliament about making the Duchess a Queen Consort. When they announced Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall would marry her Prince; she would only become Princess Consort when Prince Charles becomes King. It only seems right to follow through with the Princess Consort title, unless the Parliment steps in or the British people are asked. If I was a subject I would want my input to the title.

muriel 11-22-2010 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgiea (Post 1164353)
If the above statement true, then Prince Charles should ask the Parliament about making the Duchess a Queen Consort. When they announced Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall would marry her Prince; she would only become Princess Consort when Prince Charles becomes King. It only seems right to follow through with the Princess Consort title, unless the Parliment steps in or the British people are asked. If I was a subject I would want my input to the title.

Charles does not need to ask Parliament to make Camilla his Queen. As his wife, she will become Queen the second QE2 passes away. This is just as Camilla is, and remains the Princess of Wales. The only way that Camilla can be stopped from being Queen is through an act of Parliament, and I do not see any of the major political parties supporting this. This is clear from the utterances of the PM on the toopic in the last few days.

Frideswide 11-22-2010 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1164344)
IMO its very easy to form incorrect views on how the British people feel about Camilla and the BRF if you principally rely on the internet and the tabloids for information. In my experience, most British people are largely happy with the BRF and with Camilla - that is the real world (and the only one that really matters), and not the internet!

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1164354)
Charles does not need to ask Parliament to make Camilla his Queen. As his wife, she will become Queen the second QE2 passes away. This is just as Camilla is, and remains the Princess of Wales. The only way that Camilla can be stopped from being Queen is through an act of Parliament, and I do not see any of the major political parties supporting this. This is clear from the utterances of the PM on the toopic in the last few days.

I agree with Muriel on both her points.

NotAPretender 11-22-2010 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1164321)
Hm! Well-rewarded lying and dissembling? This is as fine a piece of vitriol as I have read in a long time (spelling corrected)

Why thank you. And it was entirely on the fly.

Madame Royale 11-22-2010 09:59 AM

Come on ladies and gents, don't allow it to get personal :smile:

We either share an opinion or we don't. Some have to realise that there will always be people who don't like Camilla and Charles and there will be those who do, and then you have those who couldn't care.

Contrary to what some may think, imo, there is substance to a poll and while they may not always be a clear indication of public sentiment, they are a gage and a gage that cannot necessarily be overlooked, espeically when the mood of the voters seems to remain relatively constant. It's easy to dismiss it if it does not correspond with your way of thinking but that doesn't make the result any less a result, nor does it mean that the result is void of relative accuracy.

Let us discuss it, but not make it personal. I know there are many who disagree with me, but it's my opinion and if someone doesn't like it then it's their tough luck, but in turn I have as much of a right to question or disagree with what they feel and in turn it's my tough luck if I don't agree with them. I should hope I go about it all rather fairly, if not with a touch of light sarcasm at times I shall gladly admit ;) But it's never intended as an insult, more a way of trying to make the topic not so intense which often turns out to be the case. I have a dry sense of humour, what can I say?

'Royal watchers' are the absolute worst kind of people to engage in a discussion because we are all so bloody prejudiced :biggrin: And I certainly try not to be, and there are times where it isn't easy to be subjective, but I still make an effort to try and see an issue from both sides.

I like Camilla, I really do, but I think she should be created 'Princess Consort'. And others will state that she should be Queen as the norm so dictates. Sometimes, imo, the 'norm' isn't what's needed and an alternative must be considered and often implemented.

I don't fault anyone for thinking she should be Queen because it's not my place to do so. I respect their right to voice an opinion, just as I should expect the same courtesy shown to me.

But lets face it, it will either happen or it won't. That much is certain.

berengere 11-22-2010 01:26 PM

I think PC is well prepared to be King and is a thoughtful intelligent man. I do wish the public would forgive him and move on.

I say this as someone who loved Diana enormously and empathize with her plight.

I don't think Diana would want a constitutional crisis and risk the future of her sons and grandchildren to come. Not what she would have wanted at all. Her statements about the 'top job' were irresponsible but she was really a woman scorned and PC and Camilla had humiliated her publicly and privately for years.

That said, I still think he will make a fine King and perhaps an underapprciated one.

KittyAtlanta 11-22-2010 02:37 PM

I can't be sure, but I think Diana would have enjoyed a Constitutional crisis. This is based on some of her utterances shortly before her death, such as "wait until they see what I'm doing next" and other things that I can't remember.

Frideswide 11-22-2010 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale (Post 1164410)
I like Camilla, I really do, but I think she should be created 'Princess Consort'.

I'm interested to know why you think that.

georgiea 11-22-2010 03:28 PM

Diana, Princess of Wales was not a saint when it concern Prince Charles and the Duchess. I think if the Princess lived she would have gotten over the marriage, but not the Duchess as Queen Consort. Princess Diana spent too many years as heir to the title. I think it would be hard on her.

If the subjects want the Duchess of Cornwall as their Queen Consort then I will be happy for her. I think Camilla does not want to offend. So we shall just have to wait and see what happens. :flowers:

Frideswide 11-22-2010 04:05 PM

I can see that if Charles had a divorced wife living, it might be a delicate matter. As that's not the case, I don't see that there's any difficulty.

Lumutqueen 11-22-2010 04:42 PM

Do you mean any difficulty in naming Camilla as Queen?

Frideswide 11-22-2010 04:57 PM

That's what I meant, yes.

Lumutqueen 11-22-2010 05:35 PM

Well there's quite a bit of difficulty, as it seems. There's a lot of difference between being named Queen and Princess Consort.

Esmerelda 11-22-2010 05:35 PM

It would have been better if Clarence House had not said anything about Camilla's future title before the marriage. I don't have a problem with Camilla being known as the Queen but for the fact that they stated she would be known as Princess Consort. I know they used the word 'intended' but it still seems a bit deceptive. If they were going to make that announcement, they should follow through with it or not mentioned the title at all.

Frideswide 11-22-2010 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1164742)
Well there's quite a bit of difficulty, as it seems. There's a lot of difference between being named Queen and Princess Consort.

But as things stand, Camilla will automatically become Queen when Charles accedes to the throne. Since there's no precedent for a "Princess Consort", I would have thought that would pose more of a difficulty!

Anyway, as we are hopefully talking of events a good few years away yet, I expect any controversy to have diminished by then. Not saying it will have disappeared altogether, but there is already a generation who barely remembers Diana and the associated events.

Lumutqueen 11-22-2010 06:19 PM

Camilla should automatically become Queen, but if the public think she shouldn't be Queen and Prince Charles obviously thought that at one point, then the government and Charles will have to re-consider the decision.

We might be talking about things years in advance, but something like this needs to be sorted before HM passes away.
Just like a change in the succesion needs to be sorted out before William has children.
Which generation, as in age group, would you class as the ones who barely remember Diana?

Esmerelda 11-22-2010 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1164773)
Which generation, as in age group, would you class as the ones who barely remember Diana?

I barely remember Diana and I'm 20.

Iluvbertie 11-22-2010 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1164773)
Camilla should automatically become Queen, but if the public think she shouldn't be Queen and Prince Charles obviously thought that at one point, then the government and Charles will have to re-consider the decision.

We might be talking about things years in advance, but something like this needs to be sorted before HM passes away.
Just like a change in the succesion needs to be sorted out before William has children.
Which generation, as in age group, would you class as the ones who barely remember Diana?


Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

Camilla will automatically become Queen. To stop her will require some for of LPs or even legislation and I remember Lord Melbourne's comment to Queen Victoria when she wanted to create Albert 'King Consort' - if parliament can make a king then they can unmake a king. The same argument could be used in reverse - if the parliament has to unmake a Queen Consort they could simply do away with the monarchy altogether.

I think the parliament and the BRF really don't like the idea of debating too much about the royal family as it would simply raise certain issues they don't want raised - like republicanism and the tax-breaks of the royal family.

Madame Royale 11-22-2010 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frideswide (Post 1164626)
I'm interested to know why you think that.

I direct your question to the thread 'Title for Camilla' and it is there that your curiosity shall be answered :smile: Or maybe not, I don't know?..haha.

It was some time ago now, so a little searching will be required.

Russophile 11-22-2010 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1164787)
Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

Camilla will automatically become Queen. To stop her will require some for of LPs or even legislation and I remember Lord Melbourne's comment to Queen Victoria when she wanted to create Albert 'King Consort' - if parliament can make a king then they can unmake a king. The same argument could be used in reverse - if the parliament has to unmake a Queen Consort they could simply do away with the monarchy altogether.

I think the parliament and the BRF really don't like the idea of debating too much about the royal family as it would simply raise certain issues they don't want raised - like republicanism and the tax-breaks of the royal family.

Parliment isn't about to raise a stink about denying Camilla the throne when they have more pressing issues.

nascarlucy 11-22-2010 08:43 PM

That's probably would be the last thing that they would want to get into.

Madame Royale 11-22-2010 10:14 PM

The ladies on 'The VIEW' (it's on the television but I'm not watching it as such) are attempting to dissect the topic of Camilla's title, and my god, these women wouldn't know facts if they came up and bit them on the ankles.

* Usually, the wife of the King is the 'Princess Consort'

* Elizabeth II's father was George VII

* Apparently George VII was Queen Victoria's son, according to Joy.

.lol.

Such ignorance. If you're going to talk about something, at least do a little background research before you open your mouth.

Roslyn 11-22-2010 10:17 PM

:previous: Oh dear! :whistling: I thought the women on The View, or some of them anyway, were reasonably well informed, or at least had a bit of common sense. If Elizabeth is Victoria's grand-daughter, she is holding her age very well! :lol:

scooter 11-22-2010 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotAPretender (Post 1164393)
Why thank you. And it was entirely on the fly.

NAP, I just love you to death!

scooter 11-22-2010 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1164787)
Anyone under 18 would have no real memory of Diana as they would have been 5 when she died. Every year more people are born who have no memory of her. In 10 years time over a third of the population will have no memory - about a third of the population are under 30. In 20 years it will be closer to 50%.

At the risk of dating myself I am absolutely able to remember what actually took place vs. the whitewash that has been copiously applied subsequently, thank you.

rmay286 11-22-2010 11:09 PM

I was exactly 11 1/2 when Diana died...I would definitely say that I remember Diana. My brother is four years younger and remembers watching the funeral.

But I don't think being an eyewitness to history is the only factor affecting how a person views history. I'm sure that at the age of 11, I knew much more about the royal family than other 11 year-olds, simply because I was interested in royalty. Probably in the year or so before Diana died, I had established some opinions about Diana that I still hold.

On the other hand, some people even today probably don't think much about Camilla or Diana and will believe the "spin" of the moment, because they haven't spent a lot of time forming opinions either way. Others, like many people in this thread, pay attention to royalty and hold opinions about royalty, but change those opinions based on changing circumstances (or changing biases in the media). Others will never change their opinions no matter what.

None of us were eyewitnesses to what happened in the Wales marriage. We read the headlines in the mid-1990s and formed opinions accordingly, and then Diana died and more information came out, and we re-evaluated our opinions of her. Then Charles married Camilla and we got to see Camilla as royal Duchess rather than home-wrecking mistress. Times change, and we learn new pieces of information and discard old ones.

I think that the way Charles and Camilla are received, upon Charles' accession to the throne, will depend a lot on how the media chooses to portray them. Will Charles be portrayed as an old, out-of-touch man and Camilla as his stable but boring (and also elderly) consort? Or will the media celebrate a man who waited years and went through many personal trials, but finally ascended the throne with his "soulmate" at his side? Whichever angle the media takes is the perspective most people will take as well. (IMO.)

rmay286 11-22-2010 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale (Post 1164882)
The ladies on 'The VIEW' (it's on the television but I'm not watching it as such) are attempting to dissect the topic of Camilla's title, and my god, these women wouldn't know facts if they came up and bit them on the ankles.

* Usually, the wife of the King is the 'Princess Consort'

* Elizabeth II's father was George VII

* Apparently George VII was Queen Victoria's son, according to Joy.

.lol.

Such ignorance. If you're going to talk about something, at least do a little background research before you open your mouth.

:rofl:
George VII!

I am actually confused. Don't most people think that a Queen is the wife of a King? I didn't know the usual opinion was "Princess Consort"!

berengere 11-22-2010 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmay286 (Post 1164906)
I think that the way Charles and Camilla are received, upon Charles' accession to the throne, will depend a lot on how the media chooses to portray them. Will Charles be portrayed as an old, out-of-touch man and Camilla as his stable but boring (and also elderly) consort? Or will the media celebrate a man who waited years and went through many personal trials, but finally ascended the throne with his "soulmate" at his side? Whichever angle the media takes is the perspective most people will take as well. (IMO.)

Excellent post!
I certainly hope it is the latter portrayal.

scooter 11-22-2010 11:15 PM

rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana. I remember not only the accident in the tunnel, but all the (I had to think a moment of a polite way to put it) *history* for the 20 years leading up to it. The whole "soulmate" gig is, IMO, convenient revisionist history in order to make it more palatable.

Osipi 11-22-2010 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1164910)
rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana. I remember not only the accident in the tunnel, but all the (I had to think a moment of a polite way to put it) *history* for the 20 years leading up to it. The whole "soulmate" gig is, IMO, convenient revisionist history in order to make it more palatable.

Where we were and what history we were alive for is only an added bonus I think in this question about the Monarchy under Charles. With both of us living in the US, I imagine that as with me, much of what information we both had on the BRF and their troubles and turmoils were mostly gleaned from the tabloids, newspapers and media coverage. I have to admit that mine was and until I arrived here at TRF, I was very uninformed as to what was what and how things work and why they worked the way they did.

One thing I did learn is that Charles is no fool. He's a very intelligent and creative thinker along with being sensitive and very much duty conscious.
He's in NO way a saint and has faults like the rest of us do and has had his failures in personal relationships as any human. When he's interested in something, he's passionate about it almost to the point of it being an obsession sometimes I think. (this last statement is MY opinion only).

I do think when Charles does become King, he will have things in place that will be followed up on such as his areas of the Prince's Trust that he's put years and years into. Although staying out of things politically wise, he will talk extensively to people and be genuinely interested and informed as to what is going on at all times.

I've mentioned in a previous post elsewhere that Camilla is a person that is very much comfortable in her own skin. Its only been lately that I've also been seeing in photos and by actions that Charles is becoming comfortable in his also.

I still think he'll go down in history though as the Green King. :biggrin:

Iluvbertie 11-22-2010 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1164910)
rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana. I remember not only the accident in the tunnel, but all the (I had to think a moment of a polite way to put it) *history* for the 20 years leading up to it. The whole "soulmate" gig is, IMO, convenient revisionist history in order to make it more palatable.


I somewhat older than you and as I wasn't part of the Wales marriage only remember what we were told by the media and by them. I remember reading, in the press, the list of things they had in common a day or so after the engagement and the list had about three things - country pursuits (she lied about that), classical music (again she lied about that - as, according to the media that was her favourite despite it being popular music at the time) and children. There was also an article that pointed out that she stayed at Andrew's 21st birthday party all night while Charles left shortly after his parents (along with Anne, who was pregnant with Zara at the time) to let the young ones enjoy their music. That was before the wedding but even then it was clear in the press that they weren't suited. There were questions being asked about that very question within days of the engagement announcement here.

I too remember all the stories and the press and see NO revisionist history being written about a man being in love with a woman for over 40 years but having, by a number of circumstances, being not allowed to marry her. They are soulmates and always were. Charles was in love with Camilla. She married another man but he still had feelings for her and she for him. Due to the nature of her marriage they had another affair. He asked her to check out the young girl who was thinking of asking to be his wife (many men ask women to do that by the way - or they ask their male friends - to get other opinions). She thought it would work. He proposes and tries to make the marriage work. The wife was so demanding that he gave up trying to make her happy - getting rid of most of his staff within the first couple of years of marriage, changing royal protocol about raising children, etc wasn't enough for her. He sought advice on how to help her but she never responded. In 1986 they both took lovers - Diana said 1986 for Charles and Camilla getting back together and that is also the year Diana took up with Hewitt so they both started cheating on each other about the same time. She then co-operates with the Morton book and tells the Queen, her husband, children and the world that she didn't do so (more lies so how can we even believe a word she says when she has lied to us and to her family so many times). They both do interviews - Charles admits to being unfaithful 'only after the marriage had irretrievably broken down' but of course he has to be lying doesn't he? Well no - he doesn't have a history of lying so why would he lie now particualy when he doesn't give a definite date - the marriage could have 'irretrievably broken down' by the time the wedding breakfast was over couldn't it? Camilla and Andrew end their marriage leaving Camilla free and as Charles and Diana have separated they are able to be together more. Diana continues to chase men and has a string of lovers, and is the third person in the ending of at least one - the captain of the English Rugby team where she had the affair with the husband and the wife named her as the third person in that marriage. Then there was Oliver Hoare and the annoying phone calls from Diana's personal phone - but they could have been done by a member of her staff at 2 and 3 and 4 in the morning of course. Diana then does the Panorama interview - on her parents-in-laws wedding anniversary no less - a complete show of lack of respect for her monarch - in which she tries to destroy her husband and the father of her children (or is he - have we DNA to prove that Charles is the father of either William or Harry). With her penchant for lying there has to be doubts about their paternity - although I do think Charles is the father of both. She died because she didn't wear a seatbelt, got in the car with a drunken driver, gave up real security for the pretend security of the Al Fayad family, tried to prevent the paparrazzi getting photos etc. Charles then has a chance for happiness, which I won't begrudge anyone.

Charles will be a wonderful King because he has the woman he loves as his supporter, has dedicated himself to his country all his life and done fabulous work for charity, especially for the young people of Britain with The Princes Trust.

Of course to the Diana fanatics he should be punished forever for making her unhappy and she should be made into a saint for lying to him, the country and the world and for making him miserable.

I remember the happy, carefree Prince Charles of the 1970s, the miserable man on the 1980s and 1990s and now am seeing that happy prince again, with Camilla by his side. I thank God regularly for restoring happiness to this man who so richly deserves it for his life of dedication and hardwork and foresight.

wbenson 11-23-2010 12:16 AM

The long and checkered history of the relationships of and between Charles and Diana are not relevant to a thread about the future of the monarchy under Charles, and further posts on that subject will be deleted.

wbenson
British Forums moderator

sirhon11234 11-23-2010 01:03 AM

I rather enjoyed his documentary Harmony about earth's environment. I admire Charles' passion for the environment especially before going green became popular and when people called him crazy. I was rather inspired after watching the program, the conservation of the environment is an issue people need to take seriously. I am glad Charles is supporting this very important cause. He is making himself relevant. I hope Harmony win's an award too.:biggrin:

Osipi 11-23-2010 01:08 AM

I've missed the program here and hopefully will catch it if its on again. I do definitely want to get the book Harmony as I think it will have far more information in it than would ever be covered in a TV documentary.

Do I hear another vote for Charles being the Green King? :whistling:

Madame Royale 11-23-2010 01:13 AM

Quote:

Charles will be a wonderful King
A rather short extract from a bountiful post, but..

I can't say I believe Charles will be seen as being a 'wonderful King'. Unfortunately for him, I think he'll be considered a more 'momentary King'. An old man (assuming of course) just filling in time before his son succeeds him as monarch.

I think the community at large will adopt that kind of attitude towards his reign, though not necessarily all factions of society.

The likeliness he will be a much older man when he ascends the throne only continues to mount and I can't imagine he will encourage any real enthusiasm throughout Britain, or the Commonwealth for that matter. Especially if he's gagged from verbalising his thoughts on renewables, organics and other social and environmental issues. From relative proactivity to near immediate silence would not be an easy transition to accept and I think finding the balance will be somewhat of a challenge.

I of course want him to be King and wish him an unturbulant and happy reign, but I envisage it to be a relatively uninspiring one in terms of length and legacy.

I naturally, would like to be proven wrong and I hope I am.

Iluvbertie 11-23-2010 03:59 AM

Edward VII had a short reign but it was a wonderful reign and an inspiring one.
Length is no determinate of legacy or inspiration.

Madame Royale 11-23-2010 04:17 AM

Sure, but you (generally speaking) can't really compare a monarch at the turn of last century with one who is yet to inherit. A very different time with very different issues to face. It's all relative.

Iluvbertie 11-23-2010 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale (Post 1165012)
Sure, but you (generally speaking) can't really compare a monarch at the turn of last century with one who is yet to inherit. A different time with very diferent issues to face.


If you read the press from the 1890s and even a week or so before Edward inherited and on the day of his accesion there were serious doubts being raised about his ability to do the job and where or not it should be passed to his son. No one expected him to do the job as well as his mother and even some of the Cabinet, e.g. Asquith, thought he wasn't up to the job but he proved them all wrong. He was a wonderful king.

Charles is far better prepared for the job than Edward ever was, despite waiting about the same time period. Like Edward there were incidents that raised questions - for Edward the couple of court appearances and subsequent scandals, along with the array of mistresses paraded through public places etc.

Edward is the best example as his life is very similar to Charles in length of time waiting, popular wife, mistresses etc and if Edward could rise to the job with no training the Charles will be fine.

Edward, like Charles, would speak his mind to politicians and even wanted to vote in the House of Lords to ensure a bill on housing reform was passed - he wasn't allowed to pass and the reform bill failed to get up. Each wrote letters to politicians about the issues of the day but Charles from a more informed position I think.

Madame Royale 11-23-2010 04:30 AM

I see your point and note the said parallels.

But it remains that the temperement of society, politics and the world in general is far removed from Edwardian England.

Ultimately, time will tell. I should hope that for his sake, hes reign is one which shall be well remembered, even if it should be rather short in comparison.

Osipi 11-23-2010 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1165018)
If you read the press from the 1890s and even a week or so before Edward inherited and on the day of his accesion there were serious doubts being raised about his ability to do the job and where or not it should be passed to his son. No one expected him to do the job as well as his mother and even some of the Cabinet, e.g. Asquith, thought he wasn't up to the job but he proved them all wrong. He was a wonderful king...

I too like the parallels.

There is a big difference though between Charles and Edward.

Although the politics of his realm will basically be just that.. of his realm, this man that will be King also lives in an age where things can happen instantaneously as the rock we live on shrinks more and more into a global society.

I do think that as a future king, Charles is very much aware of global effects not only green/ecology wise, but also the importance of retaining what is historic and fitting ala his architecture passions and a myriad of other things that he's doing with the Prince's Trust for the whole of the nation. His once time quote said he'd like to be "Defender of Faith" (did I get it wrong again Bertie??) tells me that with the influx of different races and creeds making up a good portion of the UK, he respects them as well as have studied some of them.

The downfall to all of this is that it IS a globalized media madness. Its been quickly found out that "dirt" on a person sells a lot more papers than giving an autograph for the first time ever does.

muriel 11-23-2010 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1164916)
I somewhat older than you and as I wasn't part of the Wales marriage only remember what we were told by the media and by them..

This line is an absolute classic!!! :rofl:
Very well written and reasoned post, and I could not agree more.

muriel 11-23-2010 06:30 AM

The nation has warmed to the idea of Queen Camilla - Telegraph

The nation has warmed to the idea of Queen Camilla

A "slip of the tongue" by the Prince of Wales has raised the question of his wife’s title when he becomes king. Gordon Rayner examines the country’s likely reaction

MARG 11-23-2010 06:46 AM

:previous: Good grief! Be still my fluttering heart! Is this a positive view of Camilla ascending to the throne? What, no bile, no vitriole, no libel, no slander. Damn, it looks like she has made the cut into the "boring" house of Windsor! :biggrin:

muriel 11-23-2010 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1165092)
:previous: Good grief! Be still my fluttering heart! Is this a positive view of Camilla ascending to the throne? What, no bile, no vitriole, no libel, no slander. Damn, it looks like she has made the cut into the "boring" house of Windsor! :biggrin:

Clearly this is not the view of the Court of the Daily Mail!

Madame Royale 11-23-2010 07:16 AM

Interesting read, thanks for posting :smile:

Osipi 11-23-2010 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1165094)
Clearly this is not the view of the Court of the Daily Mail!

who'd have thunk?? Sheesh.. one slip of the tongue from the man that would be king and they all stand up and take notice.

Roslyn 11-23-2010 04:21 PM

Thanks for posting that link, Muriel. :flowers: I enjoyed that article.

Like Bertie, I have watched and read what we have been told about Charles' life for a long time. I remember reading about him when he was out here at Timbertop in 1966, and have always been fond of him. I believe he is an honourable man who has a strong sense of history and duty and always tried to do the right thing. He has not always succeeded, but I believe he's tried. I believe what he says.

I have seen a change in Charles since he has been married to Camilla. For many years his expression was strained and his eyes looked empty, but now looks "complete", for want of a better word; he smiles warmly and his eyes sparkle, especially when Camilla is with him. I believe that she makes him happy and gives him the sort of support that he needs and that she makes him a better Prince of Wales, and will, for the same reasons, make him a better King.

I hope that Camilla is crowned Queen. Even if she's not particularly keen on the idea I think she will do it if that is what Charles wants. She has already taken on a difficult job in the public eye for the love of Charles, and has already made the big transition from private person to HRH. The king's wife is, after all, only Queen Consort, and whether she is known as Princess Consort or Queen Consort, the operative word is "consort". In the usual course she would become Queen Consort, and I see no reason for any other course to be adopted.

I believe Charles will be a good king. I say that partly because I just like him and partly because I believe he will do the job well. He has been training for it for a very long time and has had an excellent teacher, and he cares. I believe he certainly deserves a shot at the job and I cannot imagine him abdicating in favour of William. His whole life has been spent training for the role he will step into on the death of his mother, and I think it would be grossly unfair to ask him to step down and abandon his duty and his place in history merely because popular opinion favours his son. Popular opinion can be very fickle and is often based on inappropriate or irrelevant criteria.

jen121419 11-23-2010 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1165089)
The nation has warmed to the idea of Queen Camilla - Telegraph

The nation has warmed to the idea of Queen Camilla

A "slip of the tongue" by the Prince of Wales has raised the question of his wife’s title when he becomes king. Gordon Rayner examines the country’s likely reaction

I'm happy to read this. I was never a Camilla fan but she has really grown on me the last few years, and I do rather like her now. I think she will be Queen Camilla and rightfully so!

Iluvbertie 11-23-2010 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roslyn (Post 1165409)
I think it would be grossly unfair to ask him to step down and abandon his duty and his place in history merely because popular opinion favours his son. Popular opinion can be very fickle and is often based on inappropriate or irrelevant criteria.


I remember the 1970s when the idea was that the Queen should step down for her much more popular son, Charles - the saviour of the monarchy as he was tauted at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1165050)
His once time quote said he'd like to be "Defender of Faith" (did I get it wrong again Bertie??) tells me that with the influx of different races and creeds making up a good portion of the UK, he respects them as well as have studied some of them.

Yes, in the Dimbley interview he said that he would like to be known as 'Defender of Faith' - he has said it once only and nothing has every been done about making it possible and I doubt that it will.

He will promise to uphold the Protestant Faith on his accession and at his coronation, as his predecessors have done for centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1165089)
The nation has warmed to the idea of Queen Camilla - Telegraph

The nation has warmed to the idea of Queen Camilla

A "slip of the tongue" by the Prince of Wales has raised the question of his wifeís title when he becomes king. Gordon Rayner examines the countryís likely reaction


The article is great but the comments by the general public seem to contradict it and suggest that, like the DM, the people don't want Charles or Camilla.

Mermaid1962 11-23-2010 11:43 PM

In that case, you're five days older than I am, and I remember the history as well. :flowers:


Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 1164910)
rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana.


Mermaid1962 11-23-2010 11:46 PM

Charles the Green. I like it.;) I agree with your statement about his interests as well. I well remember his comment about modern architects being worst than the Luftwaffe. That seemed very insensitive to me given that there were still many people alive at that time who remembered The Blitz.

Sorry, getting off topic. Here I go, shuffling back off into a dark corner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1164915)
When he's interested in something, he's passionate about it almost to the point of it being an obsession sometimes I think. (this last statement is MY opinion only).

I still think he'll go down in history though as the Green King. :biggrin:


Madame Royale 11-23-2010 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1165500)
The article is great but the comments by the general public seem to contradict it and suggest that, like the DM, the people don't want Charles or Camilla.

The mood really does appear rather difficult to judge.

I quite enjoyed the read, but as you said there is feeling to the contrary which is well publicised.

Mermaid1962 11-24-2010 12:01 AM

I think that it depends on how he conducts himself as The Queen's death comes ever closer year by year. I think that he should, for the sake of national unity, become gradually less forceful in stating his opinions publicly. He should stop moaning about how he's misunderstood and attacked when he does express an opinion. Some of his speeches have been spectacular, such as when he spoke in Hungary about the fall of Communism. We need more of that. I'd like to hear more speeches of encouragement from him rather than speeches about how 21st-century humanity has got it all wrong. I don't believe that the UK and the Commonwealth need a whiner-in-chief on the throne, be the whining about how horribly we treat the planet or how off modern medicine is or how architecture is ruining our cities or how we aren't holistic and/or organic enough. If, as king, he can symbolize and speak for the deepest desires of the human heart-freedom, belonging, peace--then I think that he will be a winner regardless of how old he is when he ascends the throne.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Madame Royale (Post 1164945)
The likeliness he will be a much older man when he ascends the throne only continues to mount and I can't imagine he will encourage any real enthusiasm throughout Britain, or the Commonwealth for that matter.


muriel 11-24-2010 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1165500)
.

The article is great but the comments by the general public seem to contradict it and suggest that, like the DM, the people don't want Charles or Camilla.

As some of the other posters have said, public opinion can be difficult to read, and comments in the Daily Mail or by Daily Mail readers are not necessarily representative of the larger British society. With due respect, I suspect it is particularly difficult to judge the public mood herre if you are not actually living in the UK, and rely on the internet as the principal source of information.

I appreciate that public support in Australia is not great for the monarchy, and C&C especially, but I suspect (given that I speak from afar) that is part of the broader republican movement.

Iluvbertie 11-24-2010 08:04 AM

The article I was referring to was the one in the Telegraph - a far more supportive paper but not from the comments of its readers.

Frideswide 11-24-2010 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1165835)
The article I was referring to was the one in the Telegraph - a far more supportive paper but not from the comments of its readers.

It's the internet, though - anyone can sign up and make comments whenever they wish. The RF is in the news and links are posted all over the place, so people who are interested will read any articles that are available, but the vast majority don't bother to leave comments.

scooter 11-24-2010 10:33 AM

However, when it happens time after time, regardless of the paper or facebook, one must at least agknowledge that where there is smoke there is fire.

Frideswide 11-24-2010 11:19 AM

I'm not convinced that people who post comments on internet sites are representative of the population as a whole, because they will be a very small fraction of that population, and with a tendency to be those who have strong opinions.

Lumutqueen 11-28-2010 12:33 PM

He may chat to parsnips but Prince Charles MUST be King | Mail Online

MARG 11-28-2010 07:50 PM

:previous: How refreshingly well balanced Peter Hitchens article is. He brings out the "ordinary" that lies behind the Headlines. His take on Polls, their uses and abuses and, more tellingly, who is willing to front up with big bucks to create new Headlines and consequent crises is unusual, especially in the Daily Mail!!

Quote:

How silly. In an era when our politics is full of callow young men with no real experience of life or the world, Prince Charles is a reassuringly wise figure, whose thoughts on many things are a good deal less weird than the Prime Ministerís hurriedly invented bilge about Big Societies and Gross National Happiness.
When you put it that way Charles talking to parsnips seems quite sensible when you consider the alternative of talking to the press. The parsnips have so much more to offer.

scooter 11-30-2010 09:45 PM

Yes, and you can parboil them, which the justice system never seems to manage!

Tyger 12-14-2010 06:21 AM

Its hard to read it all - but I have a question. I read the beginning of this thread in 2006 and it was all positive about Charles but there appears to have been a sea change 4 years later on this last page of the thread. What changed? :ermm:

Madame Royale 12-14-2010 06:31 AM

:previous: Different people, with different opinions would be the answer.

Furthermore, those who posted at the beginning of this thread have not, with the exception of Roslyn, posted in some time and some have even been banned due to their behaviour.

I should hardly think a change in tone to be very surprising in a disucssion forum though. Theres never usually any common ground due to the immense prejudice you often find laden throughout the threads.

Iluvbertie 12-14-2010 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyger (Post 1174978)
Its hard to read it all - but I have a question. I read the beginning of this thread in 2006 and it was all positive about Charles but there appears to have been a sea change 4 years later on this last page of the thread. What changed? :ermm:


Some posters are just totally anti-Charles and sometimes they post in close succession.

Others are very supportive of Charles and again often post their posts together.

Sometimes we have antis- and pros- engaging in debate but they usually deteriorate to the extent that some of us no longer even acknowledge the existence of others due to years of virulent abuse on these boards.

Roslyn 12-14-2010 07:01 AM

Golly! Perhaps I deserve some sort of long-service medal, or maybe good conduct medal. :lol: Still here after all these years and a survivor of the Charles/Camilla/Diana wars.

I've been interested in Charles since he was here at school and swam on our Sydney beaches. I have a great deal of time for him and I am very fond of Camilla. I hope I get the chance to see him become King and Camilla his Queen. I think we'll see some changes under King Charles, but I cannot predict what they will be.

Welcome, Tyger. I'm going to enjoy reading your posts.

Tyger 12-14-2010 01:57 PM

Thank you, Roslyn. :flowers:

Just in general, speaking to no one in particular ;) just want to say that as a newbie it is daunting to find the 'right' place to post - its a very large site and tons of fun.

I am thrilled to have found a place where I can actually have a conversation about some issues (Diana/Charles/Camilla) that I have honestly only recently begun to have a point of view about. Is there a particular thread that is devoted to this triad? Its clear from the little bit that I have read that this is a well-worn debate - but I am new to it (believe it or not - at least in detail) - and I have recently come to have an opinion about what Diana was asking 'me' as a member of the public to participate in.

Since its hard for me to jump into a long standing thread - so much reading to get the jist - would it be okay for me to start a thread on the issue regarding Diana that has been bothering me? I believe that Diana as an 'event' or phenomenon is very important for us to look at as a culture - is there a thread that is already going that I can join?

Many thanks.

Lumutqueen 12-14-2010 03:30 PM

^^^^^
This doesn't have a lot to do with The Monarchy under Charles, so you might want to PM a moderator about your ideas. :)

jemagre 12-14-2010 05:10 PM

I believe that if the monarchy is to survive it needs to be smaller. Limit it to William and family, Harry and family and maybe someone else. The rest of the family could be grouped similar to how the Dutch do it. Some people are in the royal family and some are in the royal house. Those in the royal house could even go out and get normal jobs. Like for example, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie on down.

( I believe some posters have said as much in the past and I agree with their thoughts on this matter as I think the size of the family and how much money they get from taxpayers is part of the reason why people have a problem with them.)

Royal Fan 12-14-2010 05:21 PM

Id like for Camilla to known as Queen they are legally married after all

jemagre 12-14-2010 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan (Post 1175296)
Id like for Camilla to known as Queen they are legally married after all


I believe legally she will be Queen. Right?

Lumutqueen 12-14-2010 05:26 PM

Legally she's the wife of the King therefore the Queen. If she gets called Queen Camilla is another matter.

Royal Fan 12-14-2010 05:37 PM

They should pass this through Parliment so we can know once and for all

Lumutqueen 12-14-2010 05:37 PM

The title of Camilla is probably the last thing on Parliaments mind at the moment.

Iluvbertie 12-14-2010 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Fan (Post 1175319)
They should pass this through Parliment so we can know once and for all


As the title is automatic there is no need for Parliament to do anything.

The last thing the BRF want is a debate about anything to do with the royal family as it could so easily backfire - particularly with a minority government.

Sister Morphine 12-14-2010 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1175322)
The title of Camilla is probably the last thing of Parliaments mind at the moment.


I'm not a UK citizen, but I should hope not. Something like that sounds rather trivial compared to a lot of the problems facing the country at the present moment. It would be comparable to our Congress deciding whether or not Vice-President Biden's wife should be referred to as the Second Lady or just Mrs. Biden.

Iluvbertie 12-14-2010 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jemagre (Post 1175285)
I believe that if the monarchy is to survive it needs to be smaller. Limit it to William and family, Harry and family and maybe someone else. The rest of the family could be grouped similar to how the Dutch do it. Some people are in the royal family and some are in the royal house. Those in the royal house could even go out and get normal jobs. Like for example, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie on down.

( I believe some posters have said as much in the past and I agree with their thoughts on this matter as I think the size of the family and how much money they get from taxpayers is part of the reason why people have a problem with them.)


Currently there are really 14 people who are HRH from birth and that includes Louise and James.

In the next 20 or so years that will drop as the Gloucester and Kents pass no and their descendents don't pass on the HRH and those descendents already have jobs away from the royal situation. The same with the descendents of Princess Margaret and Princess Anne.

What will happen with Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will be interesting, and by this time next year we will have a better idea as Beatrice will have finished her studies and it will have been announced what her future will be.

If the work of the royal family is to be restricted to William, Harry, their wives, Charles and Camilla then that will be 6 people currently doing the work of 14 currently and Harry will be full-time in the military for probably another 20 years.

I would like to see the more extended family not appearing on the balcony etc as it gives the idea to the public that they are supporter people that they aren't. e.g. if at William's wedding on the Queen's descendents and the Middletons were there, plus the wedding party of course and then at the Trooping the Colour only the Queen's descendents were there people would see that the royal family is getting smaller anyway.

MRSJ 12-14-2010 06:16 PM

Good point, plus unless Bea and Eugenies husbands are given titles won't the Princess/Prince and HRH drop with them anyways-

Zonk 12-14-2010 06:23 PM

Nope.

I woudl assume that unless Letters of Patents are adressed or they announce that they would be known by a lesser name, then Beatrice and Eugenie will be known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York, Mrs. David Clark....like Princess Anne was when she first married Mark Phillips:

There have been some small precendents so its possible:

HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught (granddaughter of Victoria) when she married she announced that she would be known as Lady Patricia Ramsay (adopting the style of her husband) but she was still a member of the BRG.

I don't believe any LP's were introduced for this. Same thing with Princess Katharine of Greece...she was known as Katharine Branaham (sp) and that was it.

MRSJ 12-14-2010 06:24 PM

Sorry I misspoke I meant their children would not be titled unless the husbands were give a title upon marriage like Princess Margerets children -?

KittyAtlanta 12-14-2010 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1167739)
:previous: How refreshingly well balanced Peter Hitchens article is. He brings out the "ordinary" that lies behind the Headlines....

When you put it that way Charles talking to parsnips seems quite sensible when you consider the alternative of talking to the press. The parsnips have so much more to offer.

Since I talk to asparagus ferns, Charles is OK in my book!

Zonk 12-14-2010 06:28 PM

Okay..than yes...they would be like Margaret or Anne's children.

Yes, you are correct.

Really, by the time Charles takes the throne you will have lost at least four to five people who do a lot of engagements (Queen, Prince Phillip, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Kent)...I mean Alexandra is the youngest at 74...between them they do about 600 engagements a year right?

So Kate will have to step it up...and Camilla and Sophie will have to pick up more...and they might need Beatrice and Eugenie to pick up some of the slack. Only time will tell.

AnnEliza 12-14-2010 06:29 PM

Isn't the list of HRH going to get smaller just because of who is currently royal? Only the children of the sons of the monarch have HRH, so it will end up just being William and Harry. The Duke of York's daughters will not pass on HRH to their children, and the Princess Royal's children don't have HRH. The Earl of Wessex's children are HRH, but not using that style. So as the Queen's cousins pass away, there won't be many HRH's left at all.

MRSJ 12-14-2010 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnnEliza
Isn't the list of HRH going to get smaller just because of who is currently royal? Only the children of the sons of the monarch have HRH, so it will end up just being William and Harry. The Duke of York's daughters will not pass on HRH to their children, and the Princess Royal's children don't have HRH. The Earl of Wessex's children are HRH, but not using that style. So as the Queen's cousins pass away, there won't be many HRH's left at all.

Man, William and Kate and Harry and whoever better plan to have a lot of kids (just a joke!) :)

Zonk 12-14-2010 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnnEliza (Post 1175367)
Isn't the list of HRH going to get smaller just because of who is currently royal? Only the children of the sons of the monarch have HRH, so it will end up just being William and Harry. The Duke of York's daughters will not pass on HRH to their children, and the Princess Royal's children don't have HRH. The Earl of Wessex's children are HRH, but not using that style. So as the Queen's cousins pass away, there won't be many HRH's left at all.

Yes, there is no real reason to reduce the size of the royal family as the process of natural selection will do it naturally.

Osipi 12-14-2010 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta (Post 1175361)
Since I talk to asparagus ferns, Charles is OK in my book!

Ahhhhhh... its not easy being green

Tyger 12-15-2010 03:02 AM

The Queen should start handing off to Charles.....
 
I put this text on the wrong thread - just realized it should be here...

You know what I think? I think the Queen is going to - or should - start handing off more royal duties and responsibilities to Charles. I would hope he is in conversation with his mother about this. It makes perfect sense and would cushion the transition (passing from the Queen to the next King) when it inevitably comes. I think I see indications that this is being contemplated, in fact.

The Queen must understand that she needs to begin 'investing' in Charles if the future (of her family) is to be sanely shaped. She likely very much wants to slow down a bit, too - who doesn't at her age - and it just makes all kinds of sense for her to open up the situation more.

If this isn't in the works, I think it should be. The Queen needs to be far-thinking in this way to ensure a seamless and healthy transition, built on the known and an established trust. Too much potential damage could be done otherwise without that clear, steady hand setting in motion the future course.

P.S. Please forgive if I am presenting a topic that has already been thoroughly discussed. I have not read all of this thread and in fact just skipped back and found interesting stuff - so......

Tyger 12-15-2010 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al_bina (Post 815868)
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.

I would say just the reverse. Charles will be the one to change the monarchy and press it forward into the 21st century - he has the intelligence and the capacities developed over a lifetime of entrepreneurial and managerial endeavor. There is nothing placid about Charles.

He has created networks of relationships and taken seriously his role as a steward of 'his people' via his businesses that engage young people in all manner of preparations for life. He has created endeavors that change lives. He has not been just a Patron of Charities and the Arts doing photo ops. He has been a working man all his adult life - innovative, prescient and thinking outside-the-box.

Charles is going to be anything but a placid King and will be a hard act for William to follow.

William would be the placid and traditionalist king at this point. He presents as shy and very ill-at-ease in his role. He needs considerably more tutelage under his father before he will be ready for kingship. In fact, it is my keen hope that Kate (Catherine) has a bit more on the ball than William for their children's sake. William has a great deal more living he needs to do before he will have the capacity to be king intelligently and not just be a fellow who makes sure everyone likes him.

muriel 12-15-2010 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1175329)
As the title is automatic there is no need for Parliament to do anything.

The last thing the BRF want is a debate about anything to do with the royal family as it could so easily backfire - particularly with a minority government.

Quite right, no need to go to Parliament. Debates of this type are best avoided in Parliament.

FYI, We have a coalition government, not a minority one.

Iluvbertie 12-15-2010 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muriel (Post 1175576)
Quite right, no need to go to Parliament. Debates of this type are best avoided in Parliament.

FYI, We have a coalition government, not a minority one.


Does one party have a majority? No

Do the two parties concerned usually form a coalition government? No

Is the coalition committed to the same things on all policies? No

When we have a coalition government here we know before the election which two parties will form that coalition (Liberals and Nationals). They pretty much agree on all major policies before the election and make it known to the population what they will do. To me that is a coalition.

A minority government is when two or more parties or individuals, after the election join together to form government but when the next election comes they will campaign against each other again.

muriel 12-15-2010 06:45 AM

Your personal definition of a coalition may be at variance to the publicly accepted form, but a minority government is one that does not have a majority in Parliament, period. As to whether the parties went into the election with a coalition agreement already in place or not relevant as to whether the resulting government is a coalition or a minority government.

The current government in the UK is comprised of Conservative and LD members of Parliament, both of whom are integral to the cabinet and government. They are bound by the coalition agreement (which runs for the full term of the Parliament) that they entered into after the election in May 2010. This would have been a minority government if a coalition agreement had not been entered into, and the LDs were not a part of the government, but merely provided the Conservatives issue based support in Parliament

Iluvbertie 12-15-2010 06:50 AM

Obviously we have a different understanding of what sort of government constitutes a coalition. As we have them regularly in this country my understanding is that they go into the election that way. Yours is different. We have even had coalitions where one of the two parties could form government on their own but they stay in the coalition - that is a coalition to me.

We must disagree on this point.

jemagre 12-16-2010 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 1175371)
Yes, there is no real reason to reduce the size of the royal family as the process of natural selection will do it naturally.

Is natural selection fast enough for the British public? I don't know but I do think that the royal family will have to change in order to survive.

I do wish Charles would give some ideas about how he plans on changing things. I know it might be considered rude to discuss such things while she is alive but he is a man that does not appeared to be scared to discuss controversial issues.

If I were the Queen I would want to know what he plans to do after I was gone. Then again I might be a little controlling:lol:

Lumutqueen 12-16-2010 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jemagre (Post 1176582)
Is natural selection fast enough for the British public? I don't know but I do think that the royal family will have to change in order to survive.

I do wish Charles would give some ideas about how he plans on changing things. I know it might be considered rude to discuss such things while she is alive but he is a man that does not appeared to be scared to discuss controversial issues.

If I were the Queen I would want to know what he plans to do after I was gone. Then again I might be a little controlling:lol:

To be quite honest, the british public unless you are a royal watcher doesn't understand the system of titles. If the remaining royals with titles show that they are worthy of their titles then I think that will satisfy the public.

I'm sure he knows what he would like to do and has discussed this with HM. But I don't see why we should know until he becomes king.

jemagre 12-16-2010 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1176587)
To be quite honest, the british public unless you are a royal watcher doesn't understand the system of titles. If the remaining royals with titles show that they are worthy of their titles then I think that will satisfy the public.

I'm sure he knows what he would like to do and has discussed this with HM. But I don't see why we should know until he becomes king.

I think that is a tragedy that some people worldwide are not that interested enough in their own governments to want to know how they function. Then again I have always though that apathy is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. At least if people hate you they care enough to pay attention to you.

As for what he will do well...I understand what you are saying. I just think that maybe it might be nice for an outline. He is not a popular choice to be king. No, I don't mean that William should be king. I just think that maybe an outline might change some perceptions about him for those who want him to be King. For those like myself who don't live in England but are interested in history it is a unique situation to watch a different kind of government hand-over.

I also think that the days when the royals positions were secure ones are gone. Nowadays they almost have to sell themselves like politicians to win public approval. Like it or not we are in those days. If we were not then the royal family would not be on facebook or twitter.

Iluvbertie 12-16-2010 05:22 PM

What changes would people like him to make?

The monarchy has evolved even during the present reign and that evolution will continue for the rest of this reign and then into Charles' reign.

It would be totally inappropriate for him to make public any plans for what he would like to do when his mother dies.

In addition he doesn't have a lot of say anyway as the government will decide all official roles of the monarchy so any changes Charles would like to make would be purely superficial and not substantial to the role of the monarch.

Outside of the monarch no other royals have anything to do with the running of the government anyway and most people I am sure realise that - and the monarch doesn't do much - signs the legislation, talks to the PM, hosts visiting officials and provides entertainment for the masses - that is the main role for the royals - entertainment. If you think about what we as royal watchers discuss it comes down to what they wear, who they are dating, what their children look like, when their babies are due, and what events they attend to give us the information to discuss the above - nothing about their role in government as they don't really have one.

Lumutqueen 12-16-2010 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jemagre (Post 1176590)
I think that is a tragedy that some people worldwide are not that interested enough in their own governments to want to know how they function. Then again I have always though that apathy is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. At least if people hate you they care enough to pay attention to you.

A lot of people in this country know how the government functions. But government and the monarchy are two very different things. People don't know how the title system works, which is what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jemagre (Post 1176590)
As for what he will do well...I understand what you are saying. I just think that maybe it might be nice for an outline. He is not a popular choice to be king. No, I don't mean that William should be king. I just think that maybe an outline might change some perceptions about him for those who want him to be King. For those like myself who don't live in England but are interested in history it is a unique situation to watch a different kind of government hand-over.

IMO, if he released some kind of information, it would add fuel to the critical fire about what he is going to do. At the moment people can say "Charles won't be a good king", but they cannot give a reason. If he says he's going to do x, y and z. People can then critisize him for what he has suggested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jemagre (Post 1176590)
I also think that the days when the royals positions were secure ones are gone. Nowadays they almost have to sell themselves like politicians to win public approval. Like it or not we are in those days. If we were not then the royal family would not be on facebook or twitter.

I don't think facebook and twitter is "selling themselves", I think it's moving with the times. A lot more people access faceboook and twitter than read the newspapers or follow this forum.

jemagre 12-17-2010 05:27 PM

[I don't think facebook and twitter is "selling themselves", I think it's moving with the times. A lot more people access faceboook and twitter than read the newspapers or follow this forum.[/QUOTE]

I think moving with the times and selling themselves is almost interchangeable. Then again I think anyone in the public spotlight has to sell themselves in order to get heard. For example: If he did not sell themselves then nobody would know about his charities. For the record I don't consider selling oneself is always a bad thing. It just depends on the situation.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises