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)

hernameispekka 01-31-2015 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padams2359 (Post 1745628)
I think the changes will be as drastic as when Edward VII ascended after Victoria. The fundamentals of the Monarchy will remain, but many things surrounding it will change. The monarchy is very good at reading the people. Things needed to change between Victoria and Edward VII, but stability and continuity was needed during the time of George V, Edward VIII, and George VI. Major changes during the long reign of Elizabeth II could have made her look fical and prown to flip flop. Acceptance and morals have changed so much since the early '50s until now.

The difference is that Victoria wasn't liked that much since she hid away and Elizabeth is really loved.

Rudolph 01-31-2015 11:00 AM

Most of the changes will be implemented by the government and not Charles personally. Charles will make changes to his court but in a constitutional monarchy it will be the parliament that dictates the reign of Charles, just like with his predecessors

Iluvbertie 01-31-2015 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hernameispekka (Post 1745659)
The difference is that Victoria wasn't liked that much since she hid away and Elizabeth is really loved.

Victoria was revered. She was certainly extremely popular. The unpopular years were the 1860s but from the 1870s on she was most certainly popular and by the end was almost 'goddess' like in stature - because she wasn't seen that much and was so 'old'. Her diamond jubilee was massive and the support for her kept on growing.

The feelings of loss when she died were also massive with people asking 'what will we do' 'how will we cope' etc etc.

hernameispekka 01-31-2015 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1745727)
Victoria was revered. She was certainly extremely popular. The unpopular years were the 1860s but from the 1870s on she was most certainly popular and by the end was almost 'goddess' like in statue - because she wasn't seen that much and was so 'old'. Her diamond jubilee was massive and the support for her kept on growing.

The feelings of loss when she died were also massive with people asking 'what will we do' 'how will we cope' etc etc.

Ok, I am not that knowledgeable about history so thanks for correcting me :)

Curryong 01-31-2015 06:50 PM

I can just imagine Queen Victoria's reaction if, in her old age, newspapers and biographers had openly speculated about the changes her son was contemplating in the new reign and how things would change!

Dman 02-01-2015 09:26 AM

I think a lot of the media hype and public reaction to Charles's future reign is due to a major case of anxiety. The majority of the population has known no other Monarch than, Elizabeth II. It's hard for some to see any light at the end of the tunnel after her reign.

Charles won't ruin the very institution that he was born to one day lead. He's made some mistakes that shook the House of Windsor a bit, but he won't bring the whole thing down once he's King.

cepe 02-01-2015 09:40 AM

I think it happens every time. Some senior MPs thought that George VI would be a bad king and wanted the Duke of Gloucester instead. When the Queen acceded some thought she was too young and there should be a period of "regency".

Dman 02-01-2015 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1745905)
I think it happens every time. Some senior MPs thought that George VI would be a bad king and wanted the Duke of Gloucester instead. When the Queen acceded some thought she was too young and there should be a period of "regency".

Yeah, I guess these same feelings were expressed during and after Victoria's very long reign. Charles will be the King he was meant to be, and after a while, the world will get used to King Charles.

HereditaryPrincess 02-01-2015 01:08 PM

Quote:

At the time of the Royal Wedding in 2011 journalists and television news reporters descended on London en masse. Invariably they claimed to have a fascinating new slant on the happy occasion, yet they always produced the same questions. The first concerned Prince William marrying a commoner (OK but in fact he was marrying the girl of his choice, who arrived on the scene “fully baked” and with a university degree and has not changed a jot since), the second suggested that Prince Charles would now be passed over in the succession in favour of his son. Well no, that is not how it is done and nor should it be.
What kind of monarch will Prince Charles be? - Telegraph

CyrilVladisla 02-01-2015 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess (Post 1745942)

The Telegraph mentioned that Charles "and Diana were seen as a dream team."
A dream team is a splendid title.
However, in reality, the splendid married couple had differences. Charles and Diana divorced.
What if this dream team would have had an excellent marriage?

MARG 02-01-2015 05:44 PM

:previous: Not a bad article apart from questioning the basis of "the facts" in the book.

Queen Camilla 02-02-2015 05:00 PM

What is the reason for the 'sudden' interest in Charles?

Three new books, a TV program and no known anniversary except the Queen overtaking Victoria but that should have produced books about the Queen and not Charles.

cepe 02-02-2015 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla (Post 1746275)
What is the reason for the 'sudden' interest in Charles?

Three new books, a TV program and no known anniversary except the Queen overtaking Victoria but that should have produced books about the Queen and not Charles.

and all of it speculation and one person's (so far) opinion.

The Times is serialising Meyers book and they (IMO) are diminishing their reputation for news by publishing "articles" based on her book. AS she has already been challenged on her statements on actual access, salt is required to digest.

Nearly every paper in the UK has gone into tabloid mode and none are really making sense in discussing the kind of king Charles will be.

Its embarassing so see how awful UK media has become.

No doubt the articles will be syndicated world wide and more garbage about the BRF will be published without thought and consideration.

I'm switching off.

royal rob 02-02-2015 05:16 PM

I think it would be strange if there wasn't interest. The time is coming closer to him becoming King so of course people are interested in what sort of King he will be.
You might not like or agree with what's written but he is what he is warts and all.
They could be writing a lot worse.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

cepe 02-02-2015 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob (Post 1746278)
I think it would be strange if there wasn't interest. The time is coming closer to him becoming King so of course people are interested in what sort of King he will be.
You might not like or agree with what's written but he is what he is warts and all.
They could be writing a lot worse.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Yes but what is getting my goat is that some author has written a book and UK media are treating it as if it is 100% true. Not debate; no balance and no other side of the argument. That is pathetic.

royal rob 02-02-2015 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1746299)
Yes but what is getting my goat is that some author has written a book and UK media are treating it as if it is 100% true. Not debate; no balance and no other side of the argument. That is pathetic.


Maybe the UK media know it's pretty much the truth


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

hernameispekka 02-02-2015 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal rob (Post 1746302)
Maybe the UK media know it's pretty much the truth


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Noone can know if it's the truth without facts. Things can seem more or less likely but.... wow, just wow..

cepe 02-02-2015 06:38 PM

its a one sided story. All I would advise is dont believe everything you read. I find it amazing that so many people do.

royal rob 02-02-2015 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hernameispekka (Post 1746305)
Noone can know if it's the truth without facts. Things can seem more or less likely but.... wow, just wow..


I said pretty much the truth. He's not a saint and once again nothing that bad has been written about him


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

hernameispekka 02-02-2015 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1746306)
its a one sided story. All I would advise is dont believe everything you read. I find it amazing that so many people do.

Yes, me too. Some comments seem realistic (like the ones about C&C "living apart" (as in spending alot of time alone not as in separated)) and it is worth discussing the validity or chance of comments being right. But it's frightening how many people take stuff at face value.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises