Will Charles Ever Reign?

[BeatrixFan]

Well, theoretically I suppose she can. After all, Queen Mary wasn't called Mary, she was Victoria. Maybe Camilla would go with Queen Mary giving us George and Mary again.

 

[HRH Kerry]

...Charles will be King soon, he's popular, he'll be a good King and as he said himself, "Down with the media".

The media has to know that things will change and are changing. Charles' image has improved. Kudos to Camilla! But do you think the media will sink further into their dismal abyss or play a more positive roll. I know no one has a crystal ball but I want to know what you think. Or will will Charles as King shun the media?

 

[BeatrixFan]

I imagine he'll be a little more open and I think we'll see more direct television interviews with him as King but I think he'll shun the gutter press and certainly the tabloids.

 

[HRH Kerry]

That will be good for him. I definitely agree with your assertion with the "gutter press" and tabloids.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think that Charles is looking to people like King Harald and Queen Sonja as the act to follow. He seems to like the way they do things and I can imagine him transforming the House of Windsor to fit a more Norwegian model.

 

[wbenson]

If Charles is alive when QEII dies there are only two things that I could see from stopping Him becoming king...if the Church of England gets sticky on the issue of his being married to a divorcee and refuses to do the ceremony.

It doesn't matter if there's a ceremony. He becomes King the instant the Queen dies. Edward VIII was never crowned, but was still the King.

 

[HRH Kerry]

I think that Charles is looking to people like King Harald and Queen Sonja as the act to follow. He seems to like the way they do things and I can imagine him transforming the House of Windsor to fit a more Norwegian model.

Not that it would matter anyway but no complaints here.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

They were all involved as the criticism was launched at all of them. If you were Royal, you could be blamed - that's how the media played it. And as for being too weak, are you seriously suggesting he should have disobeyed his own mother who just happens to be the Queen also?

No - as mentioned earlier I think he agreed with the handling and did not have a different opinion.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Charles will be King soon, he's popular, he'll be a good King and as he said himself, "Down with the media".

IMO he won't be king soon, his popularity is average - at the most, no idea if he'll be a good king and in terms of "Down with the media" - that's wishful thinking.

 

[BeatrixFan]

IMO he won't be king soon, his popularity is average - at the most, no idea if he'll be a good king and in terms of "Down with the media" - that's wishful thinking.

Well unless the Queen is going to reign from a fridge a la Walt Disney then I think we can safely assume that Charles will be King quite soon. Where's the evidence that his popularity is average? If you've got no idea whether he'll be or a good King or not and you'd like to see the media continue in the vein it's running in, I can only assume that you're an avid reader of "The Sun".

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Well unless the Queen is going to reign from a fridge a la Walt Disney then I think we can safely assume that Charles will be King quite soon.

I like that I think a few more years are realistic.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

If you've got no idea whether he'll be or a good King or not and you'd like to see the media continue in the vein it's running in, I can only assume that you're an avid reader of "The Sun".

It's not that bad

I don't say I like the Yellow Press but look at the younger generation who represent the future population that will support Charles or not. They are more interested in Big Brother than in the monarchy and that's sad. What I am trying to say is that Charles could do much better with the media than he's doing now. The younger generation is not only looking at Charles but at William & Harry too. And what we see from them is not so encouraging to make younger people a supporter of the monarchy. Their behaviour is clearly a penalty for the Yellow Press and of course they are scoring the goal. Who will blame them for that? So instead of accusing the papers of invading their privacy and publish pics of the drunken princes he should tell his sons how to behave in public as second or third in the line of the throne.

 

[ysbel]

I don't know whether Charles should shoulder the blame on the way the monarchy has handled the media.

I don't criticize Charles for standing by the queen during the difficult days following Diana's death. My main criticism of Charles has been the insistence of handling his own public relations through a press office at Clarence House.

I think there is an advantage of the monarch having to approve all the public relations for the royal family because it is the monarch who is ultimately accountable for the perception of the royal family. The rest of the family are there to support the monarch's job. It's not Charles' job yet.

That having been said, I think Clarence House has done some things right and some things wrong. They have started to deny some of the most damaging allegations which has hurt the credibility of some of the people who brought them up. I don't think, though, they've been as good at handling the public relations of William and Harry. Oddly enough, I think they handled Harry's wearing of the SS uniform perfectly. They made Harry apologize once but when the tabloids kept baying for Harry's blood, Clarence House refused to give it to them. That is the balance that they need to seek.

But for example, not stepping in and refuting the rumours about Kate's mother when Wills and Kate broke up and letting William and Harry be interviewed by this radio DJ were not good moves in my opinion.

But its all really a moot point in my opinion because I don't really think Charles should be handling his own publicity, nor should William or Harry. They need to work as team players within the strictures of the monarchy. As it is now, there are too many cooks in the kitchen with everybody going out and doing their own thing.

 

[BeatrixFan]

You raise a good point but I think it's the 20-30 year olds of today who will make the decision on monarchy vs republic in the future. And alot depends on the politics of the time, the position of Britain within the EU and the development of the House of Lords that is currently ongoing. Remember, it's the elderly who vote in big numbers and we're headed for a massive surge in OAPs as a result of the baby boom. Most of them were brought up to respect the establishment and so I would say that for at least 20 years, the monarchy is safe and that means that Charles will get his chance. It's then the 20-30 year olds of today who will pick up the baton and based on his reign, will decide what the future should look like.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Thanks for your posts. Always interesting to get different points of view.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

And lead by example?

Yes, lead by example. IMHO Charles has shown integrity in the way he introduced his second wife to the public without casting a shadow on his first.
Just my opinion, but I wish all people would be so polite in society.

 

[BeatrixFan]

He has led my example. His personal life is his personal life. His life as the Prince of Wales has been amazing and hugely beneficial to our nation. His work on conservation, the environment, multi-culturalism, nature and yes, politics (thank God someone is holding this shower to account). If a few more people followed the example of Prince Charles the world would be a better place.

 

[Elspeth]

Charles is also a divorcee so where is the issue in that? So is the Princess Royal. I don't think that divorce is an issue anymore since times have changed.

Did King George VI have lung cancer? He was a smoker.

The royal doctors back then weren't very forthcoming, but it appears that he did have lung cancer, as well as some arterial problems.

 

[Elspeth]

Forgive Charles!
Methinks you forget that whilst Charles may indeed be human, upon the death of Diana all her wrongdoing was wiped clean from the 'Printers Presses', not to mention their rather short (convenient) memories.

Now, in an almost utimate and incredibly bizarre twist of fate, the press seem to have become the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong! Or more specifically, who is and is not fit to rule!
How in the name of all that is holy did we all allow that to happen?

It isn't just in that area, though. People have got used to being spoonfed soundbites by the press rather than doing their own research about even important topics. The press in Britain got a good lesson in their power when they managed to turn the public's anger about Diana from themselves ("the paparazzi killed her") to the royal family ("it's all Charles's fault and the Queen doesn't care"), and having recognised their power in being able to manipulate public opinion to their advantage, whether for their own image's sake or just for profit, they aren't going to give up that power. I think in the last analysis, if people continue to fall for the propaganda and don't make an effort to do their own fact-finding, we can expect this state of affairs to continue. The press have shown that they can make life exceedingly difficult for royals they decide to target, and Charles has to take that into account at some level.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, theoretically I suppose she can. After all, Queen Mary wasn't called Mary, she was Victoria. Maybe Camilla would go with Queen Mary giving us George and Mary again.

She was Victoria Mary (plus six other names) and was known as May; since she probably didn't want to be known as Queen Victoria so soon after the death of the Queen Regnant with that name, Queen Mary was a good compromise. I think she said something at the time about how curious it was to be rechristened in her forties!

 

[misselle]

The royal doctors back then weren't very forthcoming, but it appears that he did have lung cancer, as well as some arterial problems.

I am currently reading Hugo Vickers' biography about the Queen Mother;in it he says that George V was first diagnosed as having lung cancer in May, by his radiologist, Dr. George Cordimer. But it took several months,until September,for the King's other doctors to confirm the diagnosis.Both the lungs were affected.
George V also was suffering from circulatory problems,arteriosclerosis, a vascular disease.He had been complaining about numbness in his right foot,and there had been worries that an amputation would have to have taken place.But the cancer diagnosis changed things;he lost one lung. He had appeared to be doing well at the time of his death;he died in his sleep after a day of shooting.


I think that Charles will do a good job as king;he is going to make a few changes and pave the way for his son,William.Many Royal historians have said in the past that Charles' reign would probably be a short one because his mother was expected to be long-lived.They appear to be right! They also predicted that Charles will start the modernization process and that William would continue it...

 

[branchg]

Charles isn't likely to reign for more than 20 years, if he's lucky. At the end of the day, William is more important to the future of the monarchy.

 

[BeatrixFan]

How can someone in their twenties who knows nothing of Royal life, diplomacy or statesmanship possibly be more important than a man nearly in his sixties who is an expert in all those fields?

 

[Elspeth]

Because he won't always be in his twenties and he's likely to be king for a lot longer than Charles. He won't be more important in the near term, but over the long term, assuming he and his father both have reasonably normal lifespans, he's bound to have more influence.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well I accept that but for the short term, surely Charles is more important and let's face it, it's during his reign that we could well face talk of republic.

 

[scooter]

My point was, that this was an immovable sticking point with the Church of England re: the coronation of the last PoW leading to Edward VII becoming Duke of Windsor ie,the marriage to a divorcee. The fact that the Sovereign is also the Head of the Church, etc. Although I bevieve that (correct me if i'm wrong) if the DoC's previous husband is deceased, she would be in the same position as the PoW is presently...considered a widow by the church. Start the conspiracy engines now!

 

[BeatrixFan]

But the Church of England doesn't have the same power it had back then. One step out of line and wap - the Archbishop of Canterbury will find himself down the job centre.

 

[Elspeth]

My point was, that this was an immovable sticking point with the Church of England re: the coronation of the last PoW leading to Edward VII becoming Duke of Windsor ie,the marriage to a divorcee. The fact that the Sovereign is also the Head of the Church, etc. Although I bevieve that (correct me if i'm wrong) if the DoC's previous husband is deceased, she would be in the same position as the PoW is presently...considered a widow by the church. Start the conspiracy engines now!

The church has changed its opinion somewhat about the remarriage of divorcees since the 1930s. I don't think this is going to be nearly the sticking point that it was back then. After allowing a Church of England service of prayer and dedication after Charles's second wedding, the Archbishop would be on rather shaky grounds if he wanted to raise objections to a coronation on the grounds of Charle's marital state. I have a feeling that might just lead to disestablishment of the church to avoid the need for a religious coronation rather than to Charles abdicating, so the Church has quite a bit to lose if it decides to dig in over this.

 

[scooter]

While Edward VII became King automatically, he was never crowned because of the aforementioned 'issue'. Perhaps it's just my perception of the Church of England being 'high church'-y. Dont they refuse to ordain gays, dont recognise divorce etc.? If they were to be sticky, is there any mechanism possible to have a non religious Coronation? I'm not sure how you would do it.

 

[scooter]

crossposting!