The Monarchy after Elizabeth II

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Article from Dickie Arbiter (from August 21th), that I forgot to post here - read more:
It's time we learned to cherish and stop chastising Prince Charles

When I first met Charles, as a reporter in the late Seventies, I was struck by what an excellent communicator he was. Our interview took place at Buckingham Palace, where an innovative environmentally friendly bottle bank was to be installed, something he’d championed. He was passionate and determined, a drive that has been in evidence ever since.

Always well-informed, the Prince of Wales is a campaigner at heart, and has long been a catalyst for change. Criticised for the “spidery” letters he has sent to ministers, he always has the public interest at heart, asking the questions we want answered.

When he ascends to the throne, he will be the best prepared monarch we’ve ever had, and probably ever will have. Charles has been in training for 60-odd years, and the Queen has been grooming him for his very public role ever since he left the Navy in 1976. It is time we learned to cherish him.

Charles deserves to be our next king, says Sun royal photographer Arthur Edwards - read more:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4336378/charles-will-be-king-arthur-edwards-royal-photographer/

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Charles popularity

Just speaking to other Brits, they, like me, say that if Camilla becomes queen, they will lose respect for the BRF. My mum for just one example. A skip to William or Camilla having a lesser title than queen would not cause these problems. Also, if Camilla were queen, she would be the first divorced queen ever in the BRF. Wallis Simpson was considered unsuitable for this reason. And though Charles divorced too, his spouse is not still alive, Camilla's is.

 

[Ish]

Just speaking to other Brits, they, like me, say that if Camilla becomes queen, they will lose respect for the BRF. My mum for just one example. A skip to William or Camilla having a lesser title than queen would not cause these problems. Also, if Camilla were queen, she would be the first divorced queen ever in the BRF. Wallis Simpson was considered unsuitable for this reason. And though Charles divorced too, his spouse is not still alive, Camilla's is.

Eleanor of Aquitaine was a divorced Queen. At least by the standards of her day.

Just sticking that out there.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Eleanor of Aquitaine was a divorced Queen. At least by the standards of her day.

Just sticking that out there.

Her marriage was annulled. That isn't the same as a divorce. And before anybody points to Prince Harry probably going to marry Meghan Markle, Harry isn't likely to ever be king.

I'm not arguing that divorce shouldn't be allowed for the heir to the throne and their consort, just pointing out how this particular case is perceived by the British general public. Hence the results of the recent polls.

Of course Charles is more prepared than any other heir to the throne in the country's history. But he may end up being king for maybe only 10 or so years. In which case Camilla not being queen won't be a big deal.

 

[hel]

I'm not sure I understand why being a divorced queen is a problem. Kings John, Henry VIII, George I all ended marriages, and George IV was formally separated from his and had a domestic arrangement with another woman.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

I'm not sure I understand why being a divorced queen is a problem. Kings John, Henry VIII, George I all ended marriages, and George IV was formally separated from his and had a domestic arrangement with another woman.

Wonder why it was a problem with Wallace Simpson then.

 

[hel]

Because she was American, divorced more than once, and generally held to be not very pleasant.

If Wallis had been personable and had treated everyone around her with kindness and respect, there might have been fewer objections to the match.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Wallis being divorced was the excuse the government were looking for to get rid of an unsuitable King. Better to blame it on the woman then indicate to the people that the system could produce a totally unsatisfactory person in that role.

I have a distant relative (a cousin of my grandmother) who was in the government at the time and they were talking about how to remove Edward from as early as Easter - long before the Wallis story broke but when it did they were able to use that. They stopped sending him the most sensitive information around May due to his lack of care with documents - ones marked 'Top Secret' and 'For Your Eyes Only' were being returned with coffee stains and the information in them was openly discussed at his dinner parties.

In 2015 and again in 2016 I visited the UK and never spoke to anyone who would be upset if Camilla became Queen. The comment I heard was 'it is only the Diana fanatics who feel like that and they come out of the woodwork to make a large noise but they don't represent the majority - who couldn't care less'. That is a summary.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Because she was American, divorced more than once, and generally held to be not very pleasant.

If Wallis had been personable and had treated everyone around her with kindness and respect, there might have been fewer objections to the match.

Exactly! And the most important thing, It was 1936, not 2017.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Charles popularity

Well I actually live in the UK and have done all my life. I can assure you that the recent TV program has had an influence, and IMO the recent polls are accurate. I don't know any Diana 'fanatics' just people who think she was badly treated, portrayed as being unstable and causing the marriage to fail, when the truth is she became unstable because of the marriage and the way she was treated. People in other countries may feel differently. My American MIL likes Camilla very much.

PS I have a lot of experience of mental health problems, having suffered anorexia in the past, and my much younger brother committed suicide. So I have no time for the 'pull yourself together' attitude displayed by the royals towards Diana. I think William and Harry have done a great thing to call attention to mental health problems.

 

[wonderland31]

Well I actually live in the UK and have done all my life. I can assure you that the recent TV program has had an influence, and IMO the recent polls are accurate. I don't know any Diana 'fanatics' just people who think she was badly treated, portrayed as being unstable and causing the marriage to fail, when the truth is she became unstable because of the marriage and the way she was treated. People in other countries may feel differently. My American MIL likes Camilla very much.

PS I have a lot of experience of mental health problems, having suffered anorexia in the past, and my much younger brother committed suicide. So I have no time for the 'pull yourself together' attitude displayed by the royals towards Diana. I think William and Harry have done a great thing to call attention to mental health problems.

Thank you for your perspective and for sharing your experiences. I agree with you, especially that William and Harry have helped to increase awareness, understanding and support for mental health.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Well I actually live in the UK and have done all my life. I can assure you that the recent TV program has had an influence, and IMO the recent polls are accurate. I don't know any Diana 'fanatics' just people who think she was badly treated, portrayed as being unstable and causing the marriage to fail, when the truth is she became unstable because of the marriage and the way she was treated. People in other countries may feel differently. My American MIL likes Camilla very much.

PS I have a lot of experience of mental health problems, having suffered anorexia in the past, and my much younger brother committed suicide. So I have no time for the 'pull yourself together' attitude displayed by the royals towards Diana. I think William and Harry have done a great thing to call attention to mental health problems.

Some points from me:

1. The Diana propaganda has damaged Charles, the monarchy, even our beloved 91 year-old Queen and I hope it's not a lasting effect.

2. If you does some research, then you will find out that Diana embarrassed and treated the Queen like crap, was calling the royal family for germans, damaged the monarchy, turned a revered institution into her own soap opera, attacked her husband on television and putting the future of her own sons at risk. And she did nothing for charity compared to Charles and other members of the family.

3. Most people in the UK, don't care about the Camilla being Queen Consort issue and (until this anniversary) they didn't care much about Diana either, especially people under 30 who don't know anything about her.

4. People in the US are in fact much more hostile to Charles and Camilla than the brits are.

5. The so-called commentators/experts said that Camilla was popular when she turned 70 last month. Was they right - is Camilla popular? No, she is not. Will she ever be that? No, she will not, but I don't think that (as I've said before in other threads) is going to be a problem. Does she deserves to be popular? Yes, I think so, and everyone that meets her likes her.

6. A bit about Charles to, from an earlier post of mine.

1. He gets credit from the media all the time, his approval ratings are at around 70% and 60% thinks he's going to be a good king? Not bad for a man who has received so much criticism.

2. Is he going to be popular/beloved and admirred like his mother? No way, but I think/hope that he vill be respected.

3. Will he ever be the prefered choose to succeed the Queen? No, he wont. Why? Because people who don't follow Charles see him as a boring, distant and cold man who was mean to Diana. And they would rather have the younger William.

4. Is he all those things above? Of course not, but most people don't know about his good works or sees him on his walkabouts around the UK.

5. Did most people see him on his visit (with Camilla) to Sydney in 2015, where they drev bigger crowds than William/Kate and Harry? No, they didn't.

6. Did most people see him on his visits (with Camilla) to Romania, Italy and Austria this year, where they were mobbed by people? No, they didn't.

7. Do most people know that he is actually very good at connecting with people? No, they don't.

8. But the problem now is the 20th Anniversary of Diana's death: It has (as I thought it would) damaged the monarchy, Charles/Camilla and even our 91-year-old Queen.

7. I'm big fan of the Cambridges and I agree, the Heads Together Campaign was a great idea and William/Kate and Harry deserves praise for it, but they received a lot of criticism for it from the media, mostly from the Daily Fail who is now toghether with the Express leading the praise for Diana.

 

[irish_royalist]

Despite the fact that I love Royal Forums, and enjoy all of the postings very much, it gives a very skewed view of how much the general population of the U.K. (And I imagine the Commonwealth) actually know about the BRF, or care)
Most people out there have a hell of a lot more to worry themselves about than when Charles ascends the throne, whether Camilla is know as Queen or Princess Consort. They will mourn the dreadful loss of QEII, they will read all the muck that is printed in the tabloids about how evil both Charles and Camilla are, but they will accept whatever this revered Institution gives them, and love them just the same - as the Brits always have done.
Just my humble opinion - happy to be challenged!

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Despite the fact that I love Royal Forums, and enjoy all of the postings very much, it gives a very skewed view of how much the general population of the U.K. (And I imagine the Commonwealth) actually know about the BRF, or care)
Most people out there have a hell of a lot more to worry themselves about than when Charles ascends the throne, whether Camilla is know as Queen or Princess Consort. They will mourn the dreadful loss of QEII, they will read all the muck that is printed in the tabloids about how evil both Charles and Camilla are, but they will accept whatever this revered Institution gives them, and love them just the same - as the Brits always have done.
Just my humble opinion - happy to be challenged!

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Curryong]

This is all going on though, in the reign of a much admired and revered Queen, and personally I hope she reigns until she's a hundred.

IMHO we won't get a clear view of what the British population really feels about Charles as monarch and man until he ascends the throne. The first polls afterwards should give an indication.

And, after a very long reign there might well be some questioning of the institution of monarchy itself. I know there wasn't much after Victoria's death but these are very different times.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Charles popularity

See, you can tell the bias against Diana by the language some people use about her. People who admired her are 'fanatics' and programmes about her (hardly shocking on the 20th anniversary of her death) are 'propoganda.'

It doesn't affect me whether Camilla becomes queen or not. I bought the recent book about her for my MIL and she's going to bring it for me to read when she comes over next year. But I make a point of refraining from using emotive language about her and I wish other people would give Diana the same respect especially as she is dead. None of us know these people personally and I take any stories about what they are supposed to have said or done with a pinch of salt.

 

[Curryong]

Hear, hear, Princess Squirrel. I thoroughly agree with you. Diana was loved and admired world wide for her deeds as well as her demeanour, interaction with the public and her looks/fashion etc. Of course there was going to be a big fuss made by the media for the 20th anniversary, and IMO the BRF knew what was coming. William and Harry spoke movingly of the mother they remembered.

It's always been said on these threads that praise of one person doesn't mean denigration of another, but you then get language like 'propaganda' about documentaries and articles that give some praise to Diana, as if this means that those making and writing them are grinding Charles into the dust.

IMO, and I have plenty of relatives and friends in the UK, Diana was and is loved and admired by many, and those people aren't wailing fanatics whose opinions don't matter.

As for Camilla I'm not a fan, and polls which have come out in the past decade have shown that the British people aren't enamoured either. She's usually way back in the pack. Charles too, in all the polls I've seen in the past ten years or so place him behind his mother and his sons in terms of approval.

 

[royal rob]

Hear, hear, Princess Squirrel. I thoroughly agree with you. Diana was loved world wide for her deeds as well as her demeanour, interaction with the public and her looks. Of course there was going to be a big fuss made by the media for the 20th anniversary, and IMO the BRF knew what was coming. William and Harry spoke movingly of the mother they remembered.

It's always been said on these threads that praise of one person doesn't mean denigration of another, but you then get language like 'propaganda' about documentaries and articles that give some praise to Diana, as if this means that those making and writing them are grinding Charles into the dust.

IMO, and I have plenty of relatives and friends in the UK, Diana was and is loved and admired by many, and those people aren't wailing fanatics whose opinions don't matter.

As for Camilla I'm not a fan, and polls which have come out in the past decade have shown that the British people aren't enamoured either. She's usually way back in the pack. Charles too, in all the polls I've seen in the past ten years or so place him behind his mother and his sons in terms of approval.

Totaly agree with you. Shame some have to resort to such language etc.

 

[royal rob]

With all that is happening in the world now I think it's going to be very different no matter who is reigning. So Charles might have big plans but don't see him making a lot happen. As for Camila she doesn't have the robust health family gene the royals have so who knows what her future is.

 

[Osipi]

What I think is the most important aspect the underlines everything is simply the monarchy. It doesn't matter if popular opinion likes or dislikes Charles, or Camilla, or Diana or Lupo the Cambridge's dog. Popularity is not something the monarchy will be overly affected by or something that the monarch will bow to.

Most of the opinions of Charles and Camilla, as has been stated in quite a few posts here are based on their private lives and a soap opera of a bad marriage decades ago. The question of Camilla being a divorced Queen is actually moot for the simple reason that HM, The Queen with the backing of her advisors consented to the marriage of the heir to the throne and Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. In doing this and supporting the marriage, HM put her stamp of approval on Camilla being Charles' Queen when the time comes. She didn't issue any conditions.

To look at the monarchy after Elizabeth, we need to focus on the now. Charles, as king will be the most prepared king ever. By his side will be the woman that loves him and supports him and had done a remarkable job over the years since 2005 as a senior working royal in the family "Firm".

If we continue to let what happened in private lives that never should have been hung out on every newsstand like dirty laundry take the prime focus, we're basing opinions on what we think of private lives more so than focusing on the monarchy that will come after Elizabeth II.

Actually, as Charles' queen, in Camilla he has the best support system in place for him to be the king he should be and wants to be. The Queen herself has recognized this fact by accepting Camilla wholeheartedly into the family, endowed her with the GCVO and has appointed her to her own Privy Counsel. HM has witnessed that this couple doing exceptional jobs in support of the monarchy and even now, in this transitional period between monarchs that things are going seamlessly.

Diana has been dead for 20 years. What happened, happened. Its time to look ahead to the future of the monarchy and not let what happened decades ago in private lives affect that. Look at Charles and Camilla for who they are now and what they will be able to bring to the monarchy when the time comes. I don't think we are going to be disappointed.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

(1)As for Camilla I'm not a fan, and polls which have come out in the past decade have shown that the British people aren't enamoured either. She's usually way back in the pack. (2)Charles too, in all the polls I've seen in the past ten years or so place him behind his mother and his sons in terms of approval.

1. She is kind, does much for charity etc - so why don't you like her?

And I agree, Camilla isn't popular and will (as I said in post 402) never be. But that is not a problem because Philip isn't either, and most people dosen't care anyway. And as my stepfather says, when it comes to this, ignorance is Charles and Camilla's best weapon.

2. His approval ratings were at around 70% and 60% thought he was going to be a good monarch before this anniversary. Not bad for a man who has received so much criticism.

With all that is happening in the world now I think it's going to be very different no matter who is reigning. So Charles might have big plans but don't see him making a lot happen. As for Camila she doesn't have the robust health family gene the royals have so who knows what her future is.

Charles can have plans when he's the heir, but when he becomes the constitutional monarch, then he is must go into the symbolic role that the Queen had frome 1952 to 2012 when she was still touring the UK, the Commonwealth and was driven in open cars and (from 1970-2012) went on walkabouts etc.

Diana has been dead for 20 years. What happened, happened. Its time to look ahead to the future of the monarchy and not let what happened decades ago in private lives affect that. Look at Charles and Camilla for who they are now and what they will be able to bring to the monarchy when the time comes. I don't think we are going to be disappointed.

Couldn't agree more! And that was exactly what happened from 2007 to 2017 when the press almost didn't mentioned Diana at all.

I agree with the rest of your post as well.

 

[tommy100]

Well I actually live in the UK and have done all my life. I can assure you that the recent TV program has had an influence, and IMO the recent polls are accurate. I don't know any Diana 'fanatics' just people who think she was badly treated, portrayed as being unstable and causing the marriage to fail, when the truth is she became unstable because of the marriage and the way she was treated. People in other countries may feel differently. My American MIL likes Camilla very much.

PS I have a lot of experience of mental health problems, having suffered anorexia in the past, and my much younger brother committed suicide. So I have no time for the 'pull yourself together' attitude displayed by the royals towards Diana. I think William and Harry have done a great thing to call attention to mental health problems.

I also live in the UK and would say thats very much your opinion. The recent polls reflect a month of non-stop Diana coverage that will, inevitably cloud people's judgements about Charles and Camilla. In a few months when the documentaries have gone away Camilla will be "in favour again'. Notice how there aren't polls about Camilla (and the Queen question) most of the time and yet lodes when Diana is remembered, thus we never really get a true reflection of Camilla. I was 8 when Diana died, I never knew her or anything about her, the only thing I remember about her is her funeral. Yet for years I disliked Camilla, which can only have been based on the media coverage and a feeling she had somehow wronged Diana. I remember when it was announced Charles and Camilla were going to marry thinking "well she'll never be my Queen". Now? TBH she seems like a nice person and life is too short to hold grudges. The more I read about Charles and Diana, especially as the years go by, I see they were both in the wrong in many ways. Charles had affairs, so did Diana.

Should she become Queen? Very occasionally I think she maybe shouldn't, but then I realise I think that mainly because it will keep those who dislike her happy and there are two sides to every story. I also think would she be allowed to be Queen is Diana was alive, almost certainly. Camilla didn't cause Diana's death so why should she be the one to pay the price for it? I honestly feel her not becoming Queen will create a dangerous precedence for the future and also but undue strain on Kate in turn (Kate the first Queen since Elizabeth II etc etc).

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Longevity

Good point about most of us, Camilla included, not being as long-lived as Charles probably will be, considering he has probably inherited long life from both maternal and paternal sides.

 

[Jayah]

Her Majesty is a very wise woman, from her own life experiences she knows how important it is for the Monarch to have a helpmate and confidante, hence her approval of Charles' marriage to Camilla. I for one think Charles will be a very good king, he's had so much experience in the broader world than any other potential British Monarch, and he clearly adores his wife, together they will make a great team.

 

[Princess Squirrel]

Charles

I also live in the UK and would say thats very much your opinion. The recent polls reflect a month of non-stop Diana coverage that will, inevitably cloud people's judgements about Charles and Camilla. In a few months when the documentaries have gone away Camilla will be "in favour again'. Notice how there aren't polls about Camilla (and the Queen question) most of the time and yet lodes when Diana is remembered, thus we never really get a true reflection of Camilla. I was 8 when Diana died, I never knew her or anything about her, the only thing I remember about her is her funeral. Yet for years I disliked Camilla, which can only have been based on the media coverage and a feeling she had somehow wronged Diana. I remember when it was announced Charles and Camilla were going to marry thinking "well she'll never be my Queen". Now? TBH she seems like a nice person and life is too short to hold grudges. The more I read about Charles and Diana, especially as the years go by, I see they were both in the wrong in many ways. Charles had affairs, so did Diana.

Should she become Queen? Very occasionally I think she maybe shouldn't, but then I realise I think that mainly because it will keep those who dislike her happy and there are two sides to every story. I also think would she be allowed to be Queen is Diana was alive, almost certainly. Camilla didn't cause Diana's death so why should she be the one to pay the price for it? I honestly feel her not becoming Queen will create a dangerous precedence for the future and also but undue strain on Kate in turn (Kate the first Queen since Elizabeth II etc etc).

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I must say that I am fed up of hearing 'they both had affairs.' Charles was unfaithful to start with so was Diana supposed to become a nun?!
She was desperate for some love and affection!

Anyway that's straying off topic but I just had to say that as I am annoyed by it constantly being said.

 

[muriel]

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I must say that I am fed up of hearing 'they both had affairs.' Charles was unfaithful to start with so was Diana supposed to become a nun?!
She was desperate for some love and affection!

Anyway that's straying off topic but I just had to say that as I am annoyed by it constantly being said.

Like it or not, that was the reality of the situation. None of us want to particularly dwell on it, and the past really needs to be left in the past. This is really why I am so not supportive of all the drama surrounding the 20th anniversary of her death.

 

[Osipi]

The reason it is still being said is that its like the age old question "Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" The only people who really know for sure what the facts are, are really the people that were involved. One is dead and the other two have moved on with life. That is a discussion for another thread though.

That being said, now that the Diana circus is coming to an end and we head into the lead up to Charles' 70th birthday, the focus will be on Charles and Camilla with a lot of positive things being said and presented. I'm looking forward to that. Its the way the world goes around.

 

[VictoriaB]

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I must say that I am fed up of hearing 'they both had affairs.' Charles was unfaithful to start with so was Diana supposed to become a nun?!
She was desperate for some love and affection!

Anyway that's straying off topic but I just had to say that as I am annoyed by it constantly being said.

Charles was not unfaithful to start with. He resumed his affair with Camilla after he and Diana had both tried to make the marriage work and it had failed. See his interview with Jonathan Dimbleby.

you believe Diana, I believe Charles.

 

[royal rob]

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I must say that I am fed up of hearing 'they both had affairs.' Charles was unfaithful to start with so was Diana supposed to become a nun?!

She was desperate for some love and affection!



Anyway that's straying off topic but I just had to say that as I am annoyed by it constantly being said.

Your right I get angry with that being said too. Also everyone seems to forget Charles was on TV giving his version where he admits he was unfaithful.
Not to mention the friends that helped Charles and Camilla have their little hide away and dropped the Diana is mad and needs to be put away stories to the press. A lot of people did a lot of dirty deeds back then the future King and Queen included

 

[Osipi]

Why is it that we cannot have a intelligent discussion without dragging the C/D/C triangle into it. That triangle has rusted so badly that its not even worth playing anymore. None of it has any bearing whatsoever on a discussion of the monarchy after Elizabeth. Do you people still go on and on and on about stuff that happened in your own personal lives 20 years ago? Personally, I have better things to do and think about.

Can we please get a clean up in here?