The Monarchy under Charles

[berengere]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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?

 

[Madame Royale]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!
Very well written and reasoned post, and I could not agree more.

 

[muriel]

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]

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!

 

[muriel]

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!

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

 

[Madame Royale]

Interesting read, thanks for posting

 

[Osipi]

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]

Thanks for posting that link, Muriel. 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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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

rmay, I was born exactly one year after Diana.

 

[Mermaid1962]

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.

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.

 

[Madame Royale]

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]

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.

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]

.

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]

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]

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]

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.