PrincessKaimi
Serene Highness
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,353
- City
- Hilo, Malibu
- Country
- United States
That's why I said ancestors.
And I look forward to the reign of Charles when it's time. He's someone that I admire more and more as I learn about his interests and what he's accomplished.
Let's keep in mind... the Hanovers (and by extension) the Windsors didn't "rise to the top", they were landed at the top and not because of merit and hard work but because George I was the closest protestant relative of Queen Anne.
This post just beautifully expressed exactly how I feel about the monarchy. Thank you.
And I look forward to the reign of Charles when it's time. He's someone that I admire more and more as I learn about his interests and what he's accomplished.
I realise this is a controversial position, but I do believe his reign will be affected by all that has gone before, and not for the better.
Unfortunately, for the most part what is remembered about Charles stems from the tabloid fodder that has plagued him in his private life and most of the important things that he has accomplished and is still trying to accomplish are overshadowed by this. I adamantly refuse to let the incident of the "tampax conversation" to color my views of the PoW as IMO that conversation was a very private one and should have never have been published for all and sundry to cackle over.
Just yesterday I let my fingers do the walking browsing for a good book to read. For some reason, the book I was looking for was "Harmony, A New Way of Looking at Our World" written by Charles. I have not purchased the book as of yet, but it will definitely be my next purchased. What totally amazed me is that wherever I looked for book reviews, readers from all over the world have given this book a 5 star rating with glowing feedback. I am looking forward to reading this as it will give a good look at things through the eyes of Charles himself.
Has anyone read this book already?
Aliza, with the leniency of today's treatment of infidelities, multiple marriages and divorces, children born out of wedlock, etc., etc., etc., how could you possibly fault Charles? He is merely human, made more human by his mistakes. I don't think his personal history has any bearing on what kind of King he will be.
I don't believe in the leniency of today. And I think many people are appalled by it, they just tend to be more quiet than the "liberal" (in the American definition) crowd.
Of course, he is human. But a King is elevated by society and should therefore attempt to elevate his behaviour to match IMHO. It's not the time of the Abdication Crisis, but that time is not SO far away, either.
I think his personal history will colour peoples views of his reign, as I posted above, I'm not speaking of monarchists nor of royalty watchers, just the average person who doesn't pay much attention to these things. IMHO, anyone literate in the 90's will forever associate Charles with the Camillagate conversation. (I really don't want to write that "t" word, again!)
Perhaps this would be a good reason for him to reign as George VII, as has been suggested by many, though not for this reason.
I don't find it at all appalling that society has evolved to recognize that human relationships are complex and that love can exist in a lot of different ways. I actually find it a bit appalling that people are still willing to pass judgment on someone for leaving an unhappy marriage. A lot of ugly things happened in the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana but I think it's pretty well recognized at this point that both people contributed to that unhappiness and that casting blame on one person or the other is really unfair. Prince Charles made a lot of mistakes during that time period, but I think it just shows that he's a regular human being, and I don't think it's fair to expect him to be anything else.
And his professional achievements really are astounding. And I love the nickname "Charles the Green"!
(Also, the "t" word? As I read that, I had a vision of a Victorian schoolmarm, pursed lips and all.)
P.S. as to Charles and Diana: they may have each had their part in it, but so did the erst of the world, I believe. We people (some more than others) had our part in making their marriage a very hard one. Mostly, the technological changes of the time made it hard - but there are real human actors behind those changes. Our insatiable and very human desire for more knowledge didn't help those two, at all.
If my husband had an affair, it would be one thing. If that affair was hacked into by tabloids, that would make it oh so much worse.
I don't believe in the leniency of today. And I think many people are appalled by it, they just tend to be more quiet than the "liberal" (in the American definition) crowd.
I think his personal history will colour peoples views of his reign, as I posted above, I'm not speaking of monarchists nor of royalty watchers, just the average person who doesn't pay much attention to these things. IMHO, anyone literate in the 90's will forever associate Charles with the Camillagate conversation.
In many ways, Charles will be the first modern monarch, given his personal history - while at the same time being the last of the old order - it seems to me that he carries the sensibilities of the 'way it was'. He is positioned between two worlds and beholds them both.
The conversation with Camilla was a conversation between lovers - we all say our little things to each other - would any of our 'little nothings' sustain international broadcast? Probably not. There is nothing peculiar about what they were saying - they were having a joke with each other - a little bit of 'phone sex' - you can hear them smiling and laughing - that's it - we've all done it - we all know those little things we say - its no big deal. Its embarrassing to have these things broadcast but that's as far as it goes. The content was not really 'appalling'. It has its own little charm, in fact. Every man knows what Charles was talking about - its not a big deal and will not impact his reign.
I fully agree with you on almost all your points. Where I disagree is this: It will impact his reign only because it will impact the perception of his reign. I don't think that's fair, but I do believe it's human nature.
Whatever else was happening in the world, the mere idea that the meltdown of the marriage of Charles and Diana would have been allowed any degree of decorum whatsoever is much akin to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden!Some of us, regardless of age, still have a liking for a sense of decorum. While I don't try and foist it on anyone else, I still maintain that some decorum leads to a more civilised society and more civilised debate, in particular.
Being a reasonable adult and allowing for the passage of time I look back on the excesses of the media and cringe. Charles will make a wonderful King. Why should he not? He has worked incredibly hard to make the world a better place as Prince of Wales which is more than many of us can say of ourselves.I'm glad you think Charles will make a good King. I, personally hope he makes a good king, too. No monarchist wants to see that institution damaged, no matter personal feelings about the characters of those involved.
I'm not sure I'm really getting your point. For example: the Queen had sex - we know that because she had 4 children. Did her having sex and having an intimate life with chit-chat impact the perception of her reign? No.
I don't get it. The Charles and Camilla tape was no one's business and I think most people get that - and feel sympathy for them - for any 'celebrity' who has their sex life dragged into the public eye for scrutiny and - I like the work - cackle. Voyeurism!
I don't think anyone judges anyone for sex stuff. Is the public like children who hear about sex for the first time and cannot believe their parents 'did that'? Do you really believe people in general are that 'innocent' these days? I really do not think most people give it a second thought.
I'm not sure I'm really getting your point. For example: the Queen had sex - we know that because she had 4 children. Did her having sex and having an intimate life with chit-chat impact the perception of her reign? No.
I don't get it. The Charles and Camilla tape was no one's business and I think most people get that - and feel sympathy for them - for any 'celebrity' who has their sex life dragged into the public eye for scrutiny and - I like the work - cackle. Voyeurism!
I don't think anyone judges anyone for sex stuff. Is the public like children who hear about sex for the first time and cannot believe their parents 'did that'? Do you really believe people in general are that 'innocent' these days? I really do not think most people give it a second thought.
Australian politicians, in particular, have been surprisingly blunt about where they stand on another slightly related issue: Keeping the Monarch of the UK as the Australian Head of State. Several have said they will use the ascension to the Throne of Charles to "break the bond" as they do not have the love for him that they do for his mother. One reason often cited is the "Charles/Diana/Camilla debacle" and "that tape with Camilla" (remember it was first published in Australia). Perhaps they are using those reasons as political flummery, I don't know.
Australian republicans want an Australian based Head of State, whether it's the Queen or one of her heirs is immaterial. The reason given for now waiting for the Queen's death is the fact that that republican support has been consistently dropping in Australia and currently it's at it's lowest in 16 years. An Australian republic is not seen as vital when there are far more important issues affecting Australia. Republicans hope that with the death of the Queen, the new era would affect Australians by having a republic, since the whole republican debate has died. Even the Australian Prime Minister who is a republican, has said there is no push for a republic now so perhaps there will be one when the Queen dies.
As someone who actually lives in Australia I can tell you quite adamantly that the reason NEVER given as to why Australia should become a republic is the Charles/Camilla/Diana triangle and the taped conversation is pretty much forgotten here. People do have lives that don't revolve around tabloid trash. Australians are also not moralistic we've had Prime Ministers who have cheated on their wives, the current Prime Minister is unmarried, lives with her (male) partner in the official residence, is a self pronounced atheist. (She's not popular but that's because of her government's policies not her personal life!) The personal lives of royals are immaterial as to whether or not they remain Australia's Head of State.
Charles is actually quite popular in Australia due to the time he spent here as a teenager.
The Camillagate tapes were first released and published by an Australian magazine to get around British privacy laws. The press could not publish them in the UK so, they were given to an Australian magazine who published the transcript (few Australians would even remember!) and then the British media could report the story 'tapes published in Australian magazine'.
You make the assumption that people generally are moralistic, they are not. Charles would not be the only current in the modern era to have cheated on his (first) wife. King Albert of Belgium fathered an illegitimate daughter, King Juan Carlos of Spain had a 16 year affair (now finished) Even King Carl Gustav of Sweden it emerged this year had an affair in the 1990s. Kings Albert and Juan Carlos are VERY well respected in their countries, it's still early days from the last lot of disclosures on Carl Gustav to see whether he gets back the respect he lost.
One of his "accomplishments" that will be well remembered into his reign will be his desire to be reincarnated as a tampax or anything else that would "allow him to live in *Camilla's* knickers.
I personally think it is grossly unfair to accuse Charles because of information which comes from some sort of hacking into a very private phone call. I'm not interested in Charles' erotic fantasies because they are not something I should know about. And to reduce this man who has done so much for his country to this very private wish tells a lot about what one wishes for in a king: not a good monarch but one who is erotically "mainstream". What criteria!
And if, heaven forfend, memories fade with the passing of more than twenty years, there will be many people just like you to remind us of every sordid little detail. With good will to all and malice to none!But the fact remains that this conversation was published and many people remember and it influences, rightly or wrongly, their opinions about Charles. I do not happen to belong to that group of people as I have amply made clear in several posts on this thread.
We each have our past and nothing can change that. Upon his succesion to the throne, his life will be displayed in various documentaries. One hopes they don't bring up ALL the sordid detailes, but never the less it is part of who he is.