The Monarchy under Charles

[hofburg]

An article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/international/europe/23royals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Skydragon]

An article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/23/international/europe/23royals.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Correctly.

While he is PoW, he is speaking out on matters that do concern a lot of ordinary people.

He accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of making "decisions based on market research and focus groups,"

Absolutely true and something that concerns ordinary people. Most of these 'focus groups' have no idea and no experience on the subjects they are advising on. How can someone on a 250K salary have any idea what someone on 20K salary does or thinks.

An antagonist of much of contemporary architecture, he called a proposed extension to the National Gallery "a monstrous carbuncle" some years ago and said of the new British Library, then under construction, "How can you tell it is a library?"

Brilliant and needed saying on behalf of ordinary people.

The note, later leaked by the disgruntled (and unpromoted) employee, went on to disparage "child-centered learning" in schools that "tells people that they can all be pop stars or High Court judges or brilliant TV personalities or even infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or effort or having natural ability."

Again brilliant observation.

But public opinion does not seem universally behind the prince on this one.

From what I have heard and read, this statement is wrong.

It is the job of the Prince to speak for his nation and I believe he knows that once he is King, it will be harder to stand up for his people. He will still do his best for us but, I believe will accept the limitations put upon him as monarch.

 

[ysbel]

Since Charles has his own forum, I'm putting this thread in there.

Carry on with the conversation. It looks to be interesting.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have always believed that the Prince of Wales has more leeway to make statements about people and politics (without taking sides of course) than the monarch.

Once he becomes king he will have to keep his counsel more but I would expect William to take up some of the causes of interest at the time - even some on behalf of his father.

 

[love_cc]

I think Prince Charles knows what is important to be a good monarch, how to be neutural about all politics. He agrees that his mother the QEII is a model monarch and he will learn to be a model monarch like his mother, but currently he is the Prince of Wales, so he tried to use his position to influence others, to persuade them to see what he regards beneficial for the people. I think Prince Charles has a great ambition about his achievements being Prince of Wales. He does not want to be playboy Prince but a dutiful Prince with great respects from his people. He truly cares his people and wants to help them. Prince Charles wants to be a People's Prince.

It is much easier to be a playboy Prince of Wales but Charles is too serious to be that. He always seeks the goal of his life and want to find his self-worth not only waiting the death of his mother and crowned as the King. So Prince Charles chooses to walk betwen lines to use his position to do what he thinks important. It could be an accuse of "abuse of power' or meldding the politics by those disagree with his view but it is important to those who needs his support. It is a very tough life as a Prince of Wales who wants to make achievements but who has no real power.

 

[hofburg]

Since Charles has his own forum, I'm putting this thread in there.

Carry on with the conversation. It looks to be interesting.

Thank you Ysbel, I haven't noticed that thread.

 

[hofburg]

Another excellent article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-2055994,00.html

 

[BeatrixFan]

What makes it excellent? Because it's a bash at the Prince of Wales?

 

[ysbel]

This is silly, IMHO.

The Queen and Prince of Wales are part of the government already. It's their role in a constitutional monarchy. Anyone in government is going to have some influence no matter how small no matter how pared down their official responsibilities are. Its naive to think otherwise.

The only danger they face is where they actively work against the will of the people but his latest diaries are 7 years old and it looks like Charles didn't try to influence the situation in Hong Kong at all at the time so his actions were consistent with the constitutional role of a monarch.

All a tempest in a teapot.

 

[hofburg]

I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.

 

[Idriel]

I think Prince Charles knows what is important to be a good monarch, how to be neutural about all politics.

this is the problem about Charles. He has obviously no concept of neutrality. Or correction, public neutrality.
He is far too old to change now, and I find very naive to think his methods will be different once he access the Throne.
All that, IMO, is just a way of pampering is own bruised ego: 'I am an influential person, I am a rebel, People are going to recognise my genius once I'm dead (whatever, Trevor)'.
The thing is, there is a difference between being controversial and being respected, just like there is a difference between publicising one's opinion on every single issue, and being influential.
His mother masters those subtle nuances, and I am sure every single words she says (in privacy and secrecy) is listened to carefully. He hasn't a clue.
I actually am convinced all his outcries have undermined is credibility and made him a easy laughing stock among a part of the British population.
It is sad because EII does a fantastic job to let him a strong an respected Crown. I wonder what can of heritage he will let to William.

 

[BeatrixFan]

His mother masters those subtle nuances, and I am sure every single words she says (in privacy and secrecy) is listened to carefully. He hasn't a clue.

I think that he has got a clue. He's a brilliant Prince of Wales - possibly the best. His work with the Prince's Trust, his work with the people in the countryside - it all adds up. Charles showed that he understood farming to such a high degree that he had a solution for foot and mouth which the Government didnt listen to and therefore the situation got worse. It was only when they tried a plan similar to Charles's that the situation was ended. He's had over 40 years of learning, watching, meeting and working - it's unfair to say he hasn't got a clue. After all he's gone through, he's remained a hard worker and he has the interests of Britain at heart.

I actually am convinced all his outcries have undermined is credibility and made him a easy laughing stock among a part of the British population.

Okay, you live in France so I wouldn't be so hasty as to judge the views of the British population. The British people are seeing Charles in a different light. Before he was never seen. His talents, his charm, his intelligence were overshadowed by his ex-wife. She took his glory and turned the attention to her. He never got a look in. Now it's different. Now he's happy and it shows. His new wife forms the part of a team that is winning everyone over. Camilla has been accepted. Charles has now got a chance to show his flair and his style because he has the love and support he needs without the one who gives it trying to steal his thunder.

This latest fuss has actually made people praise Charles. On every radio station, on every TV debate and in most of the newspapers they have all praised him - "Good on Charles". Why? Because we British are sick of being told that our past is wrong and that we should be ashamed of it. We are sick of being told that Europe is our only option. We are sick and annoyed with a Government that doesn't listen. Charles commented on all three of those things and more and he spoke for the people, and if that isn't the role of a King then I don't know what is.

He is an amazing man. His comments on people recognising his legacy when he's gone are the words of someone who has been pushed to the back of the classroom every time. Now it's time to let the real Charles shine through and the British people love it. He isn't thick - he understands what neutrality is and he understands what speaking out for your people means. He understands what it is to be in a position of influence and to do nothing when one could so easily help and make changes.

So, it isn't sad at all in my opinion. The Queen has been a wonderful monarch. Her son will be just as good. He has the mind, the strength and the courage of a true Prince of Wales and a true Briton - and we can't possibly go wrong with him as our figure head.

 

[Elspeth]

I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.

However, she's Queen and she's been Queen since the age of 25. Prince Charles is a middle-aged man pushing 60, with decades of being used to being around the government. If the Queen had been the heir for so long, the chances are that she might have behaved somewhat differently. The sovereign is in a different position from the other senior royals.

 

[Idriel]

I am French but I live in England.
Yet that’s not really the point as I don’t take my British friends' opinions on the Monarchy to be that of the ‘British Public’ in general. Because if I did I would be convinced the Monarchy has about two months to live: every time I try to launch a conversation on the Windsor, I get bored looks and remarks like: ‘What is the point anyway?'.
You have a point through, it is not easy to get a wide idea of what the opinion think. The press give a deformed image, opinions differs, polls are not reliable.
But what you reproach me, you do. You tend to make your own opinions look widely accepted. Charles ‘ opinions are brilliants, Camilla is accepted, etc.
I don’t see any hint of this around me, a lot of journalist in this country, at least, seem to disagree with those statements, and I doubt you have sampled the whole population on those subjects. So unless you provide more substance to prove your statement, they will remains your opinions, and your opinions only to me.
No hard feelings hopefully.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I gave substance. I told you that the gauge of British opinion I've measured has been by listening to various radio stations, reading through newspapers, magazines and by TV interviews. Also, TV debate programmes, the morning magazine programmes - there has been a definate shift in public opinion that you can't miss.

 

[ysbel]

I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.

Well the obvious difference is that Elizabeth II is the monarch whereas Charles is not.

Even so, the Queen has not refrained from speaking her opinion. When the conflict with Northern Ireland was very severe, she said publicly that she had been crowned Queen of Northern Ireland. It was considered a political statement.

Another time when Margaret Thatcher had dismissed some claims that an area of England had been hard hit by her economic policies, the Queen paid a visit to the area and when she came back, she told people, that there was nothing there (meaning it had been hard hit) This statement was widely disseminated at a time when the relationship between Thatcher and the Queen were very publicly somewhat tense.

 

[ysbel]

Because if I did I would be convinced the Monarchy has about two months to live: every time I try to launch a conversation on the Windsor, I get bored looks and remarks like: ‘What is the point anyway?'

I've gotten that too from the Brits I work with, some of them in our London office but they hardly mention Charles as a reason this is happening. But when you ask them, they like Charles and Camilla and sometimes agree with what he says. They just think its irrelevant since the government is trying to strip down the monarchy which I think would happen no matter what Charles did.

 

[Skydragon]

I disagree with you , Ysbel. I thinkd the Queen has set the right example of how a monarch ought to conduct himself (herself, in that particular case). I'm sure the Queen is just as knowledgable and opinienated as her son, but she's been very wise to air her thoughts to her weekly meetings with her Primeminister.

Much as I honour the Queen, I have to disagree with you. The Queen is 80, she comes from an era that is derided and long gone. Her views can hardly be considered modern, that's why she has so many advisors to her advisors. She is still doing a brilliant job but, Charles seems to be far more relevant to the people of Britain.

Charles is doing a briliiant job as Prince of Wales and every person I have spoken to, without fail, backs him. He has done and has tried to do more for the common man and woman than the entire government.

Most pubs you go in to and at most social gatherings, (if you mention the diaries), people call all journalists a host of unprintable names and then toast 'Good old Charlie'.

It is only the media who are trying to make out that Charles is interferring in politics, everyone else realises that like anyone, he is just offering his opinion on various situations and that is one of the jobs of any Prince of Wales!

 

[Harry's polo shirt]

I think he takes it very seriously. He has done great things for the public in many counties.

 

[Roslyn]

I think it's wonderful that people are talking about Charles and what he thinks and what he's doing.

I don't think he's ever looked more relaxed or happier than he has in the last 12 months.

 

[MARG]

I think it's wonderful that people are talking about Charles and what he thinks and what he's doing.

I don't think he's ever looked more relaxed or happier than he has in the last 12 months.

Well said Roslyn. The Prince of Wales does indeed look happier this last year. It is noted in all sorts of small and subtle ways that 'Oh! He has got a sense of humour!' or, as in Egypt earlier this year, that 'he is a credit to his country'.

About time too.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I think Charles has done something that he never gets praise for but is possibly the greatest achievement of his life. He has made a role for the Prince of Wales. Before, it was just a title but now, it's a job and we know what to expect from the Prince of Wales. I think he'll take that onto his role as King.

 

[Panther2000]

I am French but I live in England.
Yet that’s not really the point as I don’t take my British friends' opinions on the Monarchy to be that of the ‘British Public’ in general. Because if I did I would be convinced the Monarchy has about two months to live: every time I try to launch a conversation on the Windsor, I get bored looks and remarks like: ‘What is the point anyway?'.
You have a point through, it is not easy to get a wide idea of what the opinion think. The press give a deformed image, opinions differs, polls are not reliable.
But what you reproach me, you do. You tend to make your own opinions look widely accepted. Charles ‘ opinions are brilliants, Camilla is accepted, etc.
I don’t see any hint of this around me, a lot of journalist in this country, at least, seem to disagree with those statements, and I doubt you have sampled the whole population on those subjects. So unless you provide more substance to prove your statement, they will remains your opinions, and your opinions only to me.

Does the Happy dance. I second & move your motion.

 

[Huddo]

I heard somewhere that when charles steps up to the throne that he intends to scale down the Royal Family!.....does that mean some people will loose their titles?....

 

[Madame Royale]

Well I certainly can't imagine him revoking any styles and titles given to those members of his family, by birth (brothers, sister, nieces and nephews).

But perhpas he will look more to an immediate royal family?

Himself, Camilla, William (William's wife), Harry (Harry's wife), grand children etc...

 

[wbenson]

The royal family will scale down naturally unless William or Harry have more than 1 or 2 children each. After the Queen's children and all of the royal descendants of George V die, there will be Beatrice, Eugenie, William, Harry, the descendants of William, and the descendants of Harry (assuming no untimely deaths). That's much smaller than we have now.

He may take away duties from some of the other members, though. Nothing in law says that being an HRH means that you have to receive public funds or perform any duties. I think that would be a massive blow for the visibility of the family, though.

 

[Russophile]

I'll bet the titles stay, but the income won't. Whatever income they used to get from the civil list won't be there any more and royals will have to *gasp* get. . . a . . . job. . . !

 

[wbenson]

They don't get any income now from the civil list (only remuneration for official duties, and probably some cheap housing thrown in, but I doubt they would be thrown out), so their situations will stay the same.

 

[muriel]

I personally do think there will be a gradual reshaping of the monarchy in the years to come. Some of this has already started under the Queen.

> "Active" members of the royal family will be C&C, William and family, and to a lesser extent, Harry & family. Hopefully, Harry will probably continue to serve in the army for most of his life, exonerating him from public engagements. His wife may be called upon to play a somewhat supporting role to Camilla and William's wife, as appropriate.

> I suspect Anne will continue to work hard, as long as she reasonably can. Her children do not carry out royal engagements, and are unlikely to want to start now.

> I suspect Andrew, Edward and Sophie will gradually do even less than they currently do. They will be provided for financially (through trust fuinds the queen will leave for them, or through the private funds of the monarch, but not the state) so that they are not short of funds.

> I doubt if Beatrice and Eugenie will ever carry out any meaningful royal engagements on their own - other than perhaps, appearing with the royal family at Sandringham at Christmas (if that continues once Charles ascends the throne!) and occassionally on the balcony at Buck House. They too, will receve some money from the Queen in trust funds, and ultimately from their fathers estate, but outside of that, I don't see a monarchy under Charles subsidising their existence.

> Everybody gets to keep their titles, but I suspect there will be some pressure on B & E to drop the Princess title - which I think they will fight to keep!

Would be happy to hear everybody's views.

 

[LadyCat]

You're probably pretty close Muriel. Except for the titles of B & E. I think Eugenie may give hers up without a fuss, however I feel Andrew (probably at the insistence of Sarah) will fight for keeping them. Call me jaded, but Sarah has nothing to talk about and sell herself with if she is no longer the mother of two princesses.

Cat