Prince Charles probably shall leave a legacy of that of a prince rather than that of a king. 80 percent of Australians, 82 percent British, and 78 percent of Canadians indicated that they forecast Prince William (son of Charles and deceased Diana) to be the next to take the crown. It’s no surprise that Charles is often overlooked and forgotten by the public.
When you think of a monarchy the first person which comes to mind is Queen Elizabeth. How do you make a role for yourself in that grad scheme of things? People like the Queen because she’s a constant to say the least. She's been around for a long time – starting her monarchy at the age of 25 which makes her the second longest to be in reign, that of whopping 57years. And then there is that new freshness with William and Kate which is very appealing. At best, Charles largest challenge will be to make sure remains within the “royal” radar in the efforts and organizations which he supports and involves himself with. It’s a priceless charity with the spotlight so often focus one on his personal life. Charles professional achievements have been largely over shadowed by areas within the past. Yet within recent years, Charles finally started to come into his own and earn some respect. Unlike his great uncle King Edward VIII, instead of saying, “something must be done” as he did in 1936 after seeing the plight of unemployed coal workers. Charles within the same manner has taken action with issues not for the sake of being politically correct. Due to the premise that he is in a position to do so.
Within the last five years people at large have started to see and realize that Charles actually knows what he’s talking about and in contrast to earlier years people have caught onto him. Charles is likely at the point in his life when he probably realizes he’s not necessarily going to chant the publics view of his past. And there’s a probably not anything he can do at this point to improve his standing. There’s also a lot for him to live up to, and plenty of expectations for him if he did choose to take on the position of King.
At the age of 63, time isn’t on his side to make the same mark as his predecessors. He wont give his name to an era like Queen Victoria and King Edward VII – he wont lead his nation in a world war, like King George V and King George VI – and he’s unlikely to earn or command the same level of respect as his mother – Queen Elizabeth. Rather than becoming the next king after Queen Elizabeth passes on the thrown, I would expect that Charles legacy shall be within the work of his role as Prince of Wales.
Unless the Queen says otherwise or he abdicates for William technically he is still the next in line. If something happened to the Queen tomorrow he would become King. I think most would prefer William because Charles was always the problem child of the royal court. His flames with porn stars and non royal blood and his ongoing affair with Camillia during his marriage put him in a position where few look at him with high regard.
ReplyDeletePrince Charles will prove his wisdom if he abdicate the throne to his son William, Diana's memory is still alive, Camila as a queen isn't accept by the people, I guess.
ReplyDeleteBut everything is if the Queen Elizabeth as the Queen Victoria will live almost forever :) it's possible she can even survive everybody LOL
Hi Sharon, Charles would be King if Queen Elizabeth passed away suddenly. Yet he can renounce his title.I think that he
ReplyDeleteenjoys his position within the areas which he has taken on. And that of a father as he has done a decent job of raising his
two sons. I never read the tabloids pertaining to porn however I believe that Charles is more comfortable now and doesnt
wish to be King. I was amazed to see how long Elizabeth has been at the thrown.
I missed Princess Di! She was truly a beautiful woman. Not to mention as elegantly heartwarming.
ReplyDeleteThe marriage between Willam and Kate do make for a refreshing future of the thrown. William does symbolicly represent
ReplyDeletePrincess Diana with no doubts. I would dare to say Elaine that Charles has come into his own areas where I believe he
can make a greater impact - hence I believe he would wish to pass the thrown when that time comes to be. The "Mother Queen"
is still regarded very highly with older folks along with Queen Elizabeth. Not too long ago we always saw the two of them.
I think that Queen Elizabeth shall pass over the thrown within the next five years. Yet Charles has done some very decent
things which are not always observed but I don't think he desires to be the next head of the Monarchy. Although within
the crown countries which do still observe the tradition of the monarch, they do have influence as on this long weekend
it's called - Victoria Day.
Diana was and how still to this day people do remember her. Ben I believe that many see her via William.
ReplyDeleteThen there was Fergie which (we won't go there) lol and but now there is Kate. A commoner much like
Diana yet I don't believe Diana and the legacy ever shall be replaced.
I watched a few days ago an english documentary about William & Kate first wedding anniversary, according to the analists, the marriage united the english people, a kind of joy is within them, in a moment when the economic situation isn't the best by UK. The wedding was a great royal marketing ploy, for sure!
ReplyDeleteThe analists don't believe Queen Elizabeth will abdicate the throne, she's more than a queen, she became along the years kinda an institution and she knows it.
So.....I don't see a chance for Charles, in fact, he doesn't look like a king, he seems like a peasant :)
I'm going to be honest and say I really think the Royal Family is close to being a relic of history.
ReplyDeleteAs this has nothing to do with me however, I think the best thing if the people of the UK and Commonwealth want to keep this going is to send Prince William to the throne after her grandmother's death and let Charles putter around somewhere. To me, he ruined a women's life by marrying someone he didn't love. I know being a prince means you get to horse around on whomever is queen, but he really lost all respect from me.
Very interesting for me, to read some of the thoughts expressed here.
ReplyDeleteThe role of Head of State in the UK is largely ceremonial and constitutional and carries little independent power. All those suggesting that Charles should step aside in favour of William overlook where the Royal Family derives its privilege from. Their rights are bestowed by God onto a specific bloodline and (while no-one really believes that fairy story) it is therefore not their choice to step aside. It is their duty to undertake the role they were born into. Charles is an astute student of constitutional matters and understands that any abdication - such as that by his great uncle - seriously undermines the raison d'etre of the Royal Family and threatens their rights to claim the significant privileges that they accrue.
Whilst I accept that Charles shouldn't have married Diana, and ruined her life as a result, it was inconceivable that he could have married - and most importantly had an heir - with the (married) woman that he loved. Therefore he had to find a suitable match with whom to sire an heir, Diana fitted the bill, and for certain periods the marriage of convenience suited her too. Let's not forget that later on she certainly managed a powerful PR machine that sought to undermine Charles even before they divorced. And in slating Charles for his affair, let's not overlook Diana's dalliance with James Hewitt. There are many that might have constitutional issues were something to happen to William, and Harry were to become next in line, because there's are many who believe he is Hewitt's son.
Finally a brief word on the Kate/Wills marriage. I hope they are as happy as they look, but their first year of marriage looks very much like his Mum & Dad's was portrayed. In the early 80s they were the fairytale Prince & Princess... appearances can be deceptive.
The Royal Family is - when all is said and done - a great tourist attraction. In does for Britain what Disney does for Florida. Therefore it has an important economic value as the recession wedding last year proved. Anything - such as abdication - which undermines the Windsor brand is not to be considered lightly.
I enjoy hearing about the royal family,
ReplyDeleteIan, you did a good job here filling in some of the gaps on the Diana and Charles marriage. I wish someone had talked Diana out of that mess and Charles had found a woman more prepared for his license for promiscuity. She seemed more sinned against than sinning.
ReplyDeleteRealizing the King or Queen has no direct political impact on governing makes me wonder why have it? On the other hand, why does the USA still have an Electoral College in electing a President?
If the Royal Family is indeed a "good investment" in tourist dollars for the UK, then they should be kept. On the other hand, I would have toured Windsor Castle in '85, for instance, with or without the Windsors on the throne. (I was impressed just by the great rolling expanse of greenery leading to the main keep, for starters.) The Tower of London especially reminded me of a Disneyland attraction, with more stone steps and antique weaponry. And even I, a political republican, was saddened when part of Hampton Court caught fire a few years ago.
But if having a functioning Royal Family in the modern world brings in the money, then keep it around. And if the British nation finds keeping a Royal Family profitable (and for the most traditional minded, inspiring) then I suppose it's worth having.
It's an interesting situation--Charles doesn't appear popular, but he's the obvious constitutional choice. I gather Edward VII wasn't very popular either, but he still reigned after a long wait for his mother to die. But I think William would really be the proper bottom-line choice for the tourist dollar.
everyone has an opinion,on the future monarchy..if the public..are able to in fluence the situation..Prince William ..would inherit the throne..The Queens daughter,Princess Anne is aso a strong person,,and popular..second choice.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I'm most confused by talk of Charles' promiscuity, and earlier references to dalliances with porn stars! Being a constitutional republican, I'm not that interested in the Royal Family. We could certainly manage quite alright without them (as you suggest Doug). To the best of my (limited) knowledge, Charles had an ongoing relationship with Camilla during his marriage to Diana. She decided their marriage was irreparable and embarked on an affair of her own. Eventually it became obvious to the Establishment that this all couldn't be hushed up much longer, and so they divorced. This was a huge thing for the monarchy, but a situation that had to be accepted.
ReplyDeleteAll this talk of relative popularity and first or second choices is irrelevant though. The first born passes to their first born... that's how the whole charade retains its strength. They are born to accept that duty, and have very little personal choice in the matter.
We are of like minds Ian.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are saying I think is that they are stuck doing what they are doing, much like people used to be in the late medieval times in England where if your father or mother worked a farm or grand-daddy and Pop made gloves or made barrels or whatever, that's what you did until you died. Fair enough.
I believe he is happy within what he does Elaine.
ReplyDeleteDoug they don't have really any power. It's true that things went terrible with Diana. I never thought
ReplyDeletemuch about him until I was reading a series on him. As for the commonwealth countries which I am
apart of - I do find an interest with them. It's history as much as the Kennedy's. This is where
I enjoy that half and half scenario of living in two countries.
Yes there are Ian, and appearances can be. You took the thoughts I was just thinking Ian with what the Royal Family is. Yet still I believe that Charles shall abdicate as these are different times and I could be wrong but the Royal Family does pay taxes now, I could be wrong but I believe that a decade ago there was a request for taxes of some sort to be paid. Yet the Monarchy represents far more than Disney Land if you look at the history of it all.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada here as you know, we have towns and cities which are named after areas of the UK as well as the Royals.
Charles has had a lot take place, yet the merit within this write was of a man whom knows better than to serve yet to do service.
Again this was apart of a write towards Victoria Day.
Thanks Pamela, I enjoyed writing on it.
ReplyDeleteI just arrived on here and Caroline and thank you for your comments. Everyone does have there opinion, I merely enjoyed writing
ReplyDeleteon the Royals as tomorrow is Victoria Day. Princess Anne would be great however within legislature the government did make
a request to the Queen. It was within a request that William and Kate proceed after and when the Queen choses to leave.
They are born to accept that duty and Ian I will say it's different to come on here and see Charles' promiscuities as well as the
ReplyDeletetabloid effect. Other people of the likes in any given country have done the same if not worse and yet the choice of what a man
whom is born into a position may very well continue with his endeavours and pass on the position as King to that of his son.
Charles, Willam and Kate are here the week. It would be rather neat to say the least to meet them.
Edit here: the visit to Canada was by Charles and Camilla*
They left Regina, Saskatchewan yesterday evening.
And I am interested within history as that of an person who's father served and did meet the Queen, and as a
ReplyDeleteperson whom is writing from Canada - it was nice to move a moment out of America and acknowledge
a historical family. If only the Queen could see this. :) Gotcha.