Royal Gossip

The British Royal Family *Windsor* => Prince Charles and Camilla => Topic started by: Fly on the wall on November 04, 2014, 06:25:56 pm



Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Fly on the wall on November 04, 2014, 06:25:56 pm
 Victoria Murphy @QueenVicMirror
A new YouGov poll has found that the majority of Brits don't want Camilla to be Queen when Prince Charles becomes King
The new YouGov poll of 1883 adults found 17% want Camilla to be Queen, 46% Princess Consort and 27% think she should have no title at all
The YouGov poll also found that 40% of people want Charles to be the next King but 58% think William will be the better King
And the poll found that 60% of people think Kate will be the better Queen compared to 12% for Camilla


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Mandosiel on November 04, 2014, 07:49:42 pm
58% and 60% of 1883 people are blind as bats and out of their fekking minds!!!  :- :o


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 04, 2014, 08:27:22 pm
Do people expect Kate to work?


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on November 04, 2014, 08:37:06 pm
The lazy tart Waity isn't thinking about working.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Mandosiel on November 04, 2014, 08:46:21 pm
Obviously they aren't in touch with the reality of the situation. It's people like that that let them get away with their bad behavior and still think the sun shines out their bums.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Freya on November 05, 2014, 12:22:40 pm
^
It's not that they like Kate but that they detest Camilla.

I am not sticking up for Kate but she has not really harmed anyone. Camilla has caused a lot of pain and the British public are still very aware of that.



Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on November 05, 2014, 01:24:38 pm
I agree. I'd like to know what demographic they polled. If a section were over forty years of age they are the people who still identify with Diana and will be driving Camilla's numbers down. There are some who will never forgive or forget the circumstances of Charles's first marriage.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on November 05, 2014, 06:29:34 pm
Rosella I bet it is just a representative sample - if it had a been a targeted age group I think the article would say.  So it looks like across the board with all age groups Camilla is not selling.

It is an intriguing survey in that Charles seemed to be gaining ground in previous surveys- and you would think that people would consider Will's absolute lack of experience

It also goes to show that the perceptions of some on the forums - actually most of us - is not the same as the general public who seem to be please with Will and Kate - seems adultery is still considered worse than skirts blowing up and exposing the royal butt.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 05, 2014, 06:36:52 pm
The sad thing is that William could have had more experience but apparently  has gotten his way in his quest to avoid full time duties.

Kate has the advantage over Camilla in that she was chosen to be the mother of a royal heir plus there were no marriages broken up in the process of William and Kate getting together.

Camilla IMO was a lot more destructive she deliberately undermined and hurt another woman, the first wife of her now husband. A skirt blowing up is gross but it is not as destructive as what Camilla did IMO anyway.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Freya on November 05, 2014, 08:54:31 pm
However money is spent on trying to make Camilla acceptable to the British public she is still perceived as the woman who broke up Charles and Diana's marriage. She should have just stayed away.



Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Fly on the wall on November 20, 2014, 01:33:31 am
Charles 'will speak his mind when he's King': Prince set to break with Queen's habit of discretion over matters of public debate


Prince Charles will break with the Queen’s habit of discretion when he becomes King and continue to speak out on issues close to his heart, it was claimed today.

According to an unnamed source quoted in The Guardian, the heir to the throne is ‘ready to reshape the monarch’s role’ when he accedes to the throne.

The newspaper claimed Charles wants to make ‘heartfelt interventions’ in national life, in stark contrast to his mother who rarely utters a word on matters of public debate – including September’s Scottish referendum.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841679/Charles-speak-mind-s-King-claims-source.html



Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on November 20, 2014, 03:18:23 am
The sad thing is that William could have had more experience but apparently  has gotten his way in his quest to avoid full time duties.

Kate has the advantage over Camilla in that she was chosen to be the mother of a royal heir plus there were no marriages broken up in the process of William and Kate getting together.

Camilla IMO was a lot more destructive she deliberately undermined and hurt another woman, the first wife of her now husband. A skirt blowing up is gross but it is not as destructive as what Camilla did IMO anyway.

Your last paragraph said it all, Sandy.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on November 20, 2014, 04:23:28 am
Charles 'will speak his mind when he's King': Prince set to break with Queen's habit of discretion over matters of public debate


Prince Charles will break with the Queen’s habit of discretion when he becomes King and continue to speak out on issues close to his heart, it was claimed today.

According to an unnamed source quoted in The Guardian, the heir to the throne is ‘ready to reshape the monarch’s role’ when he accedes to the throne.

The newspaper claimed Charles wants to make ‘heartfelt interventions’ in national life, in stark contrast to his mother who rarely utters a word on matters of public debate – including September’s Scottish referendum.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841679/Charles-speak-mind-s-King-claims-source.html



This is exactly what I'm afraid of with Charles. Let's just hope the 'heartfelt interventions' don't get politicians annoyed. Otherwise he might get a rather nasty surprise early in his reign when the government reacts. A constitutional monarchy doesn't need interference, heartfelt or otherwise, from their monarch. That's what Parliament is for. Charles should keep his advice for private meetings with the PM. 'Silence is golden' as the old saying has it.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on November 20, 2014, 05:46:38 am
I do think his constitutional role requires he not align himself with particular political parties or political positions of a party but he should be able to speak on behalf of the British people.  Now he can do that symbolically - by what he chooses to become involved with - what groups his charities fund - what places he goes to visit.  But he should not ever seek to lobby the government - this I think is what gets him in trouble.

I think it is especially worthwhile for Charles to speak out bout issues like poverty or homelessness - people who are often ignored.  But highly politicized things like the Scottish referendum or EU membership - he must stay out of that.

Incidentally - George V did get involved with politics and he was especially eager to see the war widows pension improved - so there is precedent.  But it must be done with great caution and it must be more symbolic and not  making lecturing speeches.  He especially should avoid comparing heads of state in other countries to Hitler.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on November 20, 2014, 07:39:31 am
How can he speak on behalf of the british people? He doesnt know what they want.

Politicians are voted because they have an agenda.

No one has voted Charles.

If he is not careful he is going to end up like Charles I.

The Guardian has already started the campaign.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on January 30, 2015, 11:34:08 pm
Charles: Hellbent on being a meddling monarch. New book reveals ambition that could cause a constitutional crisis

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933811/Charles-Hellbent-meddling-monarch-New-book-reveals-ambition-cause-constitutional-crisis.html#ixzz3QLomcOZv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: Fly on the wall on February 03, 2015, 03:26:05 am
Why Prince Charles worried by the march of the Middletons: And what he really thinks about Prince Andrew's 'sex slave' scandel

Nothing has convinced Prince Charles more of the urgency of his plan to slim down the monarchy than the unsavoury scandal swirling around his younger brother, Andrew
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2937176/Why-Charles-worried-march-Middletons.html


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: Rosella on February 03, 2015, 03:56:39 am
Charles has plenty to be worried about. However, it's true that at this stage of the proceedings there's not much he can do about the Middletons. There is a great deal though, that he could do about Andrew, and if Andrew thinks that he and his family is going to still be at the heart of the monarchy in his old age, then he is deluded. Quite frankly he's on his way out. I can't see Charles failing to give Edward the Edinburgh dukedom all the same, it's not going to harm Charles and the Wessexes were promised it.


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: cate1949 on February 03, 2015, 04:00:29 am
I think PC is absolutely right about slimming down the monarchy and certainly about pushing Andrew and his embarrassing ex wife out out out.

And I do think he is correct that there is a lack of balance in the relationship between Kate's family and Will's family - too much Middleton not enough Windsor.  The whole Christmas thing was a break with tradition too soon.

 That said - what is the origin of this article?  Is it just an anti Charles rant from the DM fantasists?  Was it planted by someone else in the RF - perhaps Andrew or even Fergie?  It has a very snarky tone  and is clearly aimed at PC.  I just do not think Charles would deny Edward the DoE - he was promised it and it would be petty to deny Edward that title.  PC can be petty but I think not with regards to this.

Yes PC can be selfish but I do think he especially has the long term interests of the Monarchy and he recognizes what is at stake and reads the public mood better than the ever grasping York duo.  Andrew and Fergie are both major liabilities for the UK and the BRF.  Charles is totally right on this one and I certainly hope he gets to carry his plans out soon - the two of them cannot be sent packing soon enough.



Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: Rebecca on February 03, 2015, 04:42:32 am
^Great post!! HM or Charles, when his time comes, need to do something, cause the whole ship is in danger of sinking..


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 03, 2015, 05:21:30 am
Why Charles is worried by the march of the Middletons: And what he really thinks about Prince Andrew's 'sex slave' scandal

    Prince Charles is said to be 'spitting' about Virginia Roberts' lurid claims
    Fears Prince Andrew 'sex slave' scandal is harming future of the monarchy
    He knows second grandchild will be drawn into Middleton family's embrace
    William and Kate were with the Middletons this week in Mustique
    Royal couple also spent a lot of time with Kate's family at Christmas


Quote
Nothing has convinced Prince Charles more of the urgency of his plan to slim down the monarchy than the unsavoury scandal swirling around his younger brother, Andrew.

Charles is said to be 'spitting' about the lurid claims by so-called 'sex slave' Virginia Roberts that as a teenager she had sex three times with the Duke of York.

Buckingham Palace, and Prince Andrew himself in Davos last month, have vehemently denied her claims made in America in legal documents. Prince Charles's concern is not only for his embattled brother.

The scandal has unnerved the heir to the throne by its seedy focus on royal privilege and entitlement. He fears it is doing much potential harm to the reputation — and future — of the monarchy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2937176/Why-Charles-worried-march-Middletons.html#ixzz3Qel3Byzp

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on February 03, 2015, 08:24:02 am
Rather significant that the Queen says words to the effect that she can't understand why Charles is not more supportive of Andy.  Rather reflects her own views despite photos flying round the world of him having sex with under age victims!  Usual DM tosh in parts i.e. Chaz looking forward to another grandchild - hmmm - everyone knows that's not true according to those close and everyone knows why.  Its just DM's sycophantic nod to the Mids as allegedly on their payroll.!


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 03, 2015, 08:51:51 am
The Queen is a complete failure of a person and woman.

I THANK GOD we see all of them for who they are.

As for Charles disliking the Middletons, well, he sees the things all of us see. I wonder what he says behind closed doors.

Quote
What worries the Prince of Wales is what those around him refer to as the 'Middleton-isation' of William, something he feels there is little he can do to change.

Kate and William have always spent much of their spare time and holidays with her parents, Carole and Michael — even before George was born — and little time with Charles at Highgrove.

They have been away with the Middletons this week in Mustique, together with the inevitable Pippa and James, celebrating Carole's 60th birthday. There is no great bond between Camilla and Kate.

Quote
What is noticeable is that William is clearly attracted to the easy-going, non-royal way the Middletons live, so different from the stiffly royal outlook of his father and so much more in line with an approach to life to which his mother, Diana, was introducing him and brother Harry.

With the Middletons, William loves the family atmosphere he never knew and gets on well with his father-in-law, whom he calls Mike. He particularly enjoys the total absence of status.

At Christmas, instead of staying overnight as usual at Sandringham, William and Kate drove to church on Christmas morning and stayed for the Queen's Christmas lunch, but then went home to Anmer Hall — where the Middletons were already staying with them.

This is just wrong. The Middletons are aspiring for titles and contacts, not a real life of their own in middle class happydom like William is.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on February 03, 2015, 09:15:57 am
Playing 'happy families' was part of the way the Midds reeled dumb willy in as the whole world  knows.   Unfortunately he is far too stubborn to admit he was wrong hence him looking so jaw clenchingly miserable.   Everything about the Midds is fake and the only time Ma can be herself (it is said) is behind closed with fag on her bottom lip, drink in hand, curlers in, watching
TOWIE in her onesie (and reported to be their favourite programme).  Apparently what Charles says behind closed doors about them is unprintable!!!


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on February 03, 2015, 09:47:03 am
All I want to know is why it's taken him so long for him to have made his feelings known. He had better take action with this tenacious nest of snakes and deal with his stupid son and his "children" now. The longer he dithers the worse it will be.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 03, 2015, 10:25:41 am
He was busy with Camilla, promoting his tart constantly.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on February 03, 2015, 10:47:56 am
If Charles so desperately wants to be loved by the nation the sure fired way is to get rid of the obnoxious, detested Middletons ASAP.  He would then be the most loved monarch for centuries.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stephanie on February 03, 2015, 10:51:28 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2937176/Why-Charles-worried-march-Middletons.html :nervous:


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 03, 2015, 12:06:49 pm
Quote
What is noticeable is that William is clearly attracted to the easy-going, non-royal way the Middletons live, so different from the stiffly royal outlook of his father and so much more in line with an approach to life to which his mother, Diana, was introducing him and brother Harry.

With the Middletons, William loves the family atmosphere he never knew and gets on well with his father-in-law, whom he calls Mike. He particularly enjoys the total absence of status.

At Christmas, instead of staying overnight as usual at Sandringham, William and Kate drove to church on Christmas morning and stayed for the Queen's Christmas lunch, but then went home to Anmer Hall — where the Middletons were already staying with them.


We were told that wasty and wimpo went straight home from the church service with her vile family and the lazy duo had Christmas dinner with them at AH.

Wimpo loves status, he just doesn´t want to work for it.  Thinks it is his by right of birth and being the son of Princess Diana.  He lost his gold crown on the latter front years ago.

We will never know, and there are differing opinions, but I cannot see that Diana envisgaged wimpo living with this disgusting and vile family, not ever.  He could sink no lower in my opinion. Diana must be spinning in her urn, and who could blame her.

Interesting the DM not accepting comments for these two recent articles, they know they would be deluged with people advising to get rid of the medds, see them off, obliterate them to Mars or something far away from Earth.  Too scared of the negativity they would receive, cowards.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on February 03, 2015, 12:26:00 pm
It is just not right that the DM is not accepting comments on these articles. What is the DM? A private propaganda machine for The Forked Tongue Viper/Crone and all of her fraudulent lying treasonous actions that she and her Bloated Face Potato Head Stalker have been up to for the last few years? Good God Almighty people. Wake up and open your eyes. These comments need to be made and allowed. Shame on you DM.


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stephanie on February 03, 2015, 12:37:01 pm
Usually Chuck and Campon crawl out of the woodwork to spit on Diana's grave but now it is Chuck who has a bulldozer chasing him.
The Viper leaking all the stuff Wimpo told her?


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: sandy on February 03, 2015, 03:14:05 pm
I think PC is absolutely right about slimming down the monarchy and certainly about pushing Andrew and his embarrassing ex wife out out out.

And I do think he is correct that there is a lack of balance in the relationship between Kate's family and Will's family - too much Middleton not enough Windsor.  The whole Christmas thing was a break with tradition too soon.

 That said - what is the origin of this article?  Is it just an anti Charles rant from the DM fantasists?  Was it planted by someone else in the RF - perhaps Andrew or even Fergie?  It has a very snarky tone  and is clearly aimed at PC.  I just do not think Charles would deny Edward the DoE - he was promised it and it would be petty to deny Edward that title.  PC can be petty but I think not with regards to this.

Yes PC can be selfish but I do think he especially has the long term interests of the Monarchy and he recognizes what is at stake and reads the public mood better than the ever grasping York duo.  Andrew and Fergie are both major liabilities for the UK and the BRF.  Charles is totally right on this one and I certainly hope he gets to carry his plans out soon - the two of them cannot be sent packing soon enough.



I'm not a fan of the Middletons but William (and Harry) played second fiddle to Camilla so they went their own way.  William spends time with his in laws and he is not the first one to be close to his in-laws.  I don't think Charles should try to keep William away from his in-laws that would be nasty. I do think Charles and the Queen should increase Will's and Kate's royal work and not let them hide out. The Trouble is Charles wants to be center stage and IMO sees his son as a threat (he is this elderly man with a wife not popular with all). Charles does not realize that the royal family line does not end with him.

Charles is not above reproach and he is a liability as far as some of public opinion goes.

Realistically Charles can't rely on Camilla, Harry, William, and Kate to do all the work.Bea and Eugenie, Edward and Sophie, et al should be given some work to do or the whole system will collapse. Camilla to me is just as embarrassing as Fergie, yet Camilla gets the bling and the title. Go figure.


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: AnaBolena on February 03, 2015, 03:22:19 pm
^ Grown up kids go their own way anyway.  I know I did, and would worry if some didn't a la Waity who can't go her own way she's so stuck to the apron strings.



Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: sandy on February 03, 2015, 04:20:07 pm
If William goes his own way by not doing much work for the Firm, it has huge ramifications. Where has be been lately?


Title: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on February 03, 2015, 04:48:20 pm
I would certainly be looking over my shoulder if I was ma medd.   Waity never stood a chance with her in tow.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 03, 2015, 06:10:01 pm
Quote
What is noticeable is that William is clearly attracted to the easy-going, non-royal way the Middletons live, so different from the stiffly royal outlook of his father and so much more in line with an approach to life to which his mother, Diana, was introducing him and brother Harry.

With the Middletons, William loves the family atmosphere he never knew and gets on well with his father-in-law, whom he calls Mike. He particularly enjoys the total absence of status.

At Christmas, instead of staying overnight as usual at Sandringham, William and Kate drove to church on Christmas morning and stayed for the Queen's Christmas lunch, but then went home to Anmer Hall — where the Middletons were already staying with them.


We were told that wasty and wimpo went straight home from the church service with her vile family and the lazy duo had Christmas dinner with them at AH.

Wimpo loves status, he just doesn´t want to work for it.  Thinks it is his by right of birth and being the son of Princess Diana.  He lost his gold crown on the latter front years ago.

We will never know, and there are differing opinions, but I cannot see that Diana envisgaged wimpo living with this disgusting and vile family, not ever.  He could sink no lower in my opinion. Diana must be spinning in her urn, and who could blame her.

Interesting the DM not accepting comments for these two recent articles, they know they would be deluged with people advising to get rid of the medds, see them off, obliterate them to Mars or something far away from Earth.  Too scared of the negativity they would receive, cowards.


He seems to forget that Diana did not sit back and do nothing in the way or royal or charity work. She earned her keep.  William wants to be like the rest of us but he gets perks and privileges still. How many of his mates in SAR could just up and leave and go on lavish vacations or commandeer military copters for their own pleasure trips.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on February 03, 2015, 07:05:48 pm
^That part of the article is so ridiculous. Though it seems that Charles has ruffled some feathers as nearly all the articles these last days are against him though he has some good points (new hounors systems for ex).


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Snowpea on February 04, 2015, 01:46:46 am
Quote
What is noticeable is that William is clearly attracted to the easy-going, non-royal way the Middletons live, so different from the stiffly royal outlook of his father and so much more in line with an approach to life to which his mother, Diana, was introducing him and brother Harry.

With the Middletons, William loves the family atmosphere he never knew and gets on well with his father-in-law, whom he calls Mike. He particularly enjoys the total absence of status.

At Christmas, instead of staying overnight as usual at Sandringham, William and Kate drove to church on Christmas morning and stayed for the Queen's Christmas lunch, but then went home to Anmer Hall — where the Middletons were already staying with them.


We were told that wasty and wimpo went straight home from the church service with her vile family and the lazy duo had Christmas dinner with them at AH.

Wimpo loves status, he just doesn´t want to work for it.  Thinks it is his by right of birth and being the son of Princess Diana.  He lost his gold crown on the latter front years ago.

We will never know, and there are differing opinions, but I cannot see that Diana envisgaged wimpo living with this disgusting and vile family, not ever.  He could sink no lower in my opinion. Diana must be spinning in her urn, and who could blame her.

Interesting the DM not accepting comments for these two recent articles, they know they would be deluged with people advising to get rid of the medds, see them off, obliterate them to Mars or something far away from Earth.  Too scared of the negativity they would receive, cowards.


 :sigh: And Diana sure loved cavorting with mega-rich trustfune babies - take THAT, Willy.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 04, 2015, 02:26:20 am
I'd really like to see William actually being asked by the Queen to live "normally." Live on the 60,000 a year as ambulance driver, pay the mortgage, pay bills, not have special privileges. After a few hours of this he'd run back screaming telling the Queen he wants his life back.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 04, 2015, 04:45:32 pm
Ah, but wimpo´s version of "normal" is his life exactly as is, with all the perks, no work, doing his own thing and stuff everyone else, but not being accountable to anyone or anything, no paps full stop, total black out on him. Sadly, if he wants the perks he needs to man up and do the job. The royals are the biggest benefit scroungers going, very few work for what they get.  Either that or give it all up, he can be "normal" then as you say, dip into his own trust fund from his mother, he never seems to be keen in using his own money, rather spend ours.


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: Rebecca on February 04, 2015, 05:27:02 pm
I think PC is absolutely right about slimming down the monarchy and certainly about pushing Andrew and his embarrassing ex wife out out out.

And I do think he is correct that there is a lack of balance in the relationship between Kate's family and Will's family - too much Middleton not enough Windsor.  The whole Christmas thing was a break with tradition too soon.

 That said - what is the origin of this article?  Is it just an anti Charles rant from the DM fantasists?  Was it planted by someone else in the RF - perhaps Andrew or even Fergie?  It has a very snarky tone  and is clearly aimed at PC.  I just do not think Charles would deny Edward the DoE - he was promised it and it would be petty to deny Edward that title.  PC can be petty but I think not with regards to this.

Yes PC can be selfish but I do think he especially has the long term interests of the Monarchy and he recognizes what is at stake and reads the public mood better than the ever grasping York duo.  Andrew and Fergie are both major liabilities for the UK and the BRF.  Charles is totally right on this one and I certainly hope he gets to carry his plans out soon - the two of them cannot be sent packing soon enough.



I'm not a fan of the Middletons but William (and Harry) played second fiddle to Camilla so they went their own way.  William spends time with his in laws and he is not the first one to be close to his in-laws.  I don't think Charles should try to keep William away from his in-laws that would be nasty. I do think Charles and the Queen should increase Will's and Kate's royal work and not let them hide out. The Trouble is Charles wants to be center stage and IMO sees his son as a threat (he is this elderly man with a wife not popular with all). Charles does not realize that the royal family line does not end with him.

Charles is not above reproach and he is a liability as far as some of public opinion goes.

Realistically Charles can't rely on Camilla, Harry, William, and Kate to do all the work.Bea and Eugenie, Edward and Sophie, et al should be given some work to do or the whole system will collapse. Camilla to me is just as embarrassing as Fergie, yet Camilla gets the bling and the title. Go figure.

I think the reason Charles sees William as a threat is because he has spend his entire life waiting to be the 'top dog' and now that he feels his time is finally getting close he doesn't want to share the glory. He knows that Will is more popular and will garner more media attention.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rebecca on February 04, 2015, 05:32:50 pm
^Exactly! He only wants to be normal when it means avoiding royal duty. 'Real' normalcy would be alien to him...


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: CathyJane on February 05, 2015, 01:37:43 am
I think that was true a few years ago, but since Willy brought the Midds into their world, upchuck sees his son as the lazy good for nothing that he's become and is more worried about not ever being crowned because after Liz goes I think the monarchy will fall to pieces around his huge ears.


Title: Re: Charles & Camilla: News and Photos III
Post by: KGap on February 05, 2015, 05:17:57 am
Charles is not the biggest problem the monarchy faces. Yes he isn't that popular, but he is prepared to be king. Nor will his reign be that long. Charles and Camilla are both rapidly approaching their 70s.

William is the one with the potential to bring it all crashing down. Out of sheer laziness, spite, stupidity? He is not the golden prince who carries on his mother's legacy. He is the big question mark.



Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rebecca on February 06, 2015, 06:23:36 pm
^Agree. The public facade that was built around William is being dismantled quickly. Once he is the heir he must get it together. Although that may be leaving it too late. In the words of Mr.Darcy, ' My good opinion once lost is gone forever...' More people are waking up daily as a result of his laziness.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 06, 2015, 07:45:50 pm
Charles is prepped, but I do wonder if he will in reality end up becoming more of an activist or if he'll end up doing his duties and revel in the perks. I don't think Charles will in fact push for Camilla to become Queen because in my view he's going to be happy enough being king. He's nothing if not selfish.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 07, 2015, 01:10:38 am
Charles just has to try to whitewash the past. He is not spending megabucks on Camilla just to have her Princess Consort.  Why else would he have this barrage of spin.


Title: Charles is fed up with Kate
Post by: Stephanie on February 09, 2015, 11:14:21 am
http://www.inquisitr.com/1819115/will-kate-middleton-be-in-for-a-rude-awakening-when-prince-charles-takes-the-throne/ :loveshower: :loveshower:


Title: Re: Charles is fed up with Kate
Post by: Snowdrop on February 09, 2015, 11:38:48 am
^ I should think most of the RF is fed up with her.  IMO PC is the only one in the RF who will sort waity and the mess she has created so "Bring it on" I say


Title: Re: Charles is fed up with Kate
Post by: MelissaRose on February 09, 2015, 01:38:23 pm
I hope PC has the balls to get rid of Waity and her psychotic family...


Title: Re: Charles is fed up with Kate
Post by: kolkomilko on February 09, 2015, 02:33:59 pm
^ PC has a helping hand for doing it. She is called Camilla.  lol


Title: Re: Charles is fed up with Kate
Post by: Rebecca on February 09, 2015, 05:35:46 pm
Love this article!! Let's hope Charles will do something about her laziness... :cookie:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on February 10, 2015, 12:54:26 am
Let C&C deal with the Stalking Bloated Potato Head and her sneaky, disgusting vile lot. Sooner rather than later.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 10, 2015, 01:02:13 am
Charles lowered the bar on consorts when he married Camilla. This is what he caused himself.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on February 10, 2015, 03:10:56 am
A Very Good Comment:

Jonnyb, Chester, United Kingdom, 1 day ago
please define what you mean by Anne works hard, what does she actually do? I was actually present at an opening she rolled up at. All she did was cut a ribbon, get back in her helicopter and clear off. The whole morning there were police all over the place, the road was closed etc etc. for what? her to fly in for 5 minutes. How much did all that cost the tax payer for 5 minutes of her time?


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2942401/Majority-Britons-want-stop-funding-minor-royals-Prince-Andrew-Sophie-Wessex.html#ixzz3RJ9AHKEG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rebecca on February 10, 2015, 03:25:15 am
^Great point. And that 5 min counts as 'work'....


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 10, 2015, 02:55:23 pm
You know this comment about Anne makes Kate look even more lazy. She can't even be bothered to spend 5 minutes outside of shopping and vacations.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tpearl on June 18, 2015, 12:13:12 am
True


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: kolkomilko on August 14, 2015, 07:04:39 am
I would like to know how things are working out now: is Will still more popular ?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on August 14, 2015, 08:49:17 am
I would like to know how things are working out now: is Will still more popular ?

This is the latest poll on the monarchy/BRF I could find, taken April 2015. As can be seen, there is a split between those who want Charles as the next King and those who want Willie.

http://comres.co.uk/polls/daily-mail-monarchy-poll/


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: kolkomilko on August 14, 2015, 12:41:41 pm
^ Thank you.  :flower: April results, so not so long ago.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on August 14, 2015, 01:33:31 pm
Personally, as much as it goes against the grain, give me chucky, at least he is not work shy, even if it is for his own ends.  Why don´t they do a poll, bill medd, chucky or down with the monarchy  -  know what I would vote for and many others I know would also.  Sick and tired of this german family ruling the roost and fleecing the taxpayers, and now they have the cheek to foist the medds on us too, bad enough funding the windosrs, but the medds, taking the tiddle that is, big time.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 14, 2015, 03:25:09 pm
I am not thrilled with the next two monarchs. George is still a tot so it's too early to tell how he'll turn out of course. I think the PBs and Shands will be more prominent in Charles' reign, he even helped Camilla build memorials to her late brother, gives her sister a job with a big salary, and Tom continues to trade in on the association with Sir. On the plus side, Charles works hard but he is self serving IMO and has a consort not exactly popular with everybody. I think Charles and the Queen should have gotten William, Harry and Kate doing full time duties and withhold perks until they do a certain amount of required work. William especially should have worked with an advisor hired by Charles  to get him working much like he did with Camilla (re: Bolland's help). William seems stubborn to me and lazy and it's his way or the highway, Kate is his enabler and they just seem to grab for the perks (Kate and William that is since Harry has not been awarded all the fancy homes and expensive renovations. It is incredible to me when I read people saying that William "does not have to work" until Charles takes over. I find that really absurd since he's an able bodied 33 year old and does not support his 89 year old grandmother and 67 year old father. He said in an interview he doesn't know what full time duties mean. It's getting to be a joke.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on August 18, 2015, 09:22:18 pm
 :goodpost:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CarryingOn on August 21, 2015, 07:52:17 am
^^ Definitely a great post @Sandy but you have to change that last bit. His not working turned into a joke a very long time ago. It went down Joke Avenue, hooked a right at the intersection of Lazy A$$ Bum, sprinted up Pathetic Lane, and has safely arrived at the Home of No Hope.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Fly on the wall on April 18, 2016, 06:10:50 pm
Canadians like the Queen, but find Prince Charles 'boring': Survey

To mark the sovereign's 90th birthday on April 21, the Angus Reid Institute polled Canadians' on their views of the monarchy and its key players. The survey results suggest that 64% of Canadians support continuing to recognize Elizabeth as Queen, but only 46% would support recognizing her heir, 67-year-old Prince Charles as king.

Elizabeth and her 33-year-old grandson Prince William were most likely to be described by respondents as "respected."

The word most commonly associated with Charles was "boring."

The poll results didn't come as much of a shock to Gary Toffoli, executive director of the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust, which is dedicated to preserving Canada's monarchy.

"I'm not surprised that most people find 30-year-old guys more interesting than 50- or 60-year-old guys," he said -- and he's not surprised that people prefer Charles's mother, either.

"The Queen has been sovereign for 64 years now. By comparison, any son, whatever Charles was like as a person, would suffer by comparison with his mother," he said. "I don't think it necessarily reflects how they might feel about him when he becomes king."

Toffoli noted that a similar situation existed before Queen Victoria's death in 1901.

Like Elizabeth, Victoria was also a long-reigning and well-regarded queen, and her heir, Prince Edward, was also generally disliked, though for different reasons than Charles. Edward, according to Toffoli, was thought of as a partier with questionable friends, and his many detractors thought he'd be a disaster as king.
http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2016/04/18/22625091.html?cid=rssnewscanada&utm_source=addThis&utm_medium=addthis_button_twitter&utm_campaign=Canadians%20like%20the%20Queen%2C%20but%20find%20Prince%20Charles%20%27boring%27%3A%20Survey#.VxTbKjvzFo0.twitter


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on April 18, 2016, 08:27:39 pm
That sounds like Chucky too, along with all his other stupid plans.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on April 27, 2016, 01:51:11 pm
So, now we know what the plan is then the Republc can get their plan ready too and dive right in.

The ascension of Prince Charles, 67 – unlikely to be imminent judging by the Queen's hale and hearty 90th birthday appearances – is anticipated by a palace strategy codenamed The Bridge. This envisages at least two bank holidays plus a swift coronation of Charles to head off republican stirrings

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3560546/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-Prince-Charles-forced-play-20billion-waiting-game.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on April 27, 2016, 02:26:30 pm
I am sorry, just reading the comments on the above link and found this.  Unfortuantely I am timed out for modifying.

AllOutTogether, England, United Kingdom, about 2 hours ago
Dear Chrissy; it is not a 'theory', it is a fact of law. As a lawyer I can tell you without any room for doubt that in accordance with the laws of England Charles Windsor has committed acts which bar him from EVER being crowned, furthermore the law states that insofar as succession is concerned he is to be treated 'as if dead'. ................... You may appreciate that this has caused quite a problem for the establishment because before becoming ineligible Charles had already been given the successor title Prince Of Wales which in-turn allows him to wrongly get £20million a year from the government owned Duchy Of Cornwall Trust.

What a nice little can of worms the rf have, we have the bill/cath medd situation, the chucky/camzilla situation  /  no wonder HM not in a rush to step down.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on April 28, 2016, 12:33:13 pm
^ is it specified what Charles's acts are? I find this very very interesting! although I doubt that anything would happen, I am sure that Charles will get crowned, but after him....
but boy, 20mil a year, we all know they are filthy rich, but that helps to put it a bit more into perspective, doesn't it?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on April 28, 2016, 10:57:39 pm
I wonder if it has something to do with Charles' marriage to Camilla. Adultery and divorce are nothing new in the BRF, but I am not sure he was allowed to marry a divorcee. Henry VIII killed his wife and/or had his previous marriage annulled before moving onto the next. Edward VIII abdicated to marry the divorcee Wallis Warfield.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on April 28, 2016, 11:08:05 pm
^ http://royalgossip.forumprofi.de/index.php/topic,3486.0.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on June 27, 2016, 03:58:07 am
I do hope that whenever Liz does pass (which I hope isn't for a very long time!) Chucky and Cammie can keep their satisfied smirks off their faces during the funeral and coronation. Both are solemn occasions so it will be tricky for them.  bignono


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on June 27, 2016, 12:36:51 pm
Charles has been training for this role all of his life. He will be a great king. His eldest son on the other hand will be an atrocious POW and king. His Potato Head wife is and will be a monumental disaster.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: i used to be a monarchist on June 27, 2016, 02:56:38 pm
I have that feeling too, India, that PC will make a great king.  And he will have the ability to wrap up the monarchy, to tie up all the loose ends and put it to rest.  It is inconceivable that the Middletons, including PW, would be allowed to take over.  The people will permit PC to reign but they will not have PW or his wife or in-laws.  It's almost over.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on June 27, 2016, 06:00:34 pm
I think Charles has always worked hard but I don't think he will be a great king.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2016, 06:07:53 pm
I think he's a lot smarter than people give him credit for. I don't think he's someone who is going to end up with the inability to set things on track.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on June 27, 2016, 07:35:02 pm
The whole mess with Diana completely hurt Charles' image. It was most unfortunate all the way around.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2016, 08:56:32 pm
It's too bad that a lot of the good he's done was wiped out during that time. His charity work started in his late twenties, his dedication to good causes, his endless appearances for so many, and then of course, the nonstop opportunities he's given so many.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on June 27, 2016, 10:51:32 pm
The Diana mess has eclipsed all of that. And it is a shame.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Akasha 85 on June 27, 2016, 11:52:07 pm
He might not become a well liked, popular king but a decent and stable king unlike willnot and kannot


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on June 28, 2016, 12:02:09 am
William just makes himself more and more unpopular as the years go by. So does Kate. NOne of them are well liked IMO.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2016, 01:01:15 am
The Diana mess has eclipsed all of that. And it is a shame.

The thing is, I think that with the right education and training, he would in fact BE in a good position to have a greater say. HM's biggest mistake is that she didn't sense Charles' energy and ambition and basically channel it into learning hard core subjects in prep school and university and making sure he was getting good grades and getting the best schooling for his future role, not just studying artsy subjects. I bet anything that if he had had that kind of direction and instruction, he would have been a much more focused Prince of Wales. With his charity work and appearances, he would have been a literal powerhouse, he would in fact be a powerhouse all the more.

He might not become a well liked, popular king but a decent and stable king unlike willnot and kannot

People in any position of authority should in fact be more effective at doing the right thing, not being liked. Thing is, the short term is worthless compared to the long term.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on June 28, 2016, 02:03:08 am
Charles accomplishments are quite impressive - whatever one thinks of his personal behavior.  The Princes Trust and Princes Charities have done enormous good - helped so many people start their own business, helped rejuvenate communities, helped young people get jobs.

Charles has done just fine.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2016, 04:55:40 am
Not just opportunities, but his volunteers get the association with royalty that surely helps.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on June 28, 2016, 03:35:39 pm
The whole mess with Diana completely hurt Charles' image. It was most unfortunate all the way around.

I think another problem with Charles is that as he grew up he had sycophants and a grandmother who doted on him. He grew up with a huge sense of entitlement. He started the mess thinking it OK to get involved with his friends wives and it all went downhill from there. For one reason or another, some sense of morality was never made to seem important to Charles by his mentors and sycophants.  Charles hurt his own image. He has worked hard but not everybody thinks well of him anymore to say the least. He tended to choose mentors like Van Der post who enabled his lifestyle and attitude. It's inevitable he will be King no matter what. William has a sense of entitlement too which is also not a good thing.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on June 28, 2016, 06:58:52 pm
Worthless Willy will never be a good king. Charles will. Worthless needs to move on.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on June 28, 2016, 09:16:10 pm
The problem is that as heirs they get this huge sense of entitlement and it is an ego trip for them.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on June 28, 2016, 09:49:19 pm
^

He loves the perks, the easy life, riches and fawning but not the work or commitment.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on June 29, 2016, 05:29:17 pm
Worthless is a total failure.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on September 11, 2016, 06:20:29 am
Operation Golden Orb: Codename given by officials for Charles's top secret coronation plans is revealed after Whitehall blunder

    For years even the name of the group has been kept secret
    Only now do we know it is called Golden Orb after it was left unredacted in a Whitehall document
    Members decide every detail of Prince Charles' coronation
    'It is a reminder that the king swears vows of awesome severity to God'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3783446/Operation-Golden-Orb-Codename-given-officials-Charles-s-secret-coronation-plans-revealed-Whitehall-blunder.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on September 11, 2016, 10:34:39 pm
Well if it happens soon I can't imagine how problematic it will be for everyone.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on September 12, 2016, 10:24:39 pm
  Charles is unpopular in the UK.  Camilla is even more unpopular.  There will be court challenges to his "right" to reign.   He could very well be the end of the Monarchy.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on September 13, 2016, 01:49:53 am
I think people would tolerate him if PW and Kate were more popular. But as it is right now I'm not sure I see the monarchy lasting more than a decade or two.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 13, 2016, 02:07:52 am
I think people are tired of the monarchy because the royals are always making messes and demanding more and more 'rights' than they should. It used to be that consorts had to have clean pasts and few secrets even needed to be kept, but go figure, these days the consorts have a TON of baggage that has to be kept secret and the public knows that the royals are hiding something about their 'true loves.' These princes are a pack of blistering idiots and frankly refuse to see WHY the public might not accept them. It never occurs that the reason their pasts are a scandal is because they ARE, not because of their women simply being misunderstood.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on September 13, 2016, 03:17:43 am
Some figures taken from an Ipsos Mori (a leading British polling firm) poll taken in May 2016.

Figures taken from the accompanying article. In May 2016 79% of Britons were satisfied with the way William does his job. It is down from Jubilee Year when figures for the entire BRF were extremely high. However 79% is still very satisfactory.

The Queen had an 81% approval rating in the same poll.

Charles does not share these high figures. He is on 60% approval rating in the same poll, taken in May. (His approval rating was at its lowest in August 1988, when it was on 39% in the wake of Diana's death.)

In another April 2016 poll 76% of Britons favoured keeping the monarchy.

As has been pointed out before, the figures for retaining the monarchy have remained pretty steady for decades. Sometimes they dip, as with Diana's death, sometimes they reach new heights, as in Jubilee year. However they have been remarkably consistent since this sort polling began in the 1940's.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/673482/Popularity-poll-finds-William-s-star-is-on-wane

People have been predicting the fall of monarchy in Britain since the days of Victoria's old age. Edward VII, her son had a bad reputation as Prince of Wales. He proved to be a popular King. King Edward VIII's abdication rocked the monarchy. It didn't fall. Diana's death rocked the monarchy. It didn't fall then either. The figures above show what a mountain republicans would have to climb to get any kind of momentum in Britain. Even Charles's figures are approval ratings leading politicians would die for.

In the real world (outside this forum and others) the BRF, Willie and the institution of monarchy itself, are popular in Britain. British people are not ecstatic about the Royal family but they are content with them, and that's not likely to change any time soon, judging by these figures and those in similar polls of the last seventy odd years.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on September 13, 2016, 04:26:46 am
^ I don't think they're all that popular. Polls can be bought. Look at how tiny the crowds are when they make their public appearances, compared to the crowds that showed up for Diana.

Although I do think most people have a neutral to positive view of the monarchy. The press doesn't really publish anything negative about PW or KM and most people don't do their research.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 13, 2016, 04:46:50 am
People seem to view them the way they view a dysfunctional family member; they don't wish the RF ill, but wish that the RF would stop the constant drama, the constant messes, the constant fights that are picked against anyone Kate gets worked up against, and basically almost every single comment in the DM section is negative and filled with a frustration to the point of wanting the monarchy to end. It's not something that is going to go away and I do believe that Prince George isn't going to be the one to 'slay' republicans and I don't think the Brits would mind the BRF if they actually DID something other than put on an act. All  they do is put on an act and reenact their old roles. Kate and William as "Hawt Young Royals," Harry as "Hawt Young Royal," and the rest as a bunch of characters. I don't believe that people care anymore about WK since they don't do anything other than the usual royal tours. Kate has made an utter spectacle of herself time and time again and William needs to stop yammering about his mother. The hype surrounding them was more form than substance and it's not like either have built anything.

I think by marrying his mistress, Charles triggered a turning point in his life and basically threw all his chances at carrying the monarchy to a new level away. Why couldn't' Camilla remain his mistress for the rest of his life? Other princes have done the same.

Some figures taken from an Ipsos Mori (a leading British polling firm) poll taken in May 2016.

Figures taken from the accompanying article. In May 2016 79% of Britons were satisfied with the way William does his job. It is down from Jubilee Year when figures for the entire BRF were extremely high. However 79% is still very satisfactory.

The Queen had an 81% approval rating in the same poll.

Charles does not share these high figures. He is on 60% approval rating in the same poll, taken in May. (His approval rating was at its lowest in August 1988, when it was on 39% in the wake of Diana's death.)

In another April 2016 poll 76% of Britons favoured keeping the monarchy.

As has been pointed out before, the figures for retaining the monarchy have remained pretty steady for decades. Sometimes they dip, as with Diana's death, sometimes they reach new heights, as in Jubilee year. However they have been remarkably consistent since this sort polling began in the 1940's.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/673482/Popularity-poll-finds-William-s-star-is-on-wane
People have been predicting the fall of monarchy in Britain since the days of Victoria's old age. Edward VII, her son had a bad reputation as Prince of Wales. He proved to be a popular King. King Edward VIII's abdication rocked the monarchy. It didn't fall. Diana's death rocked the monarchy. It didn't fall then either. The figures above show what a mountain republicans would have to climb to get any kind of momentum in Britain. Even Charles's figures are approval ratings leading politicians would die for.

In the real world (outside this forum and others) the BRF, Willie and the institution of monarchy itself, are popular in Britain. British people are not ecstatic about the Royal family but they are content with them, and that's not likely to change any time soon, judging by these figures and those in similar polls of the last seventy odd years.

HM is high up because it's considered respectful to basically admire HM.

As for Edward VII, he never married any of his mistresses or allowed his mistresses to insult his wife.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on September 13, 2016, 05:15:35 am
  The Monarchy, with The Queen,  is popular right now, people realise she is in her last years.  Polls show that Charles does not have much support, and with Camilla, he has even less.   Brits seem to like William, but are not impressed with Kate.  Harry remains very popular.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HennyPenny on September 13, 2016, 05:27:09 am
 ^^ Edward's mistresses didn't need to insult Queen Alexandra, he did it for them by parading them all over town and giving them their own section  at the coronation..  I do agree Charles did weaken his position for being able to  demand William choose another wife but he is hardly the most outrageous Prince of Wales...  


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on September 13, 2016, 06:15:56 pm
What was embarrassing was Charles feverish campaign to get Camilla accepted, particularly less than a year after Diana died. The boys were used as pawns in PR for the Camilla campaign. Supposedly the boys planned the party for Charles birthday and invited Camilla but I think this was just another PR blurb from Charles and he told the boys to make nice with Camilla. Actually Harry was seen smoking and accessing the liquor cabinet at Highgrove during the party. Charles forcing her on them and the public was just gross. She should have stayed just a mistress. He used her as his mistress before, during and after her marriage to Andrew Parker Bowles. Camilla showed total disrespect for Diana. Charles also gave special places for his two mistresses Kanga and Camilla at his wedding to Diana. And was reportedly at a loss to understand why Camilla should not attend Diana's memorial service.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on September 17, 2016, 08:31:39 pm
  Well Said.  :flower:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 17, 2016, 08:34:47 pm
I think Charles will be a meddling monarch, but realistically, Parliament will end up keeping him in check (not that they should have to) and he'll get put in his place once the ministers become sick and tired of his perpetual causes. I do believe that the example he's going to set for William is that it's okay to meddle in affairs of state once King and since William will be under the control of the Middletons, he will enable their meddling.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on September 17, 2016, 09:37:57 pm
That will never happen. The public will not tolerate Willy Boy's dumb shyte. And definitely not anything Middleton. They are universally despised and abhorred.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on September 17, 2016, 09:39:09 pm
  The fact is .. William is more popular than his father and his doxy.   Charles will be the undoing of the Monarchy if he insists on reigning with his mistress. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on September 17, 2016, 10:03:00 pm
Camilla is becoming much liked and respected for her warmth, genuine kindness, humour and knack of putting people at ease.  The Cambs advisers are extremely worried at their unpopularity and never thought that Charles would overtake him.  Having the Midds in tow and interfering hasn't helped.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on September 17, 2016, 10:05:06 pm
The Middletons in all of their heinous low rent glory have hurt Willy The Stupid tremendously.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on September 17, 2016, 10:40:26 pm
^^ITA Val

For all her past Camilla knows how to behave in public and does support her husband, unlike the lazies who look as though they can't stand each other.



Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on September 18, 2016, 12:29:00 am
Camilla is becoming much liked and respected for her warmth, genuine kindness, humour and knack of putting people at ease.  The Cambs advisers are extremely worried at their unpopularity and never thought that Charles would overtake him.  Having the Midds in tow and interfering hasn't helped.

There have been no definitive surveys. Charles tells the public she is gaining popularity. But there is still evidence to the contrary, the scathing comments sections in the press. I don't see anything to respect about Camilla and anybody who had an ounce of "warmth" would have backed off once Charles got married and not undermined the wife. She certainly did not put the unfortunate first wife "at ease."


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on September 18, 2016, 01:00:26 am
Every poll that I have seen since the 1990's points to a upward lift in popularity for Charles since the nadir, the immediate aftermath of the death of Diana. Having said that, his popularity has never really recovered from those days. In polls taken over the last ten years he is towards the back of the pack, with the Queen, William, Harry and even Kate leading as most popular.

Camilla's popularity ratings are certainly better than when she married Charles. However, she is beaten by Anne, the Wessexes etc. When the question is asked as to whether she should become Queen the country is still massively divided on the question, with a lot of 'don't knows'. I believe most of those polls have been posted here.

The Daily Beast is massively pro-Cambridges. However, an article of his about Charles, written in 2015, is still pertinent, I think. It is remarkable that Charles's popularity remains in the doldrums considering how committed and hardworking he is. However it doesn't mean the population is turning to republicanism, just a large slab wanting Willie as the next sovereign, God help us! Ain't going to happen, folks!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/25/king-charles-the-monarch-nobody-wants.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on September 21, 2016, 08:13:46 pm
I don't need polls. I remember when they entered westminster in the wedding. There was silence. A silence that didn't exist when anyone else appeared. The face of Camilla was really expressive that day.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 21, 2016, 08:20:02 pm
You're right.

First HM made a gesture of not even wanting Camilla to touch her, then the look on Camilla's face at certain intervals during the singing of various songs. Camilla looked haunted, almost frightened.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on September 22, 2016, 01:12:29 am
HM didn't look too happy at W&K wedding either. I think she should have encouraged her heirs to go overseas and possibly look for wives abroad. But the BRF does seem to think they're better than other royal families, so that is a problem.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 22, 2016, 01:46:03 am
The problem with the BRF is that their standards are WAY too high for themselves and their heirs. There is no way that anyone would have been good enough for Charles except the best blood and the best tidy past. I am certain that if the BRF would stop being so disdainful of the Continental royals and stop being unrealistic about human nature, they would attract better potential mates. While Harry and William were out boozing in London, others were traveling and enriching their minds and lives. I often think that if Charles had ordered an overseas education and regular appearances and other work, neither would have ended up making their twenties wasted on troublemakers.

Charles is going to end up having a VERY ambitious family eager for him to drop dead at his back and basically I am certain that he's very nervous about Ma Midds eagerly throwing herself into royal life more than she already is.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on September 22, 2016, 06:32:25 pm
Camilla did act odd at the W and K wedding - at one point she looked as if she was crying.

Charles personal life is dreadful but publically he has done a great job with his charities and no one can deny he is a hard worker.  He obviously will take the throne at a very advanced age and one wonders if Cam will even be around then.  I'd bet Charles will be in his 80's before he sees the throne.  So Willy won't have to wait long.  Of course by then Willy will be middle aged and George will be the cute young man - so the public will want George as King!

I honestly just do not see how Charles ever thought the stink of what happened to Diana would ever leave him and certainly never Camilla.  If he had not married Cam he might have gained his popularity or at least respect back.  But once he married her and forced her on the British people - there was never a chance.  How could he have ever thought otherwise?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on September 23, 2016, 02:06:54 am
   They were booed at William and Kate's wedding.  Those who were there clearly heard it.    Charles has such a sense of entitlement that I doubt he really thought or cared about how his mistress would be accepted as his "wife".   His PR people knew, and  have been working like dogs to get her accepted, it's still not working.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on September 23, 2016, 03:51:34 am
He should have married Tiggy instead of old Cams; the wedding and marriage would have still be a mess but not like having Cams around. She should have stayed his mistress anyway, imo


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 23, 2016, 05:04:08 am
Camilla did act odd at the W and K wedding - at one point she looked as if she was crying.

Charles personal life is dreadful but publically he has done a great job with his charities and no one can deny he is a hard worker.  He obviously will take the throne at a very advanced age and one wonders if Cam will even be around then.  I'd bet Charles will be in his 80's before he sees the throne.  So Willy won't have to wait long.  Of course by then Willy will be middle aged and George will be the cute young man - so the public will want George as King!

I honestly just do not see how Charles ever thought the stink of what happened to Diana would ever leave him and certainly never Camilla.  If he had not married Cam he might have gained his popularity or at least respect back.  But once he married her and forced her on the British people - there was never a chance.  How could he have ever thought otherwise?

You know, Camilla did look upset and devastated and she seemed to literally have tears in her eyes as she looked up at a nearby camera.

As for Charles marrying Camilla, I'm reminded of a specific scenario.

Back when Elizabeth Tudor was a new Queen, her amour Robert Dudley ended up with his wife dead. After that, there was NO chance of Elizabeth marrying him, since to do so would confirm that the Queen had had knowledge, or at least approved of the deed being done. Mary Stuart ended up marrying the man suspected of murdering her husband and this implicated Mary implicitly of at least knowing and approving of the plan.

Now, Charles was accused of using Diana as breeding fodder and then discarding her in the pile of crown jewels once he was done with her and proceeded to go off with Camilla. The only reason Charles built up so much goodwill is that he stayed single and focused on his sons/heirs and his work. It's not like anyone objected to Camilla since she was no longer a major part of any scandals and dramas, just a regular royal mistress.

Yet, the thing is, that people accepted her as a mistress/part of his life, but it's quite another when the mistress becomes a wife. I believe that once a woman agrees to remain a man's mistress, his mistress she should remain. Nothing more, no matter what. Camilla decided to become physical with a married man and put up a facade of not caring about fashion or caring about jewels or material things. Proven to be a lie.

Now that she's going to have to be protected, that will distract Charles from doing his job and being secure on the Throne.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on October 23, 2016, 11:21:26 am
#royal #splash @sundayexpress1 https://t.co/xcBgPdNggz

Charles and Andrew fighting over Bea and Eugenie role


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: kolkomilko on October 23, 2016, 11:30:29 am
^ It's interseting. Where can be read about more details? I'd like to.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 23, 2016, 11:49:49 am
The story that Charles and Andrew have been arguing for years about the roles for Beatrice and Eugenie is not knew. It has been around for about a decade or more.

William also doesn't want the York girls to work for the monarchy according to reports e.g. one I read in 2012 was that Beatrice asked William to intervene with his father and The Queen to allow her to do more during the Jubilee year but he refused fully supporting Charles' view that in the future the only working royal will be the monarch, the adult children of the monarch and their spouses - not cousins or, in time, even uncles and aunts. In other words Charles will support his siblings but William won't and the plan is that when George is King, Harry too will be retired and Harry's children will not work for the firm.

Harry's children will, luckily, be raised accordingly whereas the decision about the York girls seems to have been made, at least about the time Beatrice was leaving school, if not even later than that.

I do think Beatrice would be a good addition to the family but I also don't think Eugenie is really interested in that sort of life for herself.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on October 23, 2016, 12:48:32 pm
This is the full story according to the DM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863928/Queen-centre-row-sons-Prince-Charles-blocks-Prince-Andrew-s-request-Beatrice-Eugenie-given-time-royal-roles.html

PC is missing the point here - it is more likely to be willy and waitys' behaviour and lack of interest in carry out royal duties properly that will make the RF unpopular and we wont have to wait for PC to be king either for that to happen

Beatrice has done more work recently that waity who is supposed to be a senior member of the RF but doesn't accordingly.  Beatrice brings much more to her visits as she knows how to engage and interact with people properly and would be a much greater asset. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on October 23, 2016, 12:56:13 pm
By the time George is King Harry may well be in his eighties or nineties, judging by the longevity of the Windsors. Also, if George takes as long a time about assuming full time Royal duties as his father, Harry could be in his mid sixties before he can take a break!

If George comes to the throne in his thirties or even forties, rather than in his late sixties, and Charlotte doesn't want a Royal role when she becomes an adult, King George and his wife might be in trouble! That's the difference between having four adult children active in engagements plus cousins, and having only two, as Charles has, and William has at the moment. With one sibling (or none) there could be no one there for George while he and wifey perform literally hundreds of engagements a year plus tours!

That's why even small countries like Denmark have Joachim and Marie on duty as well as the the Queen and Crown Prince couple while Christian is young and his siblings are small. Uncle Harry and wife are likely to be needed in the future after all, not retired off!


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on October 23, 2016, 12:58:56 pm
^^

Agree, the York girls are far more of an asset than Kate who can't string an articulate sentence together.  As you say they also engage with people and are warm, friendly and genuine.  Allowing the hapless duo of Willy and Kate  to represent the Monarchy is a sure way to speed up its demise


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Fly on the wall on October 23, 2016, 01:19:57 pm
Queen at centre of royal storm as Prince of Wales and brother Andrew in royal conflict


The Duke of York is demanding his daughters should become full-time members of 'The Firm'
Prince Andrew wants Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie to be given taxpayer-funded royal roles and new accommodation at Kensington Palace but the move has been blocked by Prince Charles.

The 90-year-old monarch has been caught in the middle of the royal rift and has been at such a loss over what to do about her warring sons that the Government has had to help smooth things over.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/724136/prince-andrew-requests-princesses-beatrice-eugenie-kensington-prince-charles-queen-william


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: india on October 23, 2016, 03:02:50 pm
All Charles is doing is thinking about himself. He has made so many mistakes. He ran a major campaign against Diana. He outed Camilla then he stupidly married her. And he has done nothing about dealing with his lazy, lying, worthless son Broken Bill. And lastly, he has not lifted a hoof against The Potato Head and her God Awful Family and all the treasonous things that they have done. Give Me A Break Charles. The Yorkies are a major asset to the RF. Get Your Priorities Straight You *uck Up. Use some sense and let them in to help. They do a fabulous job as opposed to that Idiot Potato Head who can not leave the confines of her million plus dollar homes without creating embarrassments on a nuclear scale.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 23, 2016, 03:09:44 pm
Well then, have at it Charles You Idiot. Let Broken Bill and His Moronic Potato Head Born Again Virgin just try to do what the Yorkies do. Delusion at its highest.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: marion on October 23, 2016, 03:48:46 pm
^ :gogirl:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 23, 2016, 07:27:38 pm
You know, Charles has got to stop persecuting his family just to placate the whining members of Parliament who for some reason have an unjustified grudge against the extended members of the RF. None of these royals are harming anyone by having an HRH and they're behaving better than the main branch, we can say that much. William isn't working, Kate isn't working, Harry is just focused on his Invictus stuff, so there isn't anyone to do any day to day routine appearances and volunteer work. So please explain to me, why not the Yorkies? At least they WANT to do appearances. At least they WANT to  interact with people and they actually dress decently with no flashing. There is no way that the main line will be able to handle doing the routine ceremonial duties, the charitable promotion and volunteer work, and of course, the various other things as well. So who will?


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Miss Hathaway on October 23, 2016, 07:28:33 pm
I do see Charles' point.   The York girls seem nice enough, but they have not endeared themselves to the public to the point of being allowed roomy apartments at KP and a tax-payer allowance.   I have my doubts that Eddy will actually be given the Duke of Edinburgh title, even. 

It is regretful that William and Kate have turned out to be such duds and that Harry cannot find a charming spouse who will be an asset to the family.   However, I don't think the Yorkies are the answer.  At one time I thought they could be, but I've changed my mind.  (And there's always the Fergie connection).   Possibly, they could be given expense reimbursement if they do carry out an engagement, but larger digs and a full-time allowance is carrying it a bit far, in my opinion.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on October 23, 2016, 07:39:18 pm
If Charles does not treat Harry the same way he wants Andrew treated then this is personal not about how the royal family should be.

Even in Denmark Joachim children will not get money from the state or have an official role.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 23, 2016, 07:44:04 pm
I disagree.

First, they're Princesses of the Blood and it's not like anyone would really refuse KP if given the chance. Life isn't about being FAIR, it's about being what it is and making something of yourself. It's not affecting anyone's life negatively if they get spacious apartments in the palaces when WK get a twenty room suite after throwing out a charity. It's not like the Yorkies are impoverishing anyone by living well.

Second, they were told they wouldn't be doing duties and Charles has talked about stripping them of their HRH, money, and bodyguards, despite being targets since birth, so as far as I could say, or they could say, they don't owe the public or RF anything. Beatrice and Eugenie aren't getting the position, so why should they do the work? They have a right ot live their lives like they want since they are not going to be assigned duties. No role, they owe nothing.

Third, I'm frankly sick of hearing about how the Yorkies are freeloaders, but WK get a pass. WK are the ones in the main line, so is Harry and frankly WK and Harry should be the ones explaining why THEY are entitled to taxpayer perks and other benefits. It's not like Charles is in a posiiton to judge anyone else's kids at all. Look at how his own turned out.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Val on October 23, 2016, 10:38:37 pm
Charles has also tried to distance himself from Andrew because of the alleged paedophile issue which mummy had quashed.  He is a fine one to talk however as he was a close friend of that low life specimen Saville and even had him to stay in Scotland.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: india on October 23, 2016, 10:42:54 pm
I still can't get over the fact that they knighted the monster.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on October 24, 2016, 12:21:56 pm
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/724207/Prince-Charles-heir-throne-transition-delegation


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on October 24, 2016, 10:31:45 pm
I dislike Charles. But I agree with his slimmed down monarchy plans.

Agree with this comments:

Nitestaruk, Odessa, United Kingdom, 4 hours ago
He has been a leech along with the ex wife. Now he wants the girls to be added. Hows about he marries them off to some stupid millionaire who can maintain their idle life style.

lisa, somewhere in CT, United States, 4 hours ago
Wow - Charles actually made a good decision. A self-serving one, perhaps, but definitely the right decision. Andrew is a spoiled, lazy slob, and he's raised his children in his image.

Ern Expataxpayer, clermont Fla, United States, 6 hours ago
Andrew's, sister, HRH Princess Anne. Never ask for any handout for her kids. I don't expect his brother Edward, to get anything for his kids either. I don't always agree with whispering Charles. But on this one. I've got his Six.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863928/Queen-centre-row-sons-Prince-Charles-blocks-Prince-Andrew-s-request-Beatrice-Eugenie-given-time-royal-roles.html#ixzz4O2a684MO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 24, 2016, 11:56:37 pm
Charles maybe is trying to ignore that his future King son and future Queen consort daughter in law are lazy. William is in a fake job and whines about the "weight of duty." Unless he thinks Harry should do most of the work while WIlliam " finds himself," Charles needs to have other workers on royal duties. He and his brother don't get along and I think Charles puts his pettiness before any sense of reality regarding who will do the work. His son may be playing pilot for a while now and whining about work. I think Charles is doing this out of pettiness. He and his brothers do not get along. He was quoted as making nasty comments about his brother Edward too.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on October 25, 2016, 02:30:39 am
I dislike Charles. But he's right here. He & his sons are the future of the monarchy. An slimmed down monarchy is the correct in a world where monarchy is already outdated enough


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 25, 2016, 02:50:41 am
Yet, his sons are not picking up the pace and volume of duties. Harry isn't doing day to day duties, nor is he interested in anything other than Invictus. William is useless.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/724207/Prince-Charles-heir-throne-transition-delegation

Can't he just STOP grabbing at his mother's crown?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: YooperModerator on October 25, 2016, 02:55:38 am
Does anybody know what the cost factor is in transitioning from HM to Charles, when that time comes?  I'm sure a lot must have to be done.  Does the money have to be changed?  Stuff like that.  Thanks.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 25, 2016, 02:59:39 am
Here's what will be changed:

Currency
Stamps
Coinage
Insignia
Portraits that hang in embassies and other official buildings
Engravings in various palaces
Embroidery on uniforms

There are various other facets that will change, but I can't think of it all right now.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on October 25, 2016, 03:56:39 am
I think the Queen's passing and the new reign starting will be a tremendously disruptive event, especially immediately afterwards, probably costing billions in lost revenue, as it is likely that the London Stock Exchange will close for a day or two, as will leading banks, as the news breaks. Royal tourist attractions are likely to close until after the funeral. The day of the State Funeral will be a national holiday, as will the day of the Coronation a few months later

Parliament will sit or be recalled, (depending on whether it's in recess) and all MPs will swear allegiance to the new monarch. After this Parliament will be suspended until after the Queen's funeral. The BBC and other broadcasting stations will cancel their comedy shows until after the funeral.

Longer term, everything that has an insignia of the Queen on it from policemen's helmets up, will have to be changed, as will the oath all police and armed service cadets swear to the monarch. (A lot of printed forms at registry offices, police and army training colleges will have to be re-printed).

British passports at the moment request that the bearer be given clearance in the Queen's name. That will have to be changed from the time of Quern Elizabeth's death, but that doesn't mean that passports, coinage and stamps from the previous reign will be automatically null and void. Sometimes it takes a very long time for coins especially to disappear from usage. I remember coins with young Queen Victoria's head on it, issued before 1860, still being in circulation more than a hundred years later!

The transition to a new reign will certainly be momentous, considering that most people can't remember another sovereign. However, Queen Elizabeth has been an old lady for many years and the transition has been so planned by now that it's likely to be very smooth, IMO.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 25, 2016, 07:20:15 am
A lot of these costs won't only be in the UK but in the other realms as well.

The first meetings with plans for Charles' accession were held in the early 1950s under the Queen's guidance. These plans are needed so things will go smoothly when the time comes. The plans are updated on a regular basis - e.g. every time there is a change of government in any realm so that the right people are informed.

This isn't Charles reaching for his mother's crown but more evidence that the UK is going to be prepared and that The Queen has been fully supportive of these preparations for years.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: YooperModerator on October 25, 2016, 12:36:45 pm
Thank you. If anybody thinks of anything else, jump in, plz.  I know we've gone over this ground before but the world has changed since then, as it tends to do.

The paperwork alone! Yikes.  I was thinking in the billions myself.  Is there a fund for this already in place or does, say, the Royal Mail's budget pick up its own costs?  who pays for the funeral, coronation and other public moments?  Does PW have a huge event when given the POW title? 

This is another event in modern history that is unprecedented and will be a cultural upheaval and passing of the baton unlike any other, I think.  There must be very few alive who remember her father's oresence. 

Oh!  Will these be considered, and forgive my tackiness on this, a plus for the tourism industry?  It will be a gigantic media event, that's one thing I know.  And I'm sure there's a movie in place, with adjustment, sitting in somebody's studio along with books, art exhibits, and so on.  Will the Queen's coffin be held in state for viewing?  If so, where?

Thank you again.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on October 25, 2016, 02:43:41 pm
The Queen is likely to lay in State (in a closed coffin of course) in Westminster Hall abutting the Houses of Parliament for a number of days. King George V had his sons on guard in uniform at the four corners of the funeral bier for part of the time, and this is likely to happen with the Queen. Her grandsons may also do this as well. The public will probably be allowed in to see the coffin and walk respectfully around in lines, paying their respects. The laying in state will occur over days.

The funeral will be a massive event and I would guess people, including tourists will be thickly lining the streets. If Elizabeth dies in the summer, in tourist season, there will be many more to view the funeral than if it occurs on a snowy icy day.

A State funeral for a monarch is paid for by the State, the taxpayers via the government, as will the Coronation. Winston Churchill's funeral, another huge occasion where the cranes of London Docks were lowered in a unison salute as his coffin went down the Thames was expensive for its day, nearly a million pounds, but the Queen's with all the security needed will probably be ten times that if not more, and the Coronation about 12 months later will also involve massive and expensive security measures. The new King will probably be paying some of the expenses himself. There may well be a big ball held at BP before the Coronation (I can see Charles doing something of that sort) and other celebratory events will lead up to it. The Coronation will bring tourists in. The one in 1953 certainly did.

Paperwork etc will be replaced gradually. Postboxes with EIIR on them will gradually be replaced. The Royal Mint will stop producing stamps, coins and notes with the Queen's head on them but they'll still remain in general circulation for years. No budget will be busted, except perhaps for security for the guests expected at the Abbey on both occasions.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 25, 2016, 02:59:48 pm
I don't even want to think of Charles succeeding any time soon. Christopher Anderson in one of his books had a creepy enactment of when Charles gets to be king. I don't want to think of this happening in the near future or anybody "lying in state."


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: YooperModerator on October 25, 2016, 05:02:42 pm
^^Thank you.  So, no official program for the POW title change-over?  PC takes care of that for PW, correct?  So, if I'm reading your info correctly, this is at least a full year of change.  That's going to be a wrench for many people, I'm sure.

^I know, but it's a fact of life that it will happen at some point in all our lives and is the point of this thread.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 25, 2016, 05:12:09 pm
A lot of these costs won't only be in the UK but in the other realms as well.

The first meetings with plans for Charles' accession were held in the early 1950s under the Queen's guidance. These plans are needed so things will go smoothly when the time comes. The plans are updated on a regular basis - e.g. every time there is a change of government in any realm so that the right people are informed.

This isn't Charles reaching for his mother's crown but more evidence that the UK is going to be prepared and that The Queen has been fully supportive of these preparations for years.

I just think Charles is too overeager; he mentioned to Earl Spencer (at the time of the old Earl's death) that he (Earl Spencer) was lucky that he inherited his title young. It's like Charles feels perpetually frustrated and unable to basically be happy at the time with what he has. I never get why he can't just stop with the political meddling and for once in his whining life, be happy. It's known that he's often tried to meddle in his mother's household arrangements and has at times overstepped the bounds. I don't think he's content at all with being Heir.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on October 25, 2016, 05:38:41 pm
The Coronation for Charles might be shorter than a year, though I don't think it would be shorter than six months. It all depends when the Queen dies. If she passes at the beginning of winter Charles's Coronation is likely to be in the following Spring or summer, because of getting good crowds out. If Elizabeth dies in the early summer there wiould be a wait for the following Spring at least, as no Coronation would take place in the depths of winter.

William will become Duke of Cornwall and have control of the Duchy the minute his father becomes King. The title of Prince of Wales on the other hand is supposed to be given entirely at the monarch's discretion and can be withheld. In practice the title is always given, sooner or later.

In fact I doubt very much that there will be a ceremony for William to be invested as Prince of Wales. It's not strictly necessary, and the two last Princes of Wales (including Charles) were very much younger than William is now when they took part in the ceremonial. IMO william and his brother will give homage to their father at the Coronation as all Royal Dukes and other peers do and they'll forget about having any more ceremonies. There will just be an announcement from BP that William has been given the title by his father and that will be it, IMO.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 25, 2016, 05:46:24 pm
Since William is such a little snot about court ceremonial, just as well no one wastes time on him. Frankly, I believe that it would be preferable just to dump William on the Duchy and basically tell him to bugger off. It's not like William wants to do anything other than idle about the countryside.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 25, 2016, 06:47:00 pm
When Charles passes on, and William succeeds (he probably will like the perks) I think he and Kate will have one of those odd scenarios. Much like the Mary Poppins uniform for the nanny and the 'casual' stroll of William, Kate, George and Charlotte (in carriage) at the Christening. Or George wearing the pajamas and bathrobe meeting Obama. I can see that happening.  I am irked at the blurbs about Charles' plans. His mother is not ill for one thing and I find it morbid. Charles and Camilla are not spring chickens and look older than the Queen. Kate may order design of weird outfits for the children and stage scenes.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 25, 2016, 06:56:53 pm
I think William will arrange for his Middleton family to get a chunk of the Duchy income and basically be 'too cool for school' and make a fool of himself at the coronation with his sardonic glances at the cameras/media/public and Kate will be on cloud nine. As for Charles, he needs to stop meeting with delegations and get on with the life he already has. If the protocol is planned out, there is no need to meet with any kind of delegates.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 25, 2016, 07:11:45 pm
The very thought of Broken Bill becoming the POW and doling out god only knows what to The Viper and the rest of the slimy lot has made me sick to my stomach.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on October 25, 2016, 07:38:48 pm
Word out in the surrounding villages to Dingley Dell is that Ma has already mentally spent it.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 25, 2016, 07:54:26 pm
I think the reign of King Charles will in fact be a  miserable time for the Middletons.

Charles and the courtiers are all a team and Charles has no qualms about working WITH them to basically get a goal accomplished and I am certain that Charles fantasizes about getting the Middletons blasted back to Berkshire for good while making Kate's life a misery. As for William, I am sure Charles has dreamed of being able to take a whip to him for his antics. I look forward to the iron fist of King Charles. It'll be awesome.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 25, 2016, 09:14:47 pm
The instant the Queen dies William will become Duke of Cornwall and his titles will then be HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, Duke of Rothesay etc. There are a string more Scottish titles that belong to the heir apparent who is the eldest son of the monarch.

At some time after that - that day, the next day, a week, a month, six months, a year or whenever, Charles may create William HRH The Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

Charles had to wait over six years.

George V had to wait about eleven months. Queen Mary even complained about the length of the wait but Edward VII waited and then made the creation on his own first real birthday as King.

George V waited about two months before creating Edward VIII Prince of Wales.

Any ceremony will be worked out sometime after that but with a funeral and coronation I wouldn't be surprised if there is no actual ceremony in Wales. Charles had one so he could swear allegiance to his mother in a public ceremony. Edward VII didn't even need such a ceremony as he did that at the coronation but George V was in a different time and had a number of ceremonies - including the Durbur in India - when he took the throne at the height of the British Empire. Prior to Edward VIII there had been no ceremonies at all. It isn't essential so I wouldn't be surprised if there was no ceremony for William when he becomes Prince of Wales. I suspect that he will be created PoW within days of Charles' accession.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 25, 2016, 09:19:25 pm
I think William will arrange for his Middleton family to get a chunk of the Duchy income and basically be 'too cool for school' and make a fool of himself at the coronation with his sardonic glances at the cameras/media/public and Kate will be on cloud nine. As for Charles, he needs to stop meeting with delegations and get on with the life he already has. If the protocol is planned out, there is no need to meet with any kind of delegates.

Of course Charles has to meet with the planners so he knows what he will need to do and have the right information. He has to meet with the Privy Council and make an oath that day as well as appoint the PM (technically the PM resigns when the monarch dies - no longer in actuality as they simply swear allegiance to the new monarch at the Privy Council. It would be embarrassing if the new King made an error with the names of the Privy Councillors etc.



Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 25, 2016, 09:46:27 pm
Charles and his team better think long and hard about allowing Broken Bill and his Flashing Idiot Wife to be made the Prince and Princess of Wales. They will be a monumental disaster.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: YooperModerator on October 25, 2016, 11:10:27 pm
^^I have to agree here.  This has to be planned with absolute precision and all royal funerals are planned in advance.   Remember that the Queen Mother's funeral plan was used for Diana?  They always carry funeral attire with them; it's part of the process.  Even our leaders plan for these things with amazing foresightedness so I fail to see the "eagerness" factor at all. 

Anybody at that level, or even a private citizen, plans, if they're smart, for their passing away and what will happen to avoid added stress and strain during a difficult time.  To do anything less is quite heartless and financially, diplomatically and every other way, foolish and if there's one thing HM is not, it's foolish when it comes to protocol and planning for the BRF's matters of State.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 26, 2016, 01:02:37 am
It's already been laid out and planned.

I wonder if this is a hint that HM is in fact not doing well at all, but is instead beginning to break under the strain of her messed up family? In mid-2010 the RF was functional and then William threw a wrench into that.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 26, 2016, 01:26:52 am
From what I read, funerals already are set up for Charles, Harry, and William. They all have the plans made up well in advance. I think the family has been dysfunctional for years. It did not start with problems of Charles and Diana.   William messed up in 2007.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 26, 2016, 01:37:04 am
I can't get over how the Windsors seem to be unable to get a grip on themselves. They're like one big circus.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on October 26, 2016, 07:28:58 am
I wonder if Charles will reign, and for how long. Will countries abolish the monarchy after QEII? Re transition, I'm sure they've been planning for years. PW will inherit the stuff that the heir gets, but I don't see him stepping up and doing the duties of the heir. Charles as PoW is busy and has done a good job building his charity but I don't think PW is interested. Maybe this "transition" will be the end of the monarchy... either end after HM or after PC (won't have a long reign because his mother had him young, is 90 and still going strong). Slowly have the royals do less and less work (HM and PC because they're aging, and PW isn't interested in working to begin with) until the monarchy is no more. William can live off his trust fund and George and Charlotte will have to get jobs (even if they don't work, they'll still be set for life because they come from a rich family). I just hope they aren't shielded from the public for their entire childhood like they are now because it won't be good for them. They need to play with other kids, go to school, etc.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 26, 2016, 08:57:11 am
It's already been laid out and planned.

I wonder if this is a hint that HM is in fact not doing well at all, but is instead beginning to break under the strain of her messed up family? In mid-2010 the RF was functional and then William threw a wrench into that.

I would say this is evidence of the opposite - that HM is very much in charge and is continuing the planning process for the future. The first meetings for The Queen's funeral and Charles' accession and coronation took place in 1953 - when the Queen herself was crowned and she chaired those meetings until Charles was old enough to take over himself.

She regularly goes through the plans for her own funeral and Philip has reportedly said that he doesn't want a State Funeral but still goes through the plans for such a funeral every year - as does Charles and Camilla and I suspect William and Kate.

Younger children don't get state funerals but private ones of course but even so Andrew, Edward and Anne have their plans in place - just as Margaret had her plans ready for her death in 2002.

However long Charles' reign will be (and 20+ years is totally feasible as people are living longer now and if Charles lives to the same age as his mother, whatever that ends up being, then he will have a reign of 22 years) he will need to be ready from Day 1 and that is what the planning is all about and nothing more.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 26, 2016, 12:10:17 pm
I don't think Charles will have 22 years reign. Just my thoughts. I don't think William will be allowed to do little when he steps up--the public would be outraged at his living off taxpayers money and contributing little. The media would be brutal and he could be forced out if he does not care.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: YooperModerator on October 26, 2016, 12:27:26 pm
^ and ^^ Both of these comments ring true with me.  The planning process is standard operating procedure and I see no alarms going off.m I'd be more shocked if they were just shrugging it off or not updating the plan.  Just terrorism aloneness is enough reason to upgrade or revisit the event planning.

And, I also agree that, with a nation in, what I believe will be, extreme national mourning combined with just enough anger, that it will be more than a transition between HM and PC but also a transition in beliefs and progress.  Nobody will object in massive numbers to the costs for HMs passing but that will be eclipsed when the reality that she's really gone and decades of resentment surface as Charles steps in.  There's no way to gauge that at this point because complacency is in the majority, but I do believe many have kept any anti-monarchy thoughts buried because of the status quo and the admiration that is evident for the Queen's presence and devotion to her job. 

It'll take time but I think a major upheaval could happen unless Charles has been hiding some magical presence and leadership qualities that I've missed.  What I've seen is a man who is bent on a much smaller institution which will make it appear much different and it will be interesting to see if that is enough or if making it so small it becomes extinct, per se, in people's wishes.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 26, 2016, 01:20:00 pm
If he wants a happy reign he had better deal with the Nudist Kate and her unacceptable family.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 26, 2016, 08:29:53 pm
I do think that Charles is uneasy; before Kate came along, things seemed really simple and straightforward. Suddenly this happens and now Charles will have to watch his back. The Windsors have made enemies (everyone has enemies, but I think the Windsors have more), so Charles will have to deal with them, deal with the Middletons, all the while working to maintain some kind of credibility with the public and other heads of state. As King he will have deference and respect according to form, but GENUINE respect is something that in fact will be uncertain.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 27, 2016, 01:22:48 am
All of the Middletons need to go before Broken Bill becomes the POW. If they are in the picture, reaching and grabbing along with The Idiot Potato displaying indecent exposure then he's going to have a hard time.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on October 27, 2016, 03:36:07 am
Agreed. The Midds need to go before Liz dies or Chucky is going to have a nasty mess to have to deal with.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 27, 2016, 11:29:18 pm
William and Kate need to be reined in and now. He needs to quit the fake job and the Queen should stop that ridiculous law suit about those photographs.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 28, 2016, 02:06:54 pm
The Queen should but she won't. She really has become so weak and useless.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Miss Hathaway on October 28, 2016, 08:25:42 pm
^ Well, the Queen is old.  She may even have a touch of dementia.  In any event, it's a bit much to ask her to sort out scandals at this time of her life.   She is basically a figurehead at this point and power is transferring to Charles. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 28, 2016, 08:30:30 pm
Even though she is old, she could delegate all of the handling of Kate/Middleton problem to her courtiers. They have got to be chomping at the bit to address this nightmare.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 28, 2016, 10:08:40 pm
^ Well, the Queen is old.  She may even have a touch of dementia.  In any event, it's a bit much to ask her to sort out scandals at this time of her life.  She is basically a figurehead at this point and power is transferring to Charles.

It's not just being elderly, it's somewhere along the lines of being constantly passive. She is however too old and I am certain she's unable to fathom what has gone down, much less handle it decisively and be respected. WK are obviously out of control and I think Charles has been quietly setting up his own power-base to deal with the wayward Windsors. As king he'll be in charge and I hope he gets his family in line. That includes Princess Anne and her public criticism of him and also, put a stop to the antics of the rest of the family.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 28, 2016, 10:47:44 pm
William and Kate need to be reined in and now. He needs to quit the fake job and the Queen should stop that ridiculous law suit about those photographs.

She can't interfere in the courts in a foreign country at all.

She may be able to 'remember' something to stop a trial in the UK but she can't do it in France.

This trial isn't just about Kate and William but about the right to privacy and France has a precedence of taking a dim view of the the invasion of privacy of celebrities and this is just another such case for them.

Remember this is a criminal case and not a civil case. It will be heard by a judge and that judge will decide if the photographers broke French law in taking the photos and then in selling them on.

As for comments that the Queen may have dementia or isn't in full control of her faculties - there are steps in place to institute a regency IF her doctors, the PM, the Archbishop of Canterbury or her husband had any such beliefs. Charles is NOT involved in the decision to declare her mentally incompetent and she has regular medical checkups. She is in full control of her faculties and is comfortable with the way William and Kate are doing their jobs - raising the kids is the priority for her - something she wasn't able to do they way she wanted and nor was Charles due to their positions at the time when they had the young children.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 29, 2016, 01:21:35 am
William is the grandson and heir to heir of reigning monarch. I think if the Queen wanted to stop the proceedings she would do so. William and Kate could be persuaded to drop the suit for one thing. I do think she could do something if she wanted to. She probably is ostriching again. It seemed unheard of that the Queen could stop the Burrell trial when it went that far, but she did.


^ Well, the Queen is old.  She may even have a touch of dementia.  In any event, it's a bit much to ask her to sort out scandals at this time of her life.  She is basically a figurehead at this point and power is transferring to Charles.

It's not just being elderly, it's somewhere along the lines of being constantly passive. She is however too old and I am certain she's unable to fathom what has gone down, much less handle it decisively and be respected. WK are obviously out of control and I think Charles has been quietly setting up his own power-base to deal with the wayward Windsors. As king he'll be in charge and I hope he gets his family in line. That includes Princess Anne and her public criticism of him and also, put a stop to the antics of the rest of the family.

Princess Anne probably can handle Charles. He'll leave her alone. She knows too much for him to "deal with her."  Charles did deserve the criticism in any case. IMO.

I don't think age has anything to do with it either. She always was passive in her dealings and waited until things got really out of control before she did anything. Charles himself should be kept in line, he is nothing to write home about IMO. He lowered the bar when he got to marry his mistress and the other woman in his first marriage. HE can hardly criticize William's choice. Charles if he wanted respect, should have thought about it years ago before he thought it OK to be with wives of his friends.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Fly on the wall on October 29, 2016, 03:12:24 pm
The truth about the bust-up that’s the talk of Palace corridors: How Prince Andrew is livid because Charles insists Beatrice and Eugenie don’t deserve full-time royal status

At a time in life when, like any great-grandmother, she is entitled to gaze down the generations with pleasure and satisfaction, the Queen finds herself presiding over an upsetting family squabble.

It involves her granddaughters Beatrice and Eugenie and an increasingly sticky question — one that Palace courtiers hoped had long gone away. Namely, should the two Princesses carry out formal royal duties?

The issue has bitterly divided their father, Prince Andrew, from his elder brother, Prince Charles. Andrew is outraged that his daughters, the only two ‘blood princesses’ of their generation, have been sidelined in such a high-handed manner.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3884176/The-truth-bust-s-talk-Palace-corridors-Prince-Andrew-livid-Charles-insists-Beatrice-Eugenie-don-t-deserve-time-royal-status.html


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: kolkomilko on October 29, 2016, 03:52:22 pm
There are a lot of different comments but I do agree with this one: "Charles' own children may be in line to the throne, but what good has that done them? William and Kate are both extraordinarily lazy and the least popular royals, sitting BEHIND CAMILLA. They cost a huge fee and contribute nothing. Harry is wildly popular and costs much less. So why not give these two a go? To whom you were born, and when, has nothing to do with suitability to a role, as Charles' own children have proven. Don't be short-sighted Charles, if you want something to reign over, you might have to face some realities and so some rearranging."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3884176/The-truth-bust-s-talk-Palace-corridors-Prince-Andrew-livid-Charles-insists-Beatrice-Eugenie-don-t-deserve-time-royal-status.html#ixzz4OUCaVMpH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 29, 2016, 04:15:04 pm
It's not like his heirs are making much of anything; even Harry isn't pulling his weight with regular appearances, he seems to prefer Africa and Invictus. That isn't contributing on a routine day to day basis.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: leogirl on October 29, 2016, 09:41:33 pm
Does Charles remember how big the royal family used to be? Lots of royal cousins (grandchildren of a monarch) did appearances, and they all had titles. Why doesn't he want Beatrice and Eugenie to help out? They are the queen's grandchildren, and they are blood princesses, no quotes needed. The daughters of a prince, nieces to a future king, and cousins to two more future kings. His mother is 90, his father is 95, and he is approaching 70, Anne only two years behind him.

If the royal family is going to last, they need to be out endearing themselves to the public, not hiding away. I know monarchies are not a "modern" idea, but if the royal family is well-liked, the people will keep them around anyway. Hiding is going to make them irrelevant and people will wonder why they're paying for royals they never even see. William and Kate need to get off their lazy butts, Harry should do more, and Beatrice and Eugenie should be allowed to help out.

Older royals are respected because of the years of service to the country. William and Kate aren't doing much service, but they have two young children that people will be interested in. Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie are unmarried and if they are out a lot they could generate interest in royal weddings when the time comes. Even if the weddings aren't televised or in a huge venue, they can boost the economy via tourism or sales of wedding memorabilia.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Stephanie on October 29, 2016, 10:24:02 pm
There are so many causes that would benefit greatly from a royal patron.
To me there's no logical explanation why Chuck would want this.
He and Campon are elderly.
Wimpo, Waity and Harry are not enough to meet the needs of all these causes.
Apart from that: W and W are lazy and incompetent.
I agree that the civil list was way too long at one point and it undermined public support.
Chuck however needs to understand that he needs all the support he can get, even from Louise and James when they come of age.
He will have to make sure that they are committed and willing to work hard for the UK.
The Yorks are, especially Beatrice.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Val on October 30, 2016, 12:11:29 am
Beatrice and Eugenie are very good at Royal duties.  They are articulate, warm, genuine, charming and are far far more suited to the job than lazy incompetent waity.


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: Stephanie on October 30, 2016, 10:14:31 am
Breaking:HM wants the Yorkies to carry out Royal Duties and does NOT agree with the slimmed down monarchy being this small.
UNLIKE Chuck HM accepts that no one can predict the future and she wants the House of York to be ready should there be any problems.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3885948/The-Queen-sides-princesses-royal-battle-brothers.html


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: kolkomilko on October 30, 2016, 11:06:47 am
Good news, what a relief!  :flower:


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: deGuernsey on October 30, 2016, 01:24:49 pm
Breaking:HM wants the Yorkies to carry out Royal Duties and does NOT agree with the slimmed down monarchy being this small.
UNLIKE Chuck HM accepts that no one can predict the future and she wants the House of York to be ready should there be any problems.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3885948/The-Queen-sides-princesses-royal-battle-brothers.html
 Good on her. Now if she can decide that to slim down the monarchy really means booting the Buckleburian Bimbo to the curb.... oh, the irony... hopefully this means she's done ostriching... :bored:


Title: Re: Prince Andrew: News and Photos
Post by: india on October 30, 2016, 08:52:59 pm
Well Thank God. HM has finally woken up to deal with PC. They need the Yorkies. Broken Bill and The Illiterate Exhibitionist are not cut out for the top job. Good On You Lizzie!!!! Keep up the good work. Now, it is time to address the dead rotten shyte show of all things Middleton.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stephanie on October 30, 2016, 09:41:11 pm
Chuck can never justify this move to the public and politicians.
The monarchy not supporting public causes means the public not supporting the monarchy.
At first I thought this was just a petty move to get at his brother but it may go deeper: Chuck thinks the monarchy is about meddling with democratic powers.
And that would involve just him, his heir and his spare.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 30, 2016, 09:50:55 pm
If Charles strips his relations of their HRH and income that HM has provided, he'll essentially render his relatives homeless and without their birthright. It's not about being politically correct, this is about some kind of childlike vendetta that he has against his own family. Taking away their HRH might in fact turn the entire aristocracy against him mainly since it sets a precedent. It might enable William to start stripping the aristocracy of their titles if he believes that the aristos are not showing enough deference to the Middletons. Or if William just wants to show off his power. I am certain that Charles is in fact setting his family up for a major fall. An elderly titled princess isn't a threat to anyone.

He needs to stop with the idea that streamlining the relatives is going to be of any help. It won't. A quietly working princess isn't a threat and is actually contributing to the good standing of the monarchy. His children are utterly useless and it's not like Charles is qualified for anything else. If he's trying to curry favor for more political/diplomatic influence, he is grossly mistaken. It's not going to be good for him or his family and I am certain that even the good PR will only be short term. Why does he *despise* the Yorkies so much? Does Charles really think that Harry is going to marry some amazing dynamo that will swoop in and basically enable the rest of the RF (Cambs included) not to work and pull their own weight.

He's foolish big time if he believes Harry is going to marry someone who will be willing to do everyone's job day to day and make all the sacrifices.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on October 31, 2016, 12:17:06 am
Charles is right wanting distance of Andrew & daughters... they're just after the privileges of the royal life... the taxpayers dislike the fact they have/had to support all those cousins and children of the Queen who are far away from throne... Andrew is a complete embarrassment and his public role just brought bad PR for the Monarchy. If Anne who's a respected royal doesnt push her children into the royal life, why a sponger like Andrew is allowed to have his away is beyond me... he probably is the lovechild of Liz...


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on October 31, 2016, 12:47:31 am
Andrew has made a mess, but why should his daughters be punished for their father's mistakes? The RF is smaller than it used to be. The extended family are elderly and will slowly die off over the next decades. I think it would be good to have Bea and Eugenie do appearances. Maybe not full-time, but picking up some charities would help the RF. Beatrice was/is dyslexic, Eugenie had scoliosis, and Lady Louise had eye problems... those are great places to start with charities where they have personal experiences in the area. If it's going to be just William and Harry, the monarchy is going to become irrelevant very quickly. I don't think PC understands that.

I think PC is upset at his siblings because he thought he deserved special treatment growing up, and they have made mistakes just like everyone else so he feels "justified" in taking away their birthrights. These are direct descendants (children/grandchildren) of a monarch, not some distant cousins.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 31, 2016, 01:05:37 am
Charles has not exactly been Mr Virtue for a variety of reasons. He made massive messes IMO. He is the one who will be monarch not Andrew. Andrew at least did not have his friends bash his wife and his wife was the one who cheated. Charles had his friends trash Diana. I think Andrew treated his ex wife better than CHarles' treated his wife. Charles also did not have the best mentors in the world. Bea and Eugenie are Charles' nieces and should not be used to "get at" Andrew.  Charles may realize his errors in his determination to keep away his nieces from royal duties when William keeps avoiding royal duties and Kate continues her lazy ways. Harry has not done that much. I think it will be more difficult for William to take up (as Will puts it) "the weight of duty" than Charles thinks it will. Charles is making a huge mistake and IMO seems very petty.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on October 31, 2016, 06:01:34 am
  Charles will not stand for anyone taking attention away from him.   

   He will be kicking out the Wessex lot too. 

   It still won't make him popular.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on October 31, 2016, 07:58:59 am
What a short sighted a$$.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: LadyAva on October 31, 2016, 02:00:20 pm
Well that settles it for me. I agree with the Queen now. Wonder why she won't come out and settle the Waity stuff. Since she's giving her opinion now to the slimmed down monarchy. She really loves her grandchildren so no surprise she wouldn't want the Yorkies to loose the titles. I mean she still lets Andrew keep his.  :angry:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 31, 2016, 03:11:38 pm
I think Charles would be mean and petty if he took titles away. I doubt the Queen would do this.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stephanie on October 31, 2016, 04:14:08 pm
I think Chuck will be better off with a medium sized monarchy including this siblings and the York girls.
He will NOT make himself popular by stripping hundreds of charities and organizations from a royal patron.
After HM dies things IMO needs to carry on and the Yorkies are more then qualified.
It will also boost Chuck's image is he is seen as the head of a solid family without feuds and undeserved exclusion.
Chuck may feel that Randy is a reckless fool and Fergie a bipolar airhead and they IMO are.
But the York girls are not.
HM prepared them for this with good reason.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 31, 2016, 04:20:25 pm
Fergie is out of royal work and has been for many years now. She's irrelevant. Andrew and Charles don't get along.  Charles had complained that when he was growing up his parents did not treat him more "special" than the others.  Charles is no saint himself. I think he needs to show a spirity of unity in the family when he gets to be King, it will do him no good if he creates divisiveness.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stephanie on October 31, 2016, 04:51:42 pm
^
Exactly.
It also shows poor judgement which is a no-go area for a king.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Ariel on October 31, 2016, 05:43:12 pm
except for Bea I do not see any humility, or pleasantness in the rest of the Yorks. Arrogance yes, but good heartedness - no. As bad the move to cut out Andrew seems - Andrew has been mommy's favorite for years. I'm sure that he has little respect for Charles with mommy backing him up no matter what mess he creates. So, it is very clear what a scorpio would do: revenge is a dish best served cold.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: duchesschicana on October 31, 2016, 07:09:49 pm
Andrew has made a mess, but why should his daughters be punished for their father's mistakes? The RF is smaller than it used to be. The extended family are elderly and will slowly die off over the next decades. I think it would be good to have Bea and Eugenie do appearances. Maybe not full-time, but picking up some charities would help the RF. Beatrice was/is dyslexic, Eugenie had scoliosis, and Lady Louise had eye problems... those are great places to start with charities where they have personal experiences in the area. If it's going to be just William and Harry, the monarchy is going to become irrelevant very quickly. I don't think PC understands that.

I think PC is upset at his siblings because he thought he deserved special treatment growing up, and they have made mistakes just like everyone else so he feels "justified" in taking away their birthrights. These are direct descendants (children/grandchildren) of a monarch, not some distant cousins.

The York gals already show their support towards causes.Princess Beatrice has a number of patronages she supports, including her patronage, the  Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre. She often shows her support towards raising awareness for learning disabilities, as well as other causes. Bea also recently shown her support towards a free eye care program in the Himalayas.  Eug has RNOH which has to do with her scoliosis and most recently has been showing her support towards  modern day slavery awareness.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 31, 2016, 08:09:12 pm
I don't think Charles has any intention of stripping anyone of HRH.

To do so would also mean he would have to deny it to Harry's children, who will also be the children of the second son.

He does intend, I believe, that the working RF will simply be the monarch and spouse, children of the monarch and female spouses but not cousins or aunts and uncles.

I think the intention is, going forward, that when Charles is King, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent for instance will be more or less retired - supported yes due to the fact that they have worked most of their adult lives for the Queen but asked to basically step down from front line work. That would remove 4 from the current working royals list - even though the Gloucesters are only 4 and 2 years older than Charles respectively and thus are more his generation than The Queen's. If Philip outlives the Queen he will probably continue working due to the fact that no one will be able to say 'no' to Papa - but he is already slowing down so not really going to be doing many engagements by then.

When William is King the intention would be for Charles' siblings and their spouses - Sophie only in reality - would also retire so that the work is then being done by William, Kate, Harry and Harry's spouse if he ever marries. That would then remove another 6 from the current list. By the time William is King 12 of the current working royals will be either deceased or retired but George and Charlotte will be adults and so ready to take up the workload. I am assuming Charles lives as long as his mother - and she probably has another 5 - 10 years in her so Charles I expect to live to around 97 or so. By then William will be 65 to 70 and George 30 to 35 and Charlotte approaching 30 or already there. That would give William the 7 - 8 working royals - more than enough for him without needed the York girls.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 31, 2016, 08:35:02 pm
I think Charles would ideally like to have some kind of easier run monarchy, but if not for his blithering idiot heir William I believe that the best way to streamline the monarchy would be to make it mandatory that the heirs actually get to work at sixteen doing lightweight appearances and shouldn't be allowed to live off campus if they do go to uni. Frankly, the real issue I have is how the members of the RF are infantilized. A lot of kids start working at age twelve and the heirs should in fact be doing just that. Appearances on their own or at least actual office work. Then they can learn the life and accept it as natural and basically be well into the routine. I am certain that if William had in fact done just that, he wouldn't have been as derailed as he became. Charles first needs to prove that his heirs are fit to inherit and basically enable the Yorkies to help out. WH need all the help they can get and even the most minor HRH could be a great help. I am sure that if Charles were not so greedy for the spotlight, I believe that it would in fact increase interest of all those with an HRH were given an official role, but not the income to go with it.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 31, 2016, 08:36:16 pm
Bea and Eugenie are younger than William and Harry of course. Rather than waiting for George and Charlotte to grow up I think it more realistic to allow the first cousins to work. George and Charlotte also will be going to University and George later on the Sandhurst which would make it less possible for them to do full time duties. I have doubts that Charles will live as long as his mother but realistically if he is in his eighties he cannot do the work he did when in his fifties for obvious reasons. Camilla may well be retired by then since she has some health issues and had to leave tours early because of that. I don't see William as a powerhouse in the work department. He should be up to full time duties now and so should Kate. Harry is not up to full time duties either and if Harry marries in his late thirties there will be some years before he has a wife/consort to assist in the duties. Overall, I think this is a highly unrealistic plan and totally impractical given all the circumstances. I don't know why it is so bad for Bea and Eugenie to work. They want to so I don't get why it's such a big deal.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 31, 2016, 09:40:54 pm
I think if Charles had set some kind of precondition to let them do official duties (study a real serious subject in school and abide by a code of conduct) then he would be able to take on the Yorkies and other minor members it would in face enable the RF to maintain the current patronages and even take on more various duties as well. Imagine of the Yorkies could in fact be the official representative of HM in say, Jamaica and end up with a schedule of duties and be expected to stay out of trouble (no Fergie living with them) and do appearances and engage the public and behave perfectly while at top tier banquets, etc., it would in fact solve the problem of the monarchy not being as involved with the Commonwealth. IT would also get them out of London and put them around a new set of people. It would benefit them and the monarchy immensely. Cutting out the Yorkies is just leaving two young adults adrift and basically aimless, never a good combination for a royal with time and money on their hands.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on October 31, 2016, 09:53:28 pm
Maybe he's afraid William, Kate and Harry will look bad if Bea and Eugenie start working and end up doing more than they do?  :tehe:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on November 01, 2016, 02:56:08 pm
Broken Bill and The Exhibitionist look awful compared to the Yorkies.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on November 01, 2016, 03:25:46 pm
I get that people like Bea and Eugenie but I really do not think this is about them as people per se but about Charles beliefs about how to save the monarchy.

He can see that people complain endlessly about the money.  He apparently believes that 1) a slimmed down monarchy would be more acceptable to people and 2) that the monarchy can be self supporting - requiring no money from the state.  So if he is going with a self supporting monarchy - he has to slim it down. 

Mememee - why do you say "if" Harry marries?  You really think he would remain a bachelor?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Sophie on November 01, 2016, 03:32:54 pm
He might get more mileage out of making his son and daughter-in-law pull their weight.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 01, 2016, 03:48:06 pm
I get that people like Bea and Eugenie but I really do not think this is about them as people per se but about Charles beliefs about how to save the monarchy.

He can see that people complain endlessly about the money.  He apparently believes that 1) a slimmed down monarchy would be more acceptable to people and 2) that the monarchy can be self supporting - requiring no money from the state.  So if he is going with a self supporting monarchy - he has to slim it down. 

Mememee - why do you say "if" Harry marries?  You really think he would remain a bachelor?

Charles is out for himself and his petty grievances. He still has people bash his late ex wife and he wants to put down his brother through not letting Bea and Eugenie work. I don't think Charles would be acceptable if he is so darn petty. He and Camilla could cut some of their luxuries to save money.  I do think it personal on Charles' part. Charles is so obvious.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on November 01, 2016, 05:44:08 pm
I wonder if upchucky wonders why Willy turned out like he did.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Sophie on November 01, 2016, 07:02:06 pm
... or why he chose the (lame) woman he did...


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on November 01, 2016, 07:10:57 pm
Weak, Petty Men.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on November 01, 2016, 07:57:43 pm
I get that people like Bea and Eugenie but I really do not think this is about them as people per se but about Charles beliefs about how to save the monarchy.

He can see that people complain endlessly about the money.  He apparently believes that 1) a slimmed down monarchy would be more acceptable to people and 2) that the monarchy can be self supporting - requiring no money from the state.  So if he is going with a self supporting monarchy - he has to slim it down.  

Mememee - why do you say "if" Harry marries?  You really think he would remain a bachelor?


He struggles to maintain a relationship for more than a few years - except with Chelsea although they were on and off a few times. He reminds me of his mother in that area as she too was unable to sustain a relationship for more than a couple of years with any man.

He seems to choose girls who crave the limelight for their own reasons - and careers - rather than women who would be prepared to give up their careers to be his wife.

I can see him being a bachelor.

It isn't as if there is any need for him to marry as the succession is secure and he comes across as the 'love 'em and leave 'em' type.

As for Charles wanting the monarchy to be self-supporting that isn't what he wants at all. There is no way he is going to give up the Sovereign Grant. He doesn't want to have to use the Duchy of Lancaster to support the extended family but does want the SG to pay the official expenses of the monarchy as well as the maintenance of the occupied royal palaces. He does realise that the repair bill on BP is massive and will take years. I can see him deciding to stay at CH while they shut down BP to undertake the repairs, so that when William is King he can move into a BP up to scratch for the mid-late 21st century. He also knows that the bill for the repairs to Westminster Palace is already figuring in the Billions and BP is around the same. He needs to cut down the numbers so that more of the SG can go into that maintenance.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 01, 2016, 10:14:44 pm
Charles could not sustain the relationship with Diana because he married her preferring Camilla. I don't blame Diana in the least. She was in over her head and in a no-win situation.  Charles could not sustain a relationship with his first wife because he was too selfish and wanted things his way or the highway. It takes two people to make a relationship and Diana had no past but Charles had two of his mistresses watching him marry DIana. Who could sustain any sort of healthy relationship with such a selfish man. Diana died at age 36 saying she could not have a lasting relationship is totally unfair. She could not have any sort of relationship that would lead to marriage until after her divorce. After her divorce (in the brief year) she was involved with two men--one did not want to go public with her, so she broke off the relationship and she was involved with Dodi.   Harry DID sustain a relationship with Chelsy Davy for a few years, they started their relationship when they were in their early teens, they went their separate ways. Harry is only 32 not 72 so most likely he will marry. Prince ALbert of Monaco had many relationships and settled down when he was in his fifties. So condemning Harry to bachelorhood and trashing his mother makes no sense to me.

Kate had no career to give up. Her career was getting the ring. And she had her family to support her during the 10 year wait. William is well aware IMO about how his father behaved with his mother. Which is why he sought out Kate's family as his own. I think he spends much more time with them than with Camilla. And Harry found his support system with the Davys for a few years while dating Chelsy.

Chelsy was a teenager when Harry sought her out. She had no "career" aspirations then.

Maybe if Charles and Camilla cut down on their own expenditures (travel and so on) it might make things better financially for the family. Unfortunately, Charles heir and spare and the heir's wife are not powerhouses in the work department. Charles is no spring chicken and I can see Camilla retiring to be with her children and grandchildren.  Someone has to do the work, unless Charles hires people just to be petty and keep his nieces out.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stephanie on November 01, 2016, 10:52:19 pm
Eat THIS Chuck and Campon.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3893006/Theresa-s-curtsy-Queen-PM-royals-welcome-Colombia-s-president-Juan-Manuel-Santos-wife-London-historic-official-state-visit.html
HM and PP can still be magnificent hosts to foreign presidents.
Their support system allows them to be and they are grateful for it.
Chuck IMO nees to do the same: focus on representing GB and supporting causes with the help of willing and able family members like the Yorkies.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on November 01, 2016, 11:28:15 pm
I get that people like Bea and Eugenie but I really do not think this is about them as people per se but about Charles beliefs about how to save the monarchy.

He can see that people complain endlessly about the money.  He apparently believes that 1) a slimmed down monarchy would be more acceptable to people and 2) that the monarchy can be self supporting - requiring no money from the state.  So if he is going with a self supporting monarchy - he has to slim it down.  

Mememee - why do you say "if" Harry marries?  You really think he would remain a bachelor?

Charles is out for himself and his petty grievances. He still has people bash his late ex wife and he wants to put down his brother through not letting Bea and Eugenie work. I don't think Charles would be acceptable if he is so darn petty. He and Camilla could cut some of their luxuries to save money.  I do think it personal on Charles' part. Charles is so obvious.

a slimmed down monarchy isnt about pettiness but common sense... I doubt Edward or Anne are against his plans... I bet Edward & wife will be relieved when Charles say they're not anymore needed and yes wish their children having normal lives like the Anne & the Margaret' children... all this feud is about the sense of entitlement and GREEDY of Andrew. I dont know what one slimmed down monarchy have to do with his issues with Diana. If Harry has legitimate kids I bet he'll be pushing for his kids being non titled.

He struggles to maintain a relationship for more than a few years - except with Chelsea although they were on and off a few times. He reminds me of his mother in that area as she too was unable to sustain a relationship for more than a couple of years with any man.

He seems to choose girls who crave the limelight for their own reasons - and careers - rather than women who would be prepared to give up their careers to be his wife.

I can see him being a bachelor.

It isn't as if there is any need for him to marry as the succession is secure and he comes across as the 'love 'em and leave 'em' type.
Charles was described as happy bachelor type and saw marriage as sense of duty to crown. I see Harry being a eternal bachelor, I think he get it from Charles

I agree with you that his women arent prepared to give up their careers to be a royal


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on November 01, 2016, 11:39:58 pm
Lol what are Sophie and Edward going to do if they do not get money from the queen/charles? Same with Anne.

Not royal duties means no free apartment at at KP or BP. And they need to get jobs. They tried and it did not work. They are older now and they have to start a business without using royal connections...? It wouls create more problems than advantages for them and Charles. Same as it happened in the past.

Second if the spare is treated like that then Harry should be trying to find a job. At least he has time.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on November 01, 2016, 11:55:20 pm
All of HM's children have plenty of money squirreled away for them. They will be just fine.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on November 02, 2016, 12:00:27 am
Charles only had two children and previous generations had more than that. HM was one of two children, but she had four of her own and her father was the second of six children. No need to cut anyone off in order to make a slimmed down monarchy happen. Bea and Eugenie could do some work, but their children will not be titled, just like Peter and Zara don't have titles. Louise and James have lower titles and they're still kids, but when they get to be 16 or so I could see them doing a few appearances on weekends, picking up some charities.

William, Kate and Harry don't do much and they're already in their 30s. I don't see that changing because at their ages, people are pretty set in their ways. William and Harry should have switched to full-time by age 25 (and Kate as soon as she married in). Few appearances make the monarchy irrelevant. They hide away most days, and WK are very sue-happy when it comes to photographers. I understand wanting to save money but there has to be a balance... cutting everyone off isn't good, and William, Kate and Harry doing so few appearances isn't good, either.

I think it's good that HM's children have money set aside for them because they're going to need it for retirement.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on November 02, 2016, 12:39:44 am
When the Queen dies, Edward, Anne & Andrew will get a lovely inheritance


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 02, 2016, 12:52:00 am
I get that people like Bea and Eugenie but I really do not think this is about them as people per se but about Charles beliefs about how to save the monarchy.

He can see that people complain endlessly about the money.  He apparently believes that 1) a slimmed down monarchy would be more acceptable to people and 2) that the monarchy can be self supporting - requiring no money from the state.  So if he is going with a self supporting monarchy - he has to slim it down.  

Mememee - why do you say "if" Harry marries?  You really think he would remain a bachelor?

Charles is out for himself and his petty grievances. He still has people bash his late ex wife and he wants to put down his brother through not letting Bea and Eugenie work. I don't think Charles would be acceptable if he is so darn petty. He and Camilla could cut some of their luxuries to save money.  I do think it personal on Charles' part. Charles is so obvious.

a slimmed down monarchy isnt about pettiness but common sense... I doubt Edward or Anne are against his plans... I bet Edward & wife will be relieved when Charles say they're not anymore needed and yes wish their children having normal lives like the Anne & the Margaret' children... all this feud is about the sense of entitlement and GREEDY of Andrew. I dont know what one slimmed down monarchy have to do with his issues with Diana. If Harry has legitimate kids I bet he'll be pushing for his kids being non titled.

He struggles to maintain a relationship for more than a few years - except with Chelsea although they were on and off a few times. He reminds me of his mother in that area as she too was unable to sustain a relationship for more than a couple of years with any man.

He seems to choose girls who crave the limelight for their own reasons - and careers - rather than women who would be prepared to give up their careers to be his wife.

I can see him being a bachelor.

It isn't as if there is any need for him to marry as the succession is secure and he comes across as the 'love 'em and leave 'em' type.
Charles was described as happy bachelor type and saw marriage as sense of duty to crown. I see Harry being a eternal bachelor, I think he get it from Charles

I agree with you that his women arent prepared to give up their careers to be a royal

That's a matter of opinion. Cressida did not really have much of a "career" and appeared to be a socialite dabbling in acting and modeling (like some of them do). I think Harry broke up with her and she would have married him at the drop of a hat.  The York girls were trying to be matchmakers and ultimately, it did not turn out for Cressida and Harry.

Charles is not an eternal bachelor. Obviously since he got married twice. Harry is totally different from his father and maybe it's better for him to wait instead of getting a divorce like his father. If he were like his dad, he'd marry a woman to have children and have spent years being with women, including married ones.

Charles is no saint. He and his brother Andrew are both not saints. Charles though has the upper hand and I think this is personal. How Edward and Anne feel is subject to speculation.

I think Harry's children will have titles.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on November 02, 2016, 01:50:01 am
YOU missed totally my point. :easter-sly: I am seriously NOT surprised
 :James:  Hint: I wrote "Charles WAS" ;)


It's funny you talking about speculations... When your Cressida opinion about what she was willing (or not) is nothing but your speculation


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 02, 2016, 12:38:59 pm
Well  dianab you don't have to get personal about it. I want to stress that CHarles was never an eternal bachelor back then because he seriously wanted to get married and he said he wanted to be married by 30. Prince Albert of Monaco did not get married until he was in his fifties and played the field and did not talk about settling down the way Charles did. People did think Albert would never settle down given his age. Harry is only 32, men tend to marry later. I was speculating about Cressida. I don't know her. But I do have a right to disagree with you without your making personal comments. After the years I spent posting here, this is unlike you to get personal. I have my impressions about Cressida, you have yours.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on November 02, 2016, 01:35:25 pm
Please let's discuss this in a calm way.  :flower:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Miss Hathaway on November 02, 2016, 03:52:40 pm
Quote
a slimmed down monarchy isnt about pettiness but common sense... I doubt Edward or Anne are against his plans... I bet Edward & wife will be relieved when Charles say they're not anymore needed and yes wish their children having normal lives like the Anne & the Margaret' children.

All four of the Queen's children, in my opinion, are very cognizant of their royal status.  Including Anne.   Anne is a no nonsense type of gal, and, as she put it "not a fairy princess" but she is still quite royal.  But she was sensible enough to realize it should not extend to her children.   Charles, of course, has always been grand.  He is the next monarch, after all, but he lives in a grander style than his mother, the Queen.   

Andrew's ego and pomposity is well documented.  So is Edward's.  Edward, of course, is living in the largest, grandest private home of all the siblings.  Why would he have chosen such a lifestyle if he is an unassuming, down-to-earth chap?   And Sophie only married Edward because he was a prince and could bring her the grand lifestyle and status she so craved.  That is why she is running around trying to compete with the young royals, riding bikes, being interviewed, etc. in an attempt to keep the Wessex "brand" relevant.  Sophie has no plans to retire quietly into the night.  Oh, no.

As for the children:  Charles' sons have their futures mapped out.  Anne's children are private citizens and have been since birth.  Edward's children have health issues and are unlikely to be able to carry out royal duties even if there were a need or desire for them to do so.  Andrew's girls are HRH's and because the next generation is going to naturally be smaller than Her Majesty's and her children's, it would be sensible to allow Beatrice and Eugenie to work at least on a per diem basis. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rebecca on November 02, 2016, 04:23:21 pm
^Health issues?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 02, 2016, 07:00:11 pm
I never heard they had health issues. Louise was born prematurely and had strabismus which was corrected with surgery. She is healthy. Her brother James is healthy and was not born prematurely or has any health issues. The reasons for Sophie marrying Edward are subject to speculation. All I know is that Edward is the only one of the Queen's children not to have gotten a divorce, he and Sophie must be doing something right. As far as Charles children having their futures mapped out, maybe so. But I have the impression that WIlliam is unhappy about having to do royal work and has stayed as long as possible doing the "normal" work and I think his work ethic leaves something to be desired. Harry has not been that active either. I actually think all the sons of the Queen have ego issues, I think Charles is the one who is the most egotistic of all of them. Princess Anne at one point said Charles was "too grand."


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on November 03, 2016, 12:13:20 am
thanks for answering my question Mememee.



Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on November 03, 2016, 02:54:19 am
Personally I believe upchuck dislikes all his siblings for one reason or another; all three were outraged when chuck told the world how 'mean' his parents were etc.

The transition is going to be mired with petty and not so petty infighting. It's not going to be pretty.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 03, 2016, 03:10:36 am
I'll never understand WHY Charles hates his siblings so much. It's illogical.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on November 03, 2016, 03:46:11 am
The question I have is though - is this actually true or is it the press stirring up trouble in the BRF for its own ends? The public buy into the 'good prince vs bad prince' idea and the media feeds it.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on November 03, 2016, 04:51:35 am
I never heard about Louise and James having health issues, either. Louise had an eye problem that was corrected in surgery three years ago. James to my knowledge has never had any problems. When they get older I think they could do a little. But they don't use princess/prince titles and their children won't be HRH either.

William and Harry both have bad work ethic. Maybe it's true that they're not doing many royal appearances because the Queen has said she doesn't want them to do them. Fine. But what about their fake military careers? William only turns up for work if there is a photo op, and Harry I believe quit some time ago. They go off to Africa for a few weeks but it's mostly social... and then what are they doing with the rest of their time? Nothing constructive it seems. William can't even be bothered to read a few pages before a royal visit, and then he jokes around about it as if it's funny or cute that a grown man in his mid-30's isn't doing his job.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on November 03, 2016, 05:52:11 am
Harry left the army in June 2015 so he has been unemployed now for 16 months.

If Bea had been unemployed for that length of time imagine the vicious comments but Harry gets a pass for some reason even though he does very little. I have even heard that he has stopped doing the visits to the rehabilitation place he was going to visit and volunteer.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on November 03, 2016, 08:27:48 am
William and Harry are already unable to cope with their lives. Their travels cost the taxpayer a lot of money, with nothing in return for their investment. I don't see it getting any better as they get older and William gets closer to the throne.  :-X

The press already seem to have it out for the York sisters... I do not want to know what would happen if Bea and Eugenie pulled the stunts that William and Harry are doing.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Miss Hathaway on November 03, 2016, 01:38:52 pm
Regarding the Wessex kids' health -- nothing major, really.  But enough that a life in the public eye is unlikely to be something they would desire.   Louise had the eye condition (and still does -- it is not yet completely corrected), and perhaps because of this she seems to be shy and not outgoing.  That could change.  But I am speculating that she prefers to be quiet and not in the forefront as a professional royal.

James has been the subject of much speculation as to why he was never included in family outings.  He has appeared a bit more recently, but both Ed and Soph seem tense when he is with them, and James and Louise have no interaction at all as siblings normally do, and James has a flat affect.   It has been speculated that perhaps he is autistic.









Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 03, 2016, 02:11:33 pm
William and Harry are already unable to cope with their lives. Their travels cost the taxpayer a lot of money, with nothing in return for their investment. I don't see it getting any better as they get older and William gets closer to the throne.  :-X

The press already seem to have it out for the York sisters... I do not want to know what would happen if Bea and Eugenie pulled the stunts that William and Harry are doing.

I agree. William is not exactly setting a good example, and he is supposed to as the heir to the heir. He is just marking time at the ambulance copter base and seems to be only there for photo ops. Harry is not "unemployed" because he like William should be doing work for the Firm but they don't. I don't get why Bea and Eugenie are trashed.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on November 03, 2016, 03:22:26 pm
^

Both PW and Harry cherry pick what they do.  They wouldn't know a proper job of getting up early and working a 5 or 6 days week to support a family and pay bills.  Yes Harry was in the army but was rushed to safety when things got hot it is said.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rebecca on November 03, 2016, 04:00:41 pm
^^Bea and Eug are trashed because their parents are hated (or maybe strongly disliked with good reason) and they get mostly bad PR. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on November 03, 2016, 04:11:24 pm
I don't think Andrew and Bea are hated. Some may be totally indifferent to them and not bother to even dislike them.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on November 03, 2016, 08:20:54 pm
I'll never understand WHY Charles hates his siblings so much. It's illogical.

My reasoning is this; Upchuck dislike Anne because Philip has always preferred her to him, Andy because he is Liz's favorite and he actually married a woman he loved, and Ed because he's the baby and could do more or less whatever he wanted and Ed and Phil seem to be close.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on November 03, 2016, 08:39:34 pm
Charles is a real little b*tch.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on November 03, 2016, 10:00:35 pm
Regarding the Wessex kids' health -- nothing major, really.  But enough that a life in the public eye is unlikely to be something they would desire.   Louise had the eye condition (and still does -- it is not yet completely corrected), and perhaps because of this she seems to be shy and not outgoing.  That could change.  But I am speculating that she prefers to be quiet and not in the forefront as a professional royal.

James has been the subject of much speculation as to why he was never included in family outings.  He has appeared a bit more recently, but both Ed and Soph seem tense when he is with them, and James and Louise have no interaction at all as siblings normally do, and James has a flat affect.   It has been speculated that perhaps he is autistic.

I thought her eye was fixed the rest of the way after her surgery in late 2013? I do not know if James is autistic or not. I don't see them as major players in the RF, just minor roles, a handful of appearances each year.

I'll never understand WHY Charles hates his siblings so much. It's illogical.

My reasoning is this; Upchuck dislike Anne because Philip has always preferred her to him, Andy because he is Liz's favorite and he actually married a woman he loved, and Ed because he's the baby and could do more or less whatever he wanted and Ed and Phil seem to be close.

Well, Anne is the only daughter... lots of people say that daughter has father wrapped around her finger. Andrew and Edward are much younger than Charles; he was already 11 and 15 by the time they were born. Of course they were going to get more attention growing up; they were babies and needed it! No need to be jealous. As the oldest, he's supposed to set the example. And he has been given so much more than his siblings (titles, land) because he's the heir.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HennyPenny on November 04, 2016, 04:57:49 am
 
^ I agree Leogirl. Charles should have been setting an example throughout his life and not complaining about the glass being half full... You can give the sun and the moon to some people and they are still not satisfied..


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: kolkomilko on November 04, 2016, 07:30:08 am
^^Bea and Eug are trashed because their parents are hated (or maybe strongly disliked with good reason) and they get mostly bad PR. 

^ I think there's some truth in it.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on November 04, 2016, 08:52:19 am
Yes, Andy has surrounded him with shady people, and Fergie has been selling her royal connections. Not very popular. It's almost as if the press doesn't want to like Bea and Eugenie because of who their parents are. That is partly why I get annoyed when I hear about them taking so many vacation days or not working for periods of time... they already have strikes against them just for being their parents' daughters, no need to add fuel to the fire by not doing what they're supposed to. Even though they're doing better than William and Harry (sons of the heir), they're going to be made to look worse by the press.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Fly on the wall on December 06, 2016, 01:51:56 am
Kate Middleton Actress Announced for the New Royal Family Movie
http://www.allure.com/story/kate-middleton-actress-charlotte-riley?mbid=social_twitter




Title: Will Charles become King George VII?
Post by: FrederickLouis on December 24, 2016, 07:17:55 pm
Will Prince Charles become King George VII?   
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4557924.stm


Title: Re: Will Charles become King George VII?
Post by: sandy on December 24, 2016, 11:37:16 pm
I hope not. 


Title: Re: Will Charles become King George VII?
Post by: leogirl on December 25, 2016, 08:04:52 am
That article is really old. He might want to use it to be like his grandfather and great-grandfather, but now that he has a grandson with George as a given name, maybe not.


Title: Re: Will Charles become King George VII?
Post by: sandy on December 25, 2016, 11:50:57 am
I hope he does not want to "honor" his grandparents by calling himself George and Camilla, Elizabeth.


Title: Do away with the sightseeing
Post by: FrederickLouis on January 02, 2017, 10:24:20 pm
When he becomes King Charles III, do you think Charles will do away with the sightseeing tours of Buckingham Palace?


Title: Re: Do away with the sightseeing
Post by: Fly on the wall on January 02, 2017, 10:27:01 pm
No I think he will keep it .its William if he ever gets to be King that will do away with it.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on January 03, 2017, 01:24:03 am
they need the income - they will keep it


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on January 04, 2017, 02:52:23 am
I dread the day Upchcuck is crowned. I can just imagine the riots when Cammie is crowned with him.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: KatherineTheGreat on January 04, 2017, 03:29:34 am
^I don't think there will be riots. Clearly HM is a hard act to follow. She is free of controversy and PC isn't. I feel sorry for him that he will forevermore be compared to HM and William. I doubt William wants this, as both son and reluctant royal. I am still skeptical that Camilla will be Queen although she did carry out an engagement recently that was said to be a huge step up for her responsibility-wise. I worry that the RF is headed in the wrong direction. If one person were going through a scandal it would be one thing, but when there are complaints about multiple members, it's worrisome.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 04, 2017, 04:40:08 am
I think Charles will be a more decisive King and will not tolerate any BS from the members. The RF needs to be trimmed in regards to perks. Edward and Sophie do NOT need a vast estate and should at most have apartments in the existing palaces and castles and do office work for the senior royals. Anne needs to avoid making critical comments to her brother publicly and should in fact, just remember that Charles needs all the support he can get from her.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: KatherineTheGreat on January 04, 2017, 06:59:34 am
^This is the first I've heard of Princess Anne making critical comments about Charles. idk PC has a tendency to dither. He's passionate about some subjects, but not always decisive. I see HM as being more laying down the law because her standards are so high although she has relaxed in recent years, especially after Diana died, it seems. There are things that members of the RF could not get away with in front of the Queen, that I imagine they could not get away with when PC is king. For example, if a member of the royal family who needed permission to marry came to PC with a controversial partner, he would be hypocritical to say no. She is from a different time.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on January 04, 2017, 08:16:44 am
I do know that Anne and Philip disagree with Charles' view on GM foods but that is the only time I can think of when Anne has publicly disagreed with Charles on a policy type issue.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on January 04, 2017, 12:10:59 pm
As I recall, Anne, Edward and Andrew publicly disagreed on Charles assessment of their parents but this was back in 1994.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 04, 2017, 03:42:50 pm
I don't think Charles cares about coming across as a hypocrite, but as asserting his authority as King and like it or not, his word will be law. It's not at a point where this is the nineties and Charles is surely more concerned about the survival of the institution rather than the niceties of moral dynamics. Thing is, that the Windsors are supposed to provide an unbroken front and no one in that family should forget that Charles is next in line, like it or not. I hope he orders Sophie and Edward to downsize and I look forward to Sophie and Kate being put in their real place.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on January 04, 2017, 03:47:21 pm
Charles should worry about himself. He will be a less than popular monarch and he is trying to get his  less than popular wife crowned as Queen Consort. HE may not think Sophie significant enough to bother with. His main goal should be to give his sons and daughter in law a full plate of duties and expect them to complete them, or else. Sophie and Edward have far fewer holdings than he has in any case. If Charles can't get his direct heirs to work then his dream of downsizing is gone with the wind. William has been allowed to drift for far too long.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 04, 2017, 06:22:59 pm
I HOPE Charles gets William into a mental hospital and makes so much trouble for the Midds that they scurry back to Berkshire or the bowels of Hades. No way should Charles just roll over no matter what and I think the courtiers are already scheming and the public will cheer Charles on.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on January 04, 2017, 11:50:51 pm
How soon would Charles proclaim William as The Prince of Wales?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Sheridan_is_appalled on January 05, 2017, 12:04:59 am
I think he will put that off as long as possible.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on January 05, 2017, 12:10:15 am
Maybe when William actually starts working and earns the title?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on January 05, 2017, 12:38:00 am
Charles can declare William as Prince of Wales at any time he wants to do so. He was made to wait over 6 years which is the longest time on record.

Edward VII made George V wait until November 9th 1901 while George made Edward VIII PoW in June 1910 - barely a month after his father's death.

As I suspect that the public will be calling William PoW almost immediately I think Charles will create William PoW shortly after his mother's funeral - particularly as otherwise they will be using the Cornwall title and he wants that to be associated in the people's minds with Camilla.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on January 05, 2017, 01:23:40 am
William will automatically be the Duke of Cornwall. The title is only associated with Camilla because she was a mistress and people didn't want her to have the title Diana was known by, as she was a big player in destroying her marriage. Prince of Wales is associated with Charles in everyone's mind, but he will not hold that title forever.

I would not be surprised if William got the title fairly quickly, but I do think he needs to step up and do his duties first. He has been raised to be king from birth, it's not like Elizabeth where he wasn't expected to become king because he has an uncle who many thought would eventually marry and have children of his own.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on January 05, 2017, 03:45:48 am
How soon would Charles proclaim William as The Prince of Wales?

Never I hope. Willy deserves nothing.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on January 05, 2017, 06:03:31 am
Of all the titles Charles currently holds the only ones William won't hold automatically the Queen leaves us are Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. Given he has three in his own right now he would hold more than Charles without those others instantly.

It would be unusual for the heir apparent to not be Prince of Wales and set a precedent of no further Princes of Wales - which may be what the Welsh would be happy with or maybe not.

If the Welsh are happy to have a new PoW then he will get that title and before Charles is crowned I suspect so that he and Kate go to the Coronation as TRH the Prince and Princess of Wales rather than TRH the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge. The second is just a mouthful to say or write so PoW makes more sense. Deserving it doesn't come into it as it comes as a right. What had Charles done, aged 9, to deserve it? or Edward VII aged 1 month? etc.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on January 05, 2017, 07:16:52 am
They were being trained for their role from birth and had to be ready whenever their parent died. William has been goofing off, barely trying, ignoring protocol, traditions, duties, etc.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on January 05, 2017, 12:31:41 pm
Outside of  University attendance and military training, William's twenties were spent clubbing, vacationing, shirking, and playing normal.His "training" for Duchy duties, appeared to be mainly photo ops for Hello Magazine. Sad.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on January 31, 2017, 10:46:22 pm
When Charles is King, do you think he will do television interviews?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on January 31, 2017, 11:28:56 pm
^I hope not - I think it is inappropriate for the monarch to do interviews


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HennyPenny on January 31, 2017, 11:35:43 pm



 I think he might.. Try to be seen as more connected to his people than his mother but Charles will probably stick his foot in his mouth and come off as whiny, meddling,or pretentious..


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on February 03, 2017, 03:28:38 am
   Charles is rapidly talking himself out of a job.   William isn't doing much better.  After the Queen dies the whole thing will come to an end. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 03, 2017, 04:57:44 am
They were being trained for their role from birth and had to be ready whenever their parent died. William has been goofing off, barely trying, ignoring protocol, traditions, duties, etc.
Outside of  University attendance and military training, William's twenties were spent clubbing, vacationing, shirking, and playing normal.His "training" for Duchy duties, appeared to be mainly photo ops for Hello Magazine. Sad.

Even at uni he was studying a degree utterly useless to his destiny. I'm all for going after your own interests and strengths, but he got a spoiled rich kid degree and frankly I do not believe that he should have been coddled in any way. No one ever put their foot down with him and MADE him own up.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: kolkomilko on February 03, 2017, 01:33:18 pm
^^ Probably and who knows what next then. I am curious.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 03, 2017, 03:27:32 pm
I do not understand why Charles thinks that he has a right to tell much more experienced politicians how to do their jobs and WHY his pet causes are more important than the hard facts of the responsibilities of servants of the public. I do think Charles will be double dipping, selling his duchy products while milking the public purse.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on February 04, 2017, 01:21:11 am
   Charles only got 2 A levels in High School, he had the assistance of numerous tutors, and still turned out a shoddy result.

       He should not have been permitted to attend uni with those dreadful marks.  After much pressure the uni grudgingly granted him a poor 2.2.

           William and Kate both did better.

               Charles is a meddler who jumps on the bandwagons of others, he is easily led.  See Laurens Van der Post as an example.

                             http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4725722/The-guru-who-got-away-with-it.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 04, 2017, 06:28:59 pm
Council cath only got hers because she cheated.  With the intelligence we see from bill medd he was obviously given his degree because of who he was  -  often done.  They appear to take after chucky with their intelligence - very low in brain cells.  None of them are fit to be king, a right motley crew between them.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on February 04, 2017, 07:37:36 pm
^^Charlie Boy is easily led alright. Look where the wonderful Sir Jimmy Saville led him. *nasty* City. Charlie was great friends with that cretin for decades. DECADES. And yes, gingerboy, there is a total dearth of brain cells in the Windsors.....all the way around. None of them are the sharpest knife in the drawer.....the stupidest being Prince Petulant who had his few brain cells knocked about from that sports injury he received as a child. His brain was turned to mush which made it easy for The Viper and her team to move in on him and take control of his weak unintelligent mind.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 04, 2017, 08:30:39 pm
What does unnerve me the most is how he has no problems justifying his behavior to himself while blaming others for what he wants. Dynastic issues aside, he went after a teenager and then wonders why his wife liked fashion and music and ballet and having fun and wondered WHY the world press went wild over having a bonafide blonde haired, blue eyed princess who loved fashion, looked good in it, and also did fun things with her outfits. He justified the destruction of his dynastic marriage, the disgrace of his dynasty, the throwing of his reputation/credibility in the gutter. He has a very convenient conscience and that unnerves me most of all. A king like that is nothing but trouble and a curse to his nation.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 05, 2017, 12:13:50 am
It bothers me that for the almost twenty years since Diana died, Charles friends and sympathizers started writing "Diana was mad" books. It seems to me that Charles believes he was in the right and feels no remorse. What sort of man would not quietly tell his sympathizers that he does not want the trashing of Diana for the sake of their sons. He didn't. Diana was not perfect but these books are really vicious and Diana is no longer around to defend herself. It's like he is sulking over her complaining about Camilla to this day. He also did not stay in the marriage after she had the requisite heir and spare for him. I think he behaved disgracefully.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on February 05, 2017, 04:14:11 am
You don't expect that arrogant sh*t to admit he could ever be wrong surely?!!

He is a disgrace and he is becoming an even greater danger recently I his political meddling, drawing g comparisons with DT/ migrant issues and the Holocaust amongst other things.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on February 06, 2017, 12:49:49 am
  His "popularity " is at the lowest since Diana died. 

      If he does not abdicate the minute his mother dies Great Britain will no longer have a Monarchy.   He's selfish and churlish and refuses to see the truth.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on February 06, 2017, 06:58:53 am
If he was to abdicate then willy would be king, surely that's no better !


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on February 06, 2017, 01:47:56 pm
Hands down, Charles over the Lazy Petulant One who is totally inept in all areas.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 06, 2017, 03:18:49 pm
Rather a bad choice, I am hoping George will turn out OK.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stormborn on February 06, 2017, 03:45:08 pm
http://imgur.com/a/MHbRg

Best not show Georgie this bit then...


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 06, 2017, 03:53:36 pm
Sprog I is highly unlikely to make it to king.  Many things against it that will never go away, and the truth will out.  He is not even a pleasant, friendly toddler, who would want him as a petulant, lazy, miserable king figure.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Little light on February 06, 2017, 05:21:31 pm
^^   :loveshower:

Totally love it Stormborn.

He's displaying a photo shoot of the family whilst hiding George. It's  brilliant and inspired. And deliberate too.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Stormborn on February 06, 2017, 10:48:34 pm
^ Couldn't believe my eyes when I first saw it. Shows you how he really feels, huh?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on February 06, 2017, 11:18:52 pm
^ I have never seen Prince Charles look so despondent.   :sob: :sob:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 07, 2017, 01:09:42 am
Charles will blow a gasket or have a stroke if Harry proposes to Meg and has to play the happy FIL.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HennyPenny on February 07, 2017, 05:09:20 am


^ Why? The Queen  had the play the happy MIL to  show a united front..


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 07, 2017, 02:33:00 pm
Charles will blow a gasket or have a stroke if Harry proposes to Meg and has to play the happy FIL.

Well the spin was that the boys wanted "Papa" to be happy and be with Camilla. So "Papa" should wish the same for Harry if he proposes to Meg.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 07, 2017, 04:52:10 pm
Charles didn't have heirs with Camilla and HM didn't have to deal with the spud of Camilla being heirs.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 07, 2017, 06:48:13 pm
So true. The only thing would be if in future he gave his stepchildren titles or honors. That would be it.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on February 08, 2017, 06:52:56 am
  Charles is not fit to be King,  here is why    Marc Bolland said that he "...routinely meddled in political issues and wrote sometimes in extreme terms to ministers, MP's and others in positions of political power and influence...The prince used all the means of communication at his disposal, including meetings with ministers and others, speeches and correspondence with leaders in all walks of life and politicians. He was never party-political, but to argue that he was not political was difficult...These letters were not merely routine and non-controversial...but written at times in extreme terms...containing his views on political matters and individual politicians at home and abroad and on international issues...I remember on many occasions seeing in these day files letters which, for example, denounced the elected leaders of other countries in extreme terms".    Marc Bolland was Charles and Camilla's PR Guru.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on February 08, 2017, 01:44:29 pm
The liking Charles has for pushing his own agenda in the matter of agricultural practices and the environment, alternative health practices and a dozen other things is a very worrying tendency of his. He is just going to have to learn to button up his lip and be moderate when dealing with government ministers. Otherwise I can see a massive clash, perhaps even a constitutional crisis arising, if he persists as he has done as POW.

 It's the only thing that worries me about Charles. Otherwise he is a very thoughtful and experienced heir to the throne. In dealing with foreign leaders too, much better to be pragmatic, do what you have to do, even if you can't stand some of them and it goes against the grain, as well as keep quiet. That's what his mother has done during her reign. Charles is going to have to follow suit.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on February 13, 2017, 08:23:21 pm
   Here is why Charles in unfit to be King

     His own PR Guru Marc Bolland said that "he routinely meddled in political issues and wrote sometimes in extreme terms to ministers,  MP's and others in positions of political power and influence. The prince used all the means of communication at his disposal, including meetings with ministers and others,  speeches and correspondence with leaders in all walks of life and politicians.  He was never party-political,  but to argue that he was not political was difficult. These letters were not merely routine and non-controversial, but written at times in extreme terms ! Containing his views on political matters and individual politicians at home and abroad and on international issues ! I remember on many occasions seeing in these day files letters which,  for example,  denounced the elected leaders of other countries in extreme terms,  and other such highly politically sensitive correspondence. "


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 13, 2017, 08:48:19 pm
The whole point of the royal world is about boundaries and respecting them; not pushing yourself on other people and not about making other people do what you want them to do. WHY the British government is so gutless I do not know.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on February 13, 2017, 09:50:18 pm
Well, if Charles is unfit what is the Lazy, Lying, Stupid, Petulant Willy The Spoiled Brat?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 13, 2017, 10:29:53 pm
William is even worse actually. Yet this thread isn't about William.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on February 15, 2017, 12:38:26 am
  Anyone would be better than Charles,  he will bring down Monarchy.   He has pushed people too far.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rebecca on February 15, 2017, 01:34:05 am
^IMHO, monarchy needs to go. It is difficult to believe that the bloodline of a certain family is still believed (against all evidence otherwise  :cookie: ) to be superior to that of others and that they possess a god given right to 'rule'. It is laughable really. Especially when we see what the younger generations are up to.   :ick:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 15, 2017, 02:24:15 am
In the past, a monarch was ruthless in protecting their throne, protecting the nation, and didn't rely on PR to make them 'relevant.' The BRF (among other monarchies) certainly do not at all have anything to offer. In fact, royals these days just LOVE to take take take and basically undermine the prestige of the nation itself. Prince wants to marry a mistress/former drug addict/divorcee; let him be like any normal man! Princess wants to mingle with cutthroat oligarchs; sure why not! After all, they deserve to live life like anyone else, only with legally reinforced titles and money from the taxpayer!

I do think that to a limit, bloodlines do matter, but without training and nonstop testing, it becomes buried under a mound of excess and selfishness.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on February 15, 2017, 04:13:34 am
With great wealth and privilege co.e responsibilities....It's that last bit the current RF seems to have forgotten


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on February 15, 2017, 03:09:58 pm
Sadly it becomes more apparent every day.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on February 22, 2017, 11:27:25 pm
When Charles is King, do you think he will have a statue in honor of his mother erected?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Sheridan_is_appalled on February 23, 2017, 12:17:45 am
He will have a statue of himself erected.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 23, 2017, 12:19:23 am
Who knows.

If he wipes the floor with the Midds and gets his crazy family (sons specifically) in line, he might not be able to continue the monarchy, but at least he will have kept them leashed for a time. The entire clan is out of control and I hope Charles pulls a Prince Robert (from The Royals) and gets craziness under control.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on February 23, 2017, 03:49:38 am
I think there is a certain amount of sons in line going on - they are for sure working more


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on February 24, 2017, 01:34:52 am
The issue of whether Camilla will become Queen Consort (and crowned in the Abbey) rumbles on and on. A writer in the Spectator thinks she doesn't deserve to be Queen. An interesting article, nonetheless.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/prince-charles-wants-a-queen-camilla-hes-still-wrong-heres-why/


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 24, 2017, 03:20:37 am
Charles has gone to show that promises are worthless; he promised to lead a celibate life (broken) and promised never to remarry (broken), promised to make sure Camilla will not be Queen Consort (broken), and soon he might in fact quietly start to have her referred to as Princess of Wales. You know, by not marrying Camilla, he regained a lot of respect and Camilla became tolerable since she remained the mistress and basically wasn't getting the marital payoff of becoming an HRH. Then Camilla is ordered to sit according to her real rank, not that because she's mistress and Charles has a snit and marries her.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on February 24, 2017, 09:04:30 pm
When did Charles promise to live a celibate life? He certainly didn't promise that before marrying Diana. When he married Diana he promised to love, honour and cherish - certainly no promise of a celibate life there. He then said that Camilla was 'non-negotiable' which doesn't sound like he intended on remaining celebate but rather that he intended for her to be his lover for the rest of his life.

The reason why he ended up deciding to marry her was that the Queen wanted the relationship 'regularised' before she died rather than still have it hanging over Charles' head when he succeeded. He was thus encouraged by his mother to marry Camilla.

At no time do I recall him ever saying he would be celibate.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 24, 2017, 09:14:10 pm
I don't get why a royal having a mistress is treated like a scandal. First, Camilla is no shrinking violet pressured into a relationship and second, for the life of me, a powerful man having a mistress is almost normal. Frankly, it's this facade of respectability that is undermining the prestige of the Windsors.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on February 24, 2017, 11:02:01 pm
The Spectator article mentioned Camilla's children are kept separate from Clarence House and Sandringham.   
I last remember about one of her relatives being in the news was when her granddaughter was a bridesmaid in Prince William's wedding.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on February 25, 2017, 12:19:31 am
Sandringham I can understand as it is the Queen's home and Charles spends one weekend a year there along with about 24 hours at Christmas. As the Prince of Wales he arrives last on Christmas Eve - around 4.00 and leaves about the same time the next day. Camilla will already have left by then anyway.

Clarence House is a different matter. I really doubt that Charles would ban his own godson from his home and Tom is is godson.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 25, 2017, 02:08:18 am
There was a fairly recent photo of Charles and Camilla with one (or two?) of her grandchildren at some event.  Tom has benefitted from "Sir" being his stepfather and uses him and "Mum" to promote his cookbooks.  Charles named Camilla as his mistress in 1994, her father confronted him, her husband divorced her. Charles started spending megabucks on her promotion in 1997 (before Diana died) so I think he felt 'obligated.' The trouble was he knew he had to wait because his grandmother did not want her to marry Camilla in her lifetime.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on February 25, 2017, 06:28:56 am
Is this the image?

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2014081520480/prince-charles-bonds-duchess-cornwall-grandchildren-highland-games/

From the Ballater Highland Games - suggesting they were staying at Charles' home on the Balmoral Estate, Birkhall.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 25, 2017, 09:11:42 pm
Yes, that's the photo


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on February 25, 2017, 10:35:27 pm
I am not sure how this discussion is linked to the topic of the thread....?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on February 25, 2017, 11:46:33 pm
I think it because the Spectator article about Charles mentioned that Camilla's children and grandchildren are not on royal property or something to that effect


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Little light on February 25, 2017, 11:50:07 pm
I thought it was that whatever Charles wants, Charles gets, despite his vows and promises to the contrary.



Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 26, 2017, 01:49:15 pm
When there was an article about chucky revamping the play house/tree house/ in the garden at High Grove for the medd sprogs, originally made for bill and haza, it was revealed, much to their chagrin I imagine, that in fact it was actually revamped for camzilla´s children, when they visit High Grove, which allegedly is often. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on March 09, 2017, 09:17:20 pm
  No .. Charles can't abide small children. 


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on March 09, 2017, 09:40:06 pm
Chucky can't abide most humans from what I've seen.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on July 13, 2017, 02:11:17 am
Would not the continuity of Prince Charles' work be clearer if he reigned as King Charles III instead of George VII?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on July 13, 2017, 03:01:59 am
He may perceive Charles as an unlucky name - Charles I lost his head, Charles II converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.

He may like the idea of continuing the Georges  too.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on July 13, 2017, 11:41:58 am
I think it would seem pretentious if he became George after years and years of being Charles. I think he'd still be called Charles.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on July 14, 2017, 01:48:18 am
Let Charles Philip be Charles III. He need not be compared to Charles I and Charles II.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on July 14, 2017, 02:23:31 am
^ Especially since it's been 350 years since Charles II's reign. It's not like it's a recent memory.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on July 15, 2017, 02:13:07 am
^Exactly!!  :goodpost: :goodpost:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 15, 2017, 02:27:55 am
It will also be the first time in history in over 350 years when a mistress successfully destroyed a royal marriage and got crowned. I still believe that if Camilla is crowned it will be the END of the monarchy. It was tolerated with Henry VIII since he had absolute power, but this has no backup. No PR will clean her up and I don't believe that she's going to end up genuinely respected and this might damage everything.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on July 25, 2017, 01:40:18 am
When Charles is King, will he have a major say in what music is performed at his coronation?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 25, 2017, 01:45:45 am
WHo knows; realistically, he clearly will, but I think he's determinedly setting the ground for a more autocratic monarchy that seeps into government influence and control.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on July 25, 2017, 05:28:43 am
When Charles is King, will he have a major say in what music is performed at his coronation?

Yes - unless the music has 'always' been played - i.e. it has been played since around the 1820s - he will be able to choose what he wants.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on July 26, 2017, 02:04:20 am
Would Charles be able to have a musical composition he composed played?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on July 26, 2017, 02:13:08 am
Yes - he could have something he himself has composed or have something commissioned for the service or go with what is already done.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Sheridan_is_appalled on July 26, 2017, 02:20:38 am
When it's Tampon Chucky's turn to grab the throne, he would spare no expense for the coronation I bet


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on July 26, 2017, 12:10:39 pm
Yes, no expense will be spared and probably a slew of books about how "great" he is.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: YooperModerator on July 26, 2017, 02:47:43 pm
It seems as though someone who has waited most people's lifetime for this role would have plenty of time to plan a great deal.  He strikes me as ultra conservative with money though so I don't know if he'd go along with a big expensive splash coronation.  He's got to be aware of the undercurrent of Camilla hostility, yes?  No?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on July 26, 2017, 03:15:17 pm
^ Oh, I think Charles is very much aware of people's feelings about himself, Camilla and the ending of his first marriage. If he hadn't been he wouldn't have employed a spin master like Mark Bolland to try to rehabilitate their reputations before they married. However, monarchs don't pay for their own Coronations, (except perhaps for some guests accommodation, balls, other entertainments beforehand etc) and as far as this next Coronation goes, it will be very much the will of the Government in power at the time as to whether it's going to be an enormous spectacular, a medium spectacle or very basic. I'd guess the middle one myself.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on July 26, 2017, 03:56:15 pm
WHo knows; realistically, he clearly will, but I think he's determinedly setting the ground for a more autocratic monarchy that seeps into government influence and control.

He may well be but he would do so at his own peril. All we would need is a left wing government and Charles would be toast


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: YooperModerator on July 26, 2017, 04:29:49 pm
^^I agree.  Staying big but not too big makes sense.  The BRF has disappointed before, however.  But wisdom points to this avenue.  We'll see, right?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 26, 2017, 05:09:12 pm
I do believe that Charles has 'ideas' and regretfully these ideas are not supplemented with experience and actual training and testing. He only went to university to kill time and studied a fairly useless subject that will be of no real use to him and it's clear that he wants to actually run things according to ideas and not reality. Just trying to run things will in fact cause more harm since he'll disrupt so many other things. He's unwilling to put in extra effort just to be taken seriously and it's clear that he isn't interested in realizing that the world doesn't owe him anything other than token respect as a human being and surface deference for his status as Prince of Wales.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on July 26, 2017, 05:30:24 pm
^^^^If Corbyn's PM it will be next to non-existant.  all we do know for sure is the Mids will have a range of cheap Coronation tat at PP website


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 26, 2017, 06:04:53 pm
I think if Labor gets back into power more prerogatives will be cut out. Charles might want to get the yacht back along with other benefits, but I am sure it won't happen. Once something is gone, it's never brought back.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on July 28, 2017, 01:27:00 am
How many Coronation balls will King Charles III have?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on July 28, 2017, 04:51:00 am
He may have as many as he wants but possibly none. I don't think he is really into balls these days. I suspect there will be a banquet the night before or the night of the coronation and that will be the only event other than the coronation itself - remembering he will be close to 80 or even past it when the time comes.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rebecca on July 28, 2017, 04:35:28 pm
^Close to 80 or past that age when the time comes??

There is no way to know that. Any of us could keel over tomorrow, even the queen. I have to say it is not possible (or extremely foolish) IMO for one to assume that because one's mother lived to be over 100 that it is given for the daughter to do so also. So many young people are dying lately from cancer and other things, that it bothers me to think that someone would be arrogant enough to assume that a 90+ year old woman has at least 10 years left.....


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on July 28, 2017, 07:20:13 pm
Well, he is already pushing 70, so it won't be a coronation for a young king. And that's assuming he gets to be king; something could happen to PC, too (not that I wish anything bad on him).

HM could very well live another decade or so, as she does not seem to be in poor health. But at her age, something small like a flu or infection could prove fatal. So there is no way of knowing.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on July 28, 2017, 07:25:19 pm
I don't think anybody expected the Queen Mum to live past 100. But she did. So theoretically the Queen could. Princess Margaret smoked which probably led to her premature death. There are photos of her as a young woman smoking and she smoked for quite a while.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 28, 2017, 07:38:54 pm
I believe that if Charles has it his way, he would have a grand coronation with the works and certainly his wife will be crowned. Instead however, I believe that the position of monarch will be increasingly fragile with every new antic and he might in fact be forced to forgo crowning Camilla. Each year, each antic, makes the surety of him reigning and passing on an intact throne less and less likely. Each year, I perceive that the Throne might in fact end with Charles' passing, that William will not inherit.

At the risk of sounding more and more mystic, the more each year passes, the less likely I see Charles being much of a king; before William destroyed his life by becoming engaged to Kate, it looked as if Charles was going to become King and was credible and looking very on track. Now with each year since the 2011 blasphemous version of a Christian wedding, it keeps looking like the monarchy might in very well fact end up ending, with Charles' role as king being predetermined instead of what he (Charles) would want it to be. He clearly might end up being the king that oversaw the dissolution of the monarchy and provided stability for the nation while it transitioned. The older he gets, the less likely it will be that there'll be a grand, widely respected coronation and chances are it'll be more along the lines of an investiture and a simple banquet. Nothing like the grandeur that he might in fact be hankering after.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on August 05, 2017, 11:09:04 pm
As the many changes of the Winds staff that have been going on and will continue are linked to the change in power, I'll post this here:

>> Exodus of senior aides in palace shake-up has turned into ‘royal shambles’ as ‘the firm’ is plunged into uncertainty
   
    The Palace is in a state of disarray following a wave of senior resignations
    It is becoming clear that the shake-up has been ordered by the Queen herself
    Those preparing to leave include Prince William and Harry's private secretaries

Buckingham Palace is in a state of disarray following a wave of senior resignations and departures, The Mail on Sunday has learned.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Queen herself has ordered a shake-up of courtiers at the royal palaces as she prepares for a future in which she allows Prince Charles to take the lead.

But palace sources are concerned that ‘the firm’ has been plunged into uncertainty following last week’s shock resignation of the Queen’s right hand man, Sir Christopher Geidt, as revealed by the MoS, along with several other leading figures.

‘You could described it as a right royal shambles, ’ said one courtier.
[...] <<

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764356/Palace-shake-turned-royal-shambles.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on August 06, 2017, 09:45:14 pm
Some have mentioned that the queen will give up her role to Charles when she is 95. And it makes sense she will lose mental capacity the older she is. Why wait until she cannot deal when they can do it sooner and in a more organised manner.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 06, 2017, 10:03:25 pm
Some elderly stay sharp as a tack. Olivia De Havilland at 101 started a lawsuit against the producers of Feud for the way she was portrayed. Actor Norman Lloyd (acted in Saboteur a Hitchcock film in 1940 and just lately in Amy Schumer film Train WReck) at 102 was interviewed about his film roles and is sharp as a tack as well.  Some elderly do not lose mental capacity. I think she will not abdicate but if she becomes incapacitated Charles will be  Prince Regent. She had said she would not abdicate and I don't think she will.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on August 06, 2017, 10:06:24 pm
I think that HM is sharp, but is being run over by her younger heirs and she has no idea on how to cope. Charles has the ideas, but not the power; I do think HM is in fact giving Charles more power over the ducal couple and her dolt grandson Harry, but that is as far as it's going to go.

In my honest view, I think HM might in fact lack the guts to take the action needed to get WKH in line for good. Charles on the other hand has both guts and determination and if his reign will in fact be where he provides a focus for stability and safety while the nation transitions into abolishing the monarchy, I am certain he and the courtiers will in fact make WKH pay in spades in every possible area. I also think there will be a transition into a more decisive and ruthless reign. Charles is not one to shrink from taking action and however wrongheaded, he might in fact come into his own once he is king. I am certain that he and the courtiers are itching to put all three brats in their place for all the grief they've caused HM. Charles won't care about his image once he decides to start pushing back.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on August 06, 2017, 10:14:33 pm
But she has to deal with gov issues and many many other things. She may remain sharp but at 95 I am sure she will want to relax and you just don't have the same vitality. Though I do not think she will abdicate or be incapacitated. I think Charles will assume the day to day activities. And she will do the rest. But if one day she cannot even do that they will have to declare Charles regent.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: danifaul on August 06, 2017, 11:05:56 pm
Quote
The shake-up is also seen as a response to the increasingly chaotic rivalry between the separate households – Kensington Palace, run by the young royals, Clarence House, home to Charles and Buckingham Palace itself. Consultation and co-ordination are felt to be in short supply.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4764356/Palace-shake-turned-royal-shambles.html

finally   :thumbsup:
Sometimes there seem to be three monarchies..... :nervous:  imagine when the queen dies.

About new KP team members:
-Catherine Quinn
I liked the change for Kate, let's see Harry.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on August 06, 2017, 11:15:41 pm
I'm horrified at how fractured the BRF is; Charles is organized and has a full agenda, but WKH seem determined to engage in power plays and refuse to get into a simple royal routine. I do believe that Philip is retired because he can't cope anymore with the nonstop chaos.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 06, 2017, 11:56:39 pm
But she has to deal with gov issues and many many other things. She may remain sharp but at 95 I am sure she will want to relax and you just don't have the same vitality. Though I do not think she will abdicate or be incapacitated. I think Charles will assume the day to day activities. And she will do the rest. But if one day she cannot even do that they will have to declare Charles regent.

She always has had advisors. But I think she will just make Charles regent  if it comes to her stepping down and still keep the title of Queen until she passes on. At this stage, Charles is no spring chicken so I hope William, Kate and Harry do more work. If Charles becomes regent, the younger generation will obviously need to take up more duties to. I hope they step up to the plate.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on August 07, 2017, 12:15:59 am
I'm talking more about gov matters than anything else. I am not sure how much work she does but I think a lot if she has to keep up with everything so that would be a better job for Charles. The problem is if he can do it without being regent or not.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 07, 2017, 12:23:53 am
George IV got to be Prince Regent. Since the QUeen expressed a wish not to abdicate, I think it feasible for Charles to become PRince Regent.  I also do not think Charles would want the precedence of abdication because he might find himself pressured to step down when he does not feel ready.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: windsor2 on August 07, 2017, 03:28:45 am
Charles really messed up his own transition because he broke away from his parents and set up his own court. He laid down the idea that it's ok to establish your own court and to set your own adgenda away from the queen, so now that he has to right the ship of Wills doing the same and making a mess of it which in turn messes up his idea of a slimmed down monarchy. Wills dragging the Midds in and Harry getting into one mess after the other after he proves that he does very well when he's focused and passionate about something like Invictus Games, Charles can't rely on them to have his back and carry on. As I've said ad nauseum, what's going on now regarding getting rid of "yes" people and inexperienced staff around Wills and Harry is way too late because the public's had enough and both Wiils and Harry have are way too old to be playing games and messing with the people's goodwill towards them by using Diana's death and any other excuse they could come up with. Ok, so it's not far fetched to believe that this Harry/Mehgan rubbish is a diversion so Charles can put out more important fires like what Wills has gotten into with the Midds (see members only section) and the mere cheapening of the royal family regarding Prince Andrew and his nasty under age prostitute scandals and the shifty business people he seems to keep company with, but when is it going to end? Will it be worth the trouble in the end or are we seeing the end of the Windsors?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on August 07, 2017, 03:44:01 am
With Charles, I understand his own office and staff, but thing is, he has had no business building his own faction and his own son has been his karma. William should have been taken under HM's wing and orders and same with Harry; neither have proven their ability to run their lives responsibly.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on August 07, 2017, 06:18:58 am
Separate courts is normal between the monarch and the heir. It is why they have separate duchies to fund them as well. The last time there was a situation with an adult heir though George V was very much part of his father's court and remained that way because he was largely dependent on his father for money while William and Harry aren't. They are independently wealthy thanks to their inheritance from Diana.

The main reason the Queen didn't set up a separate court was that she didn't have access to a separate fund as she wasn't entitled to the income of the Duchy of Cornwall as she was only ever the heiress presumptive and thus not the eldest son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent. (Victoria and George III faced the same issues regarding income for the same reason - weren't entitled to the income of the Duchy of Cornwall as they didn't met the dual requirements of eldest living son and heir apparent - this issue will need addressing if George's first born child is a girl but until then they can let is stay as is).


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Tatiana on August 11, 2017, 06:33:28 am
  The Queen will never allow Charles to be Regent, she makes a vow and she keeps it.  The only way he can be Regent is if she "off her head", and there is no sign of that .   George I and George II had separate courts , as did Prince Frederick.. pretty standard stuff in the RF.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on August 12, 2017, 03:46:57 am
I'm going from memory so it's possible I'm wrong, but didn't the last two Kings start life as the younger brother? So maybe, history will repeat itself and Harry will be the next King.  :dontknow: :dontknow:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: leogirl on August 12, 2017, 05:40:24 am
That only worked in the past because the older brother didn't have any kids. Or the kids he had were by a mistress and the legitimate kids didn't survive. Harry is fifth in line to the throne and the two people immediately ahead of him are 30 years younger than he is.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on August 12, 2017, 07:20:10 am
George V became King because his older brother died before he married or had children. Albert Victor was only ever 2nd in line to the throne and never the heir himself - in William's position but never in Charles.

George VI became King when his older brother abdicated.

The last time someone closer to the throne than Harry had a child and the brother still succeeded was George IV being succeeded by his younger brother William but that was because he was in a loveless marriage, with one child who herself died in childbirth with her child.

The only way Harry becomes King is if William, George and Charlotte are killed. Given how close Harry is to his older brother surely no one would want him to lose basically his entire family just so he could become King?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on August 12, 2017, 11:15:11 pm
Charles the Prince Regent? Amid major palace shake-up, is the Queen preparing to abdicate and make Charles the king in all but name?

    Queen Elizabeth has vowed that abdicate is something she will never do
    Yet with Queen now aged 92, and Duke of Edinburgh choosing to retire last month, plans are afoot which, would see Charles appointed King in all but name
    Palace sources have indicated that Queen has told inner circle that, if she is still on the throne at 95, she will ask for the Regency Act to come into force


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4785166/Is-Queen-preparing-abdicate.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on August 12, 2017, 11:24:16 pm
  The Queen will never allow Charles to be Regent, she makes a vow and she keeps it.  The only way he can be Regent is if she "off her head", and there is no sign of that .   George I and George II had separate courts , as did Prince Frederick.. pretty standard stuff in the RF.

I am not so sure that she won't hand over to Charles and have him officially appointed as Prince Regent while she remains HM The Queen. She won't be breaking her vow in doing that - she may even be really keeping it. Afterall it was 'to serve' all the days of her life - not necessarily to 'reign'. She may feel that the best way for her 'to serve' her people is to have Charles serve as Regent while she is there to show her support for her eldest son. She won't abdicate I agree on that but asking the relevant parliaments to pass the necessary legislation to created him Prince Regent is possible.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 13, 2017, 01:29:00 am
These "shadow king" stories have been going on for years now. Charles apparently is getting anxious. It is quite ghoulish.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on August 13, 2017, 02:42:40 am
Would Charles have a lot of paperwork to fill out stating that he would agree to be the Prince Regent?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on August 13, 2017, 03:19:04 am
No. The law is clear - IF the Queen is incapacitated and the relevant three people tell the parliament that then he is automatically Regent.

If the situation arises where the Queen asks parliament to appoint him the same thing would apply - it would be automatic once the parliament agreed and no paperwork would be required to be signed by Charles. If it is via a request by HM then she would sign the legislation.

The precedence for this would be Edward VIII - the last thing he did as King was sign the Abdication Legislation making it into law. George VI did nothing more than be the next in line (of course this was a change of monarch but the principle is the same.)



Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 13, 2017, 08:05:04 am
Thankfully, the Queen is OK now.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on August 13, 2017, 05:57:42 pm
According to what's written it's not about Liz being ok, but about her age. Seems like she does want to retire, at 95 apparently. I have no reason to not believe this and think it's very true and it's a way to prep the public for Charles's takeover, even if Liz is still with us and as fit as a fiddle. I also think that the plan makes tonnes of sense, she's in her 90s and anyone that old deserves to retire and have a quieter life, and apart from that visible markers have been set in motion - a turnover of staff, new plans, Phil's retirement, and articles prepping the public for the change ahead. Philip announced his retiremet at 95 and just turnt 96 when he retired, so that seems to be Liz's & Phil's magic number for when they say "enough is enough". The issue is also that no head of state (& spouse) ever became this old, so they are dealing with sth that is unprecedented, but seem to have worked out a way for themselves.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 13, 2017, 06:57:18 pm
Elizabeth has servants and the best medical care at her disposal should she become ill. She shows no sign of dementia or anything like that. I don't see why she'd have to step down just because she's 91. It's not as if she works in a mine or has a 40 hour a week job. I think it has been all set up already so there is a smooth transition between reigns. I think Charles should think twice about "encouraging" her to retire because for one thing he's no spring chicken himself and when he becomes King (since his mother theoretically establishes the retirement pattern) then he too would be pressured to retire which I think he would loathe. Philip is not the monarch his wife is. IF she is of sound mind and body I think she will stay on. She has children and grandchildren to help out.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on August 14, 2017, 03:44:49 am
George V became King because his older brother died before he married or had children. Albert Victor was only ever 2nd in line to the throne and never the heir himself - in William's position but never in Charles.

George VI became King when his older brother abdicated.

The last time someone closer to the throne than Harry had a child and the brother still succeeded was George IV being succeeded by his younger brother William but that was because he was in a loveless marriage, with one child who herself died in childbirth with her child.

The only way Harry becomes King is if William, George and Charlotte are killed. Given how close Harry is to his older brother surely no one would want him to lose basically his entire family just so he could become King?

Oh no, I didn't mean that Harry would lose his entire family. Not at all. I was thinking more under the idea of something else. Sorry. I didn't mean to offend.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on August 14, 2017, 06:24:48 am
I wonder if Charles realizes that this whining about being Heir is likely making other world leaders uneasy; he's shown he will not respect any boundaries and I do know that the worst part will be how he has foolishly exposed his dislike of the Chinese, who are not going to forget Charles' support of Tibet. I don't really see Charles being King for long and I don't see the House of Windsor surviving the death of HM beyond Charles' reign.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on August 14, 2017, 12:14:04 pm
There really is no way it will survive beyond Charles. Can any of you truly see William as King? Can any of you see Council Cath as Queen Consort? Can any of you see The Viper as The Queen Mother? Can any of you see Leatherette with her Ugly Rat Face along with Cake Boy swaining about with titles gurning eternally for the camera? Will all of this be tolerated? I don't think so. Not even with a well thought out PR campaign will this happen. No, No and Hell To The No.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on August 14, 2017, 01:35:24 pm
^Only in our worst nightmares

Seems the PR campaign by Char;es and Camilla isn't  working anyway

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4787550/Infidelity-won-t-forgiven.html



Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on August 14, 2017, 02:10:38 pm
Away from Royal forums and some Twitter sites though, the feeling towards William is very different than it is on them. And that showed with the latest poll.

Of course it's not constitutionally possible but that poll showed over half of Britons want the throne to skip Charles and go to William. Charles is not popular, for many reasons, some of which we know about, the ending of his first marriage, Camilla, the eccentricities, the interference with Ministers that some people object to.

By contrast, people who don't pay that much attention to the Cambridges see them as a young(ish) couple with two cute kids, who won't rock the boat.

Quite frankly, IMO, any republican feelings in the near future after the Queen dies are more likely to be focused on Charles and Camilla that on William and Kate. Charles is vulnerable on many fronts, and has a whole lot of lead in the saddlebags, the Cambridges not so much, at least where the British public is concerned.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: india on August 14, 2017, 03:39:05 pm
The Cambridges have many areas of weakness. The true origins of their supposed children. Council Cath's obsession with her crotch and her constant flashing. All things Middleton. Their slackness, their laziness, their ineptitude and their total stupidity.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on August 14, 2017, 04:35:10 pm
There really is no way it will survive beyond Charles.
Can any of you truly see William as King? Can any of you see Council Cath as Queen Consort?
Can any of you see The Viper as The Queen Mother? Can any of you see Leatherette with her Ugly Rat Face along with Cake Boy swaining about with titles gurning eternally for the camera? Will all of this be tolerated? I don't think so. Not even with a well thought out PR campaign will this happen. No, No and Hell To The No.

If only Charles hadn't married his mistress! He would not be as discredited as he is now and all those fawning BS articles would have in fact ended up just a single prince who could have remarried someone suitable, had a phalanx of heirs, and I am certain there would be less misery overall. The minute Camilla chose to be a mistress to a married man, that should have been it, no chance at marriage with Charles EVER.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: dianab on August 14, 2017, 05:37:12 pm
^Disagree.

His close friendships with people like Jimmy Saville and Bishop Peter Ball should be enough to get rid of Charles


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on August 20, 2017, 03:19:57 pm
Queen will NOT stand aside to let Charles take her duties: Officials seek to quash rumours monarch will make him Prince Regent

    Sources dismiss rumours monarch was planning to hand over duties to Charles
    They said 'there will never be a regency' unless she was too sick to carry on
    Comes after the Duke of Edinburgh retired from official duties early this month


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4806824/Queen-NOT-stand-aside-let-Charles-duties.html

Not sure why this kerfuffle is out, it was said earlier that a regency were to happen once Liz is 95 (if at all), not now.
Looks like major discord is going on behind the scenes?
 :dontknow:


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 20, 2017, 03:33:50 pm
This has been going on for years. I think it just rumors from Charles' camp. There is nothing official that she will retire at 95 it is merely rumor


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on August 21, 2017, 01:09:54 am
Charles's popularity plummets amid the 20th anniversary of Diana's death: Just a third of Britons think he's doing a good job while only 14% want Camilla to be Queen, according to shocking new poll

    Prince Charles's popularity has plunged in run up to anniversary of Di's death 
    New poll shows just one in four think he has had a negative impact on royals
    And only 14 per cent want to see Camilla as queen when he becomes king
    Comes after the head of state and her family were photographed in Balmoral


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4807930/Charles-hit-Diana-backlash-popularity-slumps.html

As I've been saying for ages now, they have ruined their success and goodwill with that shyte show they pulled completely.
A poll I for once can fully believe.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 21, 2017, 01:39:06 am
Junor's sycophantic book and the premise that Camilla was the 'savior' of the monarchy made them both laughingstocks, IMO.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on August 21, 2017, 05:04:16 am
I am not sold that this poll in many ways.

1. William adds to the monarchy - 78% say he does

2. At the same time Charles adds nothing to the monarchy,

At face value that means someone who does around 200 engagements a year adds more to the value of the monarchy, who sues the press at the drop of a hat, who whinges about knowing what a royal is etc etc adds more to the monarchy than a man who does nearly 600 engagements a year and has helped 100,000s of young Britons.

This forum is always commenting on how William doesn't do anything - but he is adds way more to the value of the monarchy than his father.

Sad but true - a do nothing William and a do even less Kate are seen as doing more for the monarchy than Charles.

William and Harry, of course, will be delighted as this shows that their way - of one or two appearances a week and the odd tour - is the right way ahead for the monarchy as well as living their version of 'normal'. This is what they want - to change totally the monarchy - to one that doesn't do very much at all for anyone other than themselves.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on August 21, 2017, 11:38:26 am
^ Sadly those polls are confirmation for W&K&H that they can just continue as they do, it will reinforce endlessly to them that their way is the right way, no change necessary. But even with those who approve the blinders will come off omce Will is closer to the throne.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on August 21, 2017, 01:00:47 pm
If Charles had any sense he would have not allowed Diana to be bashed by Seward and others and make up gossipy stories and label her with various "mental illnesses." It makes him seem mean and petty and bitter. Camilla's overpraise by Junor probably put them off to Charles and Camilla even though some may have been more tolerant of them. It was a turn off to have the unsubtle spin for Charles. I don't think CHarles had much sense.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: gingerboy24 on August 21, 2017, 01:44:33 pm
Thankfully, unless chucky pops his clogs before queenie dies, then chucky is the heir, that is the law.  Bill medd is not fit for the job, 200% totally unsuitable.  Not keen on chucky, but will take him over bill medd every time.  At least he has some sort of work ethic, and no vile, disgusting, devious, greedy, grasping downmarket trailer trash meddledooms for the taxpayer to keep in luxury.  I do not think either fit for the job, but would take chucky over bill any day of the week.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on September 15, 2017, 11:37:27 pm
Revealed: Queen's most senior courtier was forced out of his job in bitter power struggle over Prince Charles's demands for extra royal duties ahead of his succession to the throne

    Sir Christopher Geidt - the monarch's private secretary - resigned his job in July
    It was the first time that the Queen had ever gotten rid of her private secretary
    Now it has emerged it was due to complaints from Charles and the Duke of York


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4889462/Queen-s-aide-ousted-power-struggle.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on September 15, 2017, 11:50:21 pm
Charles is so self centered. If he had any brains he would give a full plate of duties to his lazy son and not take them all himself.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 16, 2017, 01:43:33 am
Is there a REASON HM does not protect her courtiers, or ever back them up against her out of control family? I'd like to know as much. The courtiers do EVERYTHING to keep this family on track and apparently do every clerical duty and their 'reward' is to get kicked around and shoved out.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on September 16, 2017, 03:07:38 am
I think Charles is probably quite anxious to assume some more ceremonial type roles while he's waiting to be King. He's already the oldest living heir in history, so I suppose you can't blame him. He's already 70 and once you reach your senior years sometimes things happen. God forbid that it will, but in fact a very aged parent sometimes does survive an elderly son or daughter.

I do think the Queen is resigned to, if not a retirement role then certainly a much reduced role in public life. The red boxes, the receiving of Ambassadors, Opening of Parliament, PrivyCouncil decisions and State Visits from other HOS, do of course require her participation, but much of the rest can be handed over to Charles. There may be a limit put on the Queen's public engagements in years to come as well.

Let's face it, with a monarch who is 92 next birthday, all eyes, however reluctantly, are turning towards Charles and a new reign, a new way of doing things. His offices at CH have always been regarded as run quite chaotically, (several biographers have pointed that out) but with a new reign coming there's inevitably a jostling for power and Sir Christopher is unfortunately one of the casualties. IMO the Queen allowed his resignation because the power base is shifting towards her son and her son's way of doing things, and so some of her Old Guard are going to have to go, especially if, like Sir Christopher, they have butted heads with the CH people in the past.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 16, 2017, 03:43:17 am
If Charles spent more time cleaning up his own household (dolt sons) he would in fact be able to focus on himself. Life is NEVER fair, but lets be honest, he's had more than enough to compensate throughout his life. He is owed nothing by HM and frankly I think HM should have protected her private secretary.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on September 16, 2017, 12:36:27 pm
Charles could not even work on his first marriage. He had Camilla constantly flattering him and putting down the first wife. Charles seriously bungled thinking himself superior to mortal men and being able to do as he pleased. It did not help matters that the Queen Mum spoiled him and gave him a big  sense of entitlement. ANd it was always all about HIM. Promoting himself as "great father" for a few months then starting up the Camilla Campaign again. He should have given his sons work in their twenties and not allowed the fake job for William.  His priorities were always messed up. He also was well aware that his mother gave birth to him at a young age and became Queen at a young age and chances are he'd have a long wait. I don't feel the least bit sorry for his having to "wait." Probably better for the country that he is waiting.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on September 16, 2017, 06:30:52 pm
Some nice little titbits from behind the Times paywall about the resignation of the Queen's Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Gelt.

It seems  Charles and Andrew teamed up as Andrew has disliked Sir Christopher for a long time. He blames him for the loss of his Trade Envoy position and also because he blocked some helicopter and jet flights 'more often than Andrew would like'. Charles's staff at CH were unhappy about Sir C announcing Prince Philip's retirement as they reported to Charles, they felt 'he was going above his station'. Charles also apparently felt that Sir Christopher was getting in the way of his King in waiting role.

The article states that the Queen doesn't like the way the younger royals are close to their staff at KP but they had nothing to do with Sir C's ousting as they always got on well with him. The Queen ultimately agreed to Sir Christopher being given the sack, as 'at 91 she wants a quiet life'.

The Lord Chamberlain, Earl Peel, told Sir Christopher that his position was untenable. Earl Peel is a close friend of Charles, who recommended him for the Lord Chamberlain's position.

The BBC have apparently intimated that Sir Christopher was pushed out of the position and didn't go willingly.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on September 16, 2017, 06:58:17 pm
This is why I think the Dutch and Spanish (though Juan Carlos didn't want to) way is the best. The older generation served, did what they could and then retired and handed the reins over, enjoying their life. Liz is often said to want a quiet life now, with most things being handed over to Charles. An abdication will never happen, but the Brits ought to look at their peers a bit closer I think.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on September 17, 2017, 03:21:16 pm
This is well-known already, but anyway:

Prince Charles 'won't live at Buckingham Palace when he becomes King' - even though it is currently getting a 10-year £370m makeover

    Prince Charles intends to live at Clarence House rather than Buckingham Palace after he becomes King, it is reported
    He and wife Camilla said to be 'comfortable' at current home and loathe to move
    Instead palace would be used as a 'monarchy HQ' and opened more to the public
    The 775-room palace is currently undergoing a £370million makeover


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4892462/Prince-Charles-won-t-live-Buckingham-Palace-King.html

--

Prince Charles trying to usurp the Queen? No way, say royal aides

    Controversial claims suggest the Prince worked to increase his responsibilities by the time he turns 70 next year, a move said to be known as Project 70
    But sources told The Mail on Sunday that the so-called project is ‘fantasy’
    Claims that Charles had joined his younger brother Andrew in working to oust the Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, have also been dismissed


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4891706/Prince-Charles-usurping-Queen-No-way-say-aides.html


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on September 17, 2017, 11:57:14 pm
It does not mean Charles is "thrifty." He is super privileged. When he becomes King William may reverse the decision and move into Buckingham Palace.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: cate1949 on September 18, 2017, 04:28:20 am
the DM promptly reversed that story - can't post the link now but CH people said the story was not true and he would live at BP.  You just cannot trust the DM always stirring the pot


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 18, 2017, 04:49:26 am
I don't trust the Palace; no one with any sense would want to believe anything at face value.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on September 18, 2017, 08:31:15 am
The rumours about what Charles may do when he is King have been doing the rounds since his birth in 1948 with different ones coming out of the woodwork every five or so years.

The idea of Charles not wanting to move into BP was first floated as far as I can remember in the 1970s. I can remember my grandmothers having a discussion about it and they both died in the 1970s.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on September 25, 2017, 12:34:38 am
Now Charles promotes his loyal aide to director role: Controversial former valet appointed to firm Prince set up to sell goods at Highgrove

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4915806/Charles-promotes-loyal-aide-Michael-Fawcett-director.html

Very interesting article.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on September 25, 2017, 02:21:26 am
I think Fawcett is the true non-negotiable in CHarles' life.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Rosella on September 25, 2017, 03:04:46 am
I think there'll be a lot more to come out in future years about Fawcett the Fence and his nefarious dealings on behalf of his employer. It's very funny how when the spotlight turns on something shady he's done for Charles he gets the sack and then when things cool down he's rehired again.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: CathyJane on September 26, 2017, 02:26:47 am
Somehow I can't see Ol' Drip Drip getting the boot officially. Probably Chucky's PR announces the 'firing' but it never happened. And i agree, he is more non-negotiable the Cammie ever has been.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Val on September 26, 2017, 07:22:40 am
PD recorded in her 'dossier' of RF scandals that there was much more to the relationship between Fawcett and PC.  She used the dossier as leverage and it was said that it was one of the reasons for her alleged assassination.  It disappeared when she died and was said to be the true reason
for the search of Burrell's home and the sudden end of his Court case after QE suddenly 'remembered' that she had said he could keep some of PD's things for safekeeping.  Many think it will 'reappear' over the transition period.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: marion on September 26, 2017, 06:49:17 pm
Would be greatly if that dossier were to describe light if day again. Even without these revelations the reputation of the RF is in the gutter


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: windsor2 on October 01, 2017, 05:53:48 pm
Prince Andrew is running out of time to persuade his family he is an important Royal/

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/wars-succession-windsors-flux-courtiers-depart-prince-charles-prince-andrew-jockey-position


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 01, 2017, 09:45:58 pm
Has anybody ever come across any official announcement that Charles intends on 'slimming down' the royal family?

I do know that in 1992, after the first meeting of the now defunct Way Ahead Group, a minor staffer made that comment to the press but can't find any official comment from Charles or his office to this effect.

There are lots of reports in the press but they all quote unnamed 'sources' which often means 'we are making this up as we go along'.

I have seen a tweet from at least two royal reporters in answering that question stating that there is no such intention from Charles - and certainly not the idea that he will cut out anyone currently working but his intention is to not add the York girls, or in time, Harry's children to the working royals roster.

All i can get from my contacts is that there is nothing official and there won't be any changes made to any current arrangements when Charles becomes King other than a lot fewer people appearing on the balcony at Trooping the Colour so the visual of the size of the royal family is a better image. His siblings will continue working for the Firm for the rest of their working lives but not their children.

If anyone has a link to a comment from Charles or a senior staff member from CH on Charles' behalf I would love to see it as otherwise this is a comment made in 1992 that has become a de facto official position without actually ever being such.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 01, 2017, 09:48:39 pm
Charles stated intentions should wait until he's King. The Queen is still very much alive. Why would he do this now? It would show disrespect to the Queen or he was in some sort of a "hurry."

It will all have to wait until Charles gets to be King.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on October 01, 2017, 10:14:44 pm
It's mostly all rumours and I doubt they'd say anything official anyway, even now (and 10 or 20 years ago even more so) no one knows who's going to live how long and more importantly, in what state the country and the world and its citizens are going to be, plus how the family will change until a new monarch. So I guess these were all legitimate ideas and as usual a mix happened of unwanted and deliberate leaks; someone who wasn't supposed to sold stuff to the press or blabbed and some things the Winds themselves "leaked" to gauge public reaction. The ever standing word that the York girls aren't going to work (for Charles) and neither will Harry's possible children, means de facto a "slimmed down monarchy" focused on Charles and his direct line, more so the direct heirs. A model used already in many other European monarchies. Beyond the Yorkies there's only Anne's offspring who are not official members of the RF so strike those out, and then Ed's kids who are so young still, you can't count them in and they are far down the line. A slimmed down monarchy is kind of very much a given, taking these things into account and the fact that there are less and less titles going around with each new generation and a lack of interest to "work" for the rf when everyone has other dreams and accomplishments.

I doubt much change would be made, as you say meememe, if Liz dropped now or soon, there wouldn't be much need for change, really, except for Bill (& Harry, not to forget Kate) to step up much more. They keep saying that after the disaster of Ed taking over from Vic, the direct heir(s) is clued in so well, and with Liz's age I can see how Charles would be stepping more and more into the role of king, even though he isn't in name so, so basically I think the operations are pretty much shaped into sth Charles wants for his reign, hence not much change needed/ planned.

PS Even if not intended as such, the monarchy under Charles is going to look slimmed down, because he has only two kids whilst Liz has four, and before that most generations had many kids, so you always had a big family and titles were handed out like sweets, so when the exceptional happened and a past king had only two kids (Liz & Marg), there were so many cousins and siblings and titles that it didn't seem like a "small" family, the balcony was crowded. Will be much different with Charles's "only" two children and a lack of titled cousins (eg Zara & Peter) & extended family.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 01, 2017, 10:27:29 pm
Charles can't step into the role of King while his mother is still alive. And The Queen appears to be healthy and is not sick or anything. Charles has taken on more of her duties but is not King or even playing at being one.

Even if Harry's future children can't participate, they would not be of age until say. 2040 just to give an estimate. By that time William may be King and reverse what Charles' wanted and lets Harry's children work. I think it premature to apply rules to the children working, they have years ahead of them before any royal work and they need to go to school and University first.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on October 01, 2017, 10:31:31 pm
There is no need of official announcement we've seen actions that indicates that way. Edward kids use the lady/lord title instead of their official ones of prince/princess. They wanted the same for the Yorks. The Yorks also do not work for the firm as the Gloucester/Kent did in their era.

Then the balcony scene for the jubilee.

I don't know, for me it is quite obvious. I think it is rational if and only if Charles gives the same treatment to Harry's kids.

I don't get why fewer people should appear at the Trooping. I thought like any descendant from Victoria could appear and the king of Norway did appear many years.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: windsor2 on October 01, 2017, 10:46:54 pm
Alexandrine, he did by his actions during the queen's jubilee I believe, when he, Harry Wills Camilla and Waity were the only ones on the balcony of Buckingham Plalace. From then on, there've been rumors that Andrew felt threatened and was challenging Charle's decision and bring the queen into the argument in wantinghis daughters to have official roles in the royal family;working royals.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on October 01, 2017, 10:52:43 pm
yes, that's what I meant.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: HRHOlya on October 01, 2017, 10:55:25 pm
^^^^ No, not really king, he isn't going to meet the PM or open parliament, but there are ideas and changes internally said to be directed by Charles and that Liz is taking some direction, for the sake of a "smooth transition"; which is also why heirs see the red boxes since Edward, because he knew fck all when he ascended and it took them (courtiers/ men in grey) ages to get him up to speed, because Vic refused to clue him in and share anything. There is quite a good deal of substance to these rumours and why imo they can indeed be taken seriously. I also believe the "liz to retire at 95" rumours and her slowing down more and more since she turned 90. She's not going to retire per se, but what could realistically happen is that come her being 95 she'll make fewer appearances, focusing on only the important stuff like meeting the PM and the red boxes, the super important official stuff, but not travel anymore outside the UK (or likely Britain) and not head out for every plaque unveiling and ribbon cutting.

What role Harry's possible kids will have, will depend on how things will be in 20 or so years (and whether he has any to begin with), that's what I meant earlier that some ideas can be spun, but ultimately how they're going to take shape will depend on how things are once the time comes. Before that you can only speculate and draft various plans and scenarios to prepare.

^^^ Yes, imo the slimmed down bit is more or less in effect and shown with the balcony appearances, as it was said that as per Chales's plan for a slimmed down monarchy the balcony appearances were reduced to get people used to the idea/ sight. It's basically happening. Anne prepped her kids from the get-go for a life outside and Louise & James never will get abuse and won't be expected to step up (by anyone) because they use the lord & lady style instead of prince/ss, which is however not due to the Wessex's impeccable foresight, but because the monarchy was at the time of the Wessex wedding and their birth at such a low, the Winds didn't want to risk an outcry from the public, hence also the "small" wedding in Windsor instead of a bonanza in London. But ultimately it will all play into the "slimming down" scheme, even if it wasn't intended for it at the time.

^^ Seems like really only the Yorks are protesting and challenging the slimmed down idea, which is also likely why it's talked about so much, they just can't handle being sidelined so to say and go whining to the press who then constantly report on changes and slimming down the RF.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 01, 2017, 11:04:16 pm
I don't think she will retire at 95. She said she would not abdicate/retire.

I don't think Charles plan is realistic. Harry and William are not exactly workhorses and Kate may do very little and Meghan (if she marries Harry) as well. I think Charles if being petty about the York girls. If they are willing and don't shirk, I don't see why they can't pitch in. He may need more people for the plan of his.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: Alexandrine on October 01, 2017, 11:08:32 pm
They don't need to be workhorses only popular. Events are done to keep them relevant if they do few but are popular that's ok. But it is a dangerous situation, if the monarchy popularity is low there is no argument to keep them.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: sandy on October 01, 2017, 11:47:36 pm
They have dedicated workers outside the "core" if they are given reduced responsibilities (e.g. Princess Anne), I doubt William, Harry, and Kate and Harry's wife can do it all. Plus Charles and Camilla are not getting any younger.


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: FrederickLouis on October 03, 2017, 01:56:09 am
Charles stated intentions should wait until he's King. The Queen is still very much alive. Why would he do this now? It would show disrespect to the Queen or he was in some sort of a "hurry."

It will all have to wait until Charles gets to be King.
@sandy, I agree that Elizabeth II could find her son's intentions a little too outgoing and premature. What if a Court procedure was changed and then changed four more times?


Title: Re: The Transition to Charles' Reign II
Post by: meememe on October 03, 2017, 10:02:36 am
That is exactly my point.

At the Way Ahead Group - chaired by HM - allegedly Charles talked about 'slimming down' the monarchy - not when he becomes King but then - over 25 years ago. The Queen was there when the alleged comment was made. It was then leaked by a staff member to someone in the press and has taken on legs of its own as gospel.

The balcony scene in 2012 was a recreation of the Diamond Jubilee balcony from 1897 when only Queen Victoria, her son the then Prince of Wales and his children and George V's elder children were there. That they were going to be the only ones there was announced in the March and the idea of recreating Queen Victoria's balcony was also mentioned in many outlets.

The comment about the York's titles - in 1988 there was a lot of celebration about the birth of a new princess. There was no suggestion then that any child of Andrew's wouldn't have the HRH title - especially as it was pointed out that the last time a Duke of York had had a first born daughter she ended up being the present Queen Elizabeth II.

By 1999 the situation had changed so no HRH for Edward.

I do suspect that Harry will follow that example and then when there is no one left who would qualify under George V's 1917 LPs new ones will be issued to limit the HRH only to the children of the heir apparent. They also could find themselves in a situation where a younger brother of Charlotte who would be lower in the line of succession, would pass on HRH but she won't so it makes sense to limit the HRH's to the heir apparent's children only - regardless of gender.