Royal Gossip
October 21, 2017, 01:25:46 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: If Prince Charles becomes King Charles, will his kingdom leave him?  (Read 13896 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Emperor
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1075


My cat always prefers my furniture over her post


« on: June 19, 2014, 06:26:51 pm »

If Prince Charles becomes King Charles, will his kingdom leave him?

Quote
By John Lloyd

(Reuters) - Could Prince Charles finally get his crown? And if he does, could it mean the end of the United Kingdom?

Abdication in favor of the younger generation seems to be something of a trend in Europe — if two cases can be considered a trend. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicated last year so that her son, Willem-Alexander, could bring some youth and vitality to the largely ceremonial role.

More recently, King Juan Carlos, widely credited with having assisted the end of the Franco dictatorship in Spain in 1975 and with puncturing a rather feeble coup attempt in 1981, vacated the throne in favor of his son, Felipe. The announcement was followed by large demonstrations calling for an end to the monarchy entirely, with Cayo Lara, leader of the United Left Coalition, quoted as saying, “We are not subjects, we are citizens.”

And that’s the problem. While individual monarchs may be popular in Europe, monarchy is something else.

To be sure, Spain is its own case. There is 25 percent unemployment, with 50 percent of the young unemployed. Leftists did well there in the recent European Parliament elections.

Britain, on the other hand, has an economy that is growing quite strongly, and people who are doing well are less likely to look to upset a centuries-old apple cart.

But a transfer of power, now much forecast, could change that. Power transferred is power in peril.

Queen Elizabeth’s official birthday (her real one was in April) was celebrated this past weekend with the Trooping of the Color, a ceremony first invented in the 17th century.

The British monarchy, enthroned without break since that time, is surrounded by such rituals – archaic, mysterious to many and still treasured — which the British perform with a solemn and meticulous concentration.

Elizabeth is now 88. Her son Prince Charles, 66 this winter, incautiously admitted two years ago that he was “impatient” to rule, adding with his customary self-deprecation, “I’ll run out of time soon. I shall have snuffed it (died) if I’m not careful.”

Charles’ adulterous (on both sides) marriage to Diana was splayed across every newspaper in the world. The queen, apparently much disturbed by it, appears to have decided that she must continue to bear the burden of the crown, perhaps to punish him, perhaps to ensure that her popularity buoys the monarchy for as long as possible.

When Charles’ son, Prince William, married Kate Middleton three years ago and was seen to have a nice smile and a pleasant way with saying nothing memorable, there was much speculation about “skipping a generation.” The palace press relations people moved to kill that one. Charles’ press secretary underlined that his master would not be “a shadow king.”

The only person in the royal family less popular than Charles is his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, with whom he continued a long affair while both were married to others, and whom he married after Diana’s death.

So, what might happen if Charles were to take the throne, through inheritance or abdication?

A further weakening of the United Kingdom. It’s possible that if Scotland votes to remain part of the UK in the fall, an unpopular king on a London throne could renew the independence push.

A vote to discontinue the British monarch as head of state in Australia – a referendum to abolish the monarchy only just failed 14 years ago — and perhaps, too, in Canada.

A surge of republicanism, which is presently weak as a movement, but likely to appeal to a younger generation with little loyalty to a monarchy.

A fading of Britain’s largest tourist attraction, as the royals lose their allure.

Now, that allure still very much moves the wheels of the press in the UK, and two recent incidents demonstrate the very different treatment queen and prince receive. The stories come from behind the British royal family’s closed doors, and both are well attested. Both were told off the record.

Word was out – perhaps put out by one of the palace servants who adds to his or her income by informing newspapers of royal tidbits – that one of the queen’s corgis had died. The queen often seems to believe, along with the revolutionary animals in George Orwell’s 1984, that four legs – horses, corgis – are better than two: and in dog-loving, horse-betting Britain, that’s part of the reason for her endearment to high and low. So the story was hot.

A royal correspondent of the most popular tabloid, Rupert Murdoch’s Sun, called in some excitement to the palace duty press man, and asked for the queen’s reaction to this. It was late in the evening; the press man doubted the queen would unburden her grief for The Sun: he refused to ask.

The reporter, feeling a chill wind readying itself to blow from the news desk were he to return without a quote, insisted, asking finally – how would you feel if your dog died? Well, said the press man, I guess I’d feel pretty upset. The reporter rang off and the next morning’s banner headline stated that according to palace insiders, the queen was quite distraught.

Charles gets no such benefit of the doubt, as the second incident shows. A story about the prince, perhaps leaked by another palace tipster, revealed that Charles had a valet put toothpaste on his toothbrush of an evening. The story continued on to say that Charles had no clue as to why that might strike people as funny.

The stories are neatly juxtaposed because the first spurs, in the breast of many Brits, affection: the second scorn. They are the core of the First Family’s present dilemma.

The best minds in British public relations have helped bolster the monarchy for decades. They have had a good product to present. The famously aggressive tabloids, knowing their readership would punish them if they turned against Elizabeth, showered her with sugary love. Charles III, as he will be known if and when he is crowned, has been much bloodied by tabloids. God will have to work hard to save a none-too-gracious king.

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/prince-charles-becomes-king-charles-kingdom-leave-him-170031892.html
Logged

Nothing brings me more happiness than trying to help the most vulnerable people in society. It is a goal and an essential part of my life - a kind of destiny. Whoever is in distress can call on me. I will come running wherever they are. - Princess Diana
The Alley Cat...
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 472



« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2014, 12:08:00 am »

It is sad to think his country he loves so dearly, probably most likely will not let him take to the throne he's worked his whole life to be on.  He did it to himself by his tawdriness with Camilla, and most recently with his letters to politicians. And what is even worse is his son doesn't seem to want the throne in all of it's responsibilities, only the glories. 

I'd *despise* to see the UK without a monarchy, but maybe it's time to let it go?
Logged
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6031



« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2014, 12:25:18 am »

PC is more popular than the elected officials - I think people will - perhaps grudgingly - give him his chance thinking he has earned it.  He is unlikely to be on the throne for long anyway.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3045


« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2014, 12:46:26 am »

I agree, Cate. He is certainly not as popular as his mother. William is popular, however, much more popular than any politician. (So, for that matter, is Charles.) People aren't likely to be calling for a Republic under those circumstances, especially with a monarchy engrained in the national life as this one.

A lot of 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' in that article, and quite typical really. Incidentally, the Republic referendum in Australia didn't 'just fail'. There had to be, for it to pass, a majority 'Yes' vote in each State as well as a majority overall. It didn't get a majority in any State.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 20, 2014, 04:21:11 am »

It is sad to think his country he loves so dearly, probably most likely will not let him take to the throne he's worked his whole life to be on.  He did it to himself by his tawdriness with Camilla, and most recently with his letters to politicians. And what is even worse is his son doesn't seem to want the throne in all of it's responsibilities, only the glories. 

I'd *despise* to see the UK without a monarchy, but maybe it's time to let it go?

Here's one view I do have:

He's become out of touch since his marriage to Camilla; beating a dead horse, but thing is, women don't like mistresses becoming wives. He was popular and secure enough to marry Camilla, but he squandered it on the very woman who nearly cost him his position in the first place.

Thing is, if he thought like a politician, it would have been Camilla in Paris with rumors that Charles/RF had did her in, not Diana. If he had kept Camilla as his mistress and been upfront about the fact that he was supporting his mistress, I am certain that any scandal would have blown over and Camilla would have ended up taking the heat, but that is what you get when you mess around with a married man and break up a marriage and blow apart a family.

Thing is, the monarchy can survive a lot of things, but monarchs take a huge blow when they marry a mistress, especially when there was a wife existing beforehand. Henry VIII was a borderline autocrat, but face endless challenges when (and after ) he tossed his wife out and married/crowned Anne Boleyn.

He promised that the marriage would be morganatic, but whispers of Queen Camilla will continue to undermine him. In the nineties he swore he would never remarry, but he has, and chances are, realistically, that he will try to crown Camilla Queen, which will tick off:

Conservatives - They don't like divorce, but they dislike a mistress becoming a wife even more. Men, because they know that mistresses are not credible partners in a marriage and are not at all 'good news,' (they remain mistresses for a reason) and conservative women don't like home-wreckers becoming wives (for obvious reasons). Clergy don't approve of divorce or adultery, a two-fer against Camilla.

Liberals - Against adultery and divorce on grounds that women don't deserve to be cheated on or rejected by a spouse for a different woman.

Monarchists - Diana was titled and part of the aristocracy and royal marriage has in fact ended up being made all the more unstable. I like to think that the royalty around the world and aristocracy in Britain don't like the idea that royal women are married, used as wombs, but then get thrown out because the prince is done with them and left to fend for themselves. It also creates insecurity for royal children and the succession; Henry VIII's behavior caused issues of legitimacy to surround his children after his death. Even most Catholics never recognized Edward VI and Elizabeth was plagued her entire life by it.

Republicans - They might not like the monarchy, but they care about the prestige of their country and a mistress marrying a prince and representing their country as the feminine 'face' of the nation is not at all what is good for the image of the country. These scandals also distract the politicians from their job as well.

As for William, he is popular with the press, but not the people, as evidenced by all the comments and all the jokes at his wife's expense.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6780


« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2014, 07:47:57 pm »

Charles also did not have just an ordinary mistress but one who wanted it all and got most of what the first wife had. She disrespected the wife, called her names (that ridiculous creature) and usurped her place as hostess all with the full approval of the Prince. This was not done by royal mistresses--Edward VII's mistresses never tried to insult the wife). Charles even blabbed on international television that he cheated on his wife--something a royal never did (Camilla was named as the one he cheated with at a press conference given by Charles' secretary). Charles was locked in and I think Camilla was no passive participation. She got what she wanted,

Charles was planning to eventually marry her once he divorced Diana it was not a matter to having to wait until Diana died. He had to wait 8 years which involved spin for Camilla plus he had to wait until his grandmother passed on (since she did not want the marriage in her lifetime. Charles had a huge birthday party for Camilla at Highgrove while Diana was still alive and also a documentary about Camilla was broadcast while Diana was alive (and the documentary was with the full approval of the Prince of Wales). Once Charles named Camilla back in 1994 he was pretty much obligated. Had he not done so he could have married another woman (a single woman or widow perhaps) from the aristocracy.

Charles perhaps should have dropped being with married women before he even thought of courting a wife. He had too much baggage when he courted Lady Diana and other suitable women he was seeking as a wife.

Had he not just used Diana for expediency's sake then went back to the mistress he would certainly be more popular than he is today (he is not universally beloved) to put it mildly. He put his own needs ahead of all else even his children.
Logged
CathyJane
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4321


« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2014, 09:37:29 pm »

Totally agree Sandy. Chuck is a selfish child who will never ever put any ones needs before his. Diana was right when she said (in so many words) that he wasn't fit to be king.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2014, 05:09:11 pm »

You know, I wondered sometimes about why men didn't just marry a mistress, or why they didn't marry the woman who became the mistress, but thing is, that he was refused by more worldly women for a reason. Reasons that are obvious.

What makes it worse, is that he can't just own up and take responsibility for his choices. He couldn't just say that he wasted the best years of his life on all the wrong types of women and instead blamed a lack of suitable women and once he had Diana, treated her bad because he wouldn't grow up and appreciate how ridiculously good he had it and then, determined to be the victim, messes it all up and messed up his wife's life as well.

Worst part is, he never told his mistress turned wife to just lump it if she didn't like the bad press, or reactions, he instead goes on a press war against his now dead ex-wife, keeping the drama going and doing all he can to justify his atrocious choices.

Camilla should have been told to deal with it if she didn't like it.

He's like a lot of foolish men, who have it all, but lost it all in the end when they could have done things differently. Charles is essentially to me a broken man who refuses to accept the great life he has and has no business being King when he can't even control a grasping mistress.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6780


« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2014, 12:03:37 am »

The Queen allowing the marriage of Charles and Camilla just proves how she was and is in avoidance mode and avoids unpleasantness.  It continues with allowing her spoiled grandson to avoid doing royal work and as someone else on the Board pointed out Will is just two heartbeats away from being King and is very ill prepared.

 
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2014, 12:59:34 am »

I'm surprised HM didn't find a way to exile Camilla and Andrew effectively removing the threat.

Of course, HM's position as wife has never been threatened, easy for her to take a cavalier approach (I suppose) and not understand why a mistress can be a threat against a wife and a marriage.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9559


« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2014, 11:28:13 am »

It is common knowledge that PP had many affairs, and it is said that he has fathered children with other women, so HM did have a lot to contend with.  I suppose the only thing that can be said about PP and his affairs is that he was hardly likely to leave HM for another woman, but that was with regard to his own luxurious life continuing.  Had he thought a lot of HM he would not have laid her open to all that gossip and pain.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 36255


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2014, 11:40:54 am »

Philip didn't let his mistresses badmouth the Queen.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6780


« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2014, 02:25:31 pm »

And Philip did not have one of his mistresses usurp the Queen's place as hostess.  There was only one rumored child that Philip had not several--but there is no proof one way or the other.  Charles' ex Janet Jenkins said he fathered her son Jason.

Camilla was not the typical mistress--she had ambitions and maneuvered and schemed to get what she wanted.
Logged
Emperor
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1075


My cat always prefers my furniture over her post


« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2014, 03:50:36 pm »

I'm surprised HM didn't find a way to exile Camilla and Andrew effectively removing the threat.

Of course, HM's position as wife has never been threatened, easy for her to take a cavalier approach (I suppose) and not understand why a mistress can be a threat against a wife and a marriage.

What has Prince Andrews got to do with this?
Logged

Nothing brings me more happiness than trying to help the most vulnerable people in society. It is a goal and an essential part of my life - a kind of destiny. Whoever is in distress can call on me. I will come running wherever they are. - Princess Diana
sandy
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6780


« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2014, 04:18:17 pm »

That is Andrew Parker Bowles. Not Prince Andrew. Camilla is about 13 years older than Prince Andrew.
Logged
Emperor
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1075


My cat always prefers my furniture over her post


« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2014, 05:12:26 pm »

That is Andrew Parker Bowles. Not Prince Andrew. Camilla is about 13 years older than Prince Andrew.

Logged

Nothing brings me more happiness than trying to help the most vulnerable people in society. It is a goal and an essential part of my life - a kind of destiny. Whoever is in distress can call on me. I will come running wherever they are. - Princess Diana
gingerboy24
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9559


« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2014, 09:44:38 pm »

Of course PP was never going to allow a mistress to bad mouth the queen, and there was never any chance of him leaving his meal ticket to a life of luxury.  He did have more than one child, and it has been said that they have been found goode jobs and have had a good life.  That old goat certainly had more than one illegitimate child, and TPTB know all about them, as they do with everything that goes on in that dysfunctional family.
Logged
CathyJane
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4321


« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2014, 03:29:13 am »

Philip didn't let his mistresses badmouth the Queen.


Of course not. He knew what he had in her was something he could never replace. Power, lots of power
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 3045


« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2014, 03:49:53 am »

I don't know whether Philip did have lots of power, did he? I know he once referred to himself as 'an amoeba' because he could give his children his surname. In those much more deferential days he certainly was given respect, but I've always got the impression that the courtiers/grey men had a very great say in royal life when the Queen was younger and less experienced. Some of these men would have served her father. Anyway, off-topic! Sorry!
Logged
cate1949
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6031



« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2014, 04:07:29 am »

I think the issue of not giving his kids his name was disturbing to him - perhaps only when he was younger

He certainly did though find a role for himself - with no precedents to follow
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!