Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Part II

[ChristineM]

Sorry, perhaps I am not making myself clear here.   I am not criticising the Prince of Wales and his collection of Islamic art.   He can collect whatever he likes so far as I am concerned.

My standpoint is the relevance of the monarchy to the UK of today and tomorrow.   There is no doubt there is widespread, deep respect for the Queen.   However, when she is no longer with us, there appears little support, or desire, for a King Charles (George or whatever), or a Queen Consort Camilla.   The point I was trying to make is that if, or when, Charles becomes King, constitutionally, he also becomes Head of the Church of England.   I am sorry if nobody else can see the possibility of conflict in this.

To address multiculturism - please name one place on earth where this has proved successful?   It is a word used to paper over a mishmash and cloak intolerance.    Intolerance is intolerance.   Tolerance lies in education, not in being forced to adopt minority immigrant's mores.   I am sure the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prince of Wales have deep respect for the leaders of other faiths - as one would expect.    Mutual respect.   But does this mean one should sacrifice one's own beliefs.   The Policy Review Committee which has proposed the downgrading of Christmas and to categorise it with other faith festivals, cannot pass laws - only parliament can do so.   However, it is a government appointed body - appointed to advise on the adoption of political policy which almost certainly reflects the opinions of its appointees.

Am I the only one standing up for Christianity and a 1500 year legacy here?   I do so with pride. 

Empty 800 year old churches are all too common throughout the UK.   Here we close churches to re-open them as nightclubs, pubs or flats.   In Russia they are re-opening churches which for eighty years have been used as garages, swimming pools, dairies and factories.   However, I must add attendance at Church is not obligatory to be a Christian.

tsaria

I'd love to learn a bit more about those 'pagan Scots', Robert.   

[ChristineM]

This reply falls between the 'two stools' of 'Camilla.....' and 'Charles and multiculturism'.   Please accept it for what it is.

tsaria

[Eddie_uk]

Am I the only one standing up for Christianity and a 1500 year legacy here?   I do so with pride. 

No Tsaria dear, I am right behind you. When in Rome....

[Robert_Hall]

I dd not even know there was the other thread! I will post appropriately there now.
If plans work out, by the time Charles & Camilla become  King & Princess Consort [Queen], I shall be a British citizen and have to take an oath with his name in it.  In all practical terms, it matters not who is on the throne, the function remains the same. Personally, I do not care for the couple, but I bear them no ill-will, and  whether or not   they reign will make no diiference in my decisions. However, I can show not much affecttion for a woman who  wears big hair  and big tiaras and walks like she would rather be riding.  She seems a "country girl" out of her element.
 Pagan Scots, Tsaria...nothing like them!

[CHRISinUSA]

Indeed ! We may not find another as "good" as the present queen. 

Hmm, from our armchairs today so it would appear.  However, do not forget that the full extent of our memory is but a fraction of the 1000 years that the Crown has existed.  I can think of dozens of similar periods in history where I'm sure there were people wondering if the Crown would exist beyond the reign of the current Sovereign.

- Victoria to Edward VII
- George III to George IV
- Anne to George I
- In fact, the entire series of successions of the House of Stuart restored
- Henry VIII to Edward VI - and frankly, their series of successors
- Edward I to Edward II
and so on.

It is possible that the present Queen may outlive her eldest son.  And if she does not, there will be some people who will hate it, who will grumble, and yes, some will use it as a justifiable "reason" to try to end the monarchy. 

BUT, with each passing year, there will be fewer and fewer people with their fangs out for Charles and Camilla.  And - Charles' reign will be short given his likely age at succession, and there will be the beloved and popular William, The Prince of Wales, and his no doubt lovely wife The Princess and Wales and their brood of adorable little princes and princesses waiting in the wings to succeed.

It is all a cycle.

[Arleen_Ristau]

You have said it Chris.....about the Queen outliving her eldest son!  It is very possible, she looks healthier to me than Prince Charles.  Remember her mother lived to over one hundred!

Arleen

[Adagietto]

One should remember how unpopular Edward VII sometimes was when Prince of Wales (even to the extent of being hissed in the streets), yet he proved to be a very successful kiing; this is something that one cannot tell about until it happens.

[Leuchtenberg]

One should remember how unpopular Edward VII sometimes was when Prince of Wales (even to the extent of being hissed in the streets), yet he proved to be a very successful kiing; this is something that one cannot tell about until it happens.

One should remember Edward VII had a great asset having Queen Alexandra as his consort.   That he was hissed in the streets when he was Prince of Wales was due in great part to his unfortunate treatment of his popular and beloved Princess of Wales.

As far as Charles' future worth as a King.....qui vivra verra.

[dmitri]

Well sadly the current Prince of Wales had a very popular Princess of Wales. Unfortunately she will never be Queen Diana. Instead we have a Duchess of Cornwall who is not universally popular. Edward VII no matter what he thought would never have divorced Alexandra. There really is no comparison. Also times have changed greatly. It is no longer possible for a member of the royal family to hide their foibles from the majority of the British people. The mass media has made sure of that.

[Adagietto]

Oh indeed, I was just making a general point and citing an example, not attempting to draw a precise parallel between Prince Charles and Edward VII; one could point to any number of other differences too, for instance that Diana deliberately set out to turn public opinion against Charles and was strikingly successful in her aim, and that Charles is no amiable hedonist but an unsusually complex, cultivated and original character for a member of a royal family, which makes him awkward in his dealings with the public and an easy target for mockery in the cheap press.

[ashdean]

Am I the only one standing up for Christianity and a 1500 year legacy here?   I do so with pride. 

No Tsaria dear, I am right behind you. When in Rome....

ITS ABOUT TIME WE WHO THINK THIS....ARE LISTENED TO...

[Emperor of the Dominions]

You have my vote!

R.I.

[Grace]

Oh indeed, I was just making a general point and citing an example, not attempting to draw a precise parallel between Prince Charles and Edward VII; one could point to any number of other differences too, for instance that Diana deliberately set out to turn public opinion against Charles and was strikingly successful in her aim, and that Charles is no amiable hedonist but an unsusually complex, cultivated and original character for a member of a royal family, which makes him awkward in his dealings with the public and an easy target for mockery in the cheap press.

He's had nearly 60 years to adapt to his role!  This is the trouble!  Charles expects the position to accommodate his particular quirks and ideas and, let's face it, some of those are either a little impractical (or not appropriate) to implement.  Diana didn't really do that much to discredit Charles with the public - he's done a pretty good job of that himself over the years. 

As for Bertie, with all his faults and foibles, as least he was prepared to fit into the role of Prince of Wales without trying to change the world in the process.  Get on with it, Charles, or get out of the royal family and go into politics.

[alixaannencova]

IM(humble)O no one is a paragon....even one born to be as such (because the people expect!) Do the masses genuinely and honestly expect nothing less in this day and age! (Talk about taking a glance in one's own looking glass!). I do agree that the PoW is no paragon, but then again I for one accept it, as it makes him more real, more like the rest of us, doesn't it? At least with him as a head of state we would have a man who has lived life thoroughly! I feel sometimes that the PoW is pilloried because he is human....it seems to me an oblique debate. We all, blue blooded or salt of the earth have flaws! To reject an heir to the throne simply because he is flawed is surely a sign of social intolerance! None of us is perfect.....perhaps a genetically modified heir would be more tolerable to some! I for one abhor the continuous vicious attacks on a man who is trying to do his job. Yes, he may be a little self indulgent but my goodness....how many of us here can deny that we haven't/aren't on occasion (No doubt on a less conspicuous level I admit)!   

[ChristineM]

I agree, its time the man got a break.   

However, great privilege has a corollary - huge responsibility.   The Prince of Wales in his intense, eccentric, and I believe utterly genuinely, well intentioned character, has failed to get this message across to the general populace and perhaps that is why so few people are even remotely interested either in him or his activities - apart from in negative terms.   Inevitably this impacts on the public's perception of his wife.

tsaria