Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

[Marlene]

The jewels do not belong to the government ... many of the jewerls are privately owned, and will remain as such.  DNA has nothing to do with being a king.  I love Camilla.  The wife of a king is the queen.  Periiod.  Full stop!  Camilla is the perfect wife for Charles ... quote author=Constantinople link=topic=14861.msg436209#msg436209 date=1272056083]
Well Chris
living in the US its nice of you to tell me who i can like or not like as my head of state.  And even if she is not head of state she will be the consort of the head of state and have access to all the royal jewels that are the property of the government.  Unlike the US, she could be there a lot longer than 8 years.  And the £36 million is the actual budget for the head of state which means at that time she will be dipping into the public purse big time.
  And we do know what a Queen acts like as we have an excellent example with the current Queen who noone disrespects or her mother or the previous 5 occupants of that position.  Queens dont usually start off as damaged goods who have affairs when they are married.  Generally it can be assumed that they at least have the possiibility of producing children.  And the reason Prince charles will be King is royal DNA so the idea.  There is a lot of division about CAmilla and if Charles was thinking of his duty more than his own situation, he would have married someone else or stayed single. if he stayed single and maintained a relationship with her, probably noone would be saying anything. And Chris feel free to voice your opinion but don't state that others don't have the right to offer differing opinions.  And as for your analysis of how politics works outside the US you might want to take a refresher course.
[/quote]

[Imperial_Grounds]

Welll,

As for Charles becoming King.... I have no problem with it and I think that Camillia meight get the title of Queen Consort or Princess Consort. I must admit Camilla is not my favorite person but she is too often judged on what happened prior to Diana's death and so I try to look at her as a woman who loved a man whom she could not marry because she was not 'fit' to be a member of the Royal Family. That is atleast how it appears she was judged in the 80's by those who knew of Charles' affair with her. As for Diana, she always will have a saintly image, and I must say I admire her very much for her good works and her warm-hearted appearance, that was her biggst charms - and she passed it on to her sons -, yet I must admit that Diana also had her faults. Yet, the mistakes she made are understandable because she was unaccepted by the Royal Family and turned out to be so different from them, therefore she wanted attention for her problems and she wanted the world to know that her marriage was not as happy as it was meant to be. I think that is one of the reasons why Charles, and especially the Royal Family, accept Camilla because she appears to be much more like them, unlike Diana who was as different from the Royal Family as day and night are from each other.  

That does not mean I do not 'prefer' Diana because in my opinion she had all the good graces a Queen could have: good looks, charm & grace, style and a heart-warming appearance. After all that is what made her so loved, even up to this day. And as for Camilla, she is accepted by the people now, and even though Diana made bigger news, she is far closer to the Royal Family in her ways and acting then Diana was and therefore she will not get 'caught' in the eye of attention in the way Diana did.

Also I often like to compare the marriage of Charles & Diana to that of Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria and Empress Elisabeth 'Sisi' because both marriages started as fairytales and could have worked and ended happy if both partners would have understood each other better and would have accepted each other better without trying to find other happiness... But when one is not happy in marriage one looks for happiness outside the marital bed, it happens all the time and will never change. Only these days people part much more often.

[Constantinople]

DNA has nothing to do with being a king?  
wow
DNA has everything to do with being a King
as for liking Camilla that is your choice
as for disliking her that is my choice and I wish to keep the freedom to do so and state it in what is a public forum
and as for those jewels, over they years they have been paid for by the public purse so even if they are in the Royal Famiily's possession, they should be in the state's.  And do not let loving Camila get in the way of understanding how monarchy works.

[Constantinople]

Yes I agree that DIana was a deeply flawed person but it was her deeds that set her apart like going to Africa and spending time with orphans whose parents died from aids or showing people that people with AIDS needed love too or campainging against landmines.  she set an example. I cant see what Camilla has done except consume and appear.  Even her smile seems unnatural and forced.  I wish Queen Elilsabeth a very (no make that and extremely long) life.

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

DNA has nothing to do with being a king?  
wow
DNA has everything to do with being a King

Yes, in the sense of being the heir of the body of a king, but not because there is a specific royal DNA, which you make it sound like. I didn't expect you to be the person to bring up blue blood, Merovingians, Holy Blood - Holy Grail, and sang real, in short "royal DNA". :-)

[Constantinople]

Well Chris  you should llook up some of the comments that were made about President.  They were both negative and personal.  But in this particular position, noone has elected the holder or the consort but they sure pay for both and that is the rub.  This is someone who is going to be the recipient of my tax dollars that I had no choice in selecting.  But someone did.  And I have a right to say if he selects her at least have the guts to abdicate like Edward Vlll.

[Grace]

Can someone tell me who actually decided that Charles should marry Camilla?

Did Charles himself insist on the marriage, thus making her future Queen Consort - or were there outside pressures (namely from the Queen or others) who pushed for it, regarding this preferable to Charles maintaining his mistress behind the scenes?  

The Duchess of Cornwall has always appeared discreet and low-key, particularly since 2005.  Is this because she has been thrust into a role she didn't truly want or because of advice from the palace to tread carefully in the early days to test the waters, so to speak?  

[Constantinople]

Grace if  you check the newspapers from the 1990s you will see a chain of controversies involving Camilla and it certanily wasn't anyone in the Royal family who convinced Charles to marry her.  They feel the same way that I do but bit the bullet when explaining to Charles the same arguments that I used here fell on deaf ears (and what miighty ears they are) . And if his subjects or at least a large proportion of them, do not share his view, then the safest thing to do would be to step down for his son to take up the monarchy and thsly sidestepping an unpleasant dilemma.

[Constantinople]

here is the link to the referendum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

[Grace]

Grace if  you check the newspapers from the 1990s you will see a chain of controversies involving Camilla and it certanily wasn't anyone in the Royal family who convinced Charles to marry her.  They feel the same way that I do but bit the bullet when explaining to Charles the same arguments that I used here fell on deaf ears (and what miighty ears they are) . And if his subjects or at least a large proportion of them, do not share his view, then the safest thing to do would be to step down for his son to take up the monarchy and thsly sidestepping an unpleasant dilemma.

That will not happen.  Charles has a mighty sense of entitlement to his role as future king and, it seems, a sense of entitlement to change the rules as he sees fit along the way!

[Constantinople]

Well Grace
he doesnt own Australia.  they arent saying he shouldnt be king of Britain.  And this is not a poll.  It was a referendum which has political teeth.  My message to Camilla is that 6% is not that much. 
  and In Canada which is cutting eduction budgets and other social budgets, the apetite is not there to support someone in a lavish  lifesyle who doesnt earn it

[Grace]

I think we are getting our wires crossed on these threads!  I mentioned Australia becoming a republic on the Sarah Ferguson thread (in response to another poster) and it seems to have migrated over here!  Points taken on board regardless though!   

[Constantinople]

I think you are right and I dont think he will step down either.  He has been waiting too long but he will do as much damage to the image of the monarchy if he rules with CAmilla by his side as Edward Vlll did when he abdicated because he wanted to marry Wallace simpson.  Most fairminded people dont accept the fact that you can eat the cake and still have it.  It is not up to him to change the rules, it would have to go through a parliamentary process so it will probably depend on which party is in government when the issue came up.

[Lindelle]

Ilya, the fact that PC personal ph call went out to millions is disgraceful. You are correct that it was intended for only the two people involved.
And yes, his moving on is a good thing. What do people expect, for him to stay locked in the past?

DNA doesn't have ANYTHING to do with whom the monarch shall marry. In this case, Camilla and Charles both have their offspring so why the worry? Many other Royal European future monarchs have married people who don't have the Royal bloodline, especially in recent years.

Australia in the past HAS accused the Queen of the dollars it's cost US (Australian's) when she comes here. It's ALWAYS in the news about how much we as the taxpayers fork out for it. It's a thing I resent. So in reality, what is costing us now for the Queen and PP to visit us, PW and his future wife, will be no different for Charles to bring Camilla.

Camilla HAS done a lot of things, she just doesn't get the press coverage for it - a little like Anne if you like.

Personally, give me Anne, Charles and Camilla any day to visit us over the Queen or PW.

[jehan]

Australia in the past HAS accused the Queen of the dollars it's cost US (Australian's) when she comes here. It's ALWAYS in the news about how much we as the taxpayers fork out for it. It's a thing I resent. So in reality, what is costing us now for the Queen and PP to visit us, PW and his future wife, will be no different for Charles to bring Camilla.

I've always wondered why people begrudge the cost of paying for a royal visit.  It's about as much as one would pay for a visit from the president of the USA or Russia or any other country.  And she would probably visit, as she does,  whether she were your Queen or just a visiting foreign head of state.  The cost for state dinners, security etc remains the same, more or less.  And it's probably just pennies per person anyway.  (I think the cost of maintaining the monarchy in Canada worked out to less than a dollar per person).

And is a presidential system any cheaper? With inaugurations every 4 years, several residences to maintain, security,  foreign visitors to entertain and foreign visits to make, - I would think it costs the taxpayers  as much or more than the monarchy does in the UK.