Charles-The good, the bad and everything in between

[TLLK]

Good-Passionate about his causes: the environment, historic architecture etc...Founded the Prince's Trust, fairly talented watercolor artist, Willingness to forgive

Bad-Short tempered,stubborn, indifferent to the feelings of his first wife Diana, petulant at times and shouldn't have proposed or married Diana,known adulterer.

In-between-Old soul who is more comfortable with companions who are older than himself. Enjoys gardening, solitude, and the countryside

[royalanthropologist]

The very, very bad. Indecision and dithering. That has been the bane of his life. Charles takes long to react when he really should be on top of things. At the same time, once he lashes onto an idea it is very difficult to persuade him otherwise. He has been known to freeze out friends that attempt to challenge him. I also think that Charles has some bad manners such as carrying his own food when visiting friends. I mean that is really rude???

[Curryong]

Charles. The Good: An immensely hard worker who shows loyalty to old friends. The Prince's Trust is his legacy.

The Bad: Indecision, self pity, a tendency to follow false prophets resulting in a lack of judgement, (Armand Hammer, Van der Post etc) also, a blind spot often, where others' feelings are concerned.

Everything in Between:  Feels deeply about certain issues, architecture, modified crops, alternative medicine. However, often ignores practicalities and objections to his schemes. Stubborn about them.

An example.
I'm re-reading Bradford at the moment and have got to the part where Charles had given the interview to Jonathon Dimbleby that was so disastrous for him. The Duchess of Westminster was a fellow guest at a house party with Charles at the time.

Charles asked her what she thought of the interview and she told him, politely, that in her opinion it wasn't good. She stated that he refused to speak one word to her for the rest of the weekend. There were also witnesses who remembered the interview being briefly discussed and Charles pointing to his private secretary across the dinner table, and snarling 'He made me do it!' when in fact he himself had been persuaded to talk about his marriage by Dimbleby and it was his decision to go ahead.

Also Sally Bedell Smith has several anecdotes of Charles refusing to listen to advice he doesn't want to hear, and walking off. On one occasion he said 'I have to wash the dog' and left the room rather than listen to something that didn't fit in with his ideas.

[sandy]

Charles works hard and is proactive is a huge plus.

Negative: Charles blaming others for his own choices. Charles getting upset when he is not agreed with (example from Curryong)

His being wishy washy and not taking any responsibility for the problems in the first marriage.

Not making his first wife non-negotiable (at least for the sake of William and Harry). I don't think it a coincidence that the Diana trashing books are from Charles relatives and sympathizers.  Even Joan Rivers (who used to make jokes about Camilla before the wind changed) trashed Diana on Larry King and voila she gets an invite to Charles and Camilla's wedding. Coincidence? I think not.

Much self pity, sleeping with his friends' wives because he could and apparently the men were sycophants and/or wishy washy. Going back to Camilla when she got married. 

[royalanthropologist]

I like Charles because of his work on the Princes Trust. I agree with many of his stances on the environment, agriculture and economy. Those who know him well have described him as a very kind man. His step son has spoken very warmly about his relationship. Charles does have enemies who have unsuccessfully tried to disinherit him but that does not define his character. He also had a first wife that tried to sell him as a bad person to the world. His current wife is far more supportive and less willing to side with his enemies.

[Trudie]

Looking at the good in Charles he is a hard worker who strives to do his best to help the disadvantaged citizens. He cares deeply for the environment and his interest in organic farming is top notch.

Oh dear the bad where to start. I think the biggest problem is his self entitlement Charles has a hard time with people saying no and rather than lose the friendship his entitlement came into helping himself to his friends wives, not taking responsibility in terminating employees such as Sir Christopher Airly and blaming others when his ideas are not sustainable as thwarting him his war with BP for a time is an example. Charles is also the most thoughtless person as far as people go he will ring up people in the middle of the night if some brilliant idea pops into his head or he expects people to fit nicely into his plans his honeymoon with Diana was the perfect example and how they spent the weekends always with his friends or at polo not doing something she may have wanted to do.

[TLLK]

 :happy17: :happy17: Well I'm happy to see that posters have found this thread and its companion one about Camilla.

[FanDianaFancy]

I  am going to take the easy way  out and past the  good, bad , and indifferent is that  is  PofWales. the  heir .  His  good  is there and  his bad and indifferent always  gets  glossed  over because  he  is BRF  born and the heir.

[Curryong]

I suppose this is the right spot to put this. 'Where Charles went wrong' is a long review of Sally Bedell Smith's latest biography of Charles. It appeared in the New Yorker. It's interesting I think because The New Yorker reviewer has the impression that SBS conceived a dislike for her subject. I didn't get that impression at all, though she doesn't spare him. Nor does this review.

Where Prince Charles Went Wrong - The New Yorker

[sandy]

Sally Bedell Smith apparently agreed with the badmouthing of Diana. She had full access to Charles' friends and to C and C themselves.  Which tries to whitewash what Charles did.

[TLLK]

I suppose this is the right spot to put this. 'Where Charles went wrong' is a long review of Sally Bedell Smith's latest biography of Charles. It appeared in the New Yorker. It's interesting I think because The New Yorker reviewer has the impression that SBS conceived a dislike for her subject. I didn't get that impression at all, though she doesn't spare him. Nor does this review.

Where Prince Charles Went Wrong - The New Yorker

Thank you for sharing this @Curryong.

[sandy]

I think she likes Charles but maybe in defending him she makes his shortcomings more visible.

[Duch_Luver_4ever]

It was a good article, and thanks for sharing @Curryong and @TLLK  but if I may play devils advocate  :ahhh: LOL, the schadenfreude in me expected a feast of faults, and to be sure there are some, but my take on reading a couple weeks ago was it was more of a soft shoe PR job for him. Reminds me of Joe Bidens lukewarm appeal for Hillary to the effect of "I know you dont like her, but shes all we got...."

To be fair she does sprinkle in lots of his failings in, but I think she knows she has to in order to avoid the Junorian world of servile supplication. Heres some parts of the article that led me that way, let me know what you all think.

"For anyone invested in the survival of the royals, Prince Charles presents a challenge, and Smith’s stance is very close to what one imagines a senior palace aide’s might be: Charles is far from ideal, but he is what we’ve got, and there can be no talk of mucking about with the law of succession and replacing him with his son. Once you start allowing the popular will to determine who wears the crown, people are liable to wonder why anyone is wearing a crown in the first place.

Smith’s mission is, therefore, to reconcile us to the inevitability of King Charles III and to convince us that his reign may not be as insufferable as is generally feared."

"When that marriage exploded, Diana’s superior instincts for wooing and handling the press insured that Charles emerged as the villain of the piece. But it seems safe to say that the union visited equal misery on both parties. One of the chief marital shocks for Charles was Diana’s lack of deference. He had assumed that the slightly vapid teenager he was settling for would at least be docile, but she turned out to be the biggest bully he had encountered since Gordonstoun. "

"But Charles, who has been waiting to become king longer than any previous Prince of Wales, does not boast a distinguished record of degeneracy. His greatest known sin is to have resumed his relationship with Camilla while still married to Diana. It’s true that some of the revelations regarding this infidelity were not strictly consonant with the dignity of a future king. In an alleged transcript of a phone conversation between the adulterous couple, the public learned that the Prince yearned to be his ladylove’s tampon. But while it is certainly a dark day for England when the Italian press is emboldened to speak of the heir apparent as “Il Tampaccino,” few have gone so far as to suggest that Charles is too debauched to become king."

[sandy]

DIana was complaining about Charles having a mistress. That's not bullying that's sticking up for her rights and not being a doormat. Charles lives in the Middle ages if he thinks a wife would not mind. Maybe he should have been born in the MIddle ages.

Charles also was with Camilla and Kanga two married ladies, pre Diana.

[TLLK]

Smith's mission is, therefore, to reconcile us to the inevitability of King Charles III and to convince us that his reign may not be as insufferable as is generally feared."

It also needs to be mentioned that may not be as lengthy as his predecessor's reign.  :D  Which might make a few people here smile.  :wink:

[sandy]

It can't be as lengthy as the Queen's unless there is a miracle.