Nightmare for Prince Charles Succession Wait!

Started by angieuk, July 27, 2014, 07:41:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sandy

His authorized biography is full of whining.

And there are periodic  blurbs about Charles' "coronation" even that he wants to be Defender of Faith. The articles of course came with Charles' blessing and he made it known he wants to defend "all faiths."

Canuck

I don't understand what Charles wanting to defend all faiths has to do with whether or not he complains about the long wait to be King.  Of course there are periodic blurbs about Charles' coronation -- he'll be King someday, plans get made, and journalists on a slow news day will write about them (or make things up, in many cases). 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he finds it frustrating sometimes that he's spent his entire fairly long life to date waiting for a job he still doesn't have.  That seems only natural.  At the same time, it's clear he has enormous respect for his mother and I don't think he's wishing for her to die.  He's managed to make a real role for himself as PoW, he hasn't just been sitting around crying about not being King.

amabel

I think it has been frustrating for him at time Canuck.  Esp during the bad years of his marriage, where he was trying hard to "make a difference" and to show the world what he could do as POW, to feel that he would still be waiting till he was old and gray to do his "proper Job" and that even when he did his best to do things, Diana's hairstyle or dress over shadowed his best efforts. but he's older now, I think he has settled down and accepeted the long wait and certainly does not wish his mother's death... As for the defending all faiths, what has that to do with his waiting to be King?  He may wish for this, whether it is practical is another matter. but if it is soemthign he would like to do at his coronation I don't see why he should not occaionially metnioe it.

Canuck

Yes, I think he went through a period where he found it a lot more frustrating.  I think over the past 15 years or so, he's really blossomed in the PoW role and it's reduced the feeling that he's just sitting around waiting to be King.

sandy

Quote from: amabel on August 16, 2014, 07:10:49 PM
I think it has been frustrating for him at time Canuck.  Esp during the bad years of his marriage, where he was trying hard to "make a difference" and to show the world what he could do as POW, to feel that he would still be waiting till he was old and gray to do his "proper Job" and that even when he did his best to do things, Diana's hairstyle or dress over shadowed his best efforts. but he's older now, I think he has settled down and accepeted the long wait and certainly does not wish his mother's death... As for the defending all faiths, what has that to do with his waiting to be King?  He may wish for this, whether it is practical is another matter. but if it is soemthign he would like to do at his coronation I don't see why he should not occaionially metnioe it.

It should be remembered that without Diana he would not have had William and Harry. I think his priorities are and were messed up if Diana is dismissed as being a "pest" that "frustrated him" and it was her hairstyles that upset the Great Man. It showed how little he felt about her and he started doing this with her early on, getting jealous. I think he is very self centered.

cate1949

Re: the Defender of the faith thing - I think Charles is right about this.  The original title was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X as a thank you for Henry writing a book defending the Catholic faith from the reformers - Defense of the Seven Sacraments.  Ironically the book defended the sanctity of marriage.

Anyway - one wonders why  a King who then got rid of the Catholic faith in England and he and his immediate descendants killed a whole bunch of Catholics should continue to even use the title?  Can you imagine how those people who were recusant Catholics - risking their lives to practice their faith felt about their King/Queen continuing to call themselves a defender of the faith?   So it is pretty absurd - while the penal laws are active and it is against the law for Catholics to own land, practice a profession, vote, and go to Mass and hiding a priest is an act of treason for which people do get beheaded- the   Monarch is still hanging on to a title given to them by the Pope for defending the Catholic faith.  The whole thing should have been passed on.

So when Charles says he thinks the monarchs role should be to defend freedom of conscience - the right of people to have whatever faith they choose - I'd say that is a welcome change and would have saved a lot of lives and human misery if someone had that idea a couple of centuries ago.  He is right on this one. IMHO of course.

And I think if one considers Charles initiatives and efforts on behalf of interfaith dialoque and protection of Christians in the ME - he is walking the talk.  Good for him.  IMHO.

Curryong

In 1544 the British Parliament conferred on Henry and his successors the title 'Defender of the Faith', that is the Anglican faith, which became in England the State religion, the Church of England of which the monarch is the Head.

I agree it is time for a change and Charles has been a great champion of freedom of conscience.

PrincessOfPeace

It would require Parliament to agree to amend the 1953 Royal Titles Act which came into law after changes were made for the Queen's Coronation in the same year.

sandy

Are Catholics still not allowed to be in line of succession? Has that been changed? If not, Charles can't claim to defend "all" faiths. Some religions may not necessarily want Charles defending them. There is already supposed to be freedom of religion so what is the point? Also what will Charles do about atheists?

PrincessOfPeace

As long as the Settlement of the Church of England is established by law and the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, I don't want to see any changes made to titles.

cate1949

Curryong - title was given to him by Pope Leo X  first - parliament confirmed it and re granted it after his excommunication.

Most monarchies in Europe are no longer heads of their Church - disestablishment of state religions has been the trend.  I understand it is traditional and it is hard to see traditions change.  But in a society where so few are adherents to CoE - where so many now are not even Christian - how does a state religion make sense?  How does it say open and inclusive society?  Given the brutal history of religious persecution - so many dead - so much misery - to defend freedom of conscience as Charles has suggested - is a step forward.

Curryong

^^Yes, I knew about Henry being granted the title by the Pope and the circumstances. However, Parliament was referring in 1544 to the Anglican faith and it is the Church of England that Henry's successors on the throne have headed ever since, as Protestant monarchs.

I don't believe there is any justification for Church and State to be linked in this way any more, cate. I agree it is out-dated and I hope Charles doesn't use the title 'Defender of the Faith' at his Coronation.

amabel

Quote from: Canuck on August 06, 2014, 01:28:27 AM

I
I suspect as well that given what we know about Diana's love/hate relationship with the press and public attention, and the reports that she obsessively read and worried about her own press, that the unfiltered mass of internet commentary would have been quite difficult for her to deal with.  I
I think that's a very valid point.. and that also the trend of the British public and press IS ot build someone up and then slam them.. and that did Happen with Diana to an extent.  she was losing popularity in her last few years.  But with the Internet if she read stuff about herself there would certainly be nasty and vicious posts form many people, because the Net encourages that sort of behaviour and it would be hurtful for her if she read it.

Curryong

Yes, I agree. Diana found paps following her and reporters probing into her private life troubling enough, and we know her phone was tapped, though not exactly by whom. I just think the Internet Age would have been too much. Celebrities have to deal with reading all sorts of vile and overly-candid tweets from 'fans' and I just dont think Diana would have coped with that sort of rubbish very well at all. She was much too sensitive in many ways.

cinrit

We've gotten a little off-topic, but can you imagine if Diana had Facebook or Twitter or Instagram accounts?  Would she use them to answer anything that the media or "fans" might put out there?

Cindy
Always be yourself.  Unless you can be a unicorn.  Then always be a unicorn.

amabel

#65
I hope not but I fear she would have.

Double post auto-merged: August 31, 2014, 02:42:02 PM


Quote from: Curryong on August 31, 2014, 01:05:25 PM
Yes, I agree. Diana found paps following her and reporters probing into her private life troubling enough, and we know her phone was tapped, though not exactly by whom. I
Many said that they told her to ignore what was said in the papers, about her but she never did.  but she also "intruded on her own privacy" and gave stories to the press, so of course they were able to claim that she could hardly use them one day and shy away from them another day.  she also got rid of her protection officers, so it was a lot easier for paparazzi to get too close to her.
I dont know if her phone was tapped, its not clear, if her call to James Gilbey was picked up by an amateur with a scanner who heard the conversation and then told it to the papers. Some have said that it si possislble what he heard was a re broadcast of her conversation possibly by rogue elements In the secret service, who were listening, heard the explosive conversation and put it out so that someone was likely to pick it up.

sandy

Charles calls were taped too.

Charles' pals had people "tip off" the press about Diana. A friend of his called the paper to talk about Diana not wanting a 30th birthday party. Charles was hardly squeaky clean.

amabel

Quote from: Canuck on August 13, 2014, 10:19:19 PM
I don't recall seeing anything in which Charles complains about the wait or tries to muscle his way into the top job.  Of course there are plans being made--barring some tragedy, he will become King at some point--but I haven't seen a hint of whining from Charles.
there's nothing he can do about it.  Complaining would only make hm look ridiculous.  I'm sure that he accepts his long wait is just something that had to be, and while he'd like to be King, he does not want his mother to die....

lilibet80

This will probably cause world war on this board, but since he married Camilla he is more relaxed and happier than I have ever seen him.  He seems much less nervous and more settled in his mind.  His sense of humor comes out more and he seems at peace with himself and the world.  Perhaps he has finally grown up.

Limabeany

I think that is true, but it reminds me of all those Nazi butchers that went to live in Argentina and other places and became happy model citizens.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

Canuck

I find that comparison incredibly distasteful, Limabeany.  Nothing Charles has done should invite comparisons to Nazis.  That's just really offensive.

lilibet80

I cannot believe that anyone in his or her right mind could equate the Prince of Wales with a Nazi murderer.  What did he really do?  He married a girl barely out of her teens who he liked very much.  As time went by the marriage was not working out.   As many kings, princes, generals, executives and the guy next door do he had a lover.  He handled it like an imbecile and not like a gentleman.  She also had a lover.  She also handled it like an imbecile.  They both could not keep their mouths shut, but aired their dirty linen in public with it would seem very little thought for their children or the Parker Bowles children.  They got divorced.  She got killed. 
He married some years later and has two lovely boys and a grandson. 

He did not run a gas chamber.  He did not invade Russia.  He did make Jewish people  dig their own graves and then shoot them into it.  He did not run a concentration camp.  He made a bad marriage.  It is time to let this kind of hatred go for this man.  He committed no crime, he handled a marriage stupidly.

Limabeany

It was not meant to be literal, but that is what the statement reminded me of, he is happy so that is all that matters.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

lilibet80

Quote from: Limabeany on September 16, 2014, 09:26:36 PM
It was not meant to be literal, but that is what the statement reminded me of, he is happy so that is all that matters.

He has a right to be happy.  He does not have to walk around in sackcloth and ashes over something  that ended 17 years ago.  He does not have to stay  stuck in the past but is able to move on. The judgment and hatred I read on board is all out of proportion.  Perhaps some of the people on this board would let this part of his life go and concentrate on what he is doing as POW.  He is over  sixty and has every right to be happy in his life.

c

Canuck

I realize it was not meant to be literal, but I still find it inappropriate and frankly I think any point you were trying to make is totally lost when using an analogy like that.