12/14/2009 11:45 am
POV
Poor Prince Charles, by Margo Howard
© Shutterstock
The other shoe has dropped. Or in this case, the scepter. It is Prince William, 27, who has been tapped to be "the shadow King." His 83-year-old granny, the queen, has signed papers allowing Wills to share a substantial part of her public duties; also to see secret papers of State. The information was not supposed to be made public. The Palace has conceded, however, that the queen and Prince Philip are "at an advanced age," such that the royal duties are becoming overwhelming.
There is denial all around, to be sure. Inquiries directly to the Duke about his fitness have been met with a curt: "Do I look bloody ill?" I love the consort. He always says the wrong thing … even though it is frequently true. On a visit to China in 1986 he told British students, "If you stay here much longer, you’ll all be slitty-eyed." He once asked a Kenyan dancer during a state visit, "You are a woman, aren’t you?" And speaking to a driving instructor in Oban, Scotland, he asked: "How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to get them through the test?" You gotta love a guy like that.
For years people assumed Queen Elizabeth would die with her boots on, as it were. The latest leaked developments fuel rumors that the queen believes William, not Charles, offers the best long-term chance for the monarchy to survive. The reaction to the breach of secrecy reflects the sensitivity to the issue of the queen’s future in public life – not to mention promoting Prince William without undermining Prince Charles. However … it is also said that Prince Charles has been in on the planning, so perhaps at the age of 62 he has accepted that that boat has sailed. (Camilla is no doubt secretly pleased, because she didn’t marry him decades ago because she didn’t want to be queen. You can’t ride horses all day and be queen, too.)
One does almost feel sorry for Charles, having trained his whole life to assume the position that has looked increasingly as though it would never be his. (The old girl had no intention of giving up her queen job … it is said because of her wimpy uncle who abdicated for the trollop from Baltimore. Also, everyone in that family seems to live a long time.) Although the gender is wrong, Charles, it could be said, has spent his whole life being a lady-in-waiting. I suspect all that hanging around is what led him into organic gardening, conservation and architectural criticism. Architects are said not to think much of his taste, but he clearly has an affinity for old things – perhaps excluding his mother.
If I were the prince, I would give up growing lettuce and beans at Highgrove and set about fulfilling dreams. (Well, not that one — but surely there must be others.) I do know this, however: Somewhere in heaven, a princess is smiling.
- Email this Post
- login or register to post comments
166 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Prince Charles is to England, what George W. is to the states.
A man born into a family of wealth and, politics and influence. Yet a man ill equipped to lead because of a lack of true intelligence, tact, decorum and drive.
Belinda, I must agree that Prince Charles is not what anyone first thinks of when thinking of a King of England. He does often seem to lack that je ne sais quoi of true majesty. I think he had a difficult time of it dealing as a child with his formally distant parents, being raised in the gilded cage of monarchy, being shipped off to Gordonstoune where he was miserable and so on. His disastrous marriage to Diana seemed designed to smooth the way to succession, complete with the requisite "heir and a spare", but Diana’s charisma and her loose-cannon persona did them both in as far as the marriage went. And, of course, there was Camilla, whom, in a more enlightened monarchic family would have been the bride of choice all along, whether it was "traditionally acceptable" or not. I can’t agree 100% that Prince Charles is without intelligence, however - he may be a bit eccentric (still chatting to your plants, Your Highness??) but his notions of sustainable farming and organic foods, as well as the emphasis he has placed on the small "family garden" seem very sound to me. His charity work is legendary, and he does make some very sound points about preservation of heritage buildings throughout the country (although his architectural taste is a tad hidebound, it’s true.) But tact, decorum and drive are definitely not in oversupply, alas, and of the three, the most telling is drive, I’m afraid.
Being the monarch - even a symbolic figurehead monarch - is tough work. I have a feeling that Prince William will be smashing at it, and if he has the lovely Ms. Kate Middleton at his side, the two of them should more than revive the spirit of British royalty in a fresh, 21st Century way.
But I feel for Charles - if this comes to pass, it must be more than humiliating, and far greater than a simple PR Office "spinmeister" can gloss over. At any rate, I personally am rooting for Queen Elizabeth to reign for many more years, in good health and with her customary dignity and grace.
I’m with you Susan about Queen Elizabeth. Goodness knows she is in excellent health and will no doubt out-live all of us. And quite honestly I really am happy for Prince William. He has the best of both his parents, which will make him the perfect person to represent the monarchy. I disagree with you however about Prince Charles, but it boils down to how "we" interpret his motive and actions as it relates to his philanthropic works.
As an example, when I think of Princess Diana and her various charitable works, I feel that they were rooted in a genuine love of the people she was helping. She genuinely cared (or so it seemed to me) about the Africans and Middle Easterners she was helping. Prince Charles on the other hand…..not so much. He and his son Harry seem to think it is funny and simply "nicknames" to refer to Middle-Easterners as "Paki" and "Sooty" A man of true breeding and decorum would not use such terms. He may have learned to play polo, dress right and the difference between a salad and dinner fork….but the Queen neglected to teach him tact.
Princess Diana was one-of-a-kind, including the wonderful warmth and dignity she brought to her many charities. You are right about that, Belinda, and for that we can all remember her with affection. I feel that she passed a lot of her natural charm along to William (and some of her mischievous nature to Harry, who always seems to have a bit of a twinkle in his eye.) I suppose Prince Philip passed his wonderful talent for diplomacy (hehhehheh) passed THAT gene along to Prince Charles. Like father, like son when it comes to foot in mouth disease? Yes, I think you’re correct. Well, one thing is sure: at least the royal family is not boring, eh? But I often stop and wonder how things would have played out had Diana lived. I’m sure her influence and her ability to cut across all social and cultural lines and touch people with her natural grace would have exerted a powerful influence on both her sons. They were fortunate to have had her influence as young boys, and William, especially seems to have picked up on so many of her good qualities. We’ll see how it all plays out - and no matter how it ends up, there’s definitely enough material in this saga for at least a couple of operas, eh?
I was born in the U.K. in 1947 and my mother was a born Monarchist. The last time I saw the Queen, I discovered through the media, that she would be coming to Windsor, Ontario, in Canada. There was a specified route her motorcade would be driving and I wanted to see her and was so excited. But that was in the 80’s and this is 2009.
I long since lost interest in the Monarchy simply because I don’t believe in it anymore. Governor General Michaelle Jean is considered the Queen’s representative in Canada. Personally, I’d rather see Canada become a republic. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which became part of the Canadian Constitution in the 70’s, promoted by the late Prime Minister at the time, Pierre Elliott Trudea. She signed the Charter into law, probably didn’t even read it or was possibly briefed about what she was about to sign. The idea was to protect Canadians from all forms of discrimination. This Charter would be an anathema to the way the Queen conducts her Firm as her former daughter-in-law Sarah Ferguson calls it. And she’s right. The Queen, Prince Phillip and all those who work for her….they constitute a business, the Firm as it’s popularly known.
As for Prince William, a.k.a "Will" becoming the next King, that doesn’t concern me either. Prince Charles is a cad as far as I’m concerned. His and the-then… Princess of Wales, Diana, that was an arranged marriage and he always loved Camilla Parker-Bowles, married at the time, but was a long-time friend of Prince Charles and he was married because he mother felt at the age he was, he should be married. He met Diana Spencer, later to become the Princess of Wales. Parker-Bowles was the third woman in the marriage and I often wonder, okay, I occasionally wonder if her mother-in-law, knew that Camilla, her beloved daughter-in-law was romantically involved with her son, while BOTH parties were married.
The-then Princess of Wales, Diana, came to the marriage to Prince Charles with a lot of personal baggage, both emotional and psychological and even if Prince Charles knew about it, he was hardly the supportive spouse, so, Princess Diana had to go it alone. I’m not a big fan of men, even Princes who cheat on their spouses while still married.
When ANY members of the Royal Family visit the U.S. they’re greeted like stars. Americans LOVE the Royal Family as do Canadians who are diehard Monarchists. I’m not the only non-Canadian (a landed immigrant since 1958) who supports Canada being a republic. One of the criteria for becoming a Canadian citizen, which I’m not entirely sure about, involves an oath including allegiance to the Queen and to the flag or a god. I believe it goes like this: "To God and the Queen". No to both! If that were the case, I’ll stay as is, a landed immigrant even though when I’m old enough, I can get Old Age Security. I’ll be damned if I’ll swear allegiance to the Queen of a country I left in 1958. I’m an atheist too, so allegiance to a ‘god’…that’s definitely out!
Um….aside from some gun-totin’ Albertans, you pretty much ARE the only one that supports the idea of Canada becoming a republic. There has never, in the entire history of the country, been a political movement or group that even came close to influencing that non-discussion. No one has ever even made a serious attempt to make it part of political debate. I don’t count the ’60s. No one took that nonsense seriously then, either.
The one thing that REAL Canadians are serious about is never becoming more like the States. Scratch any Canadian and you will find an ardent nationalist, determined to retain the individuality of their country. If you weren’t born there, you can never truly understand this.
The simple fact is that Canadians are NOT monarchists. Canada is a separate country from England altogether is and most people are perfectly content to see the Queen in her ceremonial role continuing for a good long time. The Canadian Government ticks along on its own (notwithstanding the usual silliness) and Canadians continue to enjoy a quality of life that most Americans envy.
Your choice to remain a permanent ex-pat is your own and no one else’s. I can assure you that the same oath is necessary to become a citizen of the UK, and you have made it by default. It’s unfortunate that you have chosen this route. You appear to have never bothered to learn about your adopted country or the people who live in it. The fact that a bunch of resident ex-pats want Canada to be a republic is utterly meaningless. You simply don’t count.
As for Charles, it’s been apparent for a couple of decades now that he will never become King. He’s more than bright enough for the job and is perfectly capable of doing whatever the position would call for, largely due to his grandmother, the Queen Mum. No one wanted to see a twit like Phillip in any public capacity.
Well, I certainly understand everything you’ve writted, Carol, and I know many Brits who also feel as you do: that the concept of monarchy is outdated and irrelevant. And, of course, in many ways, it is. I do admit, though, to a fascination with the British monarchy. Not just the current Windsors, but the entire pageant of it. I can’t really understand entirely why it fascinates me so much except possibly that the history of it is gripping. I don’t feel especially "romantic" about kings and queens, but I will admit to an interest in the lives of people who, through an accident of birth, played out their role in shaping history - some with grace and panache, others with violence or cruelty, and most with some combination of all these qualities. It’s the larger-than-life quality that draws me, I guess, the way I’m also drawn to opera. Just for the hugeness of it all, and in the midst of the hugeness, there are just people, running a "firm".
I know all about the hero-worship of royalty in America. And you’re right - it’s a little ridiculous, isn’t it? Especially nowadays, when we all know full well that the Windsors are just as apt to act like dim bulbs as the rest of us are. Diana, with all her sad problems and emotional issues, was caught up in something she either didn’t fully understand, or naively thought would simply disappear the moment she was married. And she (and others around her) paid a heavy price. Whatever nods toward a less insulated life have been allowed since Diana’s untimely death are just that: nods. The reality of the monarchy is that it will always be in the business of keeping the firm chugging along no matter what, including turning a blind eye to faithlessness.
At any rate, the other side of this debate, as you’ve framed it, is crystal clear, and makes perfect sense. And I also empathize with your feelings about the contradictions of life in Canada. I think we all live in a world that is framed by contradiction, hypocrisy and a certain amount of raw cynicism. I don’t see myself as a helpless romantic, fantasizing about the fairy-tale lives of kings and queens, but I am powerfully intrigued by the manner in which they have lived their lives, for better or for worse. Thanks so much for your heartfelt post, Carol; you really gave me a lot to add into the mix.
You do callthem as you see them and you’re so right!
Your comment is mean-spirited and not based on fact. Within the very narrow range which is permitted to RF members, Charles has staked out leadership in environmental issues, the plight of farmers and the development of British youth. As for Margo’s suggestion that Charles will be passed over in the succession, nothing could be more ridiculous. Charles will become King whether you and Margo and the Daily Mail like it or not. For the information of you both, the Queen does not choose her successor. Any change in the normal succession must be made by an act of Parliament. And that is not about to happen. Students of history will tell you that one of the chief advantages of monarchy is that the leadership is not up for grabs.
Prince Charles is lucky to have people like you as such a staunch supporter. However please realize not everyone feels about him as you do, and that is okay. It would be wonderful if everyone in the world loved Roberta Wickham, but sadly that is not true. The same rings true for the royals, Margo and myself. We each have a right to our opinions and interpretations on issues.
It doesn’t make me wrong and you right. It simply means we see things differently. And contrary to what you said, I was not being mean-spirited.
Sorry, but the laws governing succession actually do make me right and you and Margo wrong. It’s not a matter of "opinion" — it’s a matter of law. And as for Prince Charles’s contributions to society, that’s also not up for grabs; it’s something you either know about, or you don’t. Again, Prince Charles’s resume is not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.
Okay….lets try this another way, shall we?
Obviously you read my posts, because you responded to them. So…I’m assuming you forgot what you were responding to. I DID NOT question Prince Charles philanthropic acts throughout the world, I questioned his INTENT. So I don’t have to review the Prince’s resume, I am well aware of his many contributions.
I don’t know how old you are but you will learn in life the world is filled with politicians, celebrities, notables and yes…royals…who perform charitable acts not because their heart tells them to, but because they feel it will "look good" if they do. You may be one of those naive people who actually believes every act of charity by a notable is genuine, I do not.
I can’t speak for Margo (nor will I try) but as for myself I happen to be a xenophile. So I assure you, you can not educate me about the laws governing succession in the least. I stand by every statement I have made in these posts and clearly you disagree. As I said, Prince Charles is lucky to have someone like you defend him and his actions. Given his constant "foot in mouth disease" and questionable social faux pas’, he needs all the support he can get.
You are the one who said that Charles was "ill equipped to lead because of a lack of true intelligence, tact, decorum and drive."
That’s what I meant when I said your post was mean-spirited. I also think you have no idea what you’re talking about.