Prince Charles - Flying Career
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
parabellum
There was another Prince of Wales who, in living memory, was forced by Public Opinion to renounce the Throne because his choice of Spouse was deemed unsuitable.
It would not surprise me if the same sort of Public reaction arose in the case of the current Prince of Wales.
There was another Prince of Wales who, in living memory, was forced by Public Opinion to renounce the Throne because his choice of Spouse was deemed unsuitable.
It would not surprise me if the same sort of Public reaction arose in the case of the current Prince of Wales.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hands up all those here who consider themselves qualified to decide if the POW is suitable material for a King, or not?
His Mum got the job without the nation having had 60 years to asses Her suitability.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airpolice
I was in my first year at Primary School when HMQ acceeded to the Throne on the death of King George VI. I cannot think of any time when Her Majesty gave rise to serious adverse comment in the Media in the last 60 years.
That is not the case with her Heir whose treatment of the late Princess of Wales aroused severe antagonism in a large section of the UK population.
I was in my first year at Primary School when HMQ acceeded to the Throne on the death of King George VI. I cannot think of any time when Her Majesty gave rise to serious adverse comment in the Media in the last 60 years.
That is not the case with her Heir whose treatment of the late Princess of Wales aroused severe antagonism in a large section of the UK population.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is not the case with her Heir whose treatment of the late Princess of Wales aroused severe antagonism in a large section of the UK population.
It would not surprise me if the same sort of Public reaction arose in the case of the current Prince of Wales.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Their problems only came into the public domain through illegal phone tapping. Thereafter it was a feeding frenzy and they didn't stand a chance of saving anything from their unfortunate and ill suited union.
They were both excellent and loving parents though, and it is good to see how both boys have turned out.
They were both excellent and loving parents though, and it is good to see how both boys have turned out.
2. Hands up all those here who consider themselves qualified to decide if the POW is suitable material for a King, or not?
me.
he will, or will not, be king because we say he will, or will not, be king.
the great hallmark of living in a constitutional monarchy is that we get to decide whether we live in one or not. personally, i'm not a fan - like i'm not a fan of a number of other national policies - i'm quite happy to let any one looking for my vote to know that the PM/LotO who persuades charlie that its best if he decides to renounce his claim to the succession can consider themselves towards the top of my list.
unlike the generation above him, and unlike the generation below him, he has done very little to inspire any confidence that can undertake the role of king in a constitutional monarchy.
me.
he will, or will not, be king because we say he will, or will not, be king.
the great hallmark of living in a constitutional monarchy is that we get to decide whether we live in one or not. personally, i'm not a fan - like i'm not a fan of a number of other national policies - i'm quite happy to let any one looking for my vote to know that the PM/LotO who persuades charlie that its best if he decides to renounce his claim to the succession can consider themselves towards the top of my list.
unlike the generation above him, and unlike the generation below him, he has done very little to inspire any confidence that can undertake the role of king in a constitutional monarchy.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what have you done to inspire confidence in your ability to make an informed judgement on such an important matter? I am not disputing your right to do so of course.
There is one, and only one qualification to be Monarch, and to receive our oath of allegiance - to be the eldest son of the reigning monarch (or daughter if there are no sons).
Charles is fully qualified.
I believe he is prefereable to any self-serving politician, but that may be prejudice (based on cynicism and experience).
Charles is fully qualified.
I believe he is prefereable to any self-serving politician, but that may be prejudice (based on cynicism and experience).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loyalty is of course essential if our armed services are to do their duty with efficiency and honour.
The question raised by this thread seems to be: loyalty to what or to whom? When serving, my loyalty was to the Crown and all the good things for which it stood. Since the Crown was embodied in HMQ, no compromise with conscience was required.
The problem arises - as evident from preceding posts - when a prospective head of state is perceived to fall short of the expectations of the office. We shouldn't be surprised if this happens from time to time, given human fallibility.
It may therefore be worth considering the option of an oath to the office rather than to the individual. Our US friends have no difficulty with such a concept: they may not care for the president of the day but loyalty to the office, the constitution and the flag ensures the necessary continuity.
You may argue no change is needed in the way we do things. If it ain't broke etc. But the fact that some posters feel a tad queasy at the prospect of King Charles and (especially) Queen Camilla suggests the present admirable arrangement should be open to some clear-eyed reassessment. The Crown - and the principles it represents - are only diminished if we have to put our conscience on hold as we salute our King and Queen.
The question raised by this thread seems to be: loyalty to what or to whom? When serving, my loyalty was to the Crown and all the good things for which it stood. Since the Crown was embodied in HMQ, no compromise with conscience was required.
The problem arises - as evident from preceding posts - when a prospective head of state is perceived to fall short of the expectations of the office. We shouldn't be surprised if this happens from time to time, given human fallibility.
It may therefore be worth considering the option of an oath to the office rather than to the individual. Our US friends have no difficulty with such a concept: they may not care for the president of the day but loyalty to the office, the constitution and the flag ensures the necessary continuity.
You may argue no change is needed in the way we do things. If it ain't broke etc. But the fact that some posters feel a tad queasy at the prospect of King Charles and (especially) Queen Camilla suggests the present admirable arrangement should be open to some clear-eyed reassessment. The Crown - and the principles it represents - are only diminished if we have to put our conscience on hold as we salute our King and Queen.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the fact that some posters feel a tad queasy at the prospect of King Charles and (especially) Queen Camilla suggests the present admirable arrangement should be open to some clear-eyed reassessment.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point, AA. But funnily enough, from time to time in our history people have chosen not to serve under a particular king and, if their views are shared widely enough, have gone off and imported another one (William III and George I come to mind).
The point about the tw@t flight commander is that his/her authority derives from the Crown. It's for the health of the whole system that the fancy badge on his/her hat should command unequivocal respect.
PVR is not really the answer. Chances are you joined up to serve your country not the individual who happens to be symbolic Head of the armed forces by accident of birth.
Country first, king second. Just a thought. What if Edward VIII hadn't gone quietly?
The point about the tw@t flight commander is that his/her authority derives from the Crown. It's for the health of the whole system that the fancy badge on his/her hat should command unequivocal respect.
PVR is not really the answer. Chances are you joined up to serve your country not the individual who happens to be symbolic Head of the armed forces by accident of birth.
Country first, king second. Just a thought. What if Edward VIII hadn't gone quietly?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your oath of loyalty is to the institution of the monarchy, to the Crown, not to the particular individual who is wearing it at the moment.
We have been very fortunate in our recent monarchs. Perhaps Charles will not attract the same admiration as QE2, but that is because she ascended while very young so we know nothing of her views and opinions. Charles has been a busy and concerned PoW who has ruffled feathers but will have to go silent when he wears the crown. I am sure he will due his duty well.
We have been very fortunate in our recent monarchs. Perhaps Charles will not attract the same admiration as QE2, but that is because she ascended while very young so we know nothing of her views and opinions. Charles has been a busy and concerned PoW who has ruffled feathers but will have to go silent when he wears the crown. I am sure he will due his duty well.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but that is because she ascended while very young so we know nothing of her views and opinions.
Charles has been brought up in a society where there is far more access to the Royal Family and, really, the Royals are encouraged to be more accessible by society itself in order to justify their existence. So now, the very people who demand access to the Royals are the one's whining because we see them, warts and all...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken, AA. However, it's worth remembering that most of the whining in this instance has come from inside palace walls - thanks to self-justifying authorised biographies (Dimbleby/Morton) and relentless media briefing.
The sophisticated news-management techniques of modern royal press offices are unlikely to be discontinued after the next coronation. Hence widely-reported concern that we risk a head of state who operates with a politician's apparatus but without political accountability.
The armed forces of the Crown depend on public trust for their legitimacy. That trust has always been given on the understanding that the Crown remains aloof from politics as a single unifying symbol. It's a fragile arrangement and, in the 21st century, people are unlikely to trust any organisation that doesn't live up to its own publicity. Unlike happier, simpler times, loyalty - even to the Crown - is a reward for honest dependability.
If future generations of recruits believe their loyalty is being earned as well as expected then they probably will suck up everything service life throws at them, lumps and all. But a note of caution seems appropriate. The current comfortable status quo won't last for ever.
The sophisticated news-management techniques of modern royal press offices are unlikely to be discontinued after the next coronation. Hence widely-reported concern that we risk a head of state who operates with a politician's apparatus but without political accountability.
The armed forces of the Crown depend on public trust for their legitimacy. That trust has always been given on the understanding that the Crown remains aloof from politics as a single unifying symbol. It's a fragile arrangement and, in the 21st century, people are unlikely to trust any organisation that doesn't live up to its own publicity. Unlike happier, simpler times, loyalty - even to the Crown - is a reward for honest dependability.
If future generations of recruits believe their loyalty is being earned as well as expected then they probably will suck up everything service life throws at them, lumps and all. But a note of caution seems appropriate. The current comfortable status quo won't last for ever.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken, AA. However, it's worth remembering that most of the whining in this instance has come from inside palace walls
The armed forces of the Crown depend on public trust for their legitimacy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly, AA. "Honest dependability" is the royal ideal - not self-indulgent (and self-defeating) attempts to "use the media."
Using the media in practice has meant using spin. And I don't mean the aeronautical kind (tho' the results are likely to be the same if left uncorrected).
Using the media in practice has meant using spin. And I don't mean the aeronautical kind (tho' the results are likely to be the same if left uncorrected).