Prince Charles covers Time as ‘The Forgotten Prince’, calls Camilla ‘wonderful’

charles2

Time Mag is going full Anglophile these days. I can’t say I’m mad about it. A week ago, Benedict Cumberbatch was the cover boy for all of the international editions of Time. And now the Prince of Wales is this week’s cover guy. Prince Charles (His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland) granted a lengthy and exclusive interview to Time, and he discussed… well, he discussed everything. You can read Time’s cover preview here, and here are some highlights from the piece:

He’s friends with Emma Thompson! “There’s a long history of relationships between Princes of Wales and actors — not just actresses, not just the rude relationships as [Charles] would say, though God knows I’ve tried,” jokes the actress Emma Thompson, one of his close friends. “He wasn’t having any of it.”

The Prince’s Quest: “I feel more than anything else it’s my duty to worry about everybody and their lives in this country, to try to find a way of improving things if I possibly can.”

He’s a healer: “I’ve had this extraordinary feeling, for years and years, ever since I can remember really, of wanting to heal and make things better. … I feel more than anything else it’s my duty to worry about everybody and their lives in this country, to try to find a way of improving things if I possibly can.”

Environmentalism: “We’re busily wrecking the chances for future generations at a rapid rate of knots by not recognizing the damage we’re doing to the natural environment, bearing in mind that this is the only planet that we know has any life on it.”

His personal happiness: Isolated for much of his life, he now takes joy in his “wonderful wife. And of course now a grandson, which is what this is all about. It’s everybody else’s grandchildren I’ve been bothering about, but the trouble is if you take that long a view people don’t always know what you’re on about.”

The idea that William could leap-frog him in the order of succession: “If you chuck away too many things…you end up discovering there was value in them.”

Preservation of Dumfries House: Six years ago he heard that the 18th century mansion in Scotland was to be sold and its collection of Chippendale furniture dispersed. Sight unseen, he formed a consortium and bought building and contents for £45 million, about $72 million, part-financed by a £20 million, $32 million, loan taken out by his charitable foundation. As property prices declined globally, his critics suggested he had been as imprudent as the issuers of the subprime mortgages that triggered the slump, risking the financial health of his established charities on a self-indulgent whim. But in securing Dumfries House, the Prince not only preserved a slice of heritage but also created in one of the most deprived corners of the U.K. a new hub for employment and for training courses run by his charities, and a potential magnet for tourism. His rich dinner guests are donors and potential donors, lured by his royal convening power to a place that needs their help and that would never have drawn their attention without Prince power.

[From People & Time]

Charles also says that his new grandson is “what this is all about.” Allegedly, Charles also references the PR disaster that was his divorce from Diana, although there are no quotes about that yet.

I have to say, even though I think Charles is a toolbox about Diana (and Camilla!), I do think he’s worked tirelessly on so many worthy and amazing projects, like historic preservation, environmentalism, education and employment. He’s been ahead of the curve on many of those projects too. As for the idea that the Queen would or could alter the line of succession so that Charles is “skipped” – that’s a pipe dream. It would be a constitutional nightmare/crisis and the only way the line of succession would change would be if Charles himself decided to abdicate. Which it’s pretty clear he won’t do.

PS… WENN labeled the photo of Charles and the bird as “Charles and Camilla”. LOL.

wenn20547842

wenn20638618

Photos courtesy of WENN, Time.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

176 Responses to “Prince Charles covers Time as ‘The Forgotten Prince’, calls Camilla ‘wonderful’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. TheCountess says:

    Will this actually be the U.S. cover? I love Charles.

  2. Lucy says:

    I really like Charles, he seems genuine and is a hardworking royal. Also he owns a food production company and his cereal is my breakfast every morning it’s so delicious!!

    • Dubois says:

      I do too. He’s really grown on me over the years. He’s also done a great job with Wills and Harry. I hate to say it, but I think they would have been quite messed up had their mother lived.

      • Chickie Baby says:

        Agreed! When Diana died, it really caused a shift in the royals and seemed to make them work to be less distant toward the public. Charles has really ‘grown into’ his years, and seems far more at ease now than he was several years ago. His love of gardening and the environment has made him much more personable, too.

    • Jane says:

      Ga…cereal? I never knew that!!! When I travel to the UK, the only thing I used to find of his was the Duchy’s Orginals preserved from Bennets and Sainsbury’s. Immigration always gave me strange looks when I a claimed 8-10 jars of the stuff getting back to the US. Now I can’t find it anywhere! Now I want the cereal.

    • Liza Jane says:

      I agree, he sometimes has trouble articulating but he really seems a very concerned caring person, who wants to eave a legacy of good works behind him! Though I think the Queen is marvellous I feel he has had a rough ride waiting so many years to take the reins( reins) as it were!! It must be hard to be sandwiched between the well loved Queen and the much admired Prince Willam!
      It is quite right that the Queen will never abdicate but I feel sorry for Charles as his reign will be quite short.
      I think he has done a marvellous job with the boys, although she was a good mother and the boys loved her immensely, Diana was a flake and an unhappy woman and was an attention seeker in all the wrong ways!

  3. pao la says:

    Harry looks so much like him lately. I always thought he looked more like Diana, but this picture here tells the truth.

  4. Diana says:

    My God is that a photo of him or a wax statue?

  5. Anna says:

    I really, really respect what he’s done with his life and power.

    • MisJes says:

      +1. I have great veneration for Prince Charles.

    • MavenTheFirst says:

      Ditto. Whatever one can say about his treatment of Diana, he has not wasted his life and privilege on frippery and total self-indulgence. I want him to be the last of the monarchs. Have it go out with a bang instead of a Willy whimper.

      • HH says:

        +1 – I think Charles has certainly enjoyed his privilege, but he has not wasted his life away. He acknowledges the power of his position, the responsibility, and because of this he has done great things. This was the upside of The Queen and Prince Philip raising their children to acknowledge their privilege and status. While I do admire some of the ways that William was raised, he has this longing to be “normal,” but his version of normal. All of the privileges without the responsibility; it’s not that he wants to be normal, he just don’t want to be royal. William continually describes the idea of being king as “daunting” and now he’s been given time to transition into a “full-time” royal. I’ve found this bizarre because his entire life is a transition. That’s the idea of succession. You learn from previous monarchs before.

      • Bubbles says:

        I read somewhere that Queen Liz and Phil were quite cold with their children, and that it worked for others, but not for him. Is that true?

      • bluhare says:

        Bubbles, yes I think that’s been reported. Charles was the “sensitive” one. His dad, apparently, doesn’t have much use for sensitive children.

        Agree with everyone else re Charles. Yeah, he’s pompous, but he started the Princes Trust which has actually done things, and has done amazing things with Highgrove. I wish I could go there for the Christmas event he’s having.

      • Tara says:

        maven
        while I join in enthusiastically with your praise of Charles I think your framing Will as the potential detriment of the monarchy is unfair. the Charles of today is a far cry from the man he was thirty years ago and it is futile to juxtapose father and son because the latter is still making/learning from his own share of mistakes, imo. we dont know what another thirty years will do to hone Will’s character although yes, I do feel he has a ways to go.

    • inthekitchen says:

      I can appreciate the stuff he does around organic farming, but IMO, he completely abuses his power. He often gets involved with politics, which is a BIG no-no for royals. Plus he pushes to have a LOT of his business kept secret – which, again, if the public is paying your way in life, IMO they have a right to know what you’re doing…

      • Kimble says:

        I don’t believe Prince Charles gets any money from the country’s coffers,does he? I thought he was sustained by the Duchy of Cornwall – as are his children?

      • Poppy says:

        @kimble Correct – the Duchy is worth millions, and while Charles does receive money from the Civil List (I.e. From Parliament), it’s repaid by the Queen out of her personal funds. She does the same for everyone how receives money from the civil list apart from Philip.

        Charles has the funds from the Duchy, with which he supports William & Harry, who also have their inheritance from their mother.

      • bluhare says:

        You guys are both right. Although, I don’t think Charles is doing anything others havent’.

      • LAK says:

        The notion that royals aren’t allowed to interact with or influence parliament at all is wrong.

        The MONARCH isn’t allowed to interfere unless absolutely necessary as HM did in the recent case of removing that hook terrorist to a (hopefully hellish) jail in America, but the rest of the royals can because despite their status and public job, they are private citizens.

        They can petition parliament to their hearts’ content just like you or I can. And the MPs are free to ignore or action all of us, Charles included.

        FYI, the royals retain their right to vote, just as ordinary citizens, HM has never exercised her voting privilege.

        We are so used to HM’s public passive rule on parliamentary matters that we have been led to believe that all the royals should be the same or that is what constitutional monarchy is supposed to be and then are outraged to find that she has vetos and powers and all sorts of goodies behind the scenes.

        Back to Charles, the only POW who wasn’t allowed parliamentary access simply because the monarch thought he was foolish and a waste of space was Edward VII. His mother,Queen Victoria, actively and absolutely barred him from work of any sort leading him to spend his 60+ year wait as a party prince.

  6. Green Girl says:

    I think this is such an interesting picture of him, and I find it compelling. I’m not the biggest fan of Prince Charles, but this is a neat choice for the cover photo.

  7. Rachel says:

    Someone please tell me what kind of bird that is. It’s huge!!!

    A couple of weeks ago at the PA Ren Faire, we watched two falconry exhibitions, and the falconer showed us several birds, a red tailed hawk, a horned owl, a falcon, etc. He told us the owl could take down a full grown wolf! I can’t imagine what the bird on Charles’ arm could take down given its size!

    Btw, as soon as the falconer asked for volunteers, my hand shot into the air. Those birds are amazing!

  8. Nicolette says:

    Yes Charles, we all knew you thought Camilla was wonderful when you expressed the desire to be her tampon.

  9. itstrue says:

    I know little to nothing about the royals, so please no one yell at me…but why didn’t he just marry that lady to begin with?

    • KatarinaS. says:

      She was married already, I think?

      • Venus says:

        She was a commoner and, worst of all, not a virgin. Diana had to have a virginity check before she and Charles could get married. I think he learned from all that unhappiness and made sure that William could marry the woman he loves, regardless of tradition. And good for him.

      • LadySlippers says:

        No. Camilla wasn’t.

        My personal opinion is, they are not quite the love story we were/are led to believe. She was head over heels in love w/Andrew (her first hubby) and Charles was told to sow his wild oats. Which he did. They were just a fun fling before she married. They picked up years later and he kept Camilla in rotation, along with his numerous other mistresses.

        In fact, according to several women — he would visit more than one mistress in a day and it’s just that Camilla outlasted the others (he also had mistresses in different countries). He has also stated that Kanga (another mistress) was the one woman who truly understood him. To me that doesn’t sound as if Camilla was his ‘one true love’. Now, I’m not saying they aren’t in love now but it’s a lot more sordid and complicated than we are led to believe.

        FYI: Diana was friends with Kanga which is why Diana didn’t throw Kanga under the bus like she did Camilla.

      • Lexa says:

        She wasn’t proper enough to marry the Prince of Wales. Back then the royals all loved to marry one another. They wanted Charles to marry someone with blue blood. Camilla and Charles had a great love affair when they were both single.Then he left to do some naval training. In the meanwhile, she married Andrew Parker-Bowles.

      • bluhare says:

        To follow up on ladyslippers, Kanga Tryon died of cancer. She and Camilla appeared to be the top two so I guess Camilla won by attrition.

      • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

        @LadySlippers– I well remember the press during Charles pre Diana days talking about his coterie of married well born lady friends, including Kanga. Perhaps in some way Camilla is the original “Waity”! (And shades of Edward VIII as POW!)

        That said, I think highly of Charles and Camilla not only for their tireless work for good causes, but also admire them as a particularly well suited couple that support one another, and work very effectively as a team. Everyone should be so lucky.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Kanga and Camilla were his more open and out there of his mistresses. He might have conceived a son in ’83 when still involved with both Camilla & Kanga (and obviously married).

        Kanga ‘lost out’ not due to illness but the fact she talked too much. And I also suspect, was friends with Diana. (Kanga was phased out as things REALLY fell apart w/ Diana and Charles needed someone in his camp and not Diana’s. Mind you, that’s a guess on my part.)

        Yes, attrition is what I was trying to say. :-)

        And I totally agree that no matter how it happened — I am glad Charles and Camilla are happy.

    • Jaded says:

      He was in his major bachelor/player days then and she wanted marriage and children, so she married Andrew Parker-Bowles. However, I think Charles and Camilla never stopped loving each other and when things with Diana started going sideways they got back together, apparently with Camilla’s husband’s approval.

      • Tara says:

        oh my, no to all of this. first, Charles and Diana started out sideways its not that it happened afterwards. secondly, Camilla didn’t wait for cracks in their marriage, she helped enlarge them. thirdly, Camilla chased her husband down as pitifully as Kate did Will. some say this might be one reason Camilla is supportive of Kate. lastly, Camilla’s husband never fell deeply in love with her and never cared about her trysts with Charles. the love between Charles and Camilla developed and deepened over time. they were not star-crossed lovers tortured by their inability to be together. hardly. but they are well suited and are lucky to have /love one another now. they seem happy and complete.

    • Decloo says:

      Camilla was NOT a commoner. She would have been a suitable bride except that she got tired of waiting for Charles and married someone else. If I remember correctly, they were an item but he left to go abroad for a substantial amount of time and came home to found she’d married someone else.

    • tessy says:

      I understood that Camilla wouldn’t marry him. But so they kept up the affair all the while he was married to Diana, which he thought was his constitutional right as monarch in waiting to do. Diana however did not comply, she wanted a real loving marriage.

    • Gretchen says:

      I think her being raised a Roman Catholic also put a spanner in their early romance. It is traditionally frowned upon for royals to marry Catholics. As far as I am aware, it only became legal this year for a king/queen to marry a Catholic, and I’m pretty sure that Camilla would, according to these traditions, be prohibited from having a coronation in the event of Charles succession (unlikely that would happen anyway).

      • LadySlippers says:

        Gretchen, I’ve never read or seen anything to indicate that Camilla isn’t/wasn’t CoE. Where did you come across that?

        ETA: And all any RC needed to do us renounce RC and become CoE like Autumn did (and a great many other Royals as well). So that honestly wouldn’t have affected anything.

      • LAK says:

        Ladyslippers/Gretchen: Camilla had to be confirmed into CoE ahead of her marriage to Charles. I think the fact that she was married to the catholic Andrew lead people to believe or assume that she was catholic especially when she was confirmed into CoE a few weeks ahead of her wedding. It was privately done, just as Kate’s own confirmation into CoE ahead of her wedding.

        Further, succession and religious change to the succession isn’t law yet. It’s been signed by HM, but it’s facing legal challenge in some realms, whilst other realms are yet to finish the work they require to incorporate it into their own constitution. Further, in Britain, it’s working it’s way through the Lords and there is plenty of objection there especially to the religious question.

        The spotlight has quietly been removed because it’s embarrassing for the government.

        All the realms have to agree and until all this stuff is clear, it can’t be made law. On the plus side, it’s agreed in principle.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Thanks LAK about clarifying Camilla’s religion. I didn’t think she herself was RC.

        Oh, I know the law has hit snags. Canada is the biggest snag I’m aware of but I’m sure it’s not the only one.

  10. Sixer says:

    He has been ahead of the curve. The Princes Trust has been more effective for disadvantaged young people than any government initiative I can think of.

  11. blue marie says:

    I like the photo of him in his kilt, mostly because of the socks.

  12. Diana Lewis says:

    I think that we can forgive Charles and Camilla for loving each other. We know that he hurt one of our most favorite women on the planet, but if this had happened with our next door neighbor, after a while, we let it go, because people are so complicated and unsure. Possibly, Camilla, has qualities that we would appreciate, because she is a PERSON, like the rest of us.

  13. Jegede says:

    LOVE Price Charles!

    Been lucky enough to see how his pioneering work with the Prince’s Trust has saved more lives than people will ever know right here in Brent London for example.

    He and his former wife BOTH behaved badly in their union. Charles was just piss poor with the PR game unlike Saint Di.

    He is foward thinking, extremely intelligent with a sledge hammer wit.

  14. Ncboudicca says:

    No way should Charles be skipped. He’s paid his dues and he seems to take his duties as future king very seriously.

    • LadySlippers says:

      I agree.

      Most people talk about skipping him don’t really understand that ‘skipping someone’ is not as easy as we think. Laws of the UK and the entire Commonwealth would have to be altered.

    • Lucinda says:

      I don’t understand why people think skipping him would be a good idea anyway. William is not ready and will not be for quite some time. Charles has decades of experience, weathered quite the tabloid storms and come out ahead with a pretty respectable reputation for his work. It’s speculation and nothing more.

  15. LadySlippers says:

    Kaiser,

    Only a King/Queen can abdicate. And a new law would have to be introduced in order to remove someone (anyone) from the line of succession. It would, indeed, be a nightmare as you put it! :-)

  16. Kiki says:

    I will never forget how he treated that poor princess. People seem to forget easily.

    • Bored suburbanhousewife says:

      Please take a moment to read the posts here and on other Diana/Charles post. You only know her side of the story and, as in every marriage, there are two sides and no one can really know what goes on in a marriage. Neither person was well suited to the other and both were severely insecure and sufferered childhood emotional damage. Even if Charles had been head over heels in love with her, neither he nor any man could ever fill the deep void within her, other than perhaps her public adoration. Not an uncommon thing for neglected, shy children with charisma and great talent, to achieve or feel.

      If you knew all the particulars, you, like Charles friends and relatives who know the true inside story, might lament ” how she treated that poor prince”.

      Like any acrimonious marital disintegration, they both behaved badly to each other. Interestingly, by the time of her tragic death they had developed a new, more positive relationship as proud and concerned co-parents.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I agree Bored.

        I am a HUGE Diana fan but that doesn’t mean I can’t see her warts. And she had a lot of warts.

        Their marriage would have taken so much more work than either were prepared to give. Sad but true. Both also had the ‘unique gift’ of bringing out the absolute worst in each other. Hard to build a solid foundation on that.

        So while I give Charles a tad more than his fair share of the blame (he was older and knew the Royal ropes), she was at fault too.

        I am glad to see Charles happy now. I would say the same thing for Diana if she were alive. Isn’t that what we should wish for everyone?

      • Kate says:

        I’m with a Bored,

        I’ve always been a Diana fan but she wasn’t perfect and neither was Charles. It takes two to tango. Charles is happy. I wonder if Diana was alive would she had found happiness, what would she think of Kate, would she try to compete with her etc. I read a book were it mentioned whenever she had a problem she still turned to Charles. It seemed as if they were starting to come friends

      • LadySlippers says:

        Kate,

        Diana and Charles were WELL on their way to a wonderful partnership after the divorce. It’s sad we never got to see that.

        I think the boys would have been slightly less troubled and a bit different if she hadn’t died. Diana, if nothing else, was a fantastic mother.

  17. Emma - the JP Lover says:

    I think Lady Diana was Prince Charles’s ‘Jennifer Aniston.’ Prince Charles should have stood his ground with his father and should have ‘not’ married Diana. They were so ill-suited for each other on SO many levels.

    Diana and her brother Charles, Earl of Spencer (he is the 9th Earl of Spencer by the way, which is why I can’t understand why ‘so’ many people thought Diana was a Commoner) were both emotionally damaged as children. Their two older step-sisters (one of whom, Lady Sarah Spencer, Prince Charles dates when Diana was a little girl) escaped all of the later ‘emotional’ drama in the house.

    Diana was a wonderful woman in many ways, but I didn’t hate the Queen at all for (finally) ordering an end to her marriage to Prince Charles.

    I ‘do’ wish she’d lived long enough to see just how very well her two sons have turned out. :)

    • LadySlippers says:

      Only the Sovereign and the peers/peeresses (the actual title holder) are not considered commoners.

      Courtesy titles (for wives or children) are just that — only a courtesy. So Diana, technically, was a commoner. Her brother, as a title holder, is not and is a peer of the realm.

      Sooo, Prince Harry and Princess Anne are also considered commoners as neither have a peerage. William, when granted a peerage, lost his commoner status. Kate, only carries her title as a courtesy. Married women that hold their title through their husbands are given courtesy rights as peeresses but are still technically commoners. They distinguish married peeresses and peeresses suo jure, which means peeress in their own right.

      Link to explain more:

      http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles08.html

      Another link:

      http://www.burkespeerage.com

    • Squiggles says:

      Commoner refers to bloodlines, not whether someone is aristocratic or not. If you do not have royal blood somewhere in your lineage, you are deemed a “commoner”.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Actually not true.

        The rules of who is a commoner or Royal or noble/aristocratic is determined a bit differently in each country. In the UK a commoner is defined by law as someone other than the Sovereign or Peer or Peeress suo jure. Conversely, in a lot of European countries, whole families are ennobled and thus, aren’t commoners. Examples of that are Queen Mathilde (nee countess) Princess Michael (nee baroness), and the Hereditary Grand Duchess Stephanie (nee countess).

        Hope that makes sense! :-)

    • Cricket says:

      I believe there were four Spencer children with the same mom but a large age difference. Diana’s older sisters Jane and Sarah are a bit older than Diana and Charles so their parents split was hardest on the two youngest.

      • LadySlippers says:

        You are correct, same mother and father for all four surviving Spencer children. There was a fifth child, John, born before Diana but did not survive.

        Neither Frances nor Johnny had any other children after they divorced. They did, however, marry spouses that brought in step-children. Raine did for sure but I cannot recall if Frances’ second husband did or not….

    • bettyrose says:

      Emma, I think Diana’s tragic death makes it hard for some of us to forgive the royals, even knowing that Diana held her own with them. Also, of course, it’s hard not to notice how convenient her death seemed to be for them. But if she were still alive and happily remarried, we probably would have forgotten Charles’s transgressions by now.

    • bluhare says:

      Diana’s older sister Sarah was definitely not unscarred. She had anorexia when she was younger. She also was a girlfriend of Charles for a while.

  18. DianeP says:

    Prince Charles won’t be “skipped” as King when the present Queen passes on. It just doesn’t work that way.

  19. apsutter says:

    This is Will’s future too except he’s a lazy entitled do-nothing while his dad has been working his ass off.

    • Maggie says:

      I think that’s an unfair assumption. William needs time to learn the ropes but that doesn’t mean he’s lazy. He’ll grow into his future role and do really well imho.

    • Gwenhamara says:

      William is lazy? Can’t understand why you would even go there. He’s in the military and he evidently takes his job seriously. William seems very down-to-earth and personable. I don’t get why you feel the need to put him down.

      • apsutter says:

        You guys are joking right? William may have joined the military but he’s on holiday every chance he gets. He barely puts in any actual working hours. He almost lost his flying license last year because he hadn’t flown enough hours! I stand by my comments because there is plenty of evidence of his lacking work ethic.

      • Kitten Mittens says:

        Asputter
        Those who think William is a true S&R pilot like all others have only researched this as far as being told he’s a pilot. No one wants to wake up and then call a member of the military lazy and that’s where many of these people take issue. They don’t know how he barely flies the hours required for his license. Or how he takes off from work at a moments notice for vacations or guy’s nights out while other pilots must be called in from their vacations to take his place. Or how he only got in because of a loop hole that left others rejected from being S&R pilots.
        Not to mention how his superiors kept having to make statements why William kept taking the helicopter out for joy ides costing about 40, 000 per trip.
        Any one else would have been fired and disgraced years ago.
        Not to rant. I just dislike it when he’s treated like a functioning member of the military when he’s just using it to hold off being a full time royal and draining resources better spent on helping and training faithful members of the RAF S&R.

    • Decloo says:

      How can you call him a “lazy, entitled do-nothing” when he went into the military after University and became a search and rescue pilot?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Apsutter is correct. William almost lost his wings due to lack of flying hours. The hours requirement is fairly low, making it achievable for almost everyone. It’s extremely rare to lose your wings over that and does NOT paint a pretty picture for William. However, to his credit, he did scramble and was able to keep his wings….

    • Lady D says:

      Agree apsutter. If I was British, I’d be alarmed at the thought of William running the country.

    • My2Pence says:

      @ apsutter. Yes, definitely one of the laziest members of the British royal family along with Katie No Work. They want the 1% existence off the taxpayers, but none of the work and responsibility. He has spent a decade skipping around different branches of the military, doing the bare minimum, and complaining about how he doesn’t want his job.

      Charles founded the Princes Trust when he was 28, using his military pension. Anybody think 31-year-old Bill Middleton capable of putting in the work and effort his father has done for decades? Of course not.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I believe Kate follows William’s lead work-wise. She’ll do more as/when he does.

      • My2Pence says:

        @LadySlippers. That’s a charitable thought, but unlikely in my mind. Clearly neither Bill nor Kate have a sense of duty or work ethic.

        Her “work history” consists of:
        1) part-time, 2-3 days a week “accessories buyer” (read: tea girl) for friends of William who gave her the job when she appeared lazy in the general public’s eyes. This was reduced to 2 days part-time because she needed to be “available” for her boyfriend, then ended completely with her boss later saying she “wasn’t exactly committed to the job.” Total time there was roughly 9 months.

        2) the family made-in-china/mexico party tat company, where she was only photographed 2-3 times over all the years she was said to be working there. Paid an allowance by her parents, yes. Actually working? Unlikely since all the work she was said to be doing was credited to a professional photographer.

        They’ll remain the laziest members of the royal family for years to come, no matter which one of them wears the pants in that family.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I don’t disagree w/ you My2Pence. I just think she follows his lead big time. And he’s a mighty poor example to follow. I think he was the one that liked her at his beck and call. So I lay the blame at Wiiliam’s door. Although, she isn’t blame free either.

        :-(

      • My2Pence says:

        @ LadySlippers. I suspect they bring out the worst in each other. She never would have won the Least Wanted Royal Husband Ever if she had ever said No to him.

        I also suspect that the past few years (since the engagement) have been Kate’s revenge against William dragging his feet for a decade. Many of the more outrageous demands seem to have been hers:

        - Diana’s ring which belonged to Henry not William
        - first overseas trip included jaunt to Hollywood for no justifiable reason
        - $150,000 in clothing paid by the taxpayers in a single year
        - helicopters to appearances rather than the train
        - demanding the largest Kensington Palace accommodation and kicking out a charity in order to get it
        - taxpayers footing the security bill so she can run home to mommy for two months after the birth
        - rooms for her family to stay over in the Kensington Palace mansion – again paid by the taxpayers
        - “Oh, the pregnancy made me too sick to work, but not too sick to fly to Switzerland or Mustique” angle
        - refusing to join HM for Christmas service two years running
        - breaking all previous tradition, her family is now invited to Christmas with HM at Sandringham
        - naming the spin doctor (Jamie LoP) as a godfather

        These have Kate’s revenge written all over them. She can’t take it out on William, so she’ll take it out on someone. She chased this life for a decade; she’s taking the taxpayers for all they are worth in exchange for the Waity label.

        He’s sitting back and rubbing his hands in glee at the damage this is doing the House of Windsor that he thinks killed his mother.

      • LadySlippers says:

        This is where you and I will disagree. I think William is behind most of these decisions. Kate’s a follower and not a big leader. Not saying she didn’t participate in the decision making process but I see William as the main instigator in almost everything they do.

      • My2Pence says:

        @ LadySlippers. At least we’re all civil on here, unlike other places. I just don’t see her as a milksop, but rather a willing partner in this poor showing as royals. It is Their Way (anti-tradition and anti-work) and they like it that way.

        It took a lot of ambition (and spine and claws and self-abasement and her family’s involvement) to clamp onto him for a decade through all the cheating, dumping her to chase others, etc. Hence Henry’s nickname for her – The Limpet. I just wish that ambition would be redirected towards royal duties instead of shopping, 3Xweek hair care appointments, and holidays.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Honestly, I don’t think we’re that far apart on our opinion. Kate just strikes me as a follower. William has LONG been reported as quite the control freak…. And William needed someone okay enough to bend with and to his whims. Hence Kate.

        I agree, this post has been very civil. Not all posts on CB can claim that. So thanks for that! :-)

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with ladyslippers. I don’t think Kate’s necessarily a dynamo without William, but I definitely think he calls the shots in their relationship and always has.

      • MavenTheFirst says:

        The conversations above lead me to recall that someone on the inside during the tour of Canada observed that it was Kate Middleton that wore the pants.

        I do think that she caters to his basest desires which coincide with her own. Nor can I totally dismiss the idea that she wields influence with him.

        The one thing that I am sure of- a person who hangs by her fingernails for 10 years enduring all sorts of insults, is no shrinking violet and will exact her revenge and payment. So, the scenario that My2Pence paints is not outside the realm of possibility, IMO.

    • Sachi says:

      The problem with William is that he’s never been reported to enjoy the possibility of being a monarch. If anything, he’s always painted as someone who is very reluctant to assume his role as a royal. Every time he’s interviewed, he cries about only wanting to have a normal life.

      William asking a whole year off for “transition” is ridiculous. I don’t think he’s truly going to change after a year nor do I think he asked for time off because he wanted to spend as much time with George.

      Did you see those photos over on Popsugar where William was getting off of a helicopter at the KP gardens after a hunting trip? He only came back from the trip the day before his son was going to be christened.

      He has taken several trips away with friends, leaving Kate and his son, since George was born. That doesn’t point to a father who is eager to spend time with his wife and child. He has barely done anything in terms of official duties since he got out of the RAF.

      Charles has always worked hard as to the requirements of his role. He has taken the job seriously and professionally. His personal life is not rosy but I’ve never heard him repeatedly whining and complaining about his life.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Sachi,

        Charles has belly-ached about his position — more so when young. However, Charles did do his job and wasn’t a slacker. Also, it did take him years to get comfy being in the spotlight. Charles, like his mother and a lot of other Royals, is shy so being ‘out there’ isn’t as easy for him/them.

        William is also shy. So I totally get some of his issues & complaints about duties being forced on him. What I DON’T like is his passive-aggressiveness in dealing with his Royal duties. If he doesn’t want to be king, he should have advocated for a change in the law years ago so he doesn’t have to be king.

        Just my opinion though….

        ETA: Hanging with the boys again? *Sigh* I was hoping he changed. Oh well.

      • Sachi says:

        LadySlippers – I don’t think William actually wants to abdicate and give up his position. He enjoys the perks and luxuries of being a royal as well as the immunity that he enjoys from being the Golden Boy of the media. It’s most likely the thought of having a lot of responsibility that makes him anxious, which is quite odd since both the Queen and Charles are hardworking and diligent.

        William seems very spoiled and runs his mouth off to the press whenever he needs sympathy, either claiming he desires to live like ordinary Joe or using Diana’s name. The same media that he is so resentful of is also the outlet that doesn’t hesitate to champion him and defend him.

        He’s very lucky to be so babied. But too much of a good thing isn’t always good. He has been insulated for far too long and the Middletons are not the right people to actually help him shape up. They’re enablers, too. Their success and status have been reliant on him for many years now. They’re not going to do anything to jeopardize that.

        I don’t think he’s going to man up until he’s actually “forced” to do so. It’ll probably take something big and grave before he realizes he either fulfills the role he was born into or give it up.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Sachi,

        I actually disagree as bring titled and rich comes with all the perks and virtually no responsibility. He sees his friends being ‘loafers’ and wants that too. I think he’d ditch the HRH in a New York minute. Just watch ‘Made in Chelsea’ and you’ll see how tough it is. That’s the life William wants. Rich and aimless just like his peers.

        ETA: Charles and David were super babied too (all heirs are). Which is (IMO) over half the reason David abdicated because he couldn’t get his way. And all his life he had gotten his way so it seemed unfathomable that it wouldn’t have that always.

      • MavenTheFirst says:

        This kid does what he wants. He coos over his son for the photo op but I don’t see him being a hands on father. No matter what, Charles seems to have doted on his kids even if he never changed a nappy. William just did what was necessary and now he buggers off at will. It’s appalling, to me.

        William, IMO, is cynical and self-serving, and rejects duty using the “normalcy” excuse. He wants the world and he wants it now without paying anything, or serving, or fighting the good fight. I think he’s the kind of guy who likes orgies as a way of life. Totally noncommittal and self-indulgent. Oh, and he loves killing wildlife. Lots of it. Especially this year, it seems.

    • MavenTheFirst says:

      @ bluhare,

      It “took time for Charles for grow into his role”? Where is that obvious? IMO and from what I learned back then that he found his role.

      Charles was looked upon as a wacko for his organic gardening and his interest in architecture way back in the dark ages. He never struck me as a stumbler, someone who needed to be coddled like William. He forged ahead while all of the world was laughing at him for being, essentially, a tree hugger. Meanwhile, this 30 year old William is still groping during his ersatz gap year?

      The boy-man is a reluctant royal when it comes to duty, IMO. But not so reluctant when it comes to the perks. And he is privileged to manipulate his image any which way. People buy it, people buy his ‘need’ to grow into the role. Seriously.

      He’s a coddled boy man taking ultimate advantage of every excuse for not growing up, IMO.

      • Apsutter says:

        He’s been coddled for a decade. Remember how when they got engaged it was supposed to actually kick start their lives and jump them into Royal life? Ha! Ever since it has been a chorus of “Once they get married they’ll be working…once they get settled into their cottage they’ll get working…once they have a baby they’ll get working…once he leaves the RAF they’ll get working…” and on and on and on. Bunch of lazy do littles. He’s 30 years old and has had the world at his feet and limitless opportunites for his whole life and has turned out to be an undistinguished clod.

      • MavenTheFirst says:

        @Apsutter,

        Yeah, he is glib that way. Listen to any interview with him. And so is his PR. Rinse, repeat. And people buy it!

      • bluhare says:

        Maven, I think found his role and grew into it are two sides of the same coin. Bottom line is he figured out what he wanted to do as POW and has done it.

  20. mkyarwood says:

    Charles is a pretty prominent voice in the organic farming and environmentalist community. It puts him in a way different light for me. It can seem like a contradictory message, and his books have received some criticism but I really recommend them:

    http://www.amazon.ca/Highgrove-Experiment-Organic-Gardening-Farming/dp/067179177X

    http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Organic-Gardening-Prince-Wales/dp/0967007690

    Seems like he’s the hippie prince who just wanted to plant stuff and smoke pot with Camilla.

  21. GiGi says:

    I, too, really think highly of him – despite the terrible mess surrounding his personal relationships in the past. He has really worked to move his causes forward.

  22. Shelby says:

    All I can think is DANG! That is one large bird!

  23. Cora says:

    I’m Canadian and one day Charles will be the King of Canada. I’ve never understood why people wanted him to step aside in favour of William. Charles has waited his whole life to be king and, most importantly, has spent decades preparing for the role. Those years of experience and preparation will likely mean he’ll be a very good king. William simply isn’t ready. He has a hard enough time figuring out what his role is as prince (and apparently needs a year to think about it)! William is nowhere near ready to be the king of 16 nations.

    • My2Pence says:

      @ Cora. Not only has Charles spent years preparing for the role of king, he has spent years of his life working to better the lives of the people of the UK.

      All of this “Oh, William needs time, he’ll be ready someday, leave them alone they shouldn’t have to work, he’s not the Heir he doesn’t have to work now,” talk from some strikes me as dangerous/disingenuous. In recent history monarch’s have ascended the throne at these ages:
      Victoria = 18
      George V = 45
      Edward VIII = 42
      George VI = 41 (due to brother’s abdication)
      Elizabeth = 26

      Yes, her mother lived a long life but Her Majesty is no spring chicken. Prince Philip has lived a long life as well, but no rules say Charles will live anywhere near as long as his parents.

      In a matter of a few years, both HM and Charles could be gone, and then where would the UK and Commonwealth be? With an untrained, duty-shy man and his equally untrained, lazy wife as their representatives on the global stage.

  24. Jay says:

    I’m coming around to Charles. Time was I couldn’t stand him, but he’s hard-working and responsible, which are two of the qualities I already value in Queen Liz. I think I can deal with him being King some day.

  25. Sunny says:

    Charles was raised as Future King in the old way. Honor and duty all the way. Charles knows how it should be (but he should stay away from real politics!).
    William was raised more modern and there lies the problem. The monarchy isn´t modern. Now William doesn´t have the work ethic his father has and thinks he can choose his duties as he wants. William is 31 years old and needs a gap year. He is still not ready because he does´t want to.
    I´m afraid William will make George more an orinary rich posh boy as a Future King. In the end George will be like his father: duty-hating

    • My2Pence says:

      @ Sunny. Completely agree. 31-year-old manchild quits his job when a new baby arrives, so he can sit around for a year – not working in the military NOR on increased royal duties – to pout about how much he hates his royal life.

      I also like the (potential) shade Charles sends towards anti-tradition Bill and Kate:

      “The idea that William could leap-frog him in the order of succession: “If you chuck away too many things…you end up discovering there was value in them.””

      Things like honor, duty, tradition, work ethic, traditional upbringing, following royal protocol because it makes sense, etc.

    • Kitten Mittens says:

      Sunny
      You should include how William was a difficult child to begin with by all accounts. Plus, his mother using him for a therapist leads to damage on top of losing her at a young age. He was coddled. This all circles back around to being raised without a strong sense of duty as you said. More entitlement.

      I’m really a bit shocked he isn’t getting more bad press with this year off. He’s been raised and prepped for this role. There’s no need for a year to evaluate when you have staff to help you. Especially when Harry has no press protection. He takes it on the chin, works with his charities personally, and is an active military member. He outshines William in virtually ever manner.

      • LadySlippers says:

        All heirs in the UK are ridiculously coddled. It’s how their culture evolved. The eldest male becomes a kind of demigod in almost all titled and/rich families. William was NO exception (nor was Charles or David).

        I say heirs as there are relatively few heiresses.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Also, none of the people around Diana ever saw her use William as a therapist. That’s a myth that evolved after her death. I honestly don’t buy it.

      • Lexa says:

        I find the heiresses are usually raised right. Look at Queen Elizabeth or Queen Victoria. They’ve were both Queens. Crown Princess Victoria is another excellent example. She’s going to be a great queen.

      • LadySlippers says:

        @Lexa

        You cannot compare Sweden & the UK.

        And HM was not ever expected to be Queen as her uncle was young and expected to marry. So, I think that’s why she’s so wonderful now. She wasn’t coddled as heirs in the traditionally UK are. This ‘coddling’ of heirs is seen ALL throughout the aristocracy in the UK. :-(

        Victoria is a wonderful heiress apparent! :-)

      • maggie says:

        I disagree with everything you have said in your comment. I don’t think for a second William was coddled. Quite the opposite. He was born with pressure on him and then he loses his mother. I feel for him and think under the circumstances he has turned out rather well. He’s also chosen well when it comes to his wife. I think he takes his position very seriously and will help bring the monarchy into the present versus the 1600′s.

      • LadySlippers says:

        No offence Maggie but almost all bios of the boys & Diana paint a much different picture.

        As a child, William was an absolute terror because Diana let him do whatever he pleased. It wasn’t until Harry’s christening that Charles brought back his nanny to establish order when several senior Royals were outraged by William’s behaviour.

        Ironically, as a teen it was Diana who could get him to ‘snap out’ of a temper tantrum as Charles is kinda a pushover.

        Today, there is NO ONE willing or able to get William to do what he needs to. Even the courtiers let him do his thing otherwise it’s a BIG battle with no clear winners — just a lot of losers. HM isn’t one for that.

        Sorry there are too many reports, over too much time, from too many people that paint a much different picture of William.

      • Sachi says:

        LadySlippers – too true. William was far from an “angel”, even as a child.

        People magazine wrote about his behaviour in 1986. It’s online but I can’t post the link here.

        The title is William the Terrible on the People website.

      • MoonTheLoon says:

        Here’s the article Sachi was talking about-

        http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20094036,00.html

        Very interesting reading!

  26. Madriani's Girl says:

    God. In the picture with the falcon he looks like a dead ringer for his father.

  27. Miss Jupitero says:

    Going out on a limb here: I have always liked Charles. He’s been doing excellent work for a long time, and I appreciate his interest in gardens, environmentalism, spirituality, etc.

  28. Gwenhamara says:

    There is something sad about Prince Charles…. an air of melancholy and wistfulness (is that word?).

    • MavenTheFirst says:

      Yes, I agree. It’s called “Waiting to be King”. He deserves to be King, IMO, and it shows either Elizabeth’s lack of faith in him or her own dependence on being Queen until she dies.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Maven,

        HM took a vow to reign until her death. Her vows are sacred to her so abdication in not in her vocabulary. Also, she remembers when Uncle David abdicated and the mess it caused. Abdication is not in her vocabulary for many reasons.

        You may not agree with it but you should at least respect her view. She is not a cruel person by nature nor is she ‘dependant’ on her title. Being Queen wasn’t something she wanted but had to step up to the plate when duty called. And step up she did.

      • MavenTheFirst says:

        @ LadySlipper,

        I “should” nothing. Who are you to tell me what I should or should not think or do?

        However, I do stand corrected about the Queen’s position if it is, indeed, true. But I still think she could abdicate if she wanted to. I’m guessing there is that option. I would be happy to be corrected on that if it is not true.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Maven,

        It is indeed true. If you’d like, I can dig up numerous quotes. Her recent diamond anniversary of the coronation spoke of this as the original vow was made during her coronation in ’53.

        I said ‘should’ not to be offensive though but to make a point about the nature of her vow. She honestly thinks it’s her sacred duty to remain Queen until her death. It’s her decision to stand by her sacred duty that I do believe should be respected. Honestly, I was not trying to be disrespectful to you even though it may have sounded that way. And if I offended, I am sorry.

        Hope that clears it up.

      • LadySlippers says:

        In the UK, yes, Monarchs have the power to abdicate. However, HM believes abdication violates the sacred vow made at the coronation. This was how she rationalised David’s abdication as he had yet to have his coronation.

  29. Murphy says:

    Look, Charles is awesome and so is Camilla. Thats just the way it is.

  30. Zombie Shortcake says:

    Ha Ha. William, Kate, and Harry do not fall within Charles’ “Personal Happiness.”

  31. Otto Duck says:

    I think it would be very interesting to be trapped in an elevator alone with the Queen or Charles for a few hours to talk with them an see how they really are instead of how they want to appear.

  32. Boohoo says:

    Camilla picked Diana because she thought she wldnt put up a fight .

    Camilla one of many mistresses for years

    Diana only cheated after she was essentially tortured by Charles who was never in love with her in the first place yet feigned he was

    Charles has made horrendous personal errors in his judgement

    Diana would be alive today if he had acted as a husband should

    Charles pr campaign to get you to beleive Camilla was always number one and still is has been successful

    He married Camilla on the heels of his expenses being reviewed and his spending on her which dioes in a round about way comes from tax payers , was the only reason he married
    Her

    They spend a lot of time apart

    There have been long time rumours she is very unhappy

    He feeds you his tripe and you all eat it up !

    • LadySlippers says:

      Thank you BooHoo.

      Most people don’t know that even before Diana died Charles started a PR campaign (called Operation Parker Bowles or Operation PB for short) to change people’s opinions about Camilla. After Diana died it went into overdrive.

      What people don’t understand was that Charles was more concerned about HIS image than hers so had to ‘rewrite’ their ‘love story’ in order for people to accept him. Most of the comments here talking about their great love is from Operation PB. Sorry. In fact, when Camilla was being harassed and hiding in her house for weeks on end after Diana died, he did nothing to help her. Didn’t stuck up for her because he was more concerned about his image than of her.

      Not saying he and Camilla don’t deserve to be happy — they do. It’s just not the story we’ve been sold.

      I’ve heard rumours alluding to the fact Camilla isn’t as happy as she lets on. Not sure how true or false that is. For her sake, I hope it’s false.

  33. Emma says:

    I’ve always liked Charles over Diana. I’ve always thought of Diana as the pretty, popular girl that everyone loved while ignoring all her flaws while making Charles, the not as attractive villain even though he hadn’t done much wrong.

  34. Delorb says:

    I think his mother is living long just to spite him.

  35. Jayna says:

    After watching Prince Charles in a two-hour special a while back regarding his passion regarding organic farming and our food sources and our environment here on earth and all that he is doing in that field and has for years I have a new-found respect for him. He really was a visionary back when he was made fun of regarding his beliefs.

  36. Boohoo says:

    His charity work does not erase his errors of judgement throughout his life. Ending one major life prematurely.

    Ps Diana and charles poked happy and weren’t .
    Camilla can smile all she wants the rumours abound they hardly spend one together

    • Flower says:

      Charles and Diana were getting along better after the divorce than they ever had during their marriage, she died because she was still courting media attention and flaunting her love life to the max for public consumption. So the paparazzi chased her down like a neon deer and there was a car accident. Diana is dead not because of Charles but because she didn’t wear her seat belt, simple as that.