I see Nick Cohen, an opinion writer in The Guardian, has rung the alarm bells about Prince Charles:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ntitlement
In the 20th century, there were good reasons to behave with restraint. Elizabeth II only came to the throne because parliament had deposed her uncle, Edward VIII. The House of Windsor survived, but all around it war and revolution had destroyed the Habsburgs, Romanovs and Hohenzollerns. Caution, as much as personal preference, demanded that she be careful.
Times change and aristocrats are no longer frightened. There will be no sense of caution about Charles III: only a sense of entitlement.
I'm glad there's a Governor General between NZ and the next monarch and that he might be too old to ever visit as Kxxg.
The first decade of the 21st century saw what we used to call the establishment begin to realise that Charles was a hard prince to house train. Mark Bolland, a former courtier, said he “routinely meddled in political issues and wrote sometimes in extreme terms to ministers, MPs and others in positions of political power”. Aides to the then Labour administration said that if he carried on opposing government policy “sooner or later there will be real constitutional trouble”.
Heirs to the throne are often in conflict with monarchs because there is little else for them to do than hang around waiting for an individual or queen to die. The Queen doesn’t moan. Her son does. The Queen doesn’t politick. He can’t help himself. You could, if not forgive, then at least understand Prince Charles’s behaviour when he was decades away from getting a proper job. He had to pass the time, after all. The excuse doesn’t wash today, as there is no evidence that he has calmed down now that his coronation is in sight.
Blimey. I had just assumed he had calmed down and his black spider days had passed.