Has King Charles done this?

[Ursula14]

Has King Charles in his four years as Monarch managed to fill his Late Mother’s shoes and remedy at least some of the gaping hole left in the hearts of the British people following her passing?

Why or why not?

I'm proud to have KC represent me at environmental forums.
I like the way he interacts with people.
I admire how he keeps his sense of humour in adversity. He is doing well.
King Charles is grounded in reality. He is clearly a lovely father and grandfather.
His mother was also an effective monarch.
I'm wishing KC the best of health. He has much to recover for.

I agree.

To answer the OP, I think he's doing well under a massive pile of rotten luck (difficult family issues, cancer, score-settling by nasty ex BIL).

But Elizabeth II came to the throne as a 26 year old - attractive - woman. She represented something Charles can never replicate: a sense of 'the war has been won, a new age is dawning, Britain is booming and things are going to be better for everyone'. She became in many people's minds the personification of that post-war mood. Also (and I know some pps will scoff ) she was glamorous in her youth.

Charles was an elderly man when he took the throne and had already weathered some gruelling scandals, as well as the tragic death of Diana. He was neither young nor glamorous and the UK is very far from that hopeful, forward-looking country it was in 1952 (ooh - forget the Everest climb too, which cheered everyone up then!).

So it's just not a fair comparison. I don't think KC expects ever to be able to emulate or equal his mother's reign but I think he's doing OK in difficult circs. And I've been impressed by what I've seen of his soft diplomacy too - esp on the US visit. My God, that would have been a minefield - but he played a blinder.

And he was brilliant in the way he kindly and sympathetically welcomed Zelensky, too, after Z had been coarsely insulted at the White House by those rednecks Trump and Vance. He showed how a proper HoS deals with another.

This has been gone over ad nauseam on these threads.

It was a tragic situation for all of them and none of them was perfect.

But don't forget that the Spencer family (Dad and sisters and most of all Granny, Lady Fermoy) manoeuvred to marry Diana to Charles. She tried to back out before the wedding and was given very short shrift.

It was tragic - I admit that, but I think trying to parcel blame and accuse either D or C, is just pointless and simplistic. They were both victims in a way. Charles made a public apology at his second wedding for his adultery and also in an interview with Jonathan Dimbleby. I don't see that he can honestly do more than that.

Yes, that was the tragic thing. It was just never going to end well for either of them. I feel for both of them in different ways.

The late Queen wore nicer outfits and more jewels. Her hats were great. The King is just a slightly overdressed old man in comparison. I find him dull and irrelevant, as he has less entertainment value than his mother

Yawn. Another destabilisation attempt.

IMHO his reign started off marred by his mum's failure to deal properly with AMW and H.

Gaping hole!? 🙄

I think he has done what he needs to do as head of state. I prefer him to yet another politician in that role. Do I like him personally ? Nope but hereditary monarchy for me every time.

You are so strange, OP. "Gaping hole in our hearts"?

I find it very hard to describe Charles as a 'victim'. Diana I think yes - she was still in her teens at the time. But Charles was a 32-year-old man, one of the most privileged men on the planet.

I actually do agree that he has done a lot of things right as King. Despite the privilege it can't be the easiest of roles in many ways - he really has shown he is skilled at soft diplomacy, and nobody ever accused him of not being a hard worker; he has continued to work throughout his treatment. The things he is criticised for exist alongside his achievements and don't detract from them, he is a fallible human being like the rest of us.

Where I part company from many monarchists is their insistence that he & the RF are above reproach, and won't countenance any criticism of them at all. Alongside that is the idea that the Monarch must invariably be good and noble; when in reality, it is only a matter of time before we get an Andrew, or worse.

I’m fond of KC. But he is not she…
Queen Elizabeth II was a legend.

We should be a republic

They are an outdated institution

@Futurehappiness

I appreciate your nuanced analysis. I’m a mild constitutional monarchist but I would never suggest the monarch is above criticism - as long as it’s valid.

I get tired of of the petty criticism of KC getting cross about the pen the day after the Q died. I’d never seen the video until recently and was surprised at how tiny the incident was…I’d got the impression he’d kicked the table over from what some people said! His mother had died the day before- I’d have cut him a bit of slack personally.

And I just think the C and Diana marriage was a tragedy for both - I don’t like blaming just Charles. He’s a flawed human being but his wider morality - his wish to do good in the world- to me outweighs his marital history.

Ditto, couldn't care less about our Muslim loving King.

I think that’s what I like about them!

Yawn. I think it's time you found something more related to your own life to concentrate on.

I am actually capable of caring about more than one thing at a time, including the things in my own life. And I happen to think that how we choose (or rather don't get to choose) our Head of State is an issue worth concentrating on.

Charles is a competent monarch as far as I can see. He isn't a character in The Crown or Bridgerton so no hearts need gape.

QE II became queen when she was 25, and learned quickly that as Head of State, not to have any controversial opinions (or openly).
However KC III did not become king until 75? a vast difference, and has basically lived a life during that time, so we know much more about him, and his opinions.
I am really indifferent to the monarchy as such. Disentangling could be difficult, but i am OK with it all at the moment

A gaping hole you say?

Don’t worry.

Once Meghan has finished with those voluminous trousers, they should fill that whopping great hole right up.

She can lay her great big shoes on top of them to weigh them down.

Job done.

You’d think she would have got on with The Claridges flapper in that case?

She should not have married him.
He should not have married her.

No 'of' in sight. Should 'have' - an auxiliary verb, to have. There isn't a verb 'to of'.
Should leads to depression. How many couples started out with good intentions and how many split up and how many did we understand and accept it and stop wittering about it for decades? No-one ever knows exactly what happens between two people when the rot just starts to set in or maybe could have been avoided. Like the woman said, "If I'd known then what I know now I wouldn't HAVE been divorced from the first one."

What do you think is fake about her? Her clothes? Her interest in reading? Her liking for gardening? Her steady support of the King as a person?