A lot of what you said might be true, and he might well be your mate, but when it comes down to it, image is vital for the institution of monarchy to survive.
The way he treated Diana, the cringeworthy comment about wishing to become Camilla’s ‘tampon’ just make it far too difficult to treat Chuckles the Clown Prince very seriously.
Australia will probably the first to ditch the monarchy when the Queen dies, because whereas the Queen can be seen to have been selflessly devoted to her country in a quiet, dignified manner, Chuckles just doesn’t have that going for him. Having him on the throne will destroy the monarchy. If the throne is passed to Wills, the Monarchy will survive, at least until the next nutcase in line to the throne comes along in a succeeding generation.
Yes, that's true to some extent - but doing right is more important than seeming right. People do judge based on surface appearances - that's a reality, but it's also why when I see deeper than is common I say so.
The way he treated Diana,
You don't know how he treated the Princess. Nor do I - I did not know them well at the time. What we know is what the media - a media that has almost deified or canonised her - tries to tell us what happened. From what I know from people who did know them both at the time and from my own limited observations, the Princess was a good and loving mother - but in terms of their marriage, there was fault on both sides. But we don't know. We know what the media tells us unless we were there.
the cringeworthy comment about wishing to become Camilla’s ‘tampon’ just make it far too difficult to treat Chuckles the Clown Prince very seriously.
A couple of comments on that. First of all, a lot of British humour is rather crude - take a good look at Monty Python as a clear example (and the Prince, by the way, is a major fan of traditional British humour). Secondly that comment was meant to be entirely private between two people who understood each other intimately. It only became public because a vile and criminal violation of privacy.
Australia will probably the first to ditch the monarchy when the Queen dies, because whereas the Queen can be seen to have been selflessly devoted to her country in a quiet, dignified manner, Chuckles just doesn’t have that going for him. Having him on the throne will destroy the monarchy. If the throne is passed to Wills, the Monarchy will survive, at least until the next nutcase in line to the throne comes along in a succeeding generation.
Australia has already rejected the idea of a Republic once - and it wasn't because of who the Monarch is. It's because the Constitutional Monarchy gives us stable government, and the proposed alternatives wouldn't. If anybody ever comes up with an alternative that gives us the same stability and presents it at referendum it will pass even if the Queen is still on the throne. I probably won't vote for it myself, because I am actually a dedicated Constitutional Monarchist, but the key to Australia changing is a model Australia wants. The Referendum failed in 1999 even though there was majority support for the symbolic idea of a Republic because the model presented was seen as seriously flawed, not because of the Queen.
And the same is true in Britain. The personal popularity of the Monarch is not unimportant (but I actually believe Charles will be popular for a number of reasons) but far more important, is whether an alternative looks like a better choice in terms of good government and stability - and that's a hard sell.
Obama should be the prime example of why this idea may be a non-starter.