Prince Charles private letters published

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: uncommitted
I must admit I haven't read the letters yet.
But the fact that their publication was resisted for so long is a pointer that even his own people thought the letters were capable of being taken the wrong way.
Of course we've always known of his desire to influence things in the right direction. The famous "monstrous carbuncle" speech was a good example of that. But even if he hasn't really overstepped the mark, it's in his interests not to appear to overstep the mark either.

Probably worth a read, but to be honest, nothing that I would consider shocking. I'm not quite sure why there was such a resistance, maybe it's the fact that as Charles is not the monarch, he should be entitled to make his views known in the same way as anybody else in the country without having all of his correspondence on matters that don't effect policy made open to scrutiny to sell newspapers? (fairly sure that if there was a suggestion of him suggesting or demanding changes in policy or the people who should carry them out then the government of the day would have made sure they were leaked any way)

a reply to: liteonit6969

I looked at that link and am disappointed that he didn't say anything about black spiders. I really wanted to know his views on black spiders.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: liteonit6969

I looked at that link and am disappointed that he didn't say anything about black spiders. I really wanted to know his views on black spiders.

maybe a teaser re: charlot's webb etc
didnt diana have her privates notes published before her 'accident

a reply to: liteonit6969

As far as I am aware the Monarch is allowed / expected to 'advise' when she / he see's fit.

Charles isn't the monarch...and hopefully he never will be.
Although I believe he is well intentioned he is so far out of touch with the ordinary men and women of this country and makes a bit of a tit of himself almost every time he comments on something.....and these letters just serve to prove how correct that assessment is.

The minute I believe that any member of the monarchy is trying to unduly influence government policy is the minute I'll actively strive for their abolishment.

a reply to: tothetenthpower
Well let me give you a quick synopsis of the situation here no matter what anybody else says.
A couple of hundred years ago we had a rebelion because the monarchy was going around just doing what unfettered monarchs do, like cutting peoples heads of for trivial reasons or using the nations wealth to live very, very extravagant lifestyles.
We then chopped of the kings head off and ruled ourselves for a bit. The fools then restored the kings son to the throne on the understanding that from that day forward the monarchy would not mess in British politics.
The underlying theory is that if the royal family shows no support for any political party then politics does not come into the equation of liking the royal family, ie if they declared support for the Conservatives then the other political parties supporters would be biased against them.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: tothetenthpower
Well let me give you a quick synopsis of the situation here no matter what anybody else says.
A couple of hundred years ago we had a rebelion because the monarchy was going around just doing what unfettered monarchs do, like cutting peoples heads of for trivial reasons or using the nations wealth to live very, very extravagant lifestyles.
We then chopped of the kings head off and ruled ourselves for a bit. The fools then restored the kings son to the throne on the understanding that from that day forward the monarchy would not mess in British politics.
The underlying theory is that if the royal family shows no support for any political party then politics does not come into the equation of liking the royal family, ie if they declared support for the Conservatives then the other political parties supporters would be biased against them.

Wasn't that the French?

We got French fries out of the deal, that and Thomas Jefferson took some corn there.

Were you talking about Cromwell?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: liteonit6969

As far as I am aware the Monarch is allowed / expected to 'advise' when she / he see's fit.

Charles isn't the monarch...and hopefully he never will be.
Although I believe he is well intentioned he is so far out of touch with the ordinary men and women of this country and makes a bit of a tit of himself almost every time he comments on something.....and these letters just serve to prove how correct that assessment is.

The minute I believe that any member of the monarchy is trying to unduly influence government policy is the minute I'll actively strive for their abolishment.

He must be pretty boring, these letters ended up published and not on Wikileaks.

Do they have a crown that will accommodate his big ears?

The point of the matter is that all future correspondence between the king/queen or first heir and the government is now top secret. God save the queen. We the people are mere cannon fodder.

a reply to: disregard

theres a real obvious hope to dismantle the existing structures for better or worse must be something going on behind the scenses

a reply to: liteonit6969

Yes it is clear he thinks he has the authority to do what he wants and use his influence when suits him

He does have the authority, and he can use it when he wants to......he's going to be our King.

Also he is an evil twisted old man

Why's that?

Royals reflect a conflict of interest from the perspective of their subjects.

a reply to: WarminIndy
Yes, it was about Cromwell being quite upset about King Charles the first going around using is "royal perogative" to stand on the necks of us peasants. He was that upset he got the then parliament to agree to chop his head off. They then stupidly agreed a couple of years later to re-instate his son Charles the second on the understanding that royalty would never again try to influence the elected government. So yes, it is wrong the present Charles is doing that strictly from the point of we are governed by an elected assembly NOT by an un-elected royal family.