Prince Charles private letters published

Prince charles black spider memos.....interesting

Prince Charles private letters published

Hi

Have seen the running commentary on the release of these letters leading to the question is there anything to hide in these letters. Let's have a good read and try to find anything that may not be seen as becoming for a prince.

probably a bunch of love notes to his "princess camillia'

there's more than enough b.s. available for wasting time

a reply to: blacktie

I disagree with you after looking through some of the letters. There is blatant influencing of government officials on many issues. Who does he think he is suggesting people for jobs. Can you imagine a member of the working class published doing this....


Also here is the direct link to the letters.

letters

a reply to: liteonit6969

Who does he think he is suggesting people for jobs.

That he is Prince Charles? That's the problem with royalty they think it's their right to do whatever they want.

I'm a bit busy at the moment
perhaps I'll take a look later on
if it's anything like his previous 'pearls of wisdom' I wont be missing much

a reply to: buster2010

Yes it is clear he thinks he has the authority to do what he wants and use his influence when suits him. Maybe he has a lot of power within certain circles but it is not his position to influence the running of public funded institutions.

Also he is an evil twisted old man which adds to the fact I despise him.

Sorry, I haven't read about this much.

What's the big deal?

Doesn't the Monarchy actively lobby the government for a whole host of things every year? I thought that although symbolic in nature, the relationship between the Gov and the Crown was still one of consult and advisement.

Am I wrong about that? Is the issue that he had information he should not have had?

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

The unelected monarchy are to keep their noses out of politics. Charles sticks his nose in on a regular basis. He is breaking the agreement between parliament and the people.

The monarchy needs to be abolished and replaced with a president and become a democratic republic.

My girl has been watching that new show "The Royals". In that show they talk about abolishing the Monarchy.

I tolerate it because Elizabeth Hurley is in it...

a reply to: ispyed

The unelected monarchy are to keep their noses out of politics. Charles sticks his nose in on a regular basis. He is breaking the agreement between parliament and the people.

Is there a law which explicitly states this? Or is one of those, unwritten rules?

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

You should be asking the question is there any law written that allows the monarchy to influence government. Not the other way around.

We didn't elect parliament to have decisions taken out of their hands by an unelected monarchy thinking they are above the law.

a reply to: liteonit6969

Nope.

If there's no law that states they aren't allowed to do that, then it means, legally they are allowed to do that.

It may be morally wrong, but if it's legally OK, then nobody is to blame but Parliament themselves, for not creating the barrier that would make this illegal.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Did the public elect them to have a say in the running of the country....no.

That's enough for me.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

There is no better way to create a false sexy image of the royal family than making a tv show about them. Fact is they are just a bunch of evil murdering scum. History shows you that.....so why should it not be so today?

a reply to: liteonit6969

Did the public elect them to have a say in the running of the country....no.

That's enough for me.

K..

You realize that you didn't vote in more than 90% of all people who work in Gov right?

Which means that ALL those people who didn't elect, and yet they 100% effect ALL policy and decision making.

So that certainly should not be enough for you. The laws passed to govern these people is what you should care about.

~Tenth

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
If there's no law that states they aren't allowed to do that, then it means, legally they are allowed to do that.

I take it that you come from a country with a written constitution?
You need to appreciate that what passes for a Constitution in Britain is actually a set of unwritten conventions.

One of them is "acting on advice of ministers". In theory, the monarch can do anything, up to and including declaring war. In constitutional practice, they can do absolutely nothing that the government has not advised them to do. During the Abdication crisis of 1936, Edward VIII wanted to make a speech appealing for support. He wasn't allowed. It would have been "not acting on the advice of his ministers". (If Obama can make a speech without getting the permission of his Cabinet first, he has more power than any British monarch)
If Charles is seen trying to influence government now, that makes people nervous that he might try to breach that principle when he succeeds to the throne.

Another convention is political neutrality. The whole value of having an un-elected Head of State is that being unelected takes them out of politics, providing stability to the country by being a focal point not caught up in that divisiveness. Once he starts getting involved, he risks his neutrality.

I've got no beef against Prince Charles. I think he often gets criticised on foolish grounds. But in this behaviour he could be acting unwisely and against his own best interests.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: tothetenthpower

You should be asking the question is there any law written that allows the monarchy to influence government. Not the other way around.

We didn't elect parliament to have decisions taken out of their hands by an unelected monarchy thinking they are above the law.

There is no such rule and as far as I'm aware, he has the same right as every citizen to write to the government expressing his concerns. I thought the letters published showed he was actually more in tune with the public than the government of the time were, particularly on the armed service being sent to conflict with equipment that was aging and not up to the job.

If you've got an axe to grind, that's your problem.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
If there's no law that states they aren't allowed to do that, then it means, legally they are allowed to do that.

I take it that you come from a country with a written constitution?
You need to appreciate that what passes for a Constitution in Britain is actually a set of unwritten conventions.

One of them is "acting on advice of ministers". In theory, the monarch can do anything, up to and including declaring war. In constitutional practice, they can do absolutely nothing that the government has not advised them to do. During the Abdication crisis of 1936, Edward VIII wanted to make a speech appealing for support. He wasn't allowed. It would have been "not acting on the advice of his ministers". (If Obama can make a speech without getting the permission of his Cabinet first, he has more power than any British monarch)
If Charles is seen trying to influence government now, that makes people nervous that he might try to breach that principle when he succeeds to the throne.

Another convention is political neutrality. The whole value of having an un-elected Head of State is that being unelected takes them out of politics, providing stability to the country by being a focal point not caught up in that divisiveness. Once he starts getting involved, he risks his neutrality.

I've got no beef against Prince Charles. I think he often gets criticised on foolish grounds. But in this behaviour he could be acting unwisely and against his own best interests.

While I don't disagree with your post, have you read the letters? With the possible exception of the badger cull (which I was against anyway as I thought it was a sledgehammer to crack a walnut approach), I see nothing that calls for policy changes. The prince of Wales is entitled to vote - as is the Queen come to that, so why they should not be allowed to comment on things that don't suggest either a policy change, or change in which political party has the top spot I'm not sure what the issue is. I'm sure that when the PM of the day has had his weekly audience with the monarch of the day, opinions are exchanged, and if not then that's a shame.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: blacktie

I disagree with you after looking through some of the letters. There is blatant influencing of government officials on many issues. Who does he think he is suggesting people for jobs. Can you imagine a member of the working class published doing this....


Also here is the direct link to the letters.

letters

.................... And could you point to the specific piece where he is suggesting people for jobs? And could you spell out what you think would happen to 'working class' people writing the same letters, which by the way, they do every day, not only what you call the working class, but fairly much anyone who wants to communicate their opinions and concerns to the government. You might not see their letters, because their privacy isn't something the Guardian is bothered about intruding on.

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.