I question the word damage, as the monarchy is a symbolic seal on our present politcal set up and has no politcal power or legislative influence. I would be interested in your alternative to our present regime ?
THe Queen attenda a cabinet meeting. Dangerous precedent?
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Yes !
Technically, though, they can only do damage to those things that are the responsibility of our parliament if our politicians (in particular the cabinet) allow themselves to be so influenced. However we know that our politicians are upstanding principled people that would not suck up to any dangerous royal,,, dont we ?
But the problem isnt just limited to our parliamentarians. If we are to believe the press (!?) he tweaks the ears of business worthies and foreign administrations (eg. Saudi and Quatar we are told ) as well.
Any such 'damage' would be limited (possibly even neutered) if we required all royal correspondence to be published, then they would only have the constitutional role.
I think we have a QI moment here
I can already hear the klaxon sounding if I were to say "Republic" ! I guess that is what you expect me to say and then we can have a right ol dingdong about electing presidents etc.But we dont need a President in the American or French or whatever style.
We already have a Speaker (and his officials) who do most of the functions of the crown to ensure continuity, fair play, arbitration etc.
All we have to do is transfer the authority of the Crown to that office.
Ok, I know, we will now have to have a dingdong about how we elect the Speaker and from what constituency
,,,runs for cover ,,,
I'm not asking for an alternative, just protesting about the reintroduction of a royal into a government political function where they have no place.
Once in 60 years is not a revolution
ps, what concerns me more are the BANKERS and MEDIA-MOGULS who use the back door to 10 downing street.
Last edited:
He does indeed, and we don't have to just believe the press in this matter. Charles unwelcome interference in the redevelopment of the old Chelsea Barracks caused it to be cancelled and the Arab royal financiers of the scheme to withdraw. That's what we don't need from a royal, scuppering a huge inward investment in Britain, nor do we need his crackpot ideas on urban development to prevent London modernising in sensible ways.
I doubt the opposers to what I've posted in this thread have much idea of the damage that Charles has already done in this and many other areas. He is a menace who I do not want to see on the throne.
.
Last edited:
Do you understand the meaning of the word precedent? Have you even bothered to read and attempt to understand what I posted in starting this thread?
To explain, a door was opened for Charles to exploit, and as I posted, his record shows that he will not be slow to exploit it given half a chance.
It is good that the Royals have no direct influence on the governing of the country. They have no idea what life is like for ordinary people. A bit like politicians in that respect.
" Let them eat corgies..."
" Let them eat corgies..."
Yes I do, and did, but its a over-reaction to a invitation made in respect to our long serving Queen. god bless her.
Last edited:
Good point, yes I remember the Barracks business, topped his carbuncle nonsense of some time earlier.
As Prince of Wales he has gone far beyond having freedom of expression and corrupted both government and civil processes. What makes you think he will not abuse the throne in the same way? You may well live to see the realities of that in action, and from the throne he could have far more influence than at present.
I have not yet seen or heard of, what you are referring to, except accusations and innuendo, with no documented details on this thread The Chelsea Baracks fiasco is not conclusive evidence, as its failure was due to planning permission, but the press do like to spin a story about Charles critism over the design
Last edited:
Exactly, you have obviously not followed these events over the years as I suspected and are posting without the relevant knowledge. They have been well reported and the damage is present, actual and existing as evidence. You may have noticed that Ptarmigan was well aware of the Chelsea Barracks example and also the "carbuncle" one. I don't intend to do extensive research to find backing documents, you can of course do so if you wish. There is plenty of reporting on the subject and on the fact that he is prepared to use the courts to suppress criticism of him on this issue, seemingly thinking free speech is a royal prerogative.
In response to your edit addition: And why do you think planning permision was refused after his interference? The scheme was on track with widespread acceptance prior to that, with every expectation of it being completed.
.
Last edited:
This link shows some of the answers
http://tinyurl.com/dx4ajnu
I'm still mulling the consequences
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
http://tinyurl.com/dx4ajnu
I'm still mulling the consequences
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Thats extremely arrogant of you to believe, that I am somehow uninformed because, I disagree with your warped interpretations of Charles interference. I suspect you are attacking the Royal family and using its weakest link to further some Republican cause.
Your earlier postings seemed to indicate that you were not informed on this subject and your reference to innuendo when so much evidence exists also seemed to indicate that. My reply was an appropriate response to that rather than arrogant. Furthermore, you are completely wrong about my motives, I am not in any way concerned about the presence of the royal family in Britain and I made that clear in this earlier post in this thread.
As further proof of lack of malice, I have never had any problem with Charles' father, the Duke of Edinburgh expressing his opinions strongly and would be happy for his son to do the same. But Charles goes very much further than that. Alistair Campbell has a reputation for bullying, so when he accuses Charles of bullying government, you can be pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.
I've repeatedly made it abundantly clear from the outset that my only issue is with a precedent being established and the access that can give for the abuse of position that Charles is well known for. I will be entirely happy to have him on the throne if he changes these practices, but I'm fairly sure that he won't, given the record. As for the veracity of that record, which you seem to doubt, no other royal in modern times has had such a record, or anything like it, clear proof of the uniqueness of it's incidence now with Charles.
I've no objection to your having an opposing view and am happy to agree to disagree, but it seems to me that you've had another agenda in raising matters irrelevant to my issue. The existence of royalty is not the issue.
.
Last edited:
Awwww, sorry, that was my fault for answering "republic" in response to your request for an alternative.
I muddied the waters and as a consequence I seem to have got flecc into some bovver !
Lets not end it on that note, twas a good natter so far
You said earlier
and I would say that one good Queen does not validate an institution.
May I be so bold,
to say that this is a fundamental problem.
If you accept the institution but object to an individual you will have a continuing problem. (not least because they will continue to breed !)
Rewind to Magna Carta which did well ( in its day ) to limit the freedoms of individual monarchical whims.
Sadly it did not go far enough.
As of yet the accusations of corruption, and goverment interference, against Prince Charles are in most cases pure speculation, due to the fact goverment records to this date, have never been made public, so all you have is press led speculation on the matter. I think there is a clause in the Magna Carta about Innocent untill proven Guilty, even for Princes
Last edited: