www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19959233
No prizes for guessing what I think. But if you're in any doubt, I agree with Graham Smith that it's an affront to democracy.
I shall refrain from proclaiming anything as "fact" too prematurely, but, sadly, we probably won't get the opinion of John H on the matter. ;-)
|
It isn't an affront to democracy the way it actually works, if it can be said to work.
It's none of anyone's damn business what the prince says when he's just practising. Nor would it do the voters the slightest good to know whether the government of the day agrees with him or not. All this information would do would be to give ammunition to the jumped-up ill-mannered authors of a chorus of insults about his ears, his views, his wife, his late ex-wife, his wealth, his privileges and so on. A lot of this excrement comes from people who haven't got the balls to come out as republicans, but imagine that they are influencing great events by bad-mouthing someone they don't and can't know, and saying they would prefer his callow son as the next monarch, so there.
Who gives a toss what these idiots think? And the 'out' republicans are almost as bad. Either suggest a better system for this country and explain how the transition is to be negotiated, or sod off and live in a republic.
|
>>
>> It's none of anyone's damn business what the prince says when he's just practising.
Isn't a leader of the opposition just practising? Isn't it in the public interest to know their thoughts on government policy? Why is it any different for a practising Head of State-to-be? Shouldn't we know what sort of person we are going to get as Head of State? Would'nt that inform our collective decision as to whether we want that person on top of the Christmas tree? And if we decide we don't, what can we do about it? Bow and scrape in submission and carry on eating excrement? If the Monarch is, as is often stated, politically neutral, what sort of practise does the next-in-line need in terms of communicating with the government anyway?
I agree with your thoughts on closet Republicans. Blasted fence sitters. Get those splinters out and come and join us.
>>Who gives a toss what these idiots think?
Indeed, we shouldn't have to give a toss what Prince Charles thinks, but sadly it seems we should. Although I wouldn't call him an idiot. That's obviously not the case. ;-)
|
>> Isn't a leader of the opposition just practising? Isn't it in the public interest to know their thoughts on government policy? Why is it any different for a practising Head of State-to-be? Shouldn't we know what sort of person we are going to get as Head of State? Would'nt that inform our collective decision as to whether we want that person on top of the Christmas tree? And if we decide we don't, what can we do about it? Bow and scrape in submission and carry on eating excrement? If the Monarch is, as is often stated, politically neutral, what sort of practise does the next-in-line need in terms of communicating with the government anyway?
A leader of the opposition is already a seasoned politician who is leading, when necessary (and quite often when not) the parliamentary opposition to government policy and action. The dealings, in a constitutional monarchy, between the monarch and the government are in any case swathed in discretion, perhaps to mask their largely formal significance. Everyone knows that the government calls the shots, where the monarch is concerned too. What 'we' vote for, Alanovic, is a government, not a monarch. The monarch just appears when it's his or her turn. 'We' have no say in that, and don't need one. That is our present system, which seems to work more or less all right and has the great virtue of embodying in some way the profound irrationality that exists at the heart of every national state.
Take your bowing and scraping and coprophagia to an existing republic where they will be appreciated Alanovic. The British don't go in for them on the whole.
|
|
Good grief Milliband a seasoned politician !? AC, much as I despise Prince Charles (The last Prince of Wales died in 1282) he is a seasoned and and well established politician, probably the best that the UK has. I live in a democracy, rightly or wrongly that democracy is stuck with a monarchy - most people seem to like them. I don't and I am entitled to that view. The letters should be released - very North Korean not to.
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 16 Oct 12 at 17:02
|
>> The letters should be released - very North Korean not to.
Oh come on Rob. Are the Queen's chats with the PM made public? Of course not. Why on earth should Prince Charles's letters be made public?
The business of government, dealing with the issues of the day, is only public to the extent that parliament is public. Cabinet isn't though. They can say what they like about what happens there, or say nothing.
It's the same in republics of course. The powers that be, temporary or in some cases permanent, certainly don't want the punters piping up and making a nuisance of themselves. Republics are no more transparent and no more free of eyewash than monarchies. Some are much worse than this monarchy anyway. As any fule kno if he stop to think.
|
|
And some republics are better maybe ?
|
>> And some republics are better maybe ?
Maybe. Assuming you didn't mean North Korea that is.
:o}
But we are stuck with who we are. Revolutionary change is an extremely grave step that to paraphrase the I Ching (a fascinating document in the big translation and rearrangement by a German whose name I forget) should 'only be considered when all else has failed'.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 16 Oct 12 at 17:59
|
|
I was thinking more Germany than N Korea ! But agree with what you say there AC though. I'm more a passive republican...the active ones seem to be a bit strange.
|
|
He is entitled to his opinion if it was in the open wouldn't bother me.I know our monarchie with Prince Bernard he was very influential and so is his daughter Queen Beatrix.She is not scared to have a strong opinion.Her mother Queen Juliana used to mix with the ordinary folk which was nice.What does coprophagia mean A.C.>:)
|
|
He probably made it up to give us vertigo Dutchie. Why the shock horror of the Queen having an opinion about the hook handed terrorist - what she for other than to speak up for the people who are her subjects..?
|
|
True Rob I suppose we have a fair system here with all his faults.There is always room for inprovements but none of us is perfect..;)
|
>> What does coprophagia mean A.C.>:)
Ask Alanovic. You will find a clue in his last post quoted in my second post.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 16 Oct 12 at 17:45
|
>> What does coprophagia mean A.C.>:)
Highlight it, right click and select 'wiki' from the dropdown menu Dutchie, I have to do it all the time with AC's posts;)
He won't beat me though!
Pat
|
|
Anyone who has ever reared babies knows that.
|
|
Interesting reports in the papers according to R4 this morning. I'm with them really - why not release them ? Is it because that they're potty ramblings ? Is it a fear that the "subjects" will have an Emperor's new clothes moment ? What mandate has royalty to try and influence politics ? Working on the tried and tested basis that "move along there nothing to see" usually means the opposite, I think it's a flawed decision not to allow people to see what was/is said...
|
Yup clearly there is stuff to hide. Makes us want to see it more and ups the ante.
My guess is potty ramblings from a jug eared buffoon who has no idea about the real world. Release of same letters would clearly raise public concern about fitness for role.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Oct 12 at 08:22
|
They weren't written for publication and it would be unfair to make them public. And if they were to be written with an eye to publication, what use would platitudinous twaddle designed to appear in the papers be? We get enough of that already from our elected representatives.
What I would be interested in is all the discussions between cabinet members, but the nearest we get to that is cabinet minutes after 30 years IIRC.
I really don't mind what he's written or even whether he seeks to influence, or at least influence ministers to think and reflect, which seems legitimate to me in a monarch, a role he has to assume now at least in shadow mode. Or do we expect a 70 year old man to start thinking about it when the time comes?
In terms of actual power, his letters may be more likely to get read but they carry about as much weight as the ones from Mrs Trellis of north Wales.
Part of the monarch's job is to represent the state and the government. Some engagement with the process is desirable in my view.
As to whether it's meat and drink to republicans, he couldn't win anyway if the letters were published, regardless of what's in them. I don't think they should be published, they give me no cause for concern at all.
I'd rather know what passes between Cameron and Osborne, and they aren't going to tell us that regardless of who put them there.
I imagine the real politicians are relieved that this has got everybody looking the other way for a day or two. We should be alert to what they are 'burying'.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 17 Oct 12 at 08:59
|
If they were legitimate valid sensible comments sufficiently valid to make ministers think and reflect there would be no problem in publishing them, would there.
The fact they are trying to hide them indicate they are NOT of such quality.
The bloke has NO constitutional right to be engaging with with ministers on ANY level, that his mothers job, who is STILL monarch (much as it peeves him). If he has any concerns or thoughts or guidance they should be passed up the chain, through his mother. The fact he didnt means he knows she would bin them.
At 70 he can think about it, but its not his place to do anything about it. Yet.
Until we say "The queen is dead long live the king" he should keep his trap shut. Thats his job. After he has been informed of "his place" and informed how much influence he does not have.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Oct 12 at 09:44
|
>> If they were legitimate valid sensible comments sufficiently valid to make ministers think and reflect there would be no problem in publishing them, would there.
>> The fact they are trying to hide them indicate they are NOT of such quality.
Complete and utter cobblers. What is it that prevents you from understanding that they are private and not for publication?
You also seem to be privy to the prince's views and attitudes. Where do you get this privileged information? Or have you just invented it for purposes of yobbish ignorant bawling?
|
>> Or have you just invented it for purposes of yobbish ignorant bawling?
Sorry Zero, that was rude. And I see that today's comic seems to be agreeing with you at the top of its voice. So you are not alone.
|
>> In terms of actual power, his letters may be more likely to get read but
>> they carry about as much weight as the ones from Mrs Trellis of north Wales.
A dangerous and sadly mistaken assumption. He exercises influence over elected representatives. He is not entitled to do so. We are not told about it openly because of this, it would undermine the position of the Monarchy, which, apparently, must be protected at all costs.
|
>> A dangerous and sadly mistaken assumption. He exercises influence over elected representatives.
He doesn't, they treat him like an idiot and ignore him. As the constitution allows.
|
>> Yup clearly there is stuff to hide.
Ah, the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument. We'll be starting with the ammunition for Godwin's Law next.
How many letters have you written over the years, intended only for the recipient, that you'd be a tad embarrassed were the contents to be published to a wider audience?
Maybe too many of the ones to Blair refer to "that spendthrift caledonian t*ss*r next door.".....?
|
>> >> Yup clearly there is stuff to hide.
>>
>> Ah, the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument. We'll
>> be starting with the ammunition for Godwin's Law next.
>>
>> How many letters have you written over the years, intended only for the recipient, that
>> you'd be a tad embarrassed were the contents to be published to a wider audience?
I am not in public office, I don't have a mandate to be politically or policy neutral and I know that everything that happens in public office should be a matter of public record.
My MP/PM is not my doctor, there is no patient/doctor confidentiality.
|
I know that everything that happens in public office should be a
>> matter of public record.
Not everything is nor would all be public record.
|
Try asking for last week's cabinet minutes.
Anyway, the point is that they weren't intended for public consumption. If everything was, nothing interesting would ever be said in a formal meeting or written down.
We get government papers 30 years afterwards don't we? We'll probably get Charlie's letters then too.
Yes I know he's not in the government. I really don't mind that he has an opinion and he expresses it privately to ministers or anybody else. It's much more straightforward that all the "briefings" and leaks that countless unelected people seek to use to influence.
There seems to be a feeling that he should be more circumspect than the monarch as it is not his job yet. I actually think it's the other way round.
I really don't understand the viciousness and negativity around this.
Maybe he should come on here and vent his spleen as we do.
|
|
I think you replied to my post, I agree with you. I didn't make myself very clear. :-)
|
|
Yes, I am violently agreeing with you ;-)
|
>> What mandate
>> has royalty to try and influence politics ?
>>
A long standing agreement among all politicians that that is how the constitution works.
The monarch has the right (and duty) to be informed, to advise, and to warn.
That is absolutely clear. Any head of state, monarch or president, is entitled to warn and advise the government.
It is a slight extension of the principle to apply it to the heir, whether prince of wales or deputy president, but presumably even anti-monarchists would nonethe less want the future monarch to be as well trained as possible?
|
|
Was thinking, if this independence does get the yes vote, what would happen to the Union Flag? - would they just re-draw it without the Saltaire, or as there was no United Kingdom technically, would it be replaced with something else?
|
The jocks will have no royalty, we can ship our own bonny prince up there, he can even take the stone throne up with him.
Problem solved!
|
>> Take your bowing and scraping and coprophagia to an existing republic where they will be
>> appreciated Alanovic. The British don't go in for them on the whole.
That's the third or fourth time you've expressed your opinion to me personally that I should leave my own country, that of my birth, due to a holding an opinion different from your on how we should be governed. The British don't go in for THAT on the whole, either.
Despite the fact that this is deeply offensive, I have not awarded you the public offendy-face "gong" you so obviously crave as I don't want to give you the pleasure. I see others have, however.
|
It's coarse rhetoric Alanovic, polemic in the discussion on republicanism in this country. I don't mean to insult you and I don't think, obviously, that you should really go and live somewhere else just because you have republican views. It was you who raised the matters of bowing, scraping and coprophagia.
For the record, I think your views are quite reasonable as far as they go. I've just grown out of them myself.
|
Funny, that, AC. I've grown in to mine. I was waving the flags and wearing the t-shirts with eveyone else in 1977. Street parties, the lot. I was 7 then, you see. I've grown out of that.
Thanks for the pat on the head, though.
|
>> Thanks for the pat on the head, though.
More a slap on the shoulder really. I know you think I'm patronising but I'm not. I am fully aware that people's political views can develop to the left as well as to the right with the passage of time. My own have gone in both directions, but I have known and known of people who became more and more radical-lefty when really getting on in years. Couldn't help thinking they were a bit barmy though.
|
|
I've made that right-to-leftish journey over the years. I was a Young Conservative once. Now that WAS barmy. Did it for the cheese and wine evenings. Could never resist cheese, nor wine (apart from pink, Italian lightly fizzing stuff ;-).
|
>> I was a Young Conservative once.
Heh heh... I never was, quite, but when young I naturally thought myself politically conservative. When 17 or 18 I went to a meeting of the YC in Bath to see what it was like. It was mind-numbingly boring and stupid, but the thing that really put me off was the petty-bourgeois provincial accents of most of the people there. I was, I realised, far too snobbish for the conservatives.
Later it turned out I was too snobbish for all the other parties too, although the snobbery became less social and more intellectual. After many years - decades really - as a non-aligned marxizing left liberal, I have subsided into a dishevelled, unstable position as democratic and (in a nuanced way) monarchist.
I am far too idle and self-indulgent to engage in real political activity apart from voting and bawling my views in a yobbish and ignorant way to influence those around me. I've never voted anything but Labour and (once, in a local election) Communist.
|
I've never voted anything but Labour and (once, in a local election) Communist.
>>
Good gracious. You have surprised me. In my time I have voted Tory, LibDem, Green and UKIP at various different elections. Never once have I stooped to voting Labour. That may change next general election as my Tory MP is such a codpiece, and it's a marginal seat. It was really a three way marginal last time, but I expect the party I want to vote for has lost most of its support for the next election, unfairly I would say.
I'm a bit of a Communist at heart, but Labour has always seemed the worst of the realistic alternatives. I've never been presented a ballot paper with a Communist candidate on it, lived in The Shire most of my life. They don't exist here.
|
>> I have voted Tory, LibDem, Green and UKIP at various different elections. Never once have I stooped to voting Labour.
Never given Screaming Lord Sutch a punt then? The raving loonies campaigned in my manor for one election, the campaign vehicle being a slightly battered and travel-stained hearse, can't remember what it was but perhaps a Cadillac.
It's clear from your reported voting record that you are more of a believer than I am. All those disappointments though (or did your candidates all win?)!
There was a Communist standing in my council ward in the Grove, a nice cat whom I knew slightly socially through a neighbour and my mother-in-law who was a devoted member of the local Labour Party. I seem to remember he didn't get many votes though. This is England innit?
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 17 Oct 12 at 15:54
|
>> It's clear from your reported voting record that you are more of a believer than
>> I am. All those disappointments though (or did your candidates all win?)!
You know, I'd never thought about that. But I think I'm right in saying that I've never voted for a winning candidate in any FPTP election - although in a proper, PR election, like Europe, one usually ends up with representation you have voted for. And I vote religiously, I even intend to vote in the Police Commissioner nonsense. I wonder if I'll break my duck next month. I wouldn't put any money on it. I think it's my contrary nature that does it.
|
|
He's been writing to the Beeb as well according to the Telegraph. Either complementing them or criticising their output. They refuse to publish his letters as well. He's potty.
|
|
We've had mad Monarchs before and survived.
|
Yes, but the plebs did not know they were loopy - only the inner circles and they kept quiet so as not to rock their comfortable boat.
Couldn't happen now. could it?
Wait a mo. - Sir Jimmy Savile................................................................
.
|
>> www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/can-we-finally-tell-the-t_b_299297.html
There may be some truth there but Johann Hari's not exactly a reliable source is he?
|
|
It's a long time since I've read something written by someone so chippy and full of hate for someone it's highly unlikely they've ever met.
|
|
I think claiming she was a Nazi Lover because she hated Jews, is a bit of contrived conjecture.
|
Meat and drink for "Republic" here, surely? - Armel Coussine
