I guess the most interesting part would be to see if his letters to ministers had any influence on government policy
If there's any actual policy change or implementation that can be seen to have followed a letter
I suspect not...........I suspect they humour him and laugh at him in private
Let's face it he's a joke figure...........he seems to want to rush us back to the 18th century with subservient peasants doffing their caps and lowering their eyes as the lord of the manor passes by.........where everyone ate organic bread and lived in thatched cottages
It would be a miracle if he wasn't a Tory...........but an old fashioned Tory, not a businessman Tory
You don't know the person he was describing - maybe these things were beyond her capabilities. A begrudged member of staff who reads her boss's mail without permission... yeah that's not going to be biased at all is it.
"Why do they all seem to think..." isn't directed at one person.
Let's be clear - the Royal Family shouldn't exist in the 21st Century. But if they must (and popularity polls suggest they aren't going away anytime soon) then I'd rather their views were out in the open. Either be politically neutral - which no-one is - or be transparently opinionated.
Charlie despises modernist architecture so that makes him ok in my book. I love the fact that he crapped all over Richard Rogers' vile designs for Chelsea! lol
Also, how can you not like someone who says stuff like:
"You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe. When it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble."
Pretty sure loads of 'influential' people have written private letters to governments over the years.
Are there plans to publish them all?
There is a control on the Monarchy, we are very conscious of whether they should get involved with politics.
Are the same checks applied to high court judges, heads of industry, leaders of unions, popular writers ect.?
Seems to me there are lots of people of far more influence who we don't criticise nearly enough when it comes to using their position to influence politics.
Young people should be steered onto more realistic paths from an earlier age. Not everyone will be suited to going to university for example - yet most kids keep getting told that that's what they should be doing. Most kids should not be going to university but should be advised early on that it's a waste of time and money and they should be steered toward practical trades and professions.
Unless they're royal or born into the upper echelons of society. In which case they can be as thick as a brick and still get the best education and therefore the best jobs.
Pretty sure loads of 'influential' people have written private letters to governments over the years.
Are there plans to publish them all?
There is a control on the Monarchy, we are very conscious of whether they should get involved with politics.
Are the same checks applied to high court judges, heads of industry, leaders of unions, popular writers ect.?
Seems to me there are lots of people of far more influence who we don't criticise nearly enough when it comes to using their position to influence politics.
Are these people in line for a hereditary position of enforced political neutrality (even if that neutrality apparently doesn't have to exist, but merely be an illusion)?
But by publishing it aren't we changing the goal posts about whether a member of the royal family can be politically neutral? If you have a political opinion now, as a member of the royal family, all you have to do is write a few things down and send it to the government - and you'll get it published?
You can't stop the man having a political opinion, like anybody else, but his unique privilege gives him access to the government that we commoners don't have. If he is to write these letters, and nobody can stop him doing that, then he should be subject to public opinion about his views and opinions by return. Otherwise, we're just pretending that he is politically neutral, because he's writing the letters anyway.
You can't stop the man having a political opinion, like anybody else, but his unique privilege gives him access to the government that we commoners don't have. If he is to write these letters, and nobody can stop him doing that, then he should be subject to public opinion about his views and opinions by return. Otherwise, we're just pretending that he is politically neutral, because he's writing the letters anyway.
Isn't that essentially what the Attorney General is tacitly admitting? They don't give a damn about whether or not Charles is politically neutral, they care only about maintaining the illusion of political neutrality within the monarchy. The fact that it's been admitted that the publishing of his letters would "seriously undermine" his future kingship is an open admission of this. If they were harmless, apolitical letters they wouldn't undermine this apparent fallacy of neutrality in the least - but evidently they must be suppressed in order to keep the public fooled.
Young people should be steered onto more realistic paths from an earlier age. Not everyone will be suited to going to university for example - yet most kids keep getting told that that's what they should be doing. Most kids should not be going to university but should be advised early on that it's a waste of time and money and they should be steered toward practical trades and professions.
Yes, but who are 'they'? The plebs, obviously. The non-privately educated. How dare they think they could become head of state! To be a future UK head of state, like Charlie-Boy, you need a B and a C at A-Level, along with a humanities 2:2 from a university that you didn't have to apply to. No wait, you just need to be born! The man's nerve is astounding.
Yes, let's see all his letters to politicians. He already has form for this sort of thing. Remember the Chelsea Barracks fiasco?
The judgment exposed the prince's powerful influence and how he was prepared to go to great lengths to lobby not only fellow royals but also to consider putting pressure on the mayor, Westminister city council and the media to ensure that the scheme would never be built.
And:
The case has raised serious questions over whether the prince overstepped his constitutional role by becoming involved in a democratic planning process, and today Ruth Reed, the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, said Charles's actions had been "an abuse of privileged position" and had "failed to engage with the planning process entirely openly and appropriately".
Young people should be steered onto more realistic paths from an earlier age.
If that were the case then Charles would have been "steered onto more realistic paths" when it became obvious years ago that he isn't suitable to be king.
The royals must be scared that Charles as king will be the end of the royal family.
Isn't that essentially what the Attorney General is tacitly admitting? They don't give a damn about whether or not Charles is politically neutral, they care only about maintaining the illusion of political neutrality within the monarchy. The fact that it's been admitted that the publishing of his letters would "seriously undermine" his future kingship is an open admission of this. If they were harmless, apolitical letters they wouldn't undermine this apparent fallacy of neutrality in the least - but evidently they must be suppressed in order to keep the public fooled.
Lets face it you have absolutely no idea who it was directed to.
It's obviously directed to anyone who has had a school education. Here's the full quote again in case it's escaped your short-term memory:
"Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their actual capabilities? This is all to do with the learning culture in schools – the child-centered learning emphasis which admits of no failure and tells people they can ALL be pop stars or high court judges or brilliant TV personalities-heads of states!"
Basically, the tampon wannabee is saying: Peasants - know your place.
If he's attempting to influence government policy then we have a right to see the letters. Never mind who sent them, those who received them are fully accountable to us.
I do wonder if the contents might finally open a few peoples' eyes to the lie we're constantly being fed about the supposed neutrality of the Windsors though. They happily wield their influence when they want. Always have done.
I guess the most interesting part would be to see if his letters to ministers had any influence on government policy
If there's any actual policy change or implementation that can be seen to have followed a letter
I suspect not...........I suspect they humour him and laugh at him in private
Let's face it he's a joke figure...........he seems to want to rush us back to the 18th century with subservient peasants doffing their caps and lowering their eyes as the lord of the manor passes by.........where everyone ate organic bread and lived in thatched cottages
It would be a miracle if he wasn't a Tory...........but an old fashioned Tory, not a businessman Tory
If that were the case then Charles would have been "steered onto more realistic paths" when it became obvious years ago that he isn't suitable to be king.
The royals must be scared that Charles as king will be the end of the royal family.
He is suitable to be king. He got the only qualification necessary for the job the day he emerged from his mother's birth canal. There are no checks and balances on what he will do and, as we've seen, any notion of constitutional neutrality is an illusion to be maintained rather than a reality to be upheld.
Or are you taking a quote out of context and twisting it to fit your agenda.
Ooh, it's a toughy...
What is being taken out of context?
"Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their actual capabilities? This is all to do with the learning culture in schools – the child-centered learning emphasis which admits of no failure and tells people they can ALL be pop stars or high court judges or brilliant TV personalities-heads of states!"
He is suitable to be king. He got the only qualification necessary for the job the day he emerged from his mother's birth canal. There are no checks and balances on what he will do and, as we've seen, any notion of constitutional neutrality is an illusion to be maintained rather than a reality to be upheld.
Very true. It could be argued that now we know about his missives to ministers, to not publish them is equally a threat to his supposed political neutrality. He might just be opining about the benefits of organic veg, but equally, behind the buffoon facade he might actually be a rather unsavoury chap who gets automatically installed without anyone's say as our Head of State,
Comments
If there's any actual policy change or implementation that can be seen to have followed a letter
I suspect not...........I suspect they humour him and laugh at him in private
Let's face it he's a joke figure...........he seems to want to rush us back to the 18th century with subservient peasants doffing their caps and lowering their eyes as the lord of the manor passes by.........where everyone ate organic bread and lived in thatched cottages
It would be a miracle if he wasn't a Tory...........but an old fashioned Tory, not a businessman Tory
"Why do they all seem to think..." isn't directed at one person.
Also, how can you not like someone who says stuff like:
Pretty sure loads of 'influential' people have written private letters to governments over the years.
Are there plans to publish them all?
There is a control on the Monarchy, we are very conscious of whether they should get involved with politics.
Are the same checks applied to high court judges, heads of industry, leaders of unions, popular writers ect.?
Seems to me there are lots of people of far more influence who we don't criticise nearly enough when it comes to using their position to influence politics.
Unless they're royal or born into the upper echelons of society. In which case they can be as thick as a brick and still get the best education and therefore the best jobs.
Are these people in line for a hereditary position of enforced political neutrality (even if that neutrality apparently doesn't have to exist, but merely be an illusion)?
Lets face it you have absolutely no idea who it was directed to.
You can't stop the man having a political opinion, like anybody else, but his unique privilege gives him access to the government that we commoners don't have. If he is to write these letters, and nobody can stop him doing that, then he should be subject to public opinion about his views and opinions by return. Otherwise, we're just pretending that he is politically neutral, because he's writing the letters anyway.
Isn't that essentially what the Attorney General is tacitly admitting? They don't give a damn about whether or not Charles is politically neutral, they care only about maintaining the illusion of political neutrality within the monarchy. The fact that it's been admitted that the publishing of his letters would "seriously undermine" his future kingship is an open admission of this. If they were harmless, apolitical letters they wouldn't undermine this apparent fallacy of neutrality in the least - but evidently they must be suppressed in order to keep the public fooled.
Yes, but who are 'they'? The plebs, obviously. The non-privately educated. How dare they think they could become head of state! To be a future UK head of state, like Charlie-Boy, you need a B and a C at A-Level, along with a humanities 2:2 from a university that you didn't have to apply to. No wait, you just need to be born! The man's nerve is astounding.
Yes, let's see all his letters to politicians. He already has form for this sort of thing. Remember the Chelsea Barracks fiasco?
And:
If that were the case then Charles would have been "steered onto more realistic paths" when it became obvious years ago that he isn't suitable to be king.
The royals must be scared that Charles as king will be the end of the royal family.
Correct.
Totally agree. It's rank bad form to publish them.
It's obviously directed to anyone who has had a school education. Here's the full quote again in case it's escaped your short-term memory:
"Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their actual capabilities? This is all to do with the learning culture in schools – the child-centered learning emphasis which admits of no failure and tells people they can ALL be pop stars or high court judges or brilliant TV personalities-heads of states!"
Basically, the tampon wannabee is saying: Peasants - know your place.
Is he.
Or are you taking a quote out of context and twisting it to fit your agenda.
Ooh, it's a toughy...
I do wonder if the contents might finally open a few peoples' eyes to the lie we're constantly being fed about the supposed neutrality of the Windsors though. They happily wield their influence when they want. Always have done.
^^^ in spades. Odious man
Why would they think this?
And what would he need to be suitable to be king?
He is suitable to be king. He got the only qualification necessary for the job the day he emerged from his mother's birth canal. There are no checks and balances on what he will do and, as we've seen, any notion of constitutional neutrality is an illusion to be maintained rather than a reality to be upheld.
What is being taken out of context?
"Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their actual capabilities? This is all to do with the learning culture in schools – the child-centered learning emphasis which admits of no failure and tells people they can ALL be pop stars or high court judges or brilliant TV personalities-heads of states!"
Very true. It could be argued that now we know about his missives to ministers, to not publish them is equally a threat to his supposed political neutrality. He might just be opining about the benefits of organic veg, but equally, behind the buffoon facade he might actually be a rather unsavoury chap who gets automatically installed without anyone's say as our Head of State,