Prince Charles and the Environment

[Skydragon]

For these reasons we did try to use RAF planes. Traveling commercial throws a lot of people into confusion and ruins the bar profits...

I am not quite sure why you have highlighted the trips made in RAF craft, as I am sure you know that No 32 Squadron RAF has been drastically reduced and any trips have to 'fit in' with the governments use and of course operations in the war zones.

This type of behavior combined with the more recent examples Camilla's gas guzzling yacht trips and her having her shoes that she forgot at highgrove flown out to the persian gulf, only to decide against wearing them

This quote is from The Mail, which 'led' with the story, but seems to have been missed -

Last night Clarence House confirmed that the shoes were dispatched to Kuwait along with other personal items mistakenly left behind, but a spokesman denied claims that Camilla personally ordered the extravagant move

I suppose that somewhat destroys the story though. As for the 'gas guzzling yacht trip, everyone is entitled to a holiday, both Charles and Camilla offset, as do I to cover flights and journeys with the gas guzzling horse box and yes even yachting holidays.

 

[MARG]

I don't know what it is but some people uttlerly refuse to be content with life in general and strike out at others specifically, or in general, in meaness of spirit to justify their own discontent.

"When the last Prince of Wales did his world tour by battleship it took him many months. When we went, using an RAF VC 10 for part of the time and travelling commercial for the more lengthy trips, it took four weeks. "

As the cigarette ad used to say . . . You've come al long way baby! Or in this case the Prince of Wales! Three or four month cruises were de rigor for the royal family in the 1930's! Oh what howls of protest would resound if Charles dared waste that amount of time, not to mention military resources, without being seen to be doing something in 2009!

"We preferred to use an RAF planes because we could adapt our timings. A commercial plane has to be caught. With the RAF we could come and go at our own pace".[/i]

Sounds perfectly sensible to me. In the 80's and 90's that was the what we expected.

"Once we flew the Concorde to New York just to go to the ballet and came right back again. Another time we flew from Vancouver to Florida to play polo at the new Wellington Club complex.'[/i]

All this to-ing and fro-ing was in the heady days of high employment, high salaries/wages, high stock markets and the inevitably consequent, conspicuous consumption. From the working class new kitchens (or in the case of Hilda Ogden false brick cladding), the middle class new cars and houses and the wealthy's new jets, yachts and fab, fun, jaunts.

This type of behavior combined with the more recent examples Camilla's gas guzzling yacht trips and her having her shoes that she forgot at highgrove flown out to the persian gulf, only to decide against wearing them, gives me a strong Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do vibe from Charles. When it is less than convenient for him, global warming is way down the list. He obviously had no touble travelling commercial for many years. Needless to say, this is IMO and that the above bolding is mine.

Gas guzzling yacht trips? You, I presume, would have sailed sans motor! As to the "Camilla and her shoes" diatribe, well how long does it take to Fed Ex? As for Prince Charles' commitment to a sustainable future? None of the above bile obviates the need for specific reasoned arguement. Your main argument seems to be that you just don't like either Prince Charles or the Duchess of Cornwall and any opportunity to reiterate that stance is not to be missed. That is your right. However, drawing parallells with two totally different Prince's of Wales over seventy years apart is neither reasoned nor reasonable!

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't know what it is but some people uttlerly refuse to be content with life in general and strike out at others specifically, or in general, in meaness of spirit to justify their own discontent.
As the cigarette ad used to say . . . You've come al long way baby! Or in this case the Prince of Wales! Three or four month cruises were de rigor for the royal family in the 1930's! Oh what howls of protest would resound if Charles dared waste that amount of time, not to mention military resources, without being seen to be doing something in 2009!
Sounds perfectly sensible to me. In the 80's and 90's that was the what we expected. All this to-ing and fro-ing was in the heady days of high employment, high salaries/wages, high stock markets and the inevitably consequent, conspicuous consumption. From the working class new kitchens (or in the case of Hilda Ogden false brick cladding), the middle class new cars and houses and the wealthy's new jets, yachts and fab, fun, jaunts. Gas guzzling yacht trips? You, I presume, would have sailed sans motor! As to the "Camilla and her shoes" diatribe, well how long does it take to Fed Ex? As for Prince Charles' commitment to a sustainable future? None of the above bile obviates the need for specific reasoned arguement. Your main argument seems to be that you just don't like either Prince Charles or the Duchess of Cornwall and any opportunity to reiterate that stance is not to be missed. That is your right. However, drawing parallells with two totally different Prince's of Wales over seventy years apart is neither reasoned nor reasonable!

I totally agree with you MARG, you are quite right in what you say. Times have changed and Charles has done more for the environment than to hinder it.

 

[BellaFay]

So, from 'Royal Service' by Charles valet of 12 years in the chapter entitled Travels with my Prince, page 140: "The first time I really flew with him was three months after I started the job. We went to Fiji to confer independence on the Islands and from there we went more or less around the world. When the last Prince of Wales did his world tour by battleship it took him many months. when we went, using an RAF VC 10 for part of the time and travelling commercial for the more lengthy trips, it took four weeks. We preferred to use an RAF planes because we could adapt our timings. A commercial plane has to be caught. With the RAF we could come and go at our own pace". Later the same chapter page 145: "When we flew commercial it was quite different. These flights were rather boring. The Prince never drinks so none of the rest of us would take advantage of all that lovely free first class champagne. Also, people dont realize until they get to the airport who is going to be travelling with them. It only dawns when the full fare paying passengers get irritated when the plane is late leaving....Just to calm everyone down, when we did take off, the Captain always apologized for the delay and then said "As a consolation and with the compliments of the airline, may we offer you an open bar....For these reasons we did try to use RAF planes. Traveling commercial throws a lot of people into confusion and ruins the bar profits...A lot of surprised first class passengers have found themselves sitting next to the Prince passengers, and it creates a very silent flight with everyone on their best behavior...Of course, people are still pleased to have seen him in the flesh. And when he leaves, he pops his head through the curtains to where the second class passengers sit so that they can get a look at him too.I must say working for him gave me some spectacular treats. Once we flew the Concorde to New York just to go to the ballet and came right back again. Another time we flew from Vancouver to Florida to play polo at the new Wellington Club complex.'
This type of behavior combined with the more recent examples Camilla's gas guzzling yacht trips and her having her shoes that she forgot at highgrove flown out to the persian gulf, only to decide against wearing them, gives me a strong Do-As-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do vibe from Charles. When it is less than convenient for him, global warming is way down the list. He obviously had no touble travelling commercial for many years. Needless to say, this is IMO and that the above bolding is mine.

Actually the section from the royal valet's memoirs shows very good reasons why the Prince & Camilla shouldn't fly on scheduled commercial flights because of the sheer inconveninece it can cause to other passengers!

 

[BellaFay]

I am not quite sure why you have highlighted the trips made in RAF craft, as I am sure you know that No 32 Squadron RAF has been drastically reduced and any trips have to 'fit in' with the governments use and of course operations in the war zones. This quote is from The Mail, which 'led' with the story, but seems to have been missed - I suppose that somewhat destroys the story though. As for the 'gas guzzling yacht trip, everyone is entitled to a holiday, both Charles and Camilla offset, as do I to cover flights and journeys with the gas guzzling horse box and yes even yachting holidays.

Besides which without the supposedly 'gas-guzzling' yacht they wouldn't have been able to do this tour of the Carribean because at least one od the islands, Montserrat isn't accessible by commercial planes.

 

[Skydragon]

Actually the section from the royal valet's memoirs shows very good reasons why the Prince & Camilla shouldn't fly on scheduled commercial flights because of the sheer inconvenience it can cause to other passengers!

I think we also need to bear in mind, times have changed and the threat of attack, (personal or terrorist) is much greater now.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think we also need to bear in mind, times have changed and the threat of attack, (personal or terrorist) is much greater now.

Yes that is understandable but surely if a royal was flying commericial special measurements would be taken for extra security.

 

[Skydragon]

Yes that is understandable but surely if a royal was flying commercial special measurements would be taken for extra security.

If airlines had to do that, it would put the price up for ordinary passengers and we would be back to square one. The checks done on the public invited to royal events, where the invites are sent out weeks in advance, take time and money, so the 'savings' would be minor and members of the public do not wish to be inconvenienced or held up by the security and delays for Prince Charles and entourage.,Llooking at the behaviour of many at the airports, I doubt it.

 

[Skydragon]

The quest for unlimited economic growth is unsustainable and could bankrupt the environment through climate change and depleted natural resources, Prince Charles said on Wednesday.

Nature struggling with debt too - Prince Charles* - Yahoo! News UK

The Prince of Wales has issued a fresh warning of environmental catastrophe, telling an audience in London "if we fail the Earth, we fail humanity"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8141490.stm

 

[scooter]

Besides which without the supposedly 'gas-guzzling' yacht they wouldn't have been able to do this tour of the Carribean because at least one od the islands, Montserrat isn't accessible by commercial planes.

Oh dear...Monserrat isn't accessible by commercial planes. Whatever should they do? If only they owned one or two large parcels of land with enormous manor houses, where they could be private and do all the horsey and watercolor and shooting things that they famously had in common.

My point is...with proper preparation there is no reason that the PoW could not take a commerical flight, as he did for many years in the past. When for example, he goes by private jet/concorde or yacht to the ballet or polo or to accept an award for being green and then lectures the rest of the world, it strikes me, in my humble opion as being hypocritical

 

[Charlotte1]

Oh dear...Monserrat isn't accessible by commercial planes. Whatever should they do? If only they owned one or two large parcels of land with enormous manor houses, where they could be private and do all the horsey and watercolor and shooting things that they famously had in common.

My point is...with proper preparation there is no reason that the PoW could not take a commerical flight, as he did for many years in the past. When for example, he goes by private jet/concorde or yacht to the ballet or polo or to accept an award for being green and then lectures the rest of the world, it strikes me, in my humble opion as being hypocritical

So in your view it's perfectly fine to not visit Monserrat as it's not accessible by commercial planes? An isolated community is ignored because it is isolated?
Charles carbon ofsets his travel, and has done for a number of years. He is also actively working to reduce his CO2 levels, so actively infact that he publishes his CO2 levels with his annual report. (Feel free to inform yourself) That includes the CO2 levels of the Home Farm as well. He's not being hypocritical, he practises what he preaches, his role is such that he travels, therefore he makes sure that he makes that travel carbon neutral. Ill-informed sweeping statements do not make for facts, especially when factual information is available.
William and Harry also carbon ofset their private travel, that information was recently released. They flying they do as part of their training is ofset by the RAF.

 

[MARG]

Oh dear...Monserrat isn't accessible by commercial planes. Whatever should they do? If only they owned one or two large parcels of land with enormous manor houses, where they could be private and do all the horsey and watercolor and shooting things that they famously had in common.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. A little less sarcasm and a little more elucidation would be greatly appreciated.

My point is...with proper preparation there is no reason that the PoW could not take a commerical flight, as he did for many years in the past.

I think the extra security and it's attendant inconvenience (last on, first off) is neither convenient not financially viable for most airlines particularly in these cash strapped times.

When for example, he goes by private jet/concorde or yacht to the ballet or polo or to accept an award for being green and then lectures the rest of the world, it strikes me, in my humble opion as being hypocritical

Oh dear here we go way back to the heady days of concorde, that deliciously beautiful and financially ruinous gas guzzling aircraft of choice to the exceedingly wealthy, the last "retirement" flight of which occurred on 26 November 2003! Just in case you were wondering, the Prince of Wales was not on it!

 

[scooter]

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. A little less sarcasm and a little more eucidation would be greatly appreciated.
I think the extra security and it's attendant inconvenience (last on, first off) is neither convenient not financially viable for most airlines particularly in these cash strapped times.

Oh dear here we go way back to the heady days of concorde, that deliciously beautiful and financially ruinous gas guzzling aircraft of choice to the exceedingly wealthy, the last "retirement" flight of which occurred on 26 November 2003! Just in case you were wondering, the Prince of Wales was not on it!

Did you perhaps mean 'elucidation', MARG? I did not suggest that the Prince of Wales rode every single run of the Concorde. Nor do I think inconvenience is an appropriate reason for someone constantly lecturing the rest of the world on climate change to travel solely by private jet..to the ballet, polo and to accept awards for 'being green'. Further, I think British Air or whatever carrier, 'in these cash strapped times', would be delighted to have the Prince and however many of his entourage on board, both in terms of fares as well as the free advertising and prestige. Whether the Prince and Company are on the plane or not, someone is always going to be the last one on. Someone is always going to be the first one off. Just in case you really did not understand my point, Charles (and by extention Camilla) have access to several exceedingly large private estates with enormous manor houses, which already have in place security...none extra required, which require zero extra outlay 'in these cash strapped times'. Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.

 

[Skydragon]

Did you perhaps mean 'elucidation', MARG? I did not suggest that the Prince of Wales rode every single run of the Concorde. Nor do I think inconvenience is an appropriate reason for someone constantly lecturing the rest of the world on climate change to travel solely by private jet..to the ballet, polo and to accept awards for 'being green'. Further, I think British Air or whatever carrier, 'in these cash strapped times', would be delighted to have the Prince and however many of his entourage on board, both in terms of fares as well as the free advertising and prestige. Whether the Prince and Company are on the plane or not, someone is always going to be the last one on. Someone is always going to be the first one off.Just in case you really did not understand my point, Charles (and by extention Camilla)

Did you perhaps mean extension?

have access to several exceedingly large private estates with enormous manor houses, which already have in place security...none extra required, which require zero extra outlay 'in these cash strapped times'. Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.

Trouble with that is the FO has not asked them to visit either Birkhall or Highgrove on their behalf, both of which have extra security provided when Charles and Camilla are in residence, enjoying the country pursuits they genuinely enjoy! Perhaps you could point out the alleged 'spin' over 20 years from Charles or Camilla, in fact any statement at all from the couple?

 

[scooter]

So in your view it's perfectly fine to not visit Monserrat as it's not accessible by commercial planes? An isolated community is ignored because it is isolated?
Charles carbon ofsets his travel, and has done for a number of years. He is also actively working to reduce his CO2 levels, so actively infact that he publishes his CO2 levels with his annual report. (Feel free to inform yourself) That includes the CO2 levels of the Home Farm as well. He's not being hypocritical, he practises what he preaches, his role is such that he travels, therefore he makes sure that he makes that travel carbon neutral. Ill-informed sweeping statements do not make for facts, especially when factual information is available.
William and Harry also carbon ofset their private travel, that information was recently released. They flying they do as part of their training is ofset by the RAF.

Charlotte, perhaps, as you are well versed in this subject, you could tell me how exactly one 'offsets' a cruise on the 4th biggest yacht in the world (400') which burns 10,000 gallons of oil per day? Does one plant a whole new Sherwood Forrest or what? That's quite a lot of trees. Where exactly are these 100s of thousands of trees (if not millions at this point) planted? Highgrove? Public Parks? Hospitals? As far as 'sweeping statements' exactly where are you getting your 'factual information' about CHarles' offset plantings? Thank you for your help. My personal area of expertise is not offset plantings. My education was in the law. Having spent much of my youth (such as it was) litigating cases, I tend to question statements such as Charles 'makes that travel carbon neutral' without any back up as to exactly how he does that, given the enormous carbon footprint he and his wife have, personally as well as when travelling for the Crown.

 

[AuroraB]

Check out the article Carbon Offset, Caveat Emptor | GOOD . Also a few of the reputable sites: TerraPass | Fight global warming, reduce your carbon footprint , The Climate Trust , or NativeEnergy - Carbon Offsets for People and Planet .

 

[Skydragon]

Charlotte, perhaps, as you are well versed in this subject, you could tell me how exactly one 'offsets' a cruise on the 4th biggest yacht in the world (400') which burns 10,000 gallons of oil per day? .... ..... My personal area of expertise is not offset plantings...... ...... I tend to question statements such as Charles 'makes that travel carbon neutral' without any back up as to exactly how he does that, given the enormous carbon footprint he and his wife have, personally as well as when travelling for the Crown.

10,000 gallons of oil per day, my goodness, do you have the calculation that enabled you to work that out, or is that a repeat of a guestimate in the Mail? The Alexander by the way is only 11th in one of the league of yachts, it really depends whether you are using length or gross tonnage. However there is no accurate figure published for the diesel used by the Rio Rita (175ft) or The Alexander.

Many people have tried to explain to you about offsetting, even linking some of the sites that not only explain it but offer the service. What I would find hypocritical is someone who uses a large vehicle, horsebox, flights etc without offsetting, criticising the carbon footprint of someone who uses internationally recognised methods of carbon off setting.

Carbon offset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Al_bina]

I am sceptical ...

Does the so-called offsetting really work? I have read a bit about it. I think that when someone uses a yacht or a plane and harms environment in some way, it will take more than just internationally recognised methods to restore a particular ecological system(s) that was/were affected during a particular trip.

 

[Skydragon]

Does the so-called offsetting really work? I have read a bit about it. I think that when someone uses a yacht or a plane and harms environment in some way, it will take more than just internationally recognised methods to restore a particular ecological system(s) that was/were affected during a particular trip.

Having read many of your comments on Charles' work on environmental problems, I thought that you believed there is no such thing as Climate Change, does this mean you have had a change of opinion?

Does offsetting really work, yes, I believe it does and if there were evidence that A particular eco system was damaged by A particular trip, I am sure steps would be taken to restore or prevent the system from further damage. I cannot say I have heard that opinion before.

 

[MARG]

Did you perhaps mean 'elucidation', MARG?

Indeed I did and have corrected my abysmal spelling.

Just in case you really did not understand my point, Charles (and by extention Camilla) have access to several exceedingly large private estates with enormous manor houses, which already have in place security...none extra required, which require zero extra outlay 'in these cash strapped times'.

I see. Members of the BRF are not to visit overseas if they have propeties within the Bristish Isles? How very undemocratic of you to say so. Freedom and all that . . . . .

Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.

Scooter, do you think you could possibly post something on this or any other Charles and/or Camilla thread without using it as a none to subtle attempt to, in modern parlance, "disrespect" the royal couple. It is tired, it is mean, and it is off topic!

 

[Al_bina]

Having read many of your comments on Charles' work on environmental problems, I thought that you believed there is no such thing as Climate Change, does this mean you have had a change of opinion?

Does offsetting really work, yes, I believe it does and if there were evidence that A particular eco system was damaged by A particular trip, I am sure steps would be taken to restore or prevent the system from further damage. I cannot say I have heard that opinion before.

Your opinion on my perception of the climate change is wrong. I have never stated that there is no climate change. I am very very very skeptical about the so-called global warming and fear-mongering associated with it. I do my best to read and research both sides of the on-going debate related the global climate change. I tend to believe Nostradumus' or Mayan predictions more than preaching by modern eco-hypocrites.
When it comes to carbon offsetting, I view it as a new form of remorse to justify certain lifestyle (driving, plane trips or etc.) that might add too much carbon dioxide to the air. In other words, the carbon offsetting is a band-aid that appeases the consciousness of eco-warriors. Carbon offsetting is a human-invented business, which is likely to be/is already marred and corrupted like any other things invented by humans (e.g., banking).
It has been kind of you to re-phrase you post ... by the way ...

 

[Skydragon]

I tend to believe Nostradumus' or Mayan predictions more than preaching by modern eco-hypocrites.

I tend to believe in things other than crystal balls, which is as well as according to one interpretation of the Mayan calendar, the world ended a couple of years ago, many people accept that people read into these prophecies what they want, as with the Brahan prophecies!

'Eco hypocrites', again it saddens me that common insults and name calling seem to be the order of the day.

When it comes to carbon offsetting, I view it as a new form of remorse to justify certain lifestyle (driving, plane trips or etc.) that might add too much carbon dioxide to the air.

I am afraid some of us have no option but to travel by car or plane, whether it is to shop or try to educate people. I have to admit I often wonder whether those that criticise anyone who tries to limit their impact, actually drive hundreds of miles in a gas guzzling vehicle or use a horse and cart or grow/ make fabric etc themselves to avoid making any impact, or do they cling to the belief that global warming is nothing to do with them so why bother, of course under forum rules we are not allowed to ask, but it would be interesting none the less. At least Charles (and many of the Eco warriors) try to make a difference, by deed and education, better than sitting on ones behind doing nothing at all.

corrupted like any other things invented by humans (e.g., banking).
It has been kind of you to re-phrase you post ... by the way

Not all bankers/banking systems are corrupt, many here were greedy. I couldn't judge any other country as to whether they are corrupt or not.
When one re reads a post, it doesn't quite convey or might cause offense, therefore the post was altered.

 

[scooter]

Indeed I did and have corrected my abysmal spelling.
I see. Members of the BRF are not to visit overseas if they have propeties within the Bristish Isles? How very undemocratic of you to say so. Freedom and all that . . . . .
Scooter, do you think you could possibly post something on this or any other Charles and/or Camilla thread without using it as a none to subtle attempt to, in modern parlance, "disrespect" the royal couple. It is tired, it is mean, and it is off topic!

Hi MARG,
If by disrespect you mean expecting Charles and Camilla to live by the parameters that Charles lectures the world on...then I plead guilty. As far as it being off topic, is the topic of this thread not Prince Charles and the Environment? He conspicuously does the 'do as I say not as I do' lecture on a very regular basis, IMHO.

Skydragon,
I looked up the consumption numbers on the Alexander. According to Science Daily (not the Mail), I was incorrect. The exact number is 2,400 gallons in every 24 hour period. So for Camilla's 10 day cruise 240,000 gallons of oil.

Ladies, I get the fact that you think everything Charles and Camilla does is wonderful and should be defended to the death. But there are millions of us out here who dont. As far as I can tell, here on the TRF, everyone is (mostly) entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is phrased as such. Can we not just agree to disagree?

 

[MARG]

Actually I was merely referring to your habit of inserting biased historical hystrionics 'to validate your stance, e.g.

Further, I would like to point out that for the better part of 2 decades, the spin from Prince Charles and Camilla when they were carrying on in the good/bad old days (depending on your point of view) was how The Twosome had all these wonderful country pursuits in common...fishing, painting, riding...all of which could be enjoyed in maximum comfort and security at Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.

And I reiterate Skydragons question: Perhaps you could point out the alleged 'spin' over 20 years from Charles or Camilla, in fact any statement at all from the couple?

Ladies, I get the fact that you think everything Charles and Camilla does is wonderful and should be defended to the death. But there are millions of us out here who dont. As far as I can tell, here on the TRF, everyone is (mostly) entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is phrased as such. Can we not just agree to disagree?

Actually I, like millions of others out here, am quite open to the notion that Charles and Camilla are mere mortals, and are, therefore, fallable! And yes of course you are entitled to your opinion, just not stating your opinion as unassailable, irrefutable fact!

 

[Skydragon]

I looked up the consumption numbers on the Alexander. According to Science Daily (not the Mail), I was incorrect. The exact number is 2,400 gallons in every 24 hour period. So for Camilla's 10 day cruise 240,000 gallons of oil.

Did it also point out that the vessel only uses that amount of fuel when it is moving, not when it is moored up, (as it was for a large proportion of their honeymoon period). Camilla's cruise, taken along with a number of friends, was also moored for most of the time and was in the smaller vessel, the Rio Rita. Neither vessel was constantly on the move!

Ladies, I get the fact that you think everything Charles and Camilla does is wonderful and should be defended to the death. But there are millions of us out here who dont. As far as I can tell, here on the TRF, everyone is (mostly) entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is phrased as such. Can we not just agree to disagree?

On the whole MARG has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster.

 

[scooter]

Did it also point out that the vessel only uses that amount of fuel when it is moving, not when it is moored up, (as it was for a large proportion of their honeymoon period). Camilla's cruise, taken along with a number of friends, was also moored for most of the time and was in the smaller vessel, the Rio Rita. Neither vessel was constantly on the move! On the whole MARG has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster.

Skydragon, have you ever been on cruise ship? Just because they are not steaming away does not mean the gas consumption is zero. Laundry, cooking, tenders to and fro, activities, etc. As far as it being moored up the whole honeymoon, what would be the point of being on a yacht if it stayed in one place?
Now I have to also say.....this is the second time you have jabbed at me recently "marg has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster'. The last time it was 'your comments are best ignored'. I do not ever personally bash anyone. Ever. No matter how I disagree with their opinions. It would be nice if you would extend me the same courtesy. I take it that your answer to my question of 'Couldnt we agree to just disagree?' is no.

 

[susan alicia]

read somewhere that taking a cruise is one of the most polluting vacations you can take (but I think that refers to those enormous boots with an enormous amount of people who eat all day)

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon, have you ever been on cruise ship? Just because they are not steaming away does not mean the gas consumption is zero. Laundry, cooking, tenders to and fro, activities, etc. As far as it being moored up the whole honeymoon, what would be the point of being on a yacht if it stayed in one place?

Indeed I have, on more than one occasion but I would point out that we are talking about private yachts, available for hire, which I have also had the pleasure to have experienced, more than a few times. What is the point of being on it if it is moored - sunbathing and swimming just for starters and trips ashore! When they are moored, they are not using the main engines nor the amount of fuel you are stating they use in a 24 hour period.

Now I have to also say.....this is the second time you have jabbed at me recently "marg has answered you with far more patience and tact, than I can muster'. I do not ever personally bash anyone

It was purely a statement of fact regarding my ability to reply to a seemingly endless regurgitation of the, to me, skewed version of Charles' past. I referred you to MARG's reply, with which I agreed, (including the re-request for any information on the spin you state Charles and Camilla put out). I find the constant 'Charles and Camilla' did this or that, said this or that, as in this case with nothing to back it up in each and every post, as tiresome as you do my asking for a link to an actual article. I am a little surprised by your statement that you do not ever personally bash anyone, when you have constantly complained about 'a certain poster', just because it is addressed to a moderator in the thread, rather than to me, does not make it less visible or less of a 'personal bash', any less than the sarcasm oozing from some of your replies.

 

[Skydragon]

read somewhere that taking a cruise is one of the most polluting vacations you can take (but I think that refers to those enormous boots with an enormous amount of people who eat all day)

Yes, they are talking about the cruise ships rather than private yachts.

 

[Wisteria]

I, too, have been more than once on a smaller private yacht and can vouch for the fact that for a honeymoon it is much better being moored somewhere than at sea, but of course that is my opinion.