The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 11-23-2014, 04:50 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,386
What I will find more interesting (if the letters are disclosed) is not whether Charles asked Ministers to listen to his argument or change their minds etc. But whether they acted solely on his request against their government policy.

He doesnt have any power - so why would they do that?

AS Shakespeare has it "it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" - the idiot being the Guardian who started this in 2005.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 11-23-2014, 07:41 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
By contrast, Prince William is not known to have ever expressed political opinions in public.

Just another reason why many people would rather see William than Charles on the throne.
There is a difference between policy and politics. Prince William has expressed strong views on the ivory trade, which could impact Britain's relationship with China. It's a policy issue, not a political one.

Charles has discussed his views on the environment and historic preservation, but he is not associated with one particular political party. Diana also became involved in policy questions. For example, she publicly spoke out in favor of a ban on landmines, which was a policy issue being debated by the British Parliament at the time.

The difference between Charles and his mother regarding their public stance on policy issues is largely due to their different roles. There is also a generational difference. Charles came of age during the social changes of the 60s, while the Queen had a very traditional upbringing.

Further, unlike the Queen, Prince Charles has voluntarily paid taxes throughout his adult life. He gave himself a deduction when he married Diana but he began paying the full tax rate in 1992. The Queen started paying taxes in 1992. I don't know if William ever had a choice. I think that everyone who financially supports government policies has the right to try and influence them.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 11-23-2014, 07:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
What I will find more interesting (if the letters are disclosed) is not whether Charles asked Ministers to listen to his argument or change their minds etc. But whether they acted solely on his request against their government policy.

He doesnt have any power - so why would they do that?

AS Shakespeare has it "it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" - the idiot being the Guardian who started this in 2005.
I so love this saying, I use it all the time on people where I live, sometimes I can't believe what comes out of the mouths of idiots who signify absolutely nothing.....
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 11-23-2014, 08:01 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 303
Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 11-23-2014, 08:14 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?
It used to be quite common for Kings and Queens to take sides on issues, in fact, it was required because they were the rulers. They would be overthrown in their decisions were very unpopular. Most of the cases I know of involve economics--specifically taxes.

Elizabeth was 25 years old when she took the throne--in the 50's. Who knows how events would have played out if Elizabeth had been raised during the 60s.

I suppose that it is possible that the UK will abolish the monarchy because they don't like his views on the environment, architecture, or organic food, but I doubt it. We can debate whether people should care about those types of issues, but they rarely win or lose elections. In fact, the people who are most passionate about the environment probably agree with Charles.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 11-23-2014, 09:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?

The Queen hasn't been 'completely neutral' at all.

She has made her views known and has even told the PM of the day (Blair) that she would refuse to sign legislation if it was presented to her.

Blair decided not to force the issue and so the matter was dropped. That is hardly the 'political neutral' stance that she is portrayed as having but rather shows that she was prepared to intervene if necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 11-23-2014, 10:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen hasn't been 'completely neutral' at all.

She has made her views known and has even told the PM of the day (Blair) that she would refuse to sign legislation if it was presented to her.

Blair decided not to force the issue and so the matter was dropped. That is hardly the 'political neutral' stance that she is portrayed as having but rather shows that she was prepared to intervene if necessary.
She definitely has an image of being completely neutral, even if there have been incidents of non-neutrality. Please post a link to a news article about the Queen vs. Blair and refusing to sign legislation; I am not seeing it online.

For example, during the Scottish independence referendum campaign, she told people to think "carefully" about it and that made headlines. Her exact words were completely neutral even though it was clear what she might have meant- and I was amazed that she didn't speak up to keep her country together.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 11-23-2014, 10:44 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,392
Any monarch threatening to not sign legislation is on a suicide mission. It hasn't happened in hundreds of years and isn't about to start.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 11-24-2014, 02:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
The Queen refused to sign any legislation that related to her losing the right to declare war in 1999 - which is why the legislation didn't go to parliament in the first place - hence no actual veto. She was asked beforehand.


Queen and Prince Charles given at least 39 chances to veto legislation they don't want to become law | Daily Mail Online The Queen's veto blocked the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a backbench bill making it necessary that Parliament must first consent before Tony Blair's government could launch air strikes against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.




Other links can be found here: https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=cr...+Queen+refused
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 11-24-2014, 02:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,392
The Queen acted on the advice of her ministers. Military Actions Against Iraq Bill was a backbench bill, not a government bill, huge difference.

The royal prerogative to declare war is exercised solely on the advice of the Prime Minister and this was something Tony Blair didn't want to surrender to parliament, hence the advice to the Queen.

The royal prerogative is exercised for the very purpose it doesn't need the approval of parliament which is what the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill sought to do.

This is entirely different from the Queen refusing to sign a bill against the advice of her ministers, something the Queen as a constitutional monarch would never do
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 11-24-2014, 03:30 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,013
All this fuss over whether PC will open his mouth or not, let's wait and see. And why think that if he does the monarchy will end, that is republican talk, so for anybody that wants a republican government come to the US and stay here for a while and view what is happening. I like QE very much, I think she should open her mouth more often and even though I understand why she doesn't, for me it['s just plain stupid, she is the Queen for heaven's sake and Charles is the heir. These people are there in those positions by an accident of birth(as I have said before) nothing more nothing less, so people just need to get over it and get on with their lives. I will take QE anyday of the week over that I have to put up with and if she has some influence on the prime minister then so what, if it's for the good of the country then no harm done and I really think that after all these decades (not years) she most surely has the best interest of her home country in mind. Sometimes I think *egos* get in the way of simple reasoning and after all who are these people that make those rules/laws, so this is no put down on anybody, it's men. Are all those rules/laws in the best interest of whom?
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 11-24-2014, 04:30 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen hasn't been 'completely neutral' at all.

She has made her views known and has even told the PM of the day (Blair) that she would refuse to sign legislation if it was presented to her.

Blair decided not to force the issue and so the matter was dropped. That is hardly the 'political neutral' stance that she is portrayed as having but rather shows that she was prepared to intervene if necessary.

I had never heard before that the Queen threatened to veto legislation if the PM didn't drop it. Considering that the royal veto has not been used in the UK since 1707, I seriously doubt the Queen would consider using it.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 11-24-2014, 05:04 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,392
And even in 1707 it was on the advice of ministers. The Queen would never ever veto or refuse to sign legislation against the advice of her ministers.

Even Edward VIII, being a constitutional monarch signed his own abdication order on the advice of government
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 11-24-2014, 05:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,194
The point is that The Queen did tell the PM that she wouldn't sign it and that is being political. The bill was dropped from going to parliament for the simple reason that she had indicated that she wouldn't sign it.


That is how powerful she is - she can tell the PM in advance that she won't sign it and the PM will then actually drop the proposal, or make sure that the private member is aware that The Queen won't sign it and that member will drop it.


Edward signed his own abdication Act because by then he had agreed to abdicate. He could have refused and then there would have been an election on the issue of the monarch's power.


That is why the monarch tells the PM that they won't sign legislation in advance.


One day a PM will call the monarch's bluff and either the monarch will give in and lose that power by convention OR it will become an election issue and the monarch will lose their power.


Remember that this thread is talking about Charles being political on the assumption that The Queen has never been political but she has been so why assume that Charles should be any less than his mother has been for the last 62+ years?
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 11-24-2014, 05:18 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 219
The Queen, of course, can make her personal views known to her ministers, and undoubtably it happens behind the scenes. The Prince of Wales, when he succeeds will most likely do the same. But he cannot make his personal views publicly known if they contradict the policy of the Government. If that happened, and the Government felt it no longer enjoyed the confidence of the Crown, it might resign and trigger a general election. A general election that focused on the conflict between the King and the Government. Regardless of the outcome, it would be a disaster. If he "won" his impartiality would always be in doubt; if he "lost" abdication would be the only honourable action. The laws of the land are not made by some anonymous group of egotistical men. The are made by the members of the House of Commons; the women and men elected by the men and women of the United Kingdom. It would be at his own peril for a future King Charles III to publicly fall out with the elected representatives of his people.

The Queen has never vetoed any legislation. Agreeing, on the advice of her ministers, to withhold Royal Assent to legislation if it was ever presented to her is probably a handy way for a Government to kill off a bill, or just get it off the books. The same bill, supported by the Government, passed by the Commons and the Lords, and then presented for Royal Assent would be signed without question.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 11-24-2014, 05:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The point is that The Queen did tell the PM that she wouldn't sign it and that is being political. The bill was dropped from going to parliament for the simple reason that she had indicated that she wouldn't sign it.


That is how powerful she is - she can tell the PM in advance that she won't sign it and the PM will then actually drop the proposal, or make sure that the private member is aware that The Queen won't sign it and that member will drop it.


Edward signed his own abdication Act because by then he had agreed to abdicate. He could have refused and then there would have been an election on the issue of the monarch's power.


That is why the monarch tells the PM that they won't sign legislation in advance.


One day a PM will call the monarch's bluff and either the monarch will give in and lose that power by convention OR it will become an election issue and the monarch will lose their power.


Remember that this thread is talking about Charles being political on the assumption that The Queen has never been political but she has been so why assume that Charles should be any less than his mother has been for the last 62+ years?
Well the debate over veto is in the realm of the theoretical in 2014. Many scholars agree the power no longer exists by convention as it hasn't been exercised in hundreds of years. Such is the unwritten constitution.

The Iraq War Bill you cited wasn't a government bill and Blair didn't want it to pass in the first place much less receive royal assent
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 11-24-2014, 05:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,392
And even if the power to veto still exists, it exists in Common Law. Statute Law trumps CL, so the government of the day can remove the royal prerogative and reserve powers held by the monarch by an Act of Parliament
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:31 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk/Budapest, Hungary
Posts: 4,931
If the Queen (or Charles in the future) refused to sign a Bill, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it would be through common sense rather than being political.
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 11-24-2014, 10:57 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 6,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?
I've been thinking about this for a bit and have to point out that HM became Queen at a rather young age and also, until Edward VIII abdicated, she was never expected to be Queen. Looking at her lifetime, the majority of it is as a monarch in a constitutional monarchy.

With Charles, it was a total different kettle of fish. He was born to the role of heir apparent and when we look at his life, he's spent the majority of it as The Prince of Wales. He very well could have taken up interests such as race car driving, parasailing, a love of gambling in the casinos around the world and basically used the time to just hush up and wait and enjoy hunting, fishing and country house parties. He chose to make a difference. I would wager that it would be more accurate to say that Charles is/was a strong advocate for the things he is passionate about and believes in rather than intervening in matters.

I believe it will be for the better if Charles will be the type of king that not only knows what the issues of the day are but will also be able to make an intelligent viewpoint on them. Like his mother, he will sit with his PM and pull no punches when it comes to how he sees things and voice his concerns. I don't see that as intervening but as his role in advising.

He'll definitely be a king who will take his role very, very seriously.
__________________
“When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down ‘happy’. They told me I didn’t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn’t understand life.”
― John Lennon
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 11-24-2014, 11:26 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,392
According to Attorney General Dominic Grieve's statement at the time, the seven government departments the prince wrote to were Business, Innovation and Skills; Health; Children, Schools and Families [now the Department for Education]; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Culture, Media and Sport; the Northern Ireland Office and the Cabinet Office.

Mr Grieve said any perception that the prince had disagreed with the then Labour government "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".

Again these are the words of a Tory AG under PM Cameron, not mine. Hopefully the SC has the good sense to rule against this
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
politics, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Disadvantages of Being Royal Eva-Britt Royal Chit Chat 99 07-19-2015 08:56 PM
Is William being set up to fail? mktv2000 Prince Harry and Prince William 72 12-17-2005 10:44 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll germany grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy natural disasters new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess mary style queen juliana queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in oslo royal fashion september 2016 spencers state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises