The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 05-13-2015, 10:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,872
It is not whether Charles' cares. it is what the laws are regarding his input. I have no idea what they are, but there are Constitutional prohibitions. Perhaps, only for the monarch. That I do not know either. It is for the Parliament to interpret those laws. And for those they affect to follow.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 05-13-2015, 10:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,352
Whatever comes out of it having your PR break a microphone is not a good look for a royal. I wonder if he has the right staff around him. A carry on as usual approach is the way to go not interacting with the press


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 05-13-2015, 11:00 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
Whatever comes out of it having your PR break a microphone is not a good look for a royal. I wonder if he has the right staff around him. A carry on as usual approach is the way to go not interacting with the press
I agree with you on this. It would have been much better to totally ignore the journalist as Charles did and just walk away. The action of grabbing the microphone just called more attention to the questions the journalist was asking.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 05-14-2015, 12:51 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
I don't think this is the way to react.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/0...harles-letters

[url]http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/05/14/02/52/uk-publishes-prince-charles-letters[/url
It is a royal beef about milk quotas, a storm in a tea cup. His letters are like the man - very polite, concerned and well-informed."
Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/05/14/02/52/uk-publishes-prince-charles-letters#Gd6E9cZK5OU0MWfm.99

As to the content of the letters at issue? Well was anyone not aware of any of Prince Charles stand in each of the letters? I know I wasn't, so it is not secret, it is not skullduggery regardless of who vents and stamps his feet as seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
It is not whether Charles' cares. it is what the laws are regarding his input. I have no idea what they are, but there are Constitutional prohibitions. Perhaps, only for the monarch. That I do not know either. It is for the Parliament to interpret those laws. And for those they affect to follow.
Well, yes they do show that Charles cares, and that he broke absolutely no Constitutional prohibitions whatsoever, if indeed such laws exist.

Fortunately for all of us Parliament has not only interpreted those laws, they changed them so this situation will never arise again.

People seem to forget that the Guardian was suing the Government and for the letters to be published, not The Prince of Wales.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 05-14-2015, 01:15 AM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,905
Don't want to veer off topic but..
If my memory is correct, Charles's late ex-wife, also wrote letters but were destroyed by her mother and Princess Margaret after her passing. Correct me if I'm wrong on that!
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 05-14-2015, 02:05 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
Interesting...wonder how most Brits (et al) feel about that.


LaRae
It has only won one seat in the House of Commons, last week. It's leader, Mr Nigel Farage, even did not manage to win in his own consistuency. As a result he announced to step down as leader. Now, a week later, as a typical politician, Mr Farage is already making u-turns on his announcement to step down...

For the moment, the UKIP with only one seat, plays no role in the House. They are stronger in the European Parliament where they have 24 seats. But these 24 drown in a sea of 751 seats in the European Parliament. For so far it has only delivered lots of noise and a little change. In this thread (Charles being political?) Mr Farage plays no any role.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 05-14-2015, 02:53 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It has only won one seat in the House of Commons, last week. It's leader, Mr Nigel Farage, even did not manage to win in his own consistuency. As a result he announced to step down as leader. Now, a week later, as a typical politician, Mr Farage is already making u-turns on his announcement to step down...

For the moment, the UKIP with only one seat, plays no role in the House. They are stronger in the European Parliament where they have 24 seats. But these 24 drown in a sea of 751 seats in the European Parliament. For so far it has only delivered lots of noise and a little change. In this thread (Charles being political?) Mr Farage plays no any role.

I know this is off topic, but UKIP as a party rejected Farage's resignation. He himself did not do a U-Turn.

As for who is where this week thanks to last week's election, what is evident is that UK electoral system is a shambles. UKIP received over 4 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received less than 1.2 million and got 56 out of 59 seats and now have a strong say in UK government when nobody in England voted for them.


As for Charles: people seemed to expect these letters to be hate fuelled rants where Charles named names and threw money about when that was clearly never going to be the case as this is Prince Charles we're taking about. He is a well thought through man.

I saw a tweet yesterday where someone said the letters had changed their mind about PC. They had gone from disliking him to admiring him. These letters are actually doing Charles good.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 05-14-2015, 02:59 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,886
That UKIP only has one seat because it failed to win in other consistuencies: that is too bad for them. But the playground is equal. It is not that the game had different rules for Labour or the Conservatives, they had to win consistuencies too, of course.

Then the anomaly of the SNP having more seats than UKIP. That is only one anomaly. The other is seldom discussed: the Conservatives are practically irrelevant in Scotland. Despite the massive support for Labour, and now for SNP, the Scots remain ruled by a party they never have voted for. This anomaly is easily ignored by the same UKIP politicians wailing about the British electoral system.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 05-14-2015, 04:22 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
As for who is where this week thanks to last week's election, what is evident is that UK electoral system is a shambles.
The great British public overwhelmingly rejected the proposal to go down the route of proportional representation in a referendum less than 5 years ago. First-past-the-post is what the majority of the voters want, and that is what we have. If UKIP had greater support in individual constituencies, they would have more seats, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
As for Charles: people seemed to expect these letters to be hate fuelled rants where Charles named names and threw money about when that was clearly never going to be the case as this is Prince Charles we're taking about. He is a well thought through man.

I saw a tweet yesterday where someone said the letters had changed their mind about PC. They had gone from disliking him to admiring him. These letters are actually doing Charles good.
I agree, to me, the letters show Prince Charles in quite a positive light.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 05-14-2015, 04:29 AM
muriel's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Then the anomaly of the SNP having more seats than UKIP. That is only one anomaly. The other is seldom discussed: the Conservatives are practically irrelevant in Scotland. Despite the massive support for Labour, and now for SNP, the Scots remain ruled by a party they never have voted for. This anomaly is easily ignored by the same UKIP politicians wailing about the British electoral system.
Lets not forget this was an election to a national Parliament, not a regional assembly. The will of all British people matters, not just the Welsh or the Scots or the Irish. The Tories may not have much of a political presence in Scotland, but then nor do the SNP in the rest of the country. I live in a constituency that has had a Labour MP for a long time, irrespective of how large numbers of us vote (quite like the Scots in relation to a Tory government in London). Do we feel disenfranchised? Not really, that is just how democracy works.
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 05-14-2015, 05:06 AM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,855
Best PR campaign for Years ...
I just can't get enough.

Charming with just a hint of menace: The Prince of Wales's letters to ministers he fought so long to keep secret* | Daily Mail Online

Prince Charles' spider letters make Stephen Glover admire him more | Daily Mail Online
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 05-14-2015, 07:08 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,140
Thanks for the links, Nico. Here's one from the Washington Post. Seems to be much ado about nothing:
Prince Charles, the toothfish and the toothless ‘black spider’ letters - The Washington Post
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 05-14-2015, 07:48 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Thanks for the links, Nico. Here's one from the Washington Post. Seems to be much ado about nothing:
Prince Charles, the toothfish and the toothless ‘black spider’ letters - The Washington Post
Sadly the Washington Post totally missed the point. The Government refused to disclose the contents of the princely letters because that would harm the Prince's basic right on privacy and confidentiality. The Washington Post more or less is on the side: "Why did it cost all that effort and so much money, just publish it" but that is not the point.

I sincerely hope that -for the sake of principle- the UK Government goes in appeal at the EU Court of Justice, to see how they consider the fact that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is ignored: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."

Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 05-14-2015, 07:55 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 8,614
It has finally happened and I am in shock and awe and speechless (well... almost) after reading Stephen Glover's article in the Daily Mail.

After being so used to to scanning the comments section every now and then and seeing some very nasty and negative comments, it really surprised me at just how positive the comments were. If I had any doubt that the published letters put Charles in a good light, I'm 100% sure now.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 05-14-2015, 08:05 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Sadly the Washington Post totally missed the point. The Government refused to disclose the contents of the princely letters because that would harm the Prince's basic right on privacy and confidentiality. The Washington Post more or less is on the side: "Why did it cost all that effort and so much money, just publish it" but that is not the point.

I sincerely hope that -for the sake of principle- the UK Government goes in appeal at the EU Court of Justice, to see how they consider the fact that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is ignored: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."


I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Brief BBC summary of the topics raised by the PoW in the "black spider memos".

10 things that Prince Charles wrote letters about - BBC News
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 05-14-2015, 08:48 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 6,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Prince of Wales can not be a state official. Only his mother is.

Where is the end? Should eventual letters by the Duchess of Cornwall or Princess Michael now also be published? When someone writes a letter to someone else, the person may have the basic right to trust that it will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 05-14-2015, 11:43 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
I think it's been said that there will be more letters released.

I agree, everyone can see even in his letters that Charles cares about the issues that affect peoples lives.
As far as I am aware, there are only 27 letters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
It is the government, and not Prince Charles, who is arguing that the letters ought not to be released.
A point missed by many, not least the Washington Post!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Ah no. The following link lays out the parameters of the FOI and, more importantly, it's exemptions. Exemption 37 is the one we need to fully grasp. It is preceded by a kind of precis in red which helps.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/informatio...tions-guidance
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 05-16-2015, 11:36 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,140
Thanks for the link to the exemptions to the FOI, Marg. Given this information, I am not sure why his letters were released.


I just read the Richard Kay/Geoffrey Levy article in the Daily Mail. I don't understand why people avoid reading the Daily Mail--it is very entertaining. I especially appreciate how impressed Kay and Levy were at the revelation Charles actually does research before writing about a particular subject. It was obviously a foreign concept for Kay and Levy.


I especially enjoyed that Kay and Levy described Charles's letter to then-Trade and industry secretary Patricia Hewitt as "menacing" because it said Charles would follow up if the plan was unsuccessful. It seems Kay and Levy believe that Charles' letter sent Patricia Hewitt into a complete panic over the very idea of receiving another letter from the Prince of Wales.


What a pair of losers.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 05-16-2015, 01:00 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
As far as I am aware, there are only 27 letters.

A point missed by many, not least the Washington Post!

Ah no. The following link lays out the parameters of the FOI and, more importantly, it's exemptions. Exemption 37 is the one we need to fully grasp. It is preceded by a kind of precis in red which helps.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/informatio...tions-guidance
Please read the full judgment of the Supreme Court at

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-...7_Judgment.pdf


My understanding is that the Court ruled that the post-2011 absolute exemption in Section 37 did not apply in this case. Instead, the previous qualified exemption applied and,as far as Prince Charles' memos were concerned, it was overridden by the public interest test.
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 05-17-2015, 05:12 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 6,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
Thanks for the link to the exemptions to the FOI, Marg. Given this information, I am not sure why his letters were released.
Because the letters fell outside the 2011 Exemptions which were not retrospective and the information was already in the public domain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I believe the point made by the UK courts is that, as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official. His correspondence to ministers qualifies then as government/state correspondence (as opposed to private correspondence) and is therefore subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Brief BBC summary of the topics raised by the PoW in the "black spider memos".

10 things that Prince Charles wrote letters about - BBC News
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
Ah no. The following link lays out the parameters of the FOI and, more importantly, it's exemptions. Exemption 37 is the one we need to fully grasp. It is preceded by a kind of precis in red which helps.

Exemption guidance for freedom of information (FOI)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Please read the full judgment of the Supreme Court at

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-...7_Judgment.pdf

My understanding is that the Court ruled that the post-2011 absolute exemption in Section 37 did not apply in this case. Instead, the previous qualified exemption applied and, as far as Prince Charles' memos were concerned, it was overridden by the public interest test.
I thought I was quite clear in my response to the above post that that the letters were released because they were not covered by the Exemptions, almost everything in the letters being already in the public domain. However, the prefix to the 2011 Exemptions contained a Precis written in Red no less, clarifying HM, PoW and his heir's position.
Quote:
Communications with the Monarch, the Heir to the Throne or second in line to the Throne or those acting on their behalf is now subject to an absolute exemption. All the rest remain qualified.
So, HM gets a total pass and the PoW and his heir get a qualified pass. 3.6 states, in part:
Quote:
The Queen is in a unique position in that it is particularly difficult to disentangle her public and private personas. Unlike any other figure in public life, except the heir to the throne, she was born to her position in public life and has no choice but to accept the resulting media interest. It is important to remember that 'what the public is interested in' is not the same as 'the public interest' as used in the Act.
And 3.7 states, in part:
Quote:
Communications between the heir to the throne and Government Ministers, including those between their respective private secretaries, where such views are not already in the public domain are, like those of the Sovereign, likely to remain sensitive because they could, at a later date, be taken to show a lack of political neutrality. It is therefore likely that the public interest test in respect of such communications will continue to be determined in favour of withholding the information.
Having read both the Judgement and the 2011 Exemptions, section 37, one thing is very clear, the UK courts cannot have mandated that "as heir to the throne, the PoW is a state official" when it is legislatively clear that neither HM nor the PoW ever was nor is now, a "State or Public Official".
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
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 07:56 PM
Is William being set up to fail? mktv2000 Prince Harry and Prince William 72 12-17-2005 09:44 PM




Popular Tags
albania best gown september 2016 best outfit birthday catherine middleton style child christening of prince alexander crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit eveningwear crown princess victoria daytime fashion denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of cambridge cocktail dresses duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh earthquakes fashion poll fashion poll december jewels king abdullah ii king abdullah in australia king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander monarchy norway november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince charles princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary fashion princess mette-marit's dresses princess sofia queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen mathilde hats queen mathildes hats queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queenmother queen rania queen rania casual outfit queen rania eveningwear queen rania fashion queen silvia september 2016 state visit state visit from argentina succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats visit to canada


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 03:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises