Prince Charles Being Political?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I doubt that legislation about anything is going to be passed just on Prince Charles's "say so." If he were making speeches and giving interviews putting down the government and supporting another party, that would be one thing. However, I think that his letter-writing is harmless and should remain confidential. The Guardian is a notoriously left-wing, republican newspaper; any campaign they take on has to be taken in that context.


MARG said:
I think that we have to be "real" about this subject. Yes Prince Charles writes letters and, oh how awful, talks to people. But, so do all the movers and shakers of politics and business which directly influence Members of Parliament.
Click to expand...
 
Blair was so 'wound up' by Prince Charles 'screwing' the Government he complained to the Queen | Mail Online

An article Prince Charles wrote for the Daily Mail attacking genetically modified food sparked an explosive clash with Tony Blair, it was revealed yesterday.

The former Prime Minister was so ‘wound up’ that he complained to the Queen and later accused the ‘silly’ Prince of ‘screwing’ the Labour Government.

H.R.H. THE PRINCE MINISTER: Charles accused of meddling after he summons seven senior Ministers to Clarence House in just ten months | Mail Online

Prince Charles has been accused of meddling in Government policy after a Mail on Sunday investigation revealed he has had at least nine private meetings with Ministers in less than ten months.
 
But surprisingly enough the DM readers comments are mainly pro Charles this time...
 
wbenson said:
Blair was so 'wound up' by Prince Charles 'screwing' the Government he complained to the Queen | Mail Online

An article Prince Charles wrote for the Daily Mail attacking genetically modified food sparked an explosive clash with Tony Blair, it was revealed yesterday.

The former Prime Minister was so ‘wound up’ that he complained to the Queen and later accused the ‘silly’ Prince of ‘screwing’ the Labour Government.

H.R.H. THE PRINCE MINISTER: Charles accused of meddling after he summons seven senior Ministers to Clarence House in just ten months | Mail Online

Prince Charles has been accused of meddling in Government policy after a Mail on Sunday investigation revealed he has had at least nine private meetings with Ministers in less than ten months.
Click to expand...


I notice the word the DM used was 'private' but not 'secret'. Why - because everyone of these meetings was mentioned in the Court Circular for the day in question. The DM is stirring trouble.

The heir to the throne meets with some government ministers - big deal. I would be more surprised if the heir to the throne never met with any government ministers.
 
Of course Charles can write letters to his heart's content. That's part of his job.

But it doesn't help for people living in other countries to pontificate about British life. We have enough pontificators of our own :)

As to newspapers, to compare the Daily Mail dish rag with the Guardian newspaper is comparing black with white.
 
Speaking of Charles being political, I also recall that he blocked Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from being invited to William/Kate's wedding, while John Major and other Conservatives were invited.

As a US Republican in a way that makes me happy, but that is extremely short-sighted. Does Charles not realize that he has his position just as long as the people tolerate the monarchy, and that they could get rid of it at any time? Why tick off large parts of the population by being political?
 
I think the monarchy is at least a couple of decades away from being abolished.
Thus, Charles and William are in for a long run.

Charles got his pontificating from his father, only Ch. isn't quite as good at it.

As to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, they should have been invited to any and every get-together of PMs and former PMs without exception.
 
CSENYC said:
Speaking of Charles being political, I also recall that he blocked Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from being invited to William/Kate's wedding, while John Major and other Conservatives were invited.

As a US Republican in a way that makes me happy, but that is extremely short-sighted. Does Charles not realize that he has his position just as long as the people tolerate the monarchy, and that they could get rid of it at any time? Why tick off large parts of the population by being political?
Click to expand...

Can you please post a link that says that Charles blocked Blair and Brown from being invited? I don't mean one from something like the DM but something from CH.

I knew there were complaints that they hadn't been invited when every other past PM was - but the excuse I heard was that the others were KG and Blair and Brown weren't and that all KGs were invited because William is a KG.

There were a lot of people not invited who made statements or suggestions about why they weren't invited but I don't remember any confirmation the reasons actually being given.

The British press are very good at writing plausible stories - with the ubiquitous 'palace spokesman' 'sources close to the royal family' but without names these could be anyone or even no one.
 
I heard that William himself didn't want Tony Blair invited. It was not a state occasion or something like that. It wasn't the kind of wedding where every famous politician in England had to be invited. I recall reading that William himself didn't invite Tony Blair because of something he wrote in a book.
 
CSENYC said:
Palace spokespersons' claims that Brown and Blair, who are two of the world's most prominent (former) political leaders, weren't invited because they weren't Knights of the Garter are hogwash. Singers, deposed royalty from Serbia, etc. were all invited.

Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again | Martin Kettle | Comment is free | The Guardian
Click to expand...

I think to put any kind of political bias on a wedding, regardless of who the people are, is not the smartest thing to do. A wedding is a personal celebration of friends and families and making up the guest list is purely personal. We have to remember too that William and Kate's wedding was not a state wedding. Who was included and excluded were the personal preferences of those making up the guest list. Should it have been that Charles did block certain people from the portion of the guest list that he was responsible for, it was his own personal choice.
 
CSENYC said:
Palace spokespersons' claims that Brown and Blair, who are two of the world's most prominent (former) political leaders, weren't invited because they weren't Knights of the Garter are hogwash. Singers, deposed royalty from Serbia, etc. were all invited.

Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again | Martin Kettle | Comment is free | The Guardian
Click to expand...


I read this link and found no mention of palace spokepersons, let alone a claim by them. No mention of the KGs being invited. The article was a pro-Labour piece explaining why Labour is not longer feared by the right wing of politics and society - critical of Labour as well - typical type of stuff from the Guardian.

I did read that the view that Charles blocked them was the authors own and not anything official at all. This is what this link says about the invitations and the rest is about the state of the Labour party.

Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.

According to David Starkey - the historian it was William who vetoed Blair not Charles Prince William vetoed Tony Blair's wedding invite due to 'powerful dislike,' says historian | News.com.au because of the way Blair behaved at the time of Diana's death as well as things Blair wrote in his memoirs about private conversations with William.

The Windsor Knot - Wedding invite list contains serious political snubs According to Nick Lougran, a spokesperson for William 'there is no protocal reason to invite former prime ministers' because the wedding wasn't a state occasion. Lougran also confirms that Major and Thatcher were invited because they were KGs although Thatcher declined and Major had the added position of being one of the trustees of the money William inherited from his mothe's estate. The editor-in-chief of Burke's Peerage also agrees - there was no protocol reason to invite them and it was William - not Charles' - decision. This article goes on to suggest that the Labour Party were blaming David Cameron to a certain extent. It seems that William can't stand Blair and that is the reason he wasn't invited.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
I read this link and found no mention of palace spokepersons, let alone a claim by them. No mention of the KGs being invited. The article was a pro-Labour piece explaining why Labour is not longer feared by the right wing of politics and society - critical of Labour as well - typical type of stuff from the Guardian.

I did read that the view that Charles blocked them was the authors own and not anything official at all. This is what this link says about the invitations and the rest is about the state of the Labour party.

Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments.
Prince Charles is not the first or indeed the most important person to allow his judgment to be carried away by the mood of anti-Labour dismissal. David Cameron himself gave way to it only a week ago, when he foolishly permitted himself to use a radio interview to wave aside Brown's passionate desire to become the next head of the International Monetary Fund.
Click to expand...

I cannot comment on the above, but it sounds spot on. A wedding is a private affair, if the price tag is paid, exclusively, by the family.
 
Ok again, there is no evidence that Charles was involved with the decision not to invite TB except the opinions of a journalist. So why blame Charles instead of William?
 
I think that Tony Blair said something about Diana, something to the effect that she was like him--able to size up a person and manipulate him/her. Here's a link that I found. It's just not right for a politician to talk about dealings with a member of the Royal Family, which Diana was in association if not in law.


Tony Blair told Princess Diana her relationship with Dodi Fayed was a problem | Politics | guardian.co.uk




XeniaCasaraghi said:
I heard that William himself didn't want Tony Blair invited. It was not a state occasion or something like that. It wasn't the kind of wedding where every famous politician in England had to be invited. I recall reading that William himself didn't invite Tony Blair because of something he wrote in a book.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Ok again, there is no evidence that Charles was involved with the decision not to invite TB except the opinions of a journalist. So why blame Charles instead of William?
Click to expand...


Because William is Diana's son and Charles made her unhappy so anything negative relating to William has to be that he is being manipulated by Charles and/or Camilla whereas William has an almost permanent 'get out of gaol free card'.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Because William is Diana's son and Charles made her unhappy so anything negative relating to William has to be that he is being manipulated by Charles and/or Camilla whereas William has an almost permanent 'get out of gaol free card'.
Click to expand...


With that stated, it is all water under the bridge. It matters not because past occurences can never be undone.
 
NotHRH said:
With that stated, it is all water under the bridge. It matters not because past occurences can never be undone.
Click to expand...

Iluvbertie was answering someone's question as to why Charles would be readily 'blamed' for a perceived 'misdeed' and not William, when it was even more likely that it was William. Just saying what the context was for the comment.
 
Last edited:
XeniaCasaraghi said:
Ok again, there is no evidence that Charles was involved with the decision not to invite TB except the opinions of a journalist. So why blame Charles instead of William?
Click to expand...

IIRC when planning the wedding, Charles and Camilla had a certain number of people that they could include along with HM and the DoE and Carole and Michael Middleton with the majority of guests decided on by William and Kate themselves. My point was basically that whomever was chosen to be on the guest list for the wedding would be for personal reasons only and have absolutely nothing to do with politics or political parties.
 
Nico said:
Unusual statement from Clarence House concerning the POW meeting ministers :

The Prince of Wales - Statement by Clarence House in response to media reports about The Prince of Wales meeting Government Ministers
Click to expand...

Interesting

Mermaid1962 said:
I think that Tony Blair said something about Diana, something to the effect that she was like him--able to size up a person and manipulate him/her. Here's a link that I found. It's just not right for a politician to talk about dealings with a member of the Royal Family, which Diana was in association if not in law.


Tony Blair told Princess Diana her relationship with Dodi Fayed was a problem | Politics | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...


I can see why William would not want Blair at his wedding. Shocking that a prime minister would comments on a private individual's romantic relationship and dismiss her as being "willful" for not liking what he said. Very odd.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fascinator said:
I can see why William would not want Blair at his wedding. Shocking that a prime minister would comments on a private individual's romantic relationship and dismiss her as being "willful" for not liking what he said. Very odd.
Click to expand...

I don't think its shocking - and all-in-all its a pretty insightful observation. I can certainly relate to it. There are times - even at my age :rolleyes: - when my response to someone ceases to be reasonable and conversational and becomes 'wilful'. They can tell, too - and when that happens 'friendly conversation' and a benign exchange of opinion is out the window.

Blair was giving an insight - I don't think he was doing a 'payback' - that would be odd. Its possible Diana did things even in the face of her better judgment solely because she was pushing against what she fancied she was being 'told' to do. Did she continue with Dodi because of her conversation with Blair - does that weigh on Blair's conscience? Was that what he was considering? Important insight, showing how difficult it was to reason with her - and perhaps too close to the bone for some who knew her? If William refrained from inviting Blair based on this alone (and we don't know that - or do we?) then it gives an insight into William.


Nico said:
Unusual statement from Clarence House concerning the POW meeting ministers :

The Prince of Wales - Statement by Clarence House in response to media reports about The Prince of Wales meeting Government Ministers
Click to expand...

Good to know - and I'm glad to see that they did not allow the insinuation of impropriety to stand.
 
Last edited:
I suspect there could be a number of reasons why William did not want Blair at his wedding. It could very well be out of curtesy to his grandmother.
 
I think I can speak confidently for a majority of my fellow countrymen when I say that if anything Charles did made things even a smidgeon more difficult for the disgraceful Blair and Campbell he can do whatever the heck he wants!
 
For what was posted about what Tony said about Diana, I have to say I tend to agree with it. I do think William was the one to not invite Tony; but I do think it was rather petty of him.
 
Prince William's views of Tony Blair, whatever they may be speculated to be, are not relevant to this topic.

wbenson
British Forums Moderator
 
Tony Blair has come out and said that his dealings with Charles were appropriate:

Letters: Blair and the Prince | UK news | The Guardian

I want to make it clear that I always found my discussions and correspondence with Prince Charles immensely helpful. I thought he had a perfect right to raise questions and did so in a way that was both informative and insightful.

So CH and now Blair have both said what many people realise - that Charles has a perfect right to talk to ministers and does so in an appropriate manner.
 
Charles (and later, William) need to be as au fait as possible on current affairs and a host of other matters.

Without thorough briefings, how can anyone expect HM and the two HRH discharge their duty ?
 
Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
The Attorney General has blocked the release of private letters Prince Charles sent to 7 gov depts.

Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
Attorney General calls Charles letters to gov "an exceptional case".

According to A-G, the Charles letters to gov were part of "The Prince of Wales' preparation for kingship".

Peter Hunt‏@BBCPeterHunt
Acc to A-G, without confidentiality Charles and ministers will "feel seriously inhibited from exchanging views candidly and frankly".

Acc to A-G, Charles letters "in many cases particularly frank.....There is nothing improper in the nature or content of the letters"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
645
Blog Real
Blog Real
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
504
Tatiana Maria
T
H
Royal Fears and Phobias
Replies
9
Views
1K
Biri
B
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
  • Sticky
Charities and Causes of King Charles III and the Prince's Trust 2, Sep 2022 -
Replies
13
Views
800
maria-olivia
maria-olivia

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom