The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 03-01-2010, 03:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
No, but it doesn't set a very good precedent for what is to come.

Unfortunately for Charles, it is the position he finds himself in by accident of birth. His not a politician and it is crucial for him to at all times, remain, constitutionally prudent.
One of the constitutional roles allowed the British monarch (and her heir) is the duty to 'warn and advise' the government. As Prince Charles almost certainly had a good deal of knowledge about how farmers felt about their treatment during the foot & mouth outbreak (more so than Tony Blair or the then Mrs Quinn) he was duty bound to offer it. The only diference between himself & the Queen is that he offers advice via letter & the occasional informal meeting, whereas the Queen has an official monthly meeting with the PM and occasional meetings with other Privy Councillors.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-01-2010, 07:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
Charles certainly cannot support specific political parties, or align his thinking with those of any inidvidual political parties. However, IMO, he is entitled to put his views to the government of the day. At the end of the day, they are just his views - Ministers are not bound by the views, and do not have to accept his view. This, IMO, is constitutionally prudent.
If at any point should he wish to put his views, on whatever issues, to his government, then let it be done through his Prime Minister! Now that, is what I'd call constitutionally prudent.

Quote:
whereas the Queen has an official monthly meeting with the PM and occasional meetings with other Privy Councillors.
Exactly. And it's worked well enough for the past 58 years. If it's good enough for his mother, then I see no reason why Charles should try a more meddling, or shall we say direct, approach. That is largely considered as manhandling. And though I understand very well the points you've made above , one then wonders why the letter (mentioned on the previous page) was not infact sent if the PofW is in a position to relay his personal concerns. It would have been seen as being too political, imo. And that was quite likely to have been the concerns of his advisory team, hence the letter never being sent.

I certainly don't envy the man.
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-02-2010, 09:46 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
If at any point should he wish to put his views, on whatever issues, to his government, then let it be done through his Prime Minister! Now that, is what I'd call constitutionally prudent.



Exactly. And it's worked well enough for the past 58 years. If it's good enough for his mother, then I see no reason why Charles should try a more meddling, or shall we say direct, approach. That is largely considered as manhandling. And though I understand very well the points you've made above , one then wonders why the letter (mentioned on the previous page) was not infact sent if the PofW is in a position to relay his personal concerns. It would have been seen as being too political, imo. And that was quite likely to have been the concerns of his advisory team, hence the letter never being sent.

I certainly don't envy the man.
Are you suggesting that the PoW is not entitled to share his views with the government of the day at all, as there is no "his Prime Minister"? That makes little sense to me.

Setting out ones views on a topic to a minister is not political interference, IMO. He is not pressurising them into accepting his view, nor is he siding with one political party over another - that, IMO, is the real issue that the BRF needs to stay out of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Royale View Post
Exactly. And it's worked well enough for the past 58 years. If it's good enough for his mother, then I see no reason why Charles should try a more meddling, or shall we say direct, approach. That is largely considered as manhandling. And though I understand very well the points you've made above , one then wonders why the letter (mentioned on the previous page) was not infact sent if the PofW is in a position to relay his personal concerns. It would have been seen as being too political, imo. And that was quite likely to have been the concerns of his advisory team, hence the letter never being sent.

I certainly don't envy the man.
The monarch's consitutional position is very different from that of the PoW, so I am afraid your example has little relevance.

My view is that this was a dissaffected politician who clearly was merely trying to use the PoW to gain some publicity.

The specifics around the release of the letter are not a matter of public record and therefore, I do not believe it is prudent to discuss them at any length.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-02-2010, 02:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaFay View Post
One of the constitutional roles allowed the British monarch (and her heir) is the duty to 'warn and advise' the government. As Prince Charles almost certainly had a good deal of knowledge about how farmers felt about their treatment during the foot & mouth outbreak (more so than Tony Blair or the then Mrs Quinn) he was duty bound to offer it. The only diference between himself & the Queen is that he offers advice via letter & the occasional informal meeting, whereas the Queen has an official monthly meeting with the PM and occasional meetings with other Privy Councillors.

There is no constitutional role for the Prince of Wales and Charles is one of the least political of those who have held that title (George V was less involved during his father's reign).

Edward VII served on Parliamentary Commissions and even wanted to vote in the House of Lords on some issues but was advised against it knowing that if he voted the vote would pass but without his vote it wouldn't (and didn't - it was a Housing Bill I am thinking about).

The Queen meets with her PM every week not every month.

Charles is sent a copy of the documents that the Queen sees (unless she or the PM decide that he can't see them). I know this because when I was at the Palace in 2005 I went into the Mews and this little carriage was returning - it is the mail carriage between BP and CH and takes the documents from the Queen and the Government to Charles each day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-02-2010, 03:23 PM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
PoW's have always been controversial, at least since Queen Victoria. Its always been a balance between the wise and stoic monarch people can look up too and a unconventional PoW people can get entertainment from.
Even though I do cringe often when I hear of Charles involvements, they are nothing detrimental and I does not make me worry about his time as King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-02-2010, 11:28 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,108
When Charles becomes King, his subjects will remember what his positions on matters like GM foods, global warming, farming, fox-hunting, etc., were while he was Prince of Wales. Even if he will no longer make public statements about things, people have long memories. This is the danger. I think that, as Prince Charles comes nearer the throne due to the passage of time, he should begin to practice more restraint. What happens if he espouses an unpopular idea one day and becomes the king the next day? He is, as he always has been, "one heartbeat away from the throne."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-15-2010, 04:28 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
Prince of Wales's letters to ministers 'given priority over Cabinet business' - Telegraph

Letters from the Prince of Wales "lobbying" government ministers were treated with greater priority than Cabinet business, a tribunal was told.

The Prince engaged in the systematic “lobbying” of Cabinet ministers in an attempt to influence various government policies through a barrage of private letters, the Freedom of Information tribunal heard.

The tribunal is being asked to rule on whether the private letters to several Cabinet ministers should be publicly released for the first time.

Prince Charles letters go to top of ministers' in-trays, says ex-adviser | UK news | The Guardian

Prince Charles's letters to government ministers go "to the top of the pile" and are "treated with great reverence", a former government special adviser told an information tribunal appeal today.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-15-2010, 12:38 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,728
This baroness is just trying to shut Charles up. He has more influence than most realize. He also influences through his sons, as they appear to be pretty much in line with his leanings.

This woman simply does not have enough to do. She needs to do a little more stumping and a lot less opining.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-15-2010, 03:08 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
Prince Charles's 'crusading' forfeits right to confidentiality, says expert | UK news | The Guardian

Prince Charles forfeited any constitutional right for his letters to government ministers to remain confidential when he surrendered his political neutrality, an information tribunal appeal heard today.

The fact that he had "gone considerably out of his way deliberately to draw the public's attention to his political views", meant there was "no sound reason in constitutional convention as to why his political correspondence with ministers should remain confidential", said a leading expert.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-16-2010, 12:14 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,578
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.

These people socialize together, dinner parties, theartre, etc. and we would all be naive in the extreme if we thought that all Bills passed were as a direct result of the totally unbiased MPs working for the good of mankind. MP's lobby for their constituencies, party members lobby their MP's trying to influence their votes.

If Charles writes letters so be it. He has as much chance as anyone else in being heard but, the fact that his letters are read and can sway thought only leads me to believe that what he writes is worth reading, is well referenced and credible.

Let's face it, we've rubbished previous members of royalty who were merely dilettantes and we know Charles is not trying to gain political or financial benifit from his "lobbying". A pure heart (politically) doesn't make him right all the time but it does give him, and those he lobbies for, an edge!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-16-2010, 12:31 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,108
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-02-2011, 09:28 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
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.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-03-2011, 09:42 AM
Nico's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,214
But surprisingly enough the DM readers comments are mainly pro Charles this time...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-03-2011, 09:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
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.

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-03-2011, 09:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:27 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 184
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-03-2011, 04:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSENYC View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-03-2011, 07:11 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 184
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.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ervatives-fear
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-03-2011, 08:16 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,161
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.
__________________

__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sheikh state visit wedding willem-alexander william


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

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV 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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]