Prince Charles's Diaries and the Court Case: 2006-2007

[Elspeth]

This is some surprising news. Tony Blair has defended Prince Charles for airing his political views.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/23/britain.charles/index.html

Somehow I can't imagine that he would and I'm curious as to why.

Me too. The Blair government has been somewhat like the Thatcher government in regarding Prince Charles as a loose cannon that needs to be secured. This reaction from Blair seems disturbingly out of character.

 

[Toledo]

I don't feel sorry for Charles, he has an ability to say (and write) things that end up hitting him on the face. He is too much like his father, but with Prince Phillip you can always use the excuse of his advanced age to forgive his mishaps comments a little. Charles knows better than that.

The one I feel really sorry if for his mother, the Queen. Every time there is some degree of peace in her life and the Windors are out of the tabloid frenzy, there goes one of her kids or relatives to get the whole clan in trouble.

 

[Skydragon]

Skydragon, you are perfectly right of course. I confused them. My fault.

No problem Avalon.


I feel Charles should be cut some slack. I'm sure we all write or email our friends when we get home from holiday or visiting and sometimes what we put, might be offensive to the person or place we are writing about.

He wasn't trying to influence anything, just putting his thoughts down on a long and boring flight.

He is allowed to have private thoughts you know!

 

[AgnesK]

I don't feel sorry for Charles, he has an ability to say (and write) things that end up hitting him on the face. He is too much like his father, but with Prince Phillip you can always use the excuse of his advanced age to forgive his mishaps comments a little. Charles knows better than that.

Writing that China regime is awful in private journal - that you call "mishaps comments" ? Very odd view indeed.

 

[Skydragon]

Writing that China regime is awful in private journal - that you call "mishaps comments" ? Very odd view indeed.

You said it yourself - private journal.

This is a public forum and we all comment on (not too nicely at times) members of the royal families and their friends.
Charles hasn't done that, he wrote his personal thoughts in a personal journal, such as a lot of people do.

Surely, unless it affects national security Charles should also be allowed what we all hope to enjoy, our own private thoughts?

 

[Warren]

Writing that China regime is awful in private journal - that you call "mishaps comments" ? Very odd view indeed.

Just imagine if Charles's journal, instead of criticising, extolled the virtues of the Chinese Communist Party leadership. Then we'd really have something to worry about.
Instead he wrote what probably every Western diplomat was saying in their despatches home at the time.

 

[melissajames]

What Charles writes in his own private diary is his business.
Don't understand what the fuss is about.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, the fuss is about the fact that, since he circulated his writings to some of his friends, it's being argued that the diaries weren't in fact private.

 

[melissajames]

Well, the fuss is about the fact that, since he circulated his writings to some of his friends, it's being argued that the diaries weren't in fact private.

Imo these writings are private.

Charles chose to share them with a selected few (and unfortunately one person he had trusted had sold him out).

He did not deliberately 'leak' his views to the papers, the man who betrayed him did. This imo does not change the fact that these thoughts are private.

He is entitled to have thoughts, opinions and share them with others just like any person on the street. I think its important to seperate the person (Prince Charles) from his role (PoW).

 

[BeatrixFan]

Charles's image has been massively improved. On Question Time last night, every member of the Panel and audience who spoke praised him and said what a brilliant job he does and how pleased they were to hear a member of the RF speaking with intelligence and keeping the politicians in order! This hasn't done Charles any harm at all.

 

[ysbel]

People that do a lot of public speaking often keep diaries to help them put their thoughts into words. I do a bit of public speaking and I have kept a journal for years. The idea of a private journal is brainstorming or just getting the idea on paper without making a judgment on it so its a pretty useless tool if you censor your journal. I have written some worse things than Charles has but it was all in getting the ideas out on paper so I could work them out. I have no intention for saying aloud some of the things I wrote in my journal because my ideas and thinking have evolved since I wrote them but they were a useful step in developing my thinking and ability to explain my ideas as they evolved.

The one thing I would fault Charles for is circulating his diary among friends. Even close friends are not a good judge of the stream-of-consciousness writings that a journal produces. In fact a class I took on journal writing heavily discouraged students from sharing their journals. One classmate even burned each day's pages right after she wrote them. If a friend gives you feedback (even positive feedback) on the ideas written in your journal before you've had a chance to work through them, it can literally stop the process of developing your ideas in full. Thoughts and ideas need an incubation period before they are ready for the world.

There is a time for sharing thoughts and ideas but best practice is not to share them by sharing pages of the diaries. Instead, write a paper or make a speech that was developed for a particular audience. The only audience for a private diary should be the person writing it.

I would hazard to guess that this practice of distributing his diary to friends may be one reason Charles' public speaking is so uneven. Sometimes he does a brilliant job and makes his point clearly and impactfully. Sometimes his comments do sound like they're halfway thought out probably because they were especially if he distributed them to his friends before he had the chance to get the kinks out.

 

[Skydragon]

I don't think Charles writes his journal to work out what he is going to use in a public speech. It is just his thoughts on what he has just done or is about to do.
It should be remembered that it wasn't a friend who betrayed him.

Sara Goodall, a secretary to Bolland, was asked in her capacity as a secretary, to make a number of copies for Charles to send to selected friends. She made herself extra copies on a regular basis, with a view to selling them and making money, not 'in the public interest'. Imagine if every secretary did something similar.

I see no problem with Charles sending his 'take on things' to his friends, we all do the same. I certainly send copies of my thoughts on a particular function to friends that did not attend and they send me theirs if the situation is reversed.

Mellisajames is correct in her assertion that we should separate Charles, the man from Charles, The Prince of Wales.

 

[ysbel]

I don't think Charles writes his journal to work out what he is going to use in a public speech. It is just his thoughts on what he has just done or is about to do.

Well unless Charles tells us, we don't know why he writes his diaries. I just offered a possible suggestion based on the habits of people who do a lot of public speaking. But even public speakers don't use all of a diary as raw material for their speeches; its a tool for getting thoughts down on paper and clarifying them. A by-product of that is better public speaking which is why a lot of public figures keep diaries.

I write down my thoughts and share them with friends also. In fact, everyone of us on this forum is sharing our writings with each other when we post here. But I don't post my journal writing, again because it wasn't meant for this forum to read; it was meant for myself. I don't share imy journal with friends either but I share ideas that I've developed through my journals. But I rewrite them and they look a lot better and more coherent that the journal writings themselves.

Or maybe Charles has a totally different use for his diaries and their main purpose is for disseminating his ideas to his circle of friends. In that case, the writings are not really that private. If the main purpose is as a private journal then I don't see where the paper or Bolland has a case.

 

[Skydragon]

Well unless Charles tells us, we don't know why he writes his diaries. I just offered a possible suggestion based on the habits of people who do a lot of public speaking.

I think here it is the use of the word journal. Perhaps it should all read that:-

Prince Charles wrote a 'round robin' to friends, about his journey and recent visit to China'. Like most of us at Christmas, he copied the 12 page letter and then put the name of each person after the Dear ?? and signed them personally before arranging for them to be posted to said like minded friends.



In his writings, it would appear that he writes his thoughts on what he has done and his feelings about the situation.

 

[BeatrixFan]

The way I see it is that if I send Skydragon a letter then I intend for it only to be read by her and if a newspaper prints it then it is an invasion of privacy, whether I sent it to numerous people or not. The same is true with Charles. The content was meant for those the document was addressed to - not for the newspapers and by them printing it, they have invaded his privacy.

 

[Skydragon]

The way I see it is that if I send Skydragon a letter then I intend for it only to be read by her and if a newspaper prints it then it is an invasion of privacy, whether I sent it to numerous people or not. The same is true with Charles. The content was meant for those the document was addressed to - not for the newspapers and by them printing it, they have invaded his privacy.

Blo*dy well said BeatrixFan.

 

[ysbel]

I think here it is the use of the word journal. Perhaps it should all read that:-

Prince Charles wrote a 'round robin' to friends, about his journey and recent visit to China'. Like most of us at Christmas, he copied the 12 page letter and then put the name of each person after the Dear ?? and signed them personally before arranging for them to be posted to said like minded friends.



In his writings, it would appear that he writes his thoughts on what he has done and his feelings about the situation.

I agree, skydragon. I think the term journal (or diary as its being called in the press) is a bit misleading.

But I think letters aren't protected under the same legal tenets as diaries. Recently a bunch of letters that the Queen wrote to the midwives at her children's birth were put up for auction. I seem to remember that the Queen had no legal recourse for privacy once the letters were sent. Not that she claimed any as far as I know.

If Charles sent the letters to Bolland and Sara Goddall because they were two of the intended recepients and then Bolland and Goddall published them, it looks like Charles would have no legal recourse but if Charles just intended for Bolland and Sara Goodall to type up or edit the manuscripts before he sent them out to his friends (the real intended recepients), then they weren't the intended recepients and it looks like they had no right to publish the letters.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Skydragon]

If Charles sent the letters to Bolland and Sara Goddall because they were two of the intended recepients and then Bolland and Goddall published them, it looks like Charles would have no legal recourse but if Charles just intended for Bolland and Sara Goodall to type up or edit the manuscripts before he sent them out to his friends (the real intended recipients), then they weren't the intended recepients and it looks like they had no right to publish the letters.

Hope that makes sense.

It does indeed. .
Goodall and Bolland were office employees, Goodall was asked to photocopy the letters/journals. Neither she or Bolland were ever given their own copies.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Didn't the courts rule, in relation to Diana's letters to James Hewitt, that the letters itself belonged to Hewitt but the actual words still belonged to Diana.

Hewitt wanted to publish the letters but Diana's estate sought to stop it and that was the ruling as I remember it.

If so how can Charles' writings, not sent for publication, be treated any differently?

With regard to the Queen's letters, how do we know she didn't give her consent for them to be published? Did she indicate that she was upset? If so I must have missed it. (A clear possibility of course!!)

 

[Oppie]

I don't think the Queen's letters were ever published. Whoever recived the letter is allowed to sell them, but the words can not be republished because the copyright belongs to whoever wrote them.

For example you can write somewhere Oppie resoponded on a thread about Prince Charles and his journals but you can't re-post what I said without my consent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The letters being referred to here are the ones she sent to the nanny or someone like that yonks ago and they were put up for sale within the last month or so.

Quite a bit of them were published with comments about Prince Charles at two.

This is a link that shows the contents of the letters.

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/01/09/10010501.html

 

[love_cc]

The press just never allows Prince Charles to have any privacy. They are interested in everything of him. Again, the purpose to publish his writing is to sell more copies and embrass Prince Charles publicly. The media always does this to Prince Charles. No matter what he wrote, the press had no right to publish his writing without his permission. Prince Charles wanted his close circle to share his thoughts not the public and he preserves this right like other ordinary citizens.It is brave for Prince Charles to use legal suit although the disclosure may cost him badly. No matter how many people in his circle read the his journals, Prince Charles still holds the right of the confidentiality of his personal jounal without being published.

However, he shall learn from this lesson and never circulate his private writing again. The times has changed and the press is no more friendly towards the royal family. The tabolids just want to increase copies and they don't care about any of their feelings.
Finally, I felt sorry about what Prince Charles wrote in his journal about his thoughts about Chinese leaders and Chinese army. It proves that he is truly an arrogant person sometimes towards whom he dislikes. It is a big embrassment to himself and a rude and insulting language to people in other countries.

I guess I understood why he had such feeling, aparting from his misunderstanding and mistrust of Chinese regime and Chinese army, it was an embrassment for him to attend such a handover ceremony. Prince Charles was just such a person who holds very high self-estem about his identity and his country. "Such is the end of the empire", this is his painful feeling about his position as the heir apprent. He honors his country and the royal family but he had to see the falling influence of his country and his family, which damages his pride in many apects.

 

[ysbel]

Hmmm, this is interesting. I wonder if we have a lawyer or paralegal on the board who could share some insight.

In the U.S. there have been several emails, etc. published without the owner's consent but they were evidence in court cases. It would be interesting to know what the legal rights a receiver of a letter has in regards to the letter. I mean if they retain ownership of the letters, they could put the letter on exhibition and if a photo of the letter on exhibition were published, would that be the same as publishing the letter?

 

[Toledo]

The lesson for Prince Charles to learn is not to trust anyone with things like that. Makes me wonder if the person who sold him out got some money retribution from the tabloid to spill the story out. Charles in entitled to have an opinion like we all do, is just that for a man in his position he should be more careful on the things he writes and in what hands they could fall into.
Maybe he can learn a thing or two from Camilla, she leaves everyone intrigued since, much like the Queen, she knows to be careful with what comments come out of her mouth. A little bit of tact and caution is what both Charles and kids need to learn from these two ladies.

 

[sara1981]

Charles ' a poor judge when hiring aides'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TRLZDPVET5W53QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/25/nchas25.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/25/ixhome.html

BLAIR'S SLAP FOR CHARLES
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16741460%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=blair%2ds%2dslap%2dfor%2dcharles-name_page.html

 

[Skydragon]

This comment was made by Blair, with a grin, it was supposed to be funny but, the mirror, chooses to portray it as sarcastic.

from the mirror.
Asked at a Downing Street press conference about the comments, Mr Blair said sarcastically: "I don't know if I can answer that question until I've had the focus group."

This is how the BBC saw the same remark.

Blair says Charles' views helpful

Prince Charles is "perfectly entitled" to voice opinions or privately lobby ministers, the prime minister has said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4742412.stm

 

[Warren]

In regard to "interfering in politics", since when has a comment about current architectural styles, or organic farming practices, or the Western World's preoccupation with political correctness been "political"? Is saying that a new building looks like a concrete bunker an attack on the government of the day? Hardly.

If Charles was button-holing every Minister and Labor pollie he came across, or demanding private sessions with Ministers to discuss specific issues relating to their portfolios, that could be construed as "interference". But writing a letter?

Ministers and Mandarins trembling with trepidation because they have received a letter from the Prince of Wales? Sounds like an episode of Yes Minister.

 

[Toledo]

The inmediate problem I see for the Queen is that Charles' actions could pressure the government to go ahead and strip the monarch of all her most important symbolic duties, like we read these past few days. If Charles does not cool off for the next few months and insist in mixing monarchy with political influence, it will back fire. Before you know the House of Windsor could become like the extremely controlled by an heavy politicized agency like the Imperial House of Japan is.

 

[ysbel]

The lesson for Prince Charles to learn is not to trust anyone with things like that.

Well, Toledo, it looks like Charles chose his friends well, none of them have run to the press trying to publish the letters. I agree he does need to be more careful about who he hires but if Bolland and Goodall were in it together, they seem to be a rare occurrence among his staff.

What amazes me about this situation is how Charles' standing with the public has changed recently. Previously some people decided that they didn't like Charles so anything he did-no matter how innocuous-was used as a sign of lack of character, stupidity, arrogance, etc. and most people would believe it. Same thing with Camilla. I've know other royals get the same nasty treatment for the most innocuous words and actions and even how they looked at somebody. People already had their mind up they didn't like so-and-so therefore, they kept repeating the same old stuff whether or not it was relevant or even true.

But now for Charles and Camilla, surprisingly that is starting to change a bit. And as Elspeth and I noticed, the most surprising development is that Tony Blair has come out defending Charles. Blair is not the type of politician to say or do anything if it wasn't in Tony Blair's own best interests to do so, whatever he might privately think of Charles, so for him to come out and speak for Charles is highly significant.

It's an interesting turn of events.

 

[Skydragon]

The inmediate problem I see for the Queen is that Charles' actions could pressure the government to go ahead and strip the monarch of all her most important symbolic duties, like we read these past few days. If Charles does not cool off for the next few months and insist in mixing monarchy with political influence, it will back fire. .

If you read everything from the papers and newsdesks that has been posted on just TRF, you will see that Charles has never attempted to use his position to gain political influence. He has written on various matters, to various ministers, much the same as we all do.

The government does not see a problem, immediate or otherwise, so why would they decide to strip the monarch of her purely symbolic duties. The monarch has no say in how the country is run, (sadly), in the first place. What are they going to do, say 'you can't open parliament'?