Prince Charles's diaries and the court case

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ysbel

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Blo*dy well said BeatrixFan.

[chrissy57]

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.

[chrissy57]

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.../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.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Toledo

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]

Originally Posted by ysbel

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.

It is amazing how ordinary Brits will fight to guard their privacy and will be vocal in defending the privacy of others. On one of the other non royal discussion groups I read, the majority out of the 400+ responses have been in support of Charles' right to privacy.

As for Tony, he is desperate that when he becomes Sir Tony, HRH doesnt slip and cut his head off.

[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.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by 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. .

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'?

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

...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'?

Unfortunately, Skydragon, that's a start. The match to fire up a strong pro-republic movement to take strenght. And you and I probably don't want to see that ever happen. Prince Charles needs to be in touch and pay more attention to the people he has (?) as public relation agents. Image is everything whether you are a royal, a politician running for office, a sports figure or a celebrity in general. If his actions tarnish that image a little then all the king's horses and all the king's men could not put the House of Windsor together again!

9:34 am over here: I got to get going and start the weekend duties, I'll stop back tonight.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Unfortunately, Skydragon, that's a start. The match to fire up a strong pro-republic movement to take strenght. And you and I probably don't want to see that ever happen. Prince Charles needs to be in touch and pay more attention to the people he has (?) as public relation agents. Image is everything whether you are a royal, a politician running for office, a sports figure or a celebrity in general. If his actions tarnish that image a little and all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put the House of Windsor together again!

I think the general concensus is that he has significantly enhanced his image, ordinary people, who elect mp's and Blair, feel that Charles is speaking out for them.
Luckily Charles did listen when he was finally warned that Goodall and Bolland were 'snakes in the grass' but, as I said, it is very difficult in this country to dismiss someone.
I feel that Charles had to take a stand against allowing the press to publish his private thoughts and win or lose, he has already won the hearts and minds of many who have, in the past been maligned by the press.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I think the general concensus is that he has significantly enhanced his image, ordinary people, who elect mp's and Blair, feel that Charles is speaking out for them.

Well I don't know if Tony Blair thinks Charles speaks out for him; but its interesting he came out in defense of him. The monarchy has been cut down more under Blair than any other prime minister including Thatcher who the Queen did not get along with.

It looks like Blair's best interest would be in cutting down Charles' reputation so that he can assume more power but somehow with this incident, he decided it wasn't in his best interest.

I would agree with you that Charles' reputation has been enhanced regarding his opnions. When he and Camilla toured the U.S. several reports mentioned that Charles' ideas that a few years ago seemed so far fetched and not in touch with the real world had been adopted more and more. His concerns with architecture, organic farming, environment are the same concerns of some powerful groups in several countries.

I don't think more acceptance worldwide of organic farming, etc. is all because of Charles but he is gaining grudging respect of being on the cusp of some important movements. The reception he got in California was less because of his royal status than it was because the people there who do take these issues seriously considered him one of their own.