The Prince of Wales Current Events 12: April 2013 - June 2019


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Video:
The Prince of Wales visited Merthyr Tydfil's Grade II listed Old Town Hall - which reopens on St David's Day as creative industries hub Redhouse. He toured the landmark building to view many of the original heritage features, as well as seeing new and modern facilities such as the Dowlais Theatre and the Y Gurnos Dance Studio-
Home - ITNSource News

Pictures:
The Prince of Wales, Colonel-in-Chief, will visit C Squadron, 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards meets troops who are training for future operations at Castlemartin Range Complex, South Pembrokeshire, Wales-
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/KRtahV4rw92/Prince+Charles+Visits+QDG+Regiment/4vpaqGsEhPq
 
Last edited:
Video:
The Attorney General's use of a ministerial veto to stop the public seeing letters the Prince of Wales wrote to government ministers has been ruled unlawful. Guardian journalist Rob Evans accused Dominic Grieve, the Government's principal legal adviser, of failing to show "reasonable grounds" for blocking disclosure. Today ITN spoke to Editor of The Guardian newspaper Alan Rusbridger, Graham Smith, Pro-republic Campaigner and Conservative MPJacob Rees-Moggs. .
Home - ITNSource News

Prince Charles's letters to Government ministers could be made public after 'unlawful' veto to block them is overturned-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...less-letters-Government-ministers-public.html
 
I was always taught that letters not addressed to me I should not read. :whistling:
 
Video:
Block on Prince Charles's letters 'unlawful'-
BBC News - Block on Prince Charles's letters 'unlawful'

Audio:
Charles letters will 'clarify role of monarchy' - The Guardian-
BBC News - Charles letters will 'clarify role of monarchy' - The Guardian

Attorney general's block on Prince Charles's letters ruled unlawful-
BBC News - Attorney general's block on Prince Charles's letters ruled unlawful

I may be alone in this, I would actually like to hear and read about Charles's real thoughts and feelings on certain issues.
 
I don't agree as he is the future monarch and his views should be kept private just as The Queen's views are private. Once his views are made public his position as future King is effectively compromised as his views will be in the public domain so when they differ from the government's how can he then support the government of the day.

He wrote these letters believing he was free to express his views and that they wouldn't be made public in his lifetime and that should still be the case.

I also fear that it could see him forced to stand down as the next king and possibly even end the monarchy - which after all is the aim of The Guardian.
 
I support Rusbridger on this, and the republican spokesman, Graham Smith. Charles is entitled to his own private views, but he should either keep them to himself or tell the world, not try to use his position to try to influence the government in secret correspondence. If people have complaints and want politicians to do something, they should tell their local member or opposition representative or a professional lobbyist, not Prince Charles.

It seems that the 2010 changes to the Freedom of Information Act now protect the RF and give them "complete freedom to lobby the government in secret and on whatever issue they choose", which I think is appalling, but the letters in question were written long before then and should be made available.
 
The monarch and heir to the throne have written lots of letters to the monarch under the clear understanding that their views weren't going to be made public while they were alive. This has been the tradition going back centuries.

Charles was writing letters under this understanding - that they wouldn't be made public - but now letters written with the understanding that they wouldn't be made public during his lifetime are possibly going to be published.

Effectively this means that Charles will in all likelihood have to step aside as the future monarch as no matter what is in the letters it expresses his views on any number of issues and the views of the monarch are supposed to be private.

Charles simply can't be King with his views in the public domain. As soon as any of these letters are made public his position is compromised and that means that no government can have confidence in him.

Constitutionally he has had the right to express his views to the ministers with the clear understanding that there were to be kept private and now the ball posts have changed.

Had the expectation been, when Charles wrote the letters, that they would be made public at some time in his lifetime then I am sure that he would have written different letters.

I also feel that there is some different interpretation in law taking place here - when Hewitt tried to sell Diana's letters the courts ruled that he could sell the letters but that Diana still owned the copyright to the words on the paper as she wrote them. Why is this different for Charles - if the writer has to approve the publication of letters as they wrote them then that should apply to all writers, especially when that person wrote the letters in the expectation that they wouldn't be published while that person was alive.

Seems to be retrospective legislation going on - one rule applied when the letters were written but not the rule has been changed retrospectively and that is never right in my opinion.
 
Hmm, this is all abit Catch 22 for me - at the moment I have confidence in Charles and his opinions more so than my elected representatives. However, are the letters controvertial? Do they depict a despotic state of mind or someone with dangerous political ideaology? Are they simply rambling words of nonsense? Do they compromise the security of the country? Is there anything contained in the letters that would show Charles to be unsuitable or un-fit for the role of monarch?
Most likely I would imagine they ask for eco-friendly houses to be built or some other benign suggestion.
Nonetheless, this whole affair has the potential to cast doubt to one degree or another - I'd rather not know what is contained in the letters and I wish I didn't know they existed, but they do exist and we are being tantalised by that knowledge.
 
Jacknch said:
Hmm, this is all abit Catch 22 for me - at the moment I have confidence in Charles and his opinions more so than my elected representatives. However, are the letters controvertial? Do they depict a despotic state of mind or someone with dangerous political ideaology? Are they simply rambling words of nonsense? Do they compromise the security of the country? Is there anything contained in the letters that would show Charles to be unsuitable or un-fit for the role of monarch?
Most likely I would imagine they ask for eco-friendly houses to be built or some other benign suggestion.
Nonetheless, this whole affair has the potential to cast doubt to one degree or another - I'd rather not know what is contained in the letters and I wish I didn't know they existed, but they do exist and we are being tantalised by that knowledge.
Click to expand...
I think many of us fear that no matter how tempered the letters are, they will be shown in the worst possible light with things taken out of context to make it seem Charles was meddling where he should not. This is going to get very ugly, very fast.
 
:previous:
Any member of the public can write a letter to politician expressing their concerns. It's just who it is thats the problem. Should joe public letters to MPs be published. The answer would be no.
 
AdmirerUS said:
I think many of us fear that no matter how tempered the letters are, they will be shown in the worst possible light with things taken out of context to make it seem Charles was meddling where he should not. This is going to get very ugly, very fast.
Click to expand...

He's had a reputation for meddling for decades. The public will just get to judge the extent of it fairly now.
 
scooter said:
He's had a reputation for meddling for decades. The public will just get to judge the extent of it fairly now.
Click to expand...

They are only meddling if the minister in question allows the Prince's letters to influence his/her decision and policy.

Charles has no power to force any changes (with the exception of his veto of legislation affecting the Duchy). Ministers are at liberty to ignore his letters in the same way they ignore anyone else's.
 
I don't understand the focus on the letters. There are many ways to influence legislators, including phone calls, personal meetings, etc... If they turn over letters now, Charles or and other royals so inclined will simply get on the telephone in the future.

I also don't understand why Charles's letters are "considered meddling." He's voluntarily paid taxes for decades and he should have the same rights as any other citizen and taxpayer. I agree he's more influential because of his status, but how is that any different from various celebrities who lobby the government. For example, Diana certainly tried to influence government policy on landmines. Charles is also a major employers and the leader of major charity.
 
I highly doubt Charles will be having these conversations on the phone which would be easily hacked. Having 'private topic' conversations on the phone that he didn't want written down and on the record bit him hard with Camilllagate.
 
Letters no longer being private, phones unsafe because of hacking. What's next? Voter's choices will be registered, tallied and published. The public has a right to know everything about everybody.

Charles' letters being made public is scary in that respect. I can also see how it would affect him having an apolitical stance as a monarch. On the positive side, the fact that there are letters tells me this is a man that didn't just idly putter in his garden or whisper sweet nothings to trees. I believe from the article that most of the letters were during a specific time period (2004-2005 I think) and were of a specific nature dealing with a specific issue.

If there was some kind of cover up or conspiracy to commit fraud or held a threat, there would be a legal base for the letters to be entered into evidence or perhaps the public domain. If these letters are to be made public just because its a chance for the public to get a glimpse of the now somewhat famous spider letters, I think its an invasion of Charles' privacy.

I really don't see it ever happening.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The monarch and heir to the throne have written lots of letters to the monarch under the clear understanding that their views weren't going to be made public while they were alive. This has been the tradition going back centuries.

Charles was writing letters under this understanding - that they wouldn't be made public - but now letters written with the understanding that they wouldn't be made public during his lifetime are possibly going to be published.

Effectively this means that Charles will in all likelihood have to step aside as the future monarch as no matter what is in the letters it expresses his views on any number of issues and the views of the monarch are supposed to be private.

Charles simply can't be King with his views in the public domain. As soon as any of these letters are made public his position is compromised and that means that no government can have confidence in him.

Constitutionally he has had the right to express his views to the ministers with the clear understanding that there were to be kept private and now the ball posts have changed.

Had the expectation been, when Charles wrote the letters, that they would be made public at some time in his lifetime then I am sure that he would have written different letters.

I also feel that there is some different interpretation in law taking place here - when Hewitt tried to sell Diana's letters the courts ruled that he could sell the letters but that Diana still owned the copyright to the words on the paper as she wrote them. Why is this different for Charles - if the writer has to approve the publication of letters as they wrote them then that should apply to all writers, especially when that person wrote the letters in the expectation that they wouldn't be published while that person was alive.

Seems to be retrospective legislation going on - one rule applied when the letters were written but not the rule has been changed retrospectively and that is never right in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's a ****storm, isn't it!

And a damn good argument in favour of a republic.

All wrapped up in one neat little package.
 
Last edited:
Roslyn said:
It's a ****storm, isn't it!

And a damn good argument in favour of a republic, all wrapped up in one neat little package.
Click to expand...

I suspect you may be overegging it! :flowers:
 
Roslyn said:
I don't think anyone should underestimate the significance of this issue.
Click to expand...

It is very significant I think. What it is boiling down to is that the communications of a future monarch will be released to the public domain. It would rank right up there now with all the meetings between The Queen and her Prime Minister being made public record. As the Head of State, HM is to be apolitical and not involved with matters of government and in this regards, she's never taking sides. She may have her own personal leanings in these matters but they are never expressed nor does HM ever vote in an election. Its my understanding that the rest of the BRF are able to vote but they opt out. Charles, over the years, has used private communications with various ministers to privately express his concerns and views on matters and he's perfectly in his right to do so. These letters very well could pinpoint his political views and should they become public, there's no way that in the future he'll ever be considered an apolitical King which is very necessary. I think this is the point that Iluvbertie was putting across.

I'm wondering why we've not heard anything from Clarence House on how Charles feels about all of this. It may well turn out that Charles will review the communications and perhaps have them released to the public domain with his permission. He would be very careful that none of the letters were expressing political views or anything that could be deemed political in nature.

This will be an interesting issue to follow.
 
Iluvbertie said:
The monarch and heir to the throne have written lots of letters to the monarch under the clear understanding that their views weren't going to be made public while they were alive. This has been the tradition going back centuries.

Charles was writing letters under this understanding - that they wouldn't be made public - but now letters written with the understanding that they wouldn't be made public during his lifetime are possibly going to be published.

Effectively this means that Charles will in all likelihood have to step aside as the future monarch as no matter what is in the letters it expresses his views on any number of issues and the views of the monarch are supposed to be private.

Charles simply can't be King with his views in the public domain. As soon as any of these letters are made public his position is compromised and that means that no government can have confidence in him.

Constitutionally he has had the right to express his views to the ministers with the clear understanding that there were to be kept private and now the ball posts have changed.

Had the expectation been, when Charles wrote the letters, that they would be made public at some time in his lifetime then I am sure that he would have written different letters.

I also feel that there is some different interpretation in law taking place here - when Hewitt tried to sell Diana's letters the courts ruled that he could sell the letters but that Diana still owned the copyright to the words on the paper as she wrote them. Why is this different for Charles - if the writer has to approve the publication of letters as they wrote them then that should apply to all writers, especially when that person wrote the letters in the expectation that they wouldn't be published while that person was alive.

Seems to be retrospective legislation going on - one rule applied when the letters were written but not the rule has been changed retrospectively and that is never right in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The difference is that in 2000 the Freedom of Information Act came into legislation. Letters prior to that date are not available for publication, so the argument for publication is based on this legislation. It would appear that Charles was badly advised that the FOI Act would not apply to him.
 
Osipi said:
It is very significant I think. What it is boiling down to is that the communications of a future monarch will be released to the public domain. It would rank right up there now with all the meetings between The Queen and her Prime Minister being made public record. As the Head of State, HM is to be apolitical and not involved with matters of government and in this regards, she's never taking sides. She may have her own personal leanings in these matters but they are never expressed nor does HM ever vote in an election. Its my understanding that the rest of the BRF are able to vote but they opt out. Charles, over the years, has used private communications with various ministers to privately express his concerns and views on matters and he's perfectly in his right to do so. These letters very well could pinpoint his political views and should they become public, there's no way that in the future he'll ever be considered an apolitical King which is very necessary. I think this is the point that Iluvbertie was putting across.

I'm wondering why we've not heard anything from Clarence House on how Charles feels about all of this. It may well turn out that Charles will review the communications and perhaps have them released to the public domain with his permission. He would be very careful that none of the letters were expressing political views or anything that could be deemed political in nature.

This will be an interesting issue to follow.
Click to expand...

IMO, the term political is often misused or perhaps, misunderstood. A monarch cannot be seen to be party political, i.e. favouring one political party over another. There is nothing that stops a member of the RF from articulating a view on a certain topic.

Some observations:

First of all, this is not a monarch whose correspondence is potentially being revealed. The PoW is not bound by the same conventions as the monarch.

Secondly, I see nothing wrong with the PoW writing to a government minister to express his views on certain topics, unless they are party political issues. It is the duty of the minister to express his or her judgement to shape policy taking into accounts differing points of view.
The views of the PoW on issues like holistic medicine, architecture, inter-faith relations and environmental matters are well known. He has often spoken publicly on these matters.
 
muriel said:
IMO, the term political is often misused or perhaps, misunderstood. A monarch cannot be seen to be party political, i.e. favouring one political party over another. There is nothing that stops a member of the RF from articulating a view on a certain topic.
The views of the PoW on issues like holistic medicine, architecture, inter-faith relations and environmental matters are well known. He has often spoken publicly on these matters.
Click to expand...
Muriel: I think you are quite right and quite generous. The problem is that the press and a lot of people who read the press, prefer to be small minded about Royals having, much less sharing ideas.
Elizabeth, who has spent a lifetime in Christmas messages plumping for family, country, church, hard work and solid values has spoiled the country with her solid lack of public views on issues of the day. She is going to be a very hard act to follow. More so when Charles letters are shown to the public.
 
The Queen will be a hard act to follow but I think people have to brace themselves for the new reign because I think Charles will bring a new flavor and his own touches to his Kingship and people may not like it and some probably will.
 
If what is in the letters is as damaging as some fear, the new reign may not be Charles'. Over the years, especially during the wiki leaks, some of his letters have slipped out. I doubt they are only on alternative medicine, the environment and architecture.
 
scooter said:
If what is in the letters is as damaging as some fear, the new reign may not be Charles'.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. The alternative (King William and wife) is a horrifying thought.
 
cepe said:
The difference is that in 2000 the Freedom of Information Act came into legislation. Letters prior to that date are not available for publication, so the argument for publication is based on this legislation. It would appear that Charles was badly advised that the FOI Act would not apply to him.
Click to expand...

I like to think that Charles was smart enough to realise there could be a claim on his letters after this date, and was careful about what he wrote on the assumption it was possible that they could one day be revealed, though hoping they wouldn't be.

As Muriel observed, it is being party-political that is prohibited. He has expressed lots of opinions that are political in the broad sense, and continues to do so and I don't fault him for doing so. He has had to fill in his years doing something and has done it very wisely, I think.

What really rankles me about the situation is that here we have a person - be it Charles or William or George - who is in a position to influence governments, yet they are supposed to remain above politics, yet they are able to tell governments what they think in secret, thanks to the new Freedom of Information legislation protecting Royals, and without fear of their views ever being exposed. So these privileged and unelected and unaccountable people are allowed to try to influence governments to make laws which affect people without the people knowing what's been said, and that stinks to high heaven in my opinion. I believe that a person who is in line to be future monarch should either keep their trap shut about party-political issues or make them public.

Why is it worse for his views to be made public than it is to know that he his making them known to politicians in secret? I do not accept that it is. I see no reason why he should have to step down if his secretly disclosed views are in fact made public, merely because they have. It would depend on what he said and how he said it. If he has made an absolute git of himself then yes, he should step down because someone who is an absolute git should not be Head of State. As I said above, I like to think Charles is smarter than that, but let's find out. It's only letters written during a small window of time that are caught.

If he has been foolish then his indiscretion will weigh against the whole system as well as himself personally because it will again put before the public the inequity of the situation where a person is in a position of enormous privilege and influence merely by dint of having been born to the "right" person at the right time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
General News for the Wales Family 2: March 2024-
5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
30K
Blog Real
Blog Real
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Prince Daniel's Current Events, Part 4
Replies
15
Views
2K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
Iñaki Urdangarín, News and Events 1: Jan. 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Toledo
Toledo
Marengo
Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant News and Events 2, Feb 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
Prinsara
Prinsara
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
Infanta Cristina, News and Events 1: Jan, 2024 -
Replies
2
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom