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

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Comments from a few of the British online papers.

Charles to put down pen when he puts on crown
Prince Charles has accepted that his days of speaking out on contentious political subjects - and sending handwritten 'black spider' memos to ministers - must end when he becomes king.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1718383,00.html

Those are good news Skydragon :) . I'm glad he has perceived that for every action there is a reaction and he will calm down that need he has to open up so much of what's on his mind. There is nothing wrong with it, but when you are in the public's eye and there is this pattern of scandal associated with you, then by all means leave some mystery around . He was doing so well after the wedding it takes a paper or some notes to make everything fall apart like a house of cards.

[Skydragon]

Prince's 'black spider' letters

The Prince of Wales launched a three-pronged attack on the Government's Human Rights Act, including writing a series of letters to the Lord Chancellor, in one of his most overtly political campaigns, The Times has learnt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

You can read the full story and letter by clicking on the Prince's 'black spider' letters headline on the link.

[Mona]

Stotty on Sunday has done an excellent job of pointing out POW's rank hypocrisy in his attack on the Human Rights Act.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/archiv...name_page.html

[ysbel]

Hmm, that article doesn't make sense. Why would Charles have to invoke the Human Rights Act to marry Camilla? Britain already allows civil marriages; I don't see where the Human Rights Act comes into play.

I find it amusing that this guy thinks Charles is the most litigitous Briton. He obviously has overlooked Elton John who sues the tabloids at the drop of a hat. Charles and the BRF are rather late in defending themselves publicly.

[Mona]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Hmm, that article doesn't make sense. Why would Charles have to invoke the Human Rights Act to marry Camilla? Britain already allows civil marriages; I don't see where the Human Rights Act comes into play.

It makes perfect sense.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...2&id=257532005

[Skydragon]

With a name like stotty and writing for The Mirror, need I say more?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Mona

It makes perfect sense.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...2&id=257532005

Mr Cook said the relevant legislation, backed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act, did not prevent the royal marriage

I have read the article and nowhere does it say that Charles applied for anything under the Human Rights act, it just says that the registrar checked it out.

[Mona]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

I have read the article and nowhere does it say that Charles applied for anything under the Human Rights act, it just says that the registrar checked it out.

The Human Rights Act was "invoked", by both the Registrar General of England and Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, in a written statement to the House of Lords on the government's position on the legality of the marriage.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/const...424086,00.html

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Mona

The Human Rights Act was "invoked", by both the Registrar General of England and Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, in a written statement to the House of Lords on the government's position on the legality of the marriage.

What other people do on Charles' behalf but, not at his request can hardly be classed as Charles invoking the Human Rights act, except by those who like to try to show him in a bad light.

It simply does not say anywhere (because it didn't happen) that Charles invoked the Human Rights Act.

[ysbel]

Why would a Human Rights Act have to be invoked to grant permission for a Civil Marriage. Hasn't Britain had civil marriages before the Human Rights Act?

Sorry it still doesn't make sense.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Why would a Human Rights Act have to be invoked to grant permission for a Civil Marriage. Hasn't Britain had civil marriages before the Human Rights Act?

Sorry it still doesn't make sense.

They had to check whether his marriage, to a divorcee would affect his right to be King. Some people were comparing the situation with that of Edward VIII. The Diana fans suddenly got religion and were trying to object on religious grounds, saying that Camilla was still married in the eyes of the church.
Yes we had civil marriages for years before this stupid act.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

They had to check whether his marriage, to a divorcee would affect his right to be King. Some people were comparing the situation with that of Edward VIII. The Diana fans suddenly got religion and were trying to object on religious grounds, saying that Camilla was still married in the eyes of the church.
Yes we had civil marriages for years before this stupid act.

I still don't see how the Human Rights Act comes into it. How would it have jurisdiction on whether Charles could ascend the throne?

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by ysbel

I still don't see how the Human Rights Act comes into it. How would it have jurisdiction on whether Charles could ascend the throne?

Now that I don't know. To me the only people who should be able to decide what happens in the UK, are the people of the UK, normally via their elected parliament.

[HRH Kerry]

Originally Posted by ysbel

...I find it amusing that this guy thinks Charles is the most litigitous Briton. He obviously has overlooked Elton John who sues the tabloids at the drop of a hat. Charles and the BRF are rather late in defending themselves publicly.

Oh my God...so true. LOL!!!

[Skydragon]

Prince Charles Blocks Journal Publication

Prince Charles on Friday won a court judgment to block publication of further extracts from his journal, but the High Court ordered a trial to determine whether the journals should stay private — a decision that could compel Charles to testify.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060317/ap_en_...rince_charles_2

Partial victory for Prince Charles in diaries court battle

Prince Charles won a case to prevent publication of further extracts of his diaries about the handover of Hong Kong to China but still faces a legal battle over seven other journals.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060317/wl_uk...na_060317113701

Prince Charles Loses Bid to Block Publication of Some Journals

Prince Charles lost the first round of a legal bid to block the publication of some of his personal diaries.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...id=a_32.B44FZYs

[AgnesK]

Another article about court trial (this time from BBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4816268.stm

[Gladys]

From the Prince's website:

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/medi...statement.html

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Gladys

From the Prince's website:

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/medi...statement.html

Excellent!!:)

[Avalon]

That's a victory, whatever the tabloids would like to call it! :)

[AgnesK]

Originally Posted by Avalon

That's a victory, whatever the tabloids would like to call it! :)

Actually they call it victory :)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006120840,00.html