Charles adopted dissident role

Sould the monarch be...

  • deaf and dumb?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • switched on and vocal?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#1
[align=center]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4734798.stm
[/align]


I was reading the Evening Standard on the way home and it was whittering on about Charles not being meant to have a political opinion constitutionally, either as heir apparent or when he takes up the throne/crown. I was pondering this both historically and in regard to the 'constitution'. I think that as far as the constitution goes (and something about it not being worth the paper its written on springs to mind!!!) the heir and the monarch are perfectly within their rights to hold an opinion but it should be none partisan, i.e. not based by an affiliation to a particular party. That the 'opinion' (read policy or potential policy) may be held by this party or that is totally irrelevant, so long as this opinion is independent of party politics. If a particular party and the person concerned converge on some opinions this should be considered at worse coincedence, at best the right and correct course. The convention, constitutionally speaking, of a monarch and/or heir remaining silent on what could be considered political matters is of course quite recent. One might also add that the 'Mass Media' is also relatively recent, i.e. The Web, TV, Radio, even the mass press (and the ability of the masses to read!!!). I am sure that the monarch always had an opinion, its just we plebs never knew it.
 
#2
It's probably that he's entitled to a viewpoint, as long as it's authorised by St Tony (can't have any thought crimes now...)
 
#3
Of course he has an opinion,he just is not allowed to broadcast it!Unlike us who are supposed to have the right(not in Tony'smind) to freedom of speech.He has not!
 
#5
Let's face it - the man's a clown! Pray God he pops his clogs before his mother.
 
#6
Out of respect for the Dalai Lama, Prince Charles boycotted a 1999 Chinese embassy banquet because he sees himself as a "dissident" who can influence opinion, a court heard on Tuesday.

The revelation came from Charles' former assistant private secretary Mark Bolland who told London's High Court he had tried to "dampen down" the Prince's attempts to speak on controversial and political issues because to do so was unconstitutional.
"Dissident" Charles snubbed Chinese banquet

Fair play to the man - at least he has the balls to do what he thinks is right, regardless.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#7
Queensman said:
Let's face it - the man's a clown! Pray God he pops his clogs before his mother.
As a certain Greek once said to me...

'Better a fool amongst Kings, than a King amongst fools'
 
#8
Good on him! If anyone wants to point to unelected clowns spouting off at the taxpayers expense, look no further than the Attorney General and the so-called Lord Chancellor! Minister (Armed Forces) for Procurement - another Tony Crony and Labour Party bankroller. The list goes on....
 
#9
At least Chazza has worn the Queen's uniform (it is his mum's after all, and will be his). So he has earned a greater right to speak on military matters than the entire Government.
 
#10
Somehow, in this day and age, I cannot see any constitutional risk in Chas having his say. There will be no 2nd coming of Ollie Cromwell because of it. Whilst much of what he says gets twisted by the little runts who run off to the medja and bubble him, the idea that he is not a horse who will drink when led to water is a good one. Bully for him say I.
 
#11
This was Charles' private journal and only shown to a few people. He is intitled to have views and to the protection of copy right. Newspapers aren't entitled to hold onto his property or quote large slabs of his journal without permission.
 
#13
Steamywindow said:
The poll is missing option 3 "binned as an embarassment to a democracy"
I'm sure I'll get stick for this but I've always been of the opinion that the worse person to be a politician is someone who wants to be a politician.

I like the idea of a Head of State purely by accident of birth to over see those who actively seek power.
 
#14
PsyWar.Org said:
Steamywindow said:
The poll is missing option 3 "binned as an embarassment to a democracy"
I'm sure I'll get stick for this but I've always been of the opinion that the worse person to be a politician is someone who wants to be a politician.

I like the idea of a Head of State purely by accident of birth to over see those who actively seek power.
OK, but why do we have to fund the bastard's? And couldn't we have one by random selection, like juries?
 
#15
If he wants to air his views he can stand for election as a private citizen. Can't have it both ways - privelige and privacy. Mutually exclusive in my book.
 
#16
Steamywindow said:
PsyWar.Org said:
Steamywindow said:
The poll is missing option 3 "binned as an embarassment to a democracy"
I'm sure I'll get stick for this but I've always been of the opinion that the worse person to be a politician is someone who wants to be a politician.

I like the idea of a Head of State purely by accident of birth to over see those who actively seek power.
OK, but why do we have to fund the fatherless's? And couldn't we have one by random selection, like juries?
Interesting point here, if a bit off track. The Civil List (i.e. our "funding" of the monarchy) costs each British taxpayer something like 63 pence per year. The Crown Estate alone puts well over £170million into the economy through the rents raised on Royal lands. Ever since Parliament took over control of the Royal purse strings, each monarch has been given a choice of receiving their supporting income from either the Estates or the Civil List. This is the first time in history where the revenues are higher so it will be quite interesting to see what Charles does when he is crowned. I wouldn't be surprised to see him gain major plaudits for declaring the end of the Civil List while actually increasing Royal income by a factor of lots!
 
#17
CarpeDiem said:
Steamywindow said:
PsyWar.Org said:
Steamywindow said:
The poll is missing option 3 "binned as an embarassment to a democracy"
I'm sure I'll get stick for this but I've always been of the opinion that the worse person to be a politician is someone who wants to be a politician.

I like the idea of a Head of State purely by accident of birth to over see those who actively seek power.
OK, but why do we have to fund the fatherless's? And couldn't we have one by random selection, like juries?
Interesting point here, if a bit off track. The Civil List (i.e. our "funding" of the monarchy) costs each British taxpayer something like 63 pence per year. The Crown Estate alone puts well over £170million into the economy through the rents raised on Royal lands. Ever since Parliament took over control of the Royal purse strings, each monarch has been given a choice of receiving their supporting income from either the Estates or the Civil List. This is the first time in history where the revenues are higher so it will be quite interesting to see what Charles does when he is crowned. I wouldn't be surprised to see him gain major plaudits for declaring the end of the Civil List while actually increasing Royal income by a factor of lots!
Good point. We'll have the lot back and he can get a bar job.
 

Similar threads

Top