The King

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

The King

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:27 pm

Don't know much about him, tbh, but he seems to evoke strong negative reactions from a lot of people. What do I need to know?

Obviously his arranged marriage to a teenager went as well as would be expected (before my time). He's into woo. He's a posh bloke who lives in luxury etc., and is the king.

He's also done some genuinely useful stuff in conservation, leveraging his unique opportunities as a facilitator. Could surely do more, given his resources (though couldn't we all).

Interested in views from folk who pay more attention to the castle-dwellers than I.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 4279
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: The King

Post by Gfamily » Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:40 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:27 pm
Don't know much about him, tbh, but he seems to evoke strong negative reactions from a lot of people. What do I need to know?

Obviously his arranged marriage to a teenager went as well as would be expected (before my time). He's into woo. He's a posh bloke who lives in luxury etc., and is the king.

He's also done some genuinely useful stuff in conservation, leveraging his unique opportunities as a facilitator. Could surely do more, given his resources (though couldn't we all).

Interested in views from folk who pay more attention to the castle-dwellers than I.
A propos the clips showing his episodes of short temper over the last couple of days; although people are saying "give him a break, his mother has just died" - it's at times like this that someone's true nature shows though. So I am very comfortable with the view that this is what he's like. I don't think he'll manage the job well.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The King

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:48 pm

It's at times like the recent death of a parent that somebody's true nature shows through?

Like, normally if somebody was handed a leaky pen at a stressful event they'd just laugh it off like a duplicitous faker, but because his mum's just died his true colours are showing? Underneath the inkstains, anyway.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: The King

Post by plodder » Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:54 pm

He's a grasping crooked tosspot and we need to throw him out asap.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The King

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:58 pm

plodder wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:54 pm
He's a grasping crooked tosspot and we need to throw him out asap.
Yes, this is the kind of strong reaction I'm talking about - I'm asking for the down-low. The deets. Some brass tacks. Why do you think this, plodder?

Because (and admittedly I'm not in situ to see all the kerfuffle) removing the king seems like a low priority compared to the stuff we were all whinging about a week ago.

My Portuguese colleagues don't like him either, because of The Crown. Which is admittedly more research than I've done.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 4279
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: The King

Post by Gfamily » Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:59 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:48 pm
It's at times like the recent death of a parent that somebody's true nature shows through?

Like, normally if somebody was handed a leaky pen at a stressful event they'd just laugh it off like a duplicitous faker, but because his mum's just died his true colours are showing? Underneath the inkstains, anyway.
Yes. Obviously. At times like that you don't have the emotional energy and control to fake your response.
If you are prone to be snappy and irritated and rude to the people around you, that's your nature, and that's how you are likely to behave when you are under stress.

And if that's how you behave when you're under stress, it's very likely that that's your nature.

ETA BOAF's original quote
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

raven
Catbabel
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 8:58 pm

Re: The King

Post by raven » Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:09 pm

I don't pay a lot of attention to the Royals, but didn't he meet with Trump and try to impress upon him the reality of climate change?
Got to give him credit for that, even if it was a lost cause.

I don't support the monarchy, but I don't hate the Royals either. They do some good through their various charities from what I can tell, and the Queen certainly put in the hours. Plus I may have a bit of a soft spot for Phillip & Charles. They remind me of my own blunt and hot-tempered elderly relatives, relatives who I was fond of nonetheless.

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The King

Post by EACLucifer » Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:10 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:59 pm
And if that's how you behave when you're under stress, it's very likely that that's your nature
This is, of course, nonsense. People are not defined by their instincts but how they control them. At times of great stress, that can slip without undermining who they are in general.

This is not a comment either way on the king, but just a response to this sentence.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The King

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:12 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:59 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:48 pm
It's at times like the recent death of a parent that somebody's true nature shows through?

Like, normally if somebody was handed a leaky pen at a stressful event they'd just laugh it off like a duplicitous faker, but because his mum's just died his true colours are showing? Underneath the inkstains, anyway.
Yes. Obviously. At times like that you don't have the emotional energy and control to fake your response.
If you are prone to be snappy and irritated and rude to the people around you, that's your nature, and that's how you are likely to behave when you are under stress.

And if that's how you behave when you're under stress, it's very likely that that's your nature.

ETA BOAF's original quote
My mum and aunt got in an argument picking up the flowers for my granny's funeral. My aunt wanted my mum to stop on single yellows because they were in a rush, my mum was strongly against the idea. They're not normally like that, but they were already stressed because they were on their way to their mum's funeral, so it only took something small to cause a fight.

Not saying he's not a grumpy tw.t, but it's not quite scrutable-grade evidence. It's an interesting phenomenon that so many people liked the queen, but dislike the king, without meeting either or knowing anything outside of media reports. I'd like to understand where, how and why the narratives diverge.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 4279
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: The King

Post by Gfamily » Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:14 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:10 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:59 pm
And if that's how you behave when you're under stress, it's very likely that that's your nature
This is, of course, nonsense. People are not defined by their instincts but how they control them. At times of great stress, that can slip without undermining who they are in general.

This is not a comment either way on the king, but just a response to this sentence.
I guess we'll see.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1471
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: The King

Post by Millennie Al » Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:26 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:27 pm
He's also done some genuinely useful stuff in conservation, leveraging his unique opportunities as a facilitator. Could surely do more, given his resources (though couldn't we all).
A lot of people complatined that he was doing too much and was getting involved in politics. And it seems that, to avoid been seen to be political, he will be obliged to do less rather than more in the future.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 9623
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The King

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:40 pm

Millennie Al wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:26 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:27 pm
He's also done some genuinely useful stuff in conservation, leveraging his unique opportunities as a facilitator. Could surely do more, given his resources (though couldn't we all).
A lot of people complatined that he was doing too much and was getting involved in politics. And it seems that, to avoid been seen to be political, he will be obliged to do less rather than more in the future.
It's an interesting one. Something like rewilding the crown estates would be non-political, but a useful climate and biodiversity-conservation move which are things he cares about, and would be entirely within his remit as the crownholder.

As a large rural landowner he can do loads, again non-politically, e.g. he's been overseeing Curlew reintroductions at Sandringham this year, and hosts meetings of farmers etc. interested in various topics.

I wouldn't choose for him to be in charge of that land - it should be managed for the public benefit by people accountable to the public. But seeing as he has the influence, in this case I think he's doing a decent job with it for a layman. But if he were to be using influence of stuff I'm not in favour of, I'd be against it ;)
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum
Contact:

Pot Shots

Post by jdc » Wed Sep 14, 2022 1:11 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:40 pm
using influence of stuff I'm not in favour of
Some of my favs from Liz below (I've snipped some boring bits from the quotes, added links if you want the long read).
The Queen’s courtiers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s, according to newly discovered documents that will reignite the debate over the British royal family and race. The documents also shed light on how Buckingham Palace negotiated controversial clauses – that remain in place to this day – exempting the Queen and her household from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination.

It is unclear when the practice ended. Buckingham Palace refused to answer questions about the ban and when it was revoked.

The Queen has remained personally exempted from those equality laws for more than four decades. The exemption has made it impossible for women or people from ethnic minorities working for her household to complain to the courts if they believe they have been discriminated against.

The exemption from the law was brought into force in the 1970s, when politicians implemented a series of racial and sexual equality laws to eradicate discrimination. The official documents reveal how government officials in the 1970s coordinated with Elizabeth Windsor’s advisers on the wording of the laws.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ers-reveal
The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.

A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.

Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures.

The arrangement, which was concocted in the 1970s, was used in effect to create a state-backed shell corporation which is understood to have placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen’s private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011.

The true scale of her wealth has never been disclosed, though it has been estimated to run into the hundreds of millions of pounds.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ate-wealth
The Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions, documents reveal.

The exemption means the Queen, one of the largest landowners in Scotland, is the only person in the country not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy.

Her lawyers secured the dispensation from Scotland’s government five months ago by exploiting an obscure parliamentary procedure known as Queen’s consent, which gives the monarch advance sight of legislation.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -exemption

It's a shame I didn't know she was embarrassed by her wealth. I might have been able to suggest some kind of solution.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1768
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum
Contact:

Pot Shots Part Deux

Post by jdc » Wed Sep 14, 2022 1:20 am

Bit of a slow start for the Prince but maybe he can make up some ground over the next couple of years. I found the Roberts memo quite interesting and there's a nice human interest story at the end.
The Windsor family has used the consent procedure to vet at least four draft acts that have changed leasehold laws since the 1960s. Under such laws tenants live in properties for a specific number of years on a lease, instead of owning it outright. The changes have given tenants across the country the legal power in certain circumstances to buy their homes from their landlords.

Letters and internal memos from September and October 1992 show Charles took a “close personal interest” in Newton St Loe, a small Somerset village that is part of the £1bn Duchy of Cornwall estate, and insisted his properties there should be excluded from the proposed bill. His lobbying secured a special exemption for the village that has to this day left the tenants financially worse off.

In a memo on 9 October, Roberts noted: “No special case can be made beyond the fact that the prince has taken a special interest.” He cautioned that ministers’ most important objective was to “ensure that the consent of the Queen and the Prince of Wales to the bill is obtained … their consent is necessary before the bill may be introduced.”

“Ultimately I assume that the will of ministers can prevail over that of monarchy but a constitutional crisis would add a further dimension of controversy to the bill which would be better avoided,” he wrote.
In practical terms only a small number of Newton St Loe tenants are affected by the ban. But they say they have suffered bitter financial hardship as a result of the prince’s special rights. One, Jane Giddins, said she and her husband cannot borrow against their home to pay for social care for themselves in the future. She added that the value of the 99-year-old lease on their home – their main asset – diminished steadily as it got closer to ending.

“It is total injustice, and feudal,” Giddins said. “Because my freehold is owned by someone who is immensely wealthy and powerful, I am not protected by the law that applies to everyone else in this country. I can’t do anything about it.”

She said that when she and her husband took the lease in 1996, the duchy told them about the ban on buying it – but she could not have known that the prince had lobbied to keep the village exempt from leasehold reform.

“I took the view that it was so obviously anachronistic and grossly unfair, that by the time I needed to sort it out, the law would have been changed. And I had no idea that the duchy would be able to stop the law being tidied up.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... en-consent

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 4957
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: The King

Post by lpm » Wed Sep 14, 2022 2:50 am

Gfamily wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:14 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:10 pm
Gfamily wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:59 pm
And if that's how you behave when you're under stress, it's very likely that that's your nature
This is, of course, nonsense. People are not defined by their instincts but how they control them. At times of great stress, that can slip without undermining who they are in general.

This is not a comment either way on the king, but just a response to this sentence.
I guess we'll see.
We have 73 years of his track history. No need to wait and see.

It's already known that Charles Windsor treats people like his subjects. He won't change. This isn't behaviour due to stress, it's just behaviour he thinks is acceptable.

Elizabeth Windsor was exceptionally good at the job. Natural talent plus years of practice. So the entire palace operation was built around that star player. They're making the mistake of thinking they can just slot in a replacement.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Grumble
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3556
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: The King

Post by Grumble » Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:28 am

I would suggest handing people redundancy notices at the first opportunity isn’t the mark of someone who cares about the little people.
A bit churlish

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2899
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: The King

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Wed Sep 14, 2022 6:34 am

I would suggest handing out those redundancy notices was done at the first opportunity because it's the law, and probably wasn't done with significant, if any, involvement from the king, who you might have noticed has been a tad busy of late.
They loved each other and believed they loved mankind, they fought each other and believed they fought the world.

User avatar
bjn
After Pie
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: The King

Post by bjn » Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:13 am

The household staff were employed directly by the Queen. There are something like 800 of them. Charles had/has about 100 of them for himself. Duchy of Cornwall is a separate thing, as are his various charities. Chuck will be stepping into the role of Monarch and be taking over those 800, because they know what’s they are doing for a monarch. This leaves 100 people without a role. Some may go with Charles, some may go to the new Prince of Wales, some will literally be redundant.

The employees knew, or should have known, the basis under which they were employed.

This is of course a silly to organise it all. But it is where we are at.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: The King

Post by plodder » Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:32 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:58 pm
plodder wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:54 pm
He's a grasping crooked tosspot and we need to throw him out asap.
Yes, this is the kind of strong reaction I'm talking about - I'm asking for the down-low. The deets. Some brass tacks. Why do you think this, plodder?

Because (and admittedly I'm not in situ to see all the kerfuffle) removing the king seems like a low priority compared to the stuff we were all whinging about a week ago.

My Portuguese colleagues don't like him either, because of The Crown. Which is admittedly more research than I've done.
I mean yeah, there are other priorities, but it's all adding up to the very strong feeling that there's something in the air right now and the public are about to start kicking back. From my perspective everything I've read or heard suggests he's extraordinarily spoiled, vain, lazy, dreamy in that unchallenged way, unambitious, unimaginative, interfering, self serving etc. Just a useless lump - it's rare to find people who've spoken well of him.

His black spider letters are notorious, with him meddling on all sorts of political issues behind the scenes - he's not someone who understands his own place or who cares about proper governance. He sees the country as his own plaything (as did his mum). One of his kids can't stand him. His biscuits are overpriced. He's not fit to represent me or my views and I want them out now.

As I said, there's something in the air. It feels like after the disappointment of the last 5-10 years of politics, Brexit, the financial crash, even Corbyn being slaughtered by the press barons, BBC news becoming a state mouthpiece, current cost of living and the Queen dying I think even in small Tory market towns like the one I live in people are getting very fed up with the status quo.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2899
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: The King

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Wed Sep 14, 2022 8:05 am

Tbh you probably just need to open the windows
They loved each other and believed they loved mankind, they fought each other and believed they fought the world.

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2768
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: The King

Post by Stephanie » Wed Sep 14, 2022 8:49 am

plodder wrote:
Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:32 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:58 pm
plodder wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:54 pm
He's a grasping crooked tosspot and we need to throw him out asap.
Yes, this is the kind of strong reaction I'm talking about - I'm asking for the down-low. The deets. Some brass tacks. Why do you think this, plodder?

Because (and admittedly I'm not in situ to see all the kerfuffle) removing the king seems like a low priority compared to the stuff we were all whinging about a week ago.

My Portuguese colleagues don't like him either, because of The Crown. Which is admittedly more research than I've done.
I mean yeah, there are other priorities, but it's all adding up to the very strong feeling that there's something in the air right now and the public are about to start kicking back. From my perspective everything I've read or heard suggests he's extraordinarily spoiled, vain, lazy, dreamy in that unchallenged way, unambitious, unimaginative, interfering, self serving etc. Just a useless lump - it's rare to find people who've spoken well of him.

His black spider letters are notorious, with him meddling on all sorts of political issues behind the scenes - he's not someone who understands his own place or who cares about proper governance. He sees the country as his own plaything (as did his mum). One of his kids can't stand him. His biscuits are overpriced. He's not fit to represent me or my views and I want them out now.

As I said, there's something in the air. It feels like after the disappointment of the last 5-10 years of politics, Brexit, the financial crash, even Corbyn being slaughtered by the press barons, BBC news becoming a state mouthpiece, current cost of living and the Queen dying I think even in small Tory market towns like the one I live in people are getting very fed up with the status quo.
I also feel like there is something building.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
TopBadger
Snowbonk
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: The King

Post by TopBadger » Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:30 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:40 pm

As a large rural landowner he can do loads, again non-politically, e.g. he's been overseeing Curlew reintroductions at Sandringham this year, and hosts meetings of farmers etc. interested in various topics.

I wouldn't choose for him to be in charge of that land - it should be managed for the public benefit by people accountable to the public.
IIRC Sandringham is privately owned by the Monarch, and not Crown Estate (owned by the public but given to the Monarch). So it's likely much less contentious for them to do these things on their private property...

FWIW I've always thought Charles is a bit of a tw.t, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That we have a wealthy unelected but non-political monarch is very much less of an issue for me than the fact we have wealthy elected members of parliament making policy to suit them and their rich chums and screw the poor.

The Monarchy is very low down on my list of things 'to fix' concerning the UK.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

IvanV
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: The King

Post by IvanV » Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:32 am

It has been suggested that the biggest problem with Prince Charles is that he doesn't get challenged very much on what he says and thinks. It is, apparently, against royal protocol to disagree with him. People who meet him are briefed on this, and minders quickly end the conversation if it appears it might be going the wrong way. So he meets all sorts of eminent, well-informed people, and appears get no push-back on his views. If he says something they cannot reasonably discuss without breaking the rules, they probably have to say "that's interesting" and change the subject to something safe.

Clearly his, now closed, Foundation for Integrated Health got robust public criticism, and even an adverse finding by the Advertising Standards Authority. It is unlikely he was unaware of it. Ernst and Singh even sarcastically dedicated a book to him. But it is easy to blame its failure on the fraud that some of its staff were convicted of, if you want to close your ears to the criticism.

Thus, it is suggested, he has a false impression of his own wisdom.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2666
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: The King

Post by plodder » Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:33 am

TopBadger wrote:
Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:30 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:40 pm

As a large rural landowner he can do loads, again non-politically, e.g. he's been overseeing Curlew reintroductions at Sandringham this year, and hosts meetings of farmers etc. interested in various topics.

I wouldn't choose for him to be in charge of that land - it should be managed for the public benefit by people accountable to the public.
IIRC Sandringham is privately owned by the Monarch, and not Crown Estate (owned by the public but given to the Monarch). So it's likely much less contentious for them to do these things on their private property...
f.ck off private property - the entire seabed below high water out to a few miles? Doesn't even pay inheritance tax. Ridiculous stance to take.

User avatar
EACLucifer
After Pie
Posts: 2415
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: The King

Post by EACLucifer » Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:38 am

TopBadger wrote:
Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:30 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:40 pm

As a large rural landowner he can do loads, again non-politically, e.g. he's been overseeing Curlew reintroductions at Sandringham this year, and hosts meetings of farmers etc. interested in various topics.

I wouldn't choose for him to be in charge of that land - it should be managed for the public benefit by people accountable to the public.
IIRC Sandringham is privately owned by the Monarch, and not Crown Estate (owned by the public but given to the Monarch). So it's likely much less contentious for them to do these things on their private property...

FWIW I've always thought Charles is a bit of a tw.t, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That we have a wealthy unelected but non-political monarch is very much less of an issue for me than the fact we have wealthy elected members of parliament making policy to suit them and their rich chums and screw the poor.

The Monarchy is very low down on my list of things 'to fix' concerning the UK.
We've still got 92 hereditary peers in the Lords, and 26 Lords Spiritual, and they are much more involved in the legislative process than the monarch. Fixing the Lords so it can act as a sensible second chamber, perhaps all elected by PR or part elected part appointed in proportion to those elected, and on long, overlapping terms so that it moves more slowly and moderates the commons is a higher priority than sorting out the head of state.

Especially as, if we aren't careful, we could end up replacing the monarch with a president with too much power, and a chance they'll actually use it. The obvious downside of a monarch is they lack a democratic mandate, but the consolation is that they lack a democratic mandate. I'd rather remove the monarch from any constitutional role, but I'd put Lords reform a lot higher on the priority list, and I'd like to see the monarchy removed as part of a general constitutional reform.

Post Reply