Well, Prince of Wales really...
Did anyone see the programme on him last week - where he has been pushing for alternative medicine and the like for years..... :D :D
I knew he was into it - but his apparent abuse of power is worrying.
Any thoughts anyone?
I didn't see the program but wonder how much influence Charles really has. Certainly, he and the other royals are worshipped as almost god like figures by some, yet so are rock stars, actors and other celebrities; I should think that Michael Jackson, for example, has more devoted followers, and the Pope surely has even more. Personally, I don't know many people who consider Charles' opinions of any great worth; most consider him an embarrassment.
That said, until he becomes King, he's as free to say what he wants as you or I, albeit with a far larger audience.
I quite liked the republican chap who said we should just contract out the Royal Family to Disney.
But he shouldn't be. When acting in an official capacity you have responsibilities. For example, we have just had a note sent around work about the use of paper with the company header on it. This is apparently a very big deal and must never be used in the wrong place or in an unofficial context because of the implication that anything labelled with the company logo can be taken as an official statement by the company. The problem the royals have is that they are always acting in an official capacity. He is always the crown prince, whether he is wearing his crown or not, and must always act like it. Anything he says is technically an official statement from the ruling family of this country. While Charles is part of the royal family he has the responsibilities that go with it. Either he should refrain from abusing his position or he should give it up, he cannot make ridiculous claims about things and then pretend that he was not acting as the crown prince. Whether he, or anyone else, likes it or not, he is the crown prince and should act like it.Originally Posted by asthmatic camel
There's an interesting dilemma here, created by our lovely constitution combining the hereditary principle with the political realities of government. Does this mean that Charles Windsor effectively loses his personal right to freedom of speech, because of an accident of birth?But he shouldn't be ... The problem the royals have is that they are always acting in an official capacity. ... Either he should refrain from abusing his position or he should give it up, he cannot make ridiculous claims about things
Cuddles, don't take my comments the wrong way; I think Charles is misguided, not terribly intelligent and surrounded by sycophants who hesitate to let him know when he's making a fool of himself. He appears to think that it's his duty to speak out on issues he feels are important and, legally, is quite entitled to do so. In common with you, I wish he wouldn't, or that he was at least capable of considering the issues in greater depth, but the reality is that he can, does and isn't. I'd also say that the likes of Tony Blair, who really do wield power are far more damaging when it comes to their wooish delusions (and homoeopathy practicing relatives.)
However, this is the price which has to be paid for a relatively free society; we're free to disagree with whatever Charlie's latest opinions might be, and free to say so publicly. Don't you think that's a far better situation than would be the case if censorship was the order of the day? I do.
Of course, you have every right to contest my opinions.
Anyone else read The Prince and the Paranormal?
I haven't, but please do tell us more. What other wacky stuff does our future king believe?
I have....
I left it in Jersey. I couldn't justify adding it to my baggage allowance.
DrB, can you indulge us?
Did you "The Prince of Climate Change" on the news this morning? He's pushing the big Corps to make better green decisions. Appeared more of a publicity attempt than science. ???
Some might say it does not matter...just get the message though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks