---

by Cat
it's a free country, let the man write if he wants to.

---

If Prince Charles wants to renounce his claim to the throne, public subsidy and all the rest, become a citizen of the UK, then he can write what he wants. But some people, because of the role they play, cannot. Members of the Civil Service may not involve themselves in political campaigning. This is to ensure they remain neutral in their role. Equally, a monarch, or monarch-to-be, should not be seen to take political sides, as this creates tension between parliament and monarchy, and Parliament must remain autonomous from the royal family. People died so that we can have that liberty, and I see no reason to caste it aside glibly.

Kieran. Where to start. Show me one argument for Republicanism prior to Niblet's post? Just one? Again, if you do want to start such a debate, start a new thread. I've answered what Niblet had to stay and I will not prolong the discussion here any further. Besides, Byron has already pointed out the gaping errors in your 'argument'.

I will answer one question, if it isn't already painfully obvious:

---

by Kieran Frost
As what, senior officer in the army?

---

Er, no. As first in line to the throne. If you actually bothered to read the posts by Byron and myself you might have noticed some talk of our unwritten constitution? The separation of monarch and parliament? Have you ever watched the opening of parliament? The whole deal with black rod and the monarch being forced to address parliament? These traditions all have great meaning, and are a celebration of the liberation of the British people from an absolute monarch by the Civil War. If Charles wants the privileges and power that his role entails, then he cannot involve himself in the manner he has. I have nothing against the monarch having a private word with the Prime Minister - which is the proper channel - but not writing to individual members of the government. It's that simple.

---

by Byron
you're basically saying that life's a bitch

---

Yes I am. We've got ride of slaves, women have the vote, people of colour are more widely expepted and people are healthier, richer and better off than the past. And...? The point being? Is life great, is the fact less than two years ago September 11th happened? Is the fact there is still the rich and still the poor a great thing. Is the fact we are nearer to world war three than we were ten years ago a great advancement for the present?

Besides, you were the one who hated the injustties of life, not me.

---

by Byron
calling people queers

---

People still use it, in friendly terms, I wasn't using as a insult, I was using it was an example of a group of people. Plus, it would be easier for you and others to consider me a redneck, chain-smoking, fox hunting, middle class, white, racist male, but life isn't that simple. I'm a good person and yet I think, on the whole, life isn't that more advanced than 400 years ago. People still die, in pain, there is still famine, the unemployed, povity, child abuse, murder, rape, assault, muggings. Life is unfair, life does suck on the whole.

It's unfair, but that's the way it's always been, it's the way it will always be.

On to points about Charles, Jayjay. One, Charles IS a senior officer in the army. Two, who do you think the army swears alligence to? If you check, the army swears alligence to the Queen, not Britain or Blair, but the Queen. How was info about parliament relevent?

Kieran, you must have a really poor imagination. Do you really believe the life of blacks today is no better than it was during slavery? Or that you and me are free to go to gay bars, or what ever means we want of meeting other people attracted to their own gender, when there was no way to do this openly fifty years ago? Or the difference the welfare state has made? I mean, really?

Things are long way from being fair. They are a long way from being acceptable. But the changes are being made. One at a time. Seems to me would should continue to fight and change until things are fair, or as close as possible. Do you really thing we're there already?

---

by KieranFrost
Yes I am. We've got ride of slaves, women have the vote, people of colour are more widely expepted and people are healthier, richer and better off than the past. And...? The point being? Is life great, is the fact less than two years ago September 11th happened? Is the fact there is still the rich and still the poor a great thing. Is the fact we are nearer to world war three than we were ten years ago a great advancement for the present?

Besides, you were the one who hated the injustties of life, not me.

People still use it, in friendly terms, I wasn't using as a insult, I was using it was an example of a group of people. Plus, it would be easier for you and others to consider me a redneck, chain-smoking, fox hunting, middle class, white, racist male, but life isn't that simple. I'm a good person and yet I think, on the whole, life isn't that more advanced than 400 years ago. People still die, in pain, there is still famine, the unemployed, povity, child abuse, murder, rape, assault, muggings. Life is unfair, life does suck on the whole.

It's unfair, but that's the way it's always been, it's the way it will always be.

---

Where did I call you racist? Or a redneck, chain-smoker (what on earth?), or make assumptions about your class? And like JayJay, I happen to oppose a ban on foxhunting. Yes, there are still many injustices in life. But your attitude to them, instead of fighting them, seems to be apathy and casual acceptance - I've given examples of where we'd still be if everyone took that attitude, of how standing up for change can make a difference. How do you think, to take one example you give, women got votes in the first place? Things don't change on their own. As JayJay said, do you honestly think nothing can be improved further? What possible evidence is there for this? And If you think life in this country is anywhere close to the depravations of 400 years ago, you obviously know nothing whatsoever about history.

Actually, judging by the manifest lack of knowledge about our unwritten constitution and Parliament's place in it you've been displaying here, I'd say that wouldn't be an unfair comment!

As for the word "queer", yes, members of the gay community have to an extent subverted it, but it's still not a very good idea for a person to throw it casually and ambiguously around, whether theyÂ’re gay or straight, due to the host of negative connotations it carries.

(Edited by Byron 01/10/2002 21:51)

---

by Byron
Where did I call you racist?

---

You implied I thought calling someone a 'nigger' was exceptable. To me, that implies racism. The rest was just a sterotypical view of a type of person people often catagorise someone as, if they show any views that are not PC.

---

by Byron
judging by the manifest lack of knowledge about our unwritten constitution

---

Well I'm sorry, I can't read 'unwritten' things. Me lacking such talent is a shame. And I know plenty about history, thank-you very much. May I ask who you think the army swears alligence to? Parliament may send soldiers to die, they may co-ordinate attacks, but on major events, Tony Blair SHOULD (he doesn't, but he should) ask the Queens permission. At the end of the day, she controls the army, not him. That to me is far more worrying than Charles writing confidential letters to politicians. Aren't you concerned that Blair is acting more like a President than what he is, i.e a First Minister.


(Edited by Desire 02/10/2002 18:02)

Actually, Kieran, you can read about the unwritten constitution. Unwritten means there is no legal document that can be called a constitution, such as the United States of America have. This does not mean you cannot read the terms of agreement set out by Parliament at the reintroduction of the Monarchy as a constitutional monarchy. You can read about the history of the constraints placed on the monarchy and the aristocracy. And what Charles has done goes against all this.

And yes, I do think it is wrong that the army swears loyalty to the monarch. I also think it is wrong that you cannot take your seat in parliament without swearing alegance to the monarch. But that these are more serious doesn't mean that Charles' actions aren't serious as well, or that they should be tolerated.

And, for the record, all Prime Ministers have to ask for royal assent on all issues regarding parliament. And on the initiation of war. Again, however, as part of that unwritten constitution, assent is always taken for granted. It is still actually requested, however.

And I am not going even start on the whole language of hate thing...

---

by KieranFrost
You implied I thought calling someone a 'nigger' was exceptable. To me, that implies racism. The rest was just a sterotypical view of a type of person people often catagorise someone as, if they show any views that are not PC.

---

Actually there was absolutely nothing in my posts that even implied I thought you considered using the epithet in question acceptable – it was a general example of things once considered acceptable, and now considered abhorrent. Regardless, I apologise if you got that impression, it certainly wasn't intended.

Accusing someone you disagree with for attacking you because you hold “non-PC” (whatever that’s meant to mean, as I’ve yet to find anyone actually claiming to be politically correct!) views is an old and tired tactic, often used when someone is loosing an argument, and is not even tenuously applicable here. The only thing I have taken issue with is your general and uncalled for rudeness, and certainly not your views on the merits of a monarchy. I’ll vigorously defend my own opinions here, certainly, but you of course have as much right as I do to do the same.

---

Well I'm sorry, I can't read 'unwritten' things. Me lacking such talent is a shame. And I know plenty about history, thank-you very much.

---

JayJay's laid this all out very clearly above; "unwritten" is a technical term that refers to the constitution's nature - mostly by convention instead of a single document, such as in the United States - it does not mean that there's no historical documentation on the matter.

To be strictly accurate, the UKÂ’s constitution is partly written, due to the Bill of Rights 1688 and other Parliamentary legislation that sets out the working of the state, and partly by convention (the office of prime minister and the cabinet, for example).

There's actually an awful lot of information available about this; as part of my A-level Government and Politics course, I've spent the last year studying it.

By so arrogantly displaying what could only be described as your ignorance on this matter, I'm afraid your oh-so-hilarious wordplay has just backfired rather spectacularly here!

---

May I ask who you think the army swears alligence to? Parliament may send soldiers to die, they may co-ordinate attacks, but on major events, Tony Blair SHOULD (he doesn't, but he should) ask the Queens permission. At the end of the day, she controls the army, not him. That to me is far more worrying than Charles writing confidential letters to politicians. Aren't you concerned that Blair is acting more like a President than what he is, i.e a First Minister.

---

I'm very worried about Blair's abuses of power, this is why I want some proper constraints placed on him. But as for the matter of allegiance, while it would make an important symbolic difference to have the army, police etc swear allegiance to the country and Parliament rather than the Queen, in reality, the monarch does exactly what Parliament tells them, because Parliament has the power to remove them whenever it wishes, and firmly controls all monetary policy (the historic determinant of power). Similarly, royal consent, while being technically required, is nothing but a formality – it hasn’t been refused since 1701.

Charles's confidential letters and interference have real significance, every bit as much as oaths. Disliking the oaths and official (if only in formality) nature of power in the UK and disapproving of Charles's actions don't have to be mutually exclusive, and one simply does not cancel the other out in some way.

---

As to the word 'queer', I will use it any time I damn please. I'm not going to curp my speech in fear of offending someone. I would have thought everyone would be well aware that I have no problem with offending people.

---

You have every right to use whatever wording you choose, but casually dropping that word into conversations doesn't make you a champion of free-speech, it just makes you inconsiderate and rude for no good reason (and may give people the impression, justified or otherwise, that youÂ’re homophobic). By a similar token, while I would absolutely defend someone's right to use obscene language, I wouldn't use the same words in front of my grandparents. Context is everything, and something you seem not to have too great a grasp on.

Incidentally, while there may not be any current legislation against casually using the word "queer", EU non-discrimination that would prohibit it is due to come into force soon - so however much you may value your right to cause casual and needless offence, for your own sake, I'd start learning to be very careful about how you use such language!

(Edited by Byron 02/10/2002 02:59)

---

by KieranFrost
You implied I thought calling someone a 'nigger' was exceptable. To me, that implies racism. The rest was just a sterotypical view of a type of person people often catagorise someone as, if they show any views that are not PC.

---

and what does this 'imply' or even directly accuse Byron and Jayjay of...

---

by KieranFrost
You're one of those layabouts, who takes their boss to caught because he makes you work too hard cos your black or queer. Get over your own self importance.

---

Maybe you should try getting over your own self importance. And try engaging your brain before you post.

I still say it's a free country.

As for charles and his role, i might care more if his letters had any effect. as it is, he's just another man with too much time on his hands.

And i'm not getting inot the republic/momarchy argument. other than to say "President Blair! EWW!"

This topic was beginning to be a well reasoned, well argued discussion. This is good!
Then for some reason it started getting a little heated. This is bad!

While I know you feel political stuff is all important, a discussion-turned-heated really isn’t cause to let that well articulated debated you started off with slip. Please think before you post because while your opposition (in a debate sense of course!) may seem to be getting personal they often are not, or are but without really meaning to. Please don’t jump to conclusions about people’s reactions, at the end of the day they are only stating their opinion.

I wonder how much you guys would laugh if I told you that I didn’t even know there had been a letter!

By the way – I’m enjoying learning about the republican/monarchy thing, but if possible please make you points return to this letter writing business so I can see what you’re getting at.


(Edited by Desire 02/10/2002 17:59)

---

by Byron
If he wants to express his democratic rights, I think that's fine - but only if he give up his undemocratic position to do so.

---

Now see, even with my lack of knowledge in this area *at all* I can see this that is not a good idea.

What will be the implications of this letter then, if he wasn't supposed to write it?

feel free to "d'oh!" at me, I really know nothing about this!

Desire, I can see no reason to D'Oh! you.

But let me clarify. Prince Charles did not write one letter. He wrote several. They were sent to a number of ministers on a number of political issues, including the possibility of a ban on fox hunting, amongst others.

However, the problem isn't the issues raised. It is that as the (potentially) future King of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, he has the potential to reward those who does as he requests. Further, it is expressly forebidden in our constitution for a monarch to engage themselves in politics, which is exactly what Prince Charles is doing.

The response myself and Byron have been using to the argument 'it's a free country' is that Prince Charles lives a life of extreme comfort and access to power and influence unmerited, for which the price is that he does not engage in public politics. Should he wish to have the same liberties as the rest of us then he must share the same responsibilities - that is, he must renounce the crown and income from the state due to his blood line.

However, I wish to state again that none of my opposition to these letters is to do with my republicanism. It is to do with my belief that if the current democratic process is to work, then it's rules must be upheld. I'll happily debate the pros and cons of republicanism, but I do not believe this thread is the place to do it, as I see no reason why a republican could not believe there is nothing wrong with these letters, or for a royalist to oppose them - it is a completely seperate issue.

Gotcha...so you got sidetracked then

Okay so if he's not meant to do this, how can he expect to 'get away' with it? Is something going to be done? Does it need to be done? Or will everyone just say what silly thing that was and let it blow over? Because that's not really fair is it?

---

by Jayjay
It is that as the (potentially) future King of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, he has the potential to reward those who does as he requests. Further, it is expressly forebidden in our constitution for a monarch to engage themselves in politics

---

Okay, can see where you're coming from. The 'reward helpers' thing hadn't occured to me. You still haven't swayed me on the involvement in politics. He didn't go to the papers and say "here's my view", he wrote some private letters to specific members in Parliament. The politicians, in my view, leaked these letters to the press in an attempt to assassinate Charles' character, by saying he's becoming to involved in politics.

---

by Jayjay
Prince Charles lives a life of extreme comfort and access to power and influence unmerited, for which the price is that he does not engage in public politics.

---

Not being difficult, honest 'The Price' is far greater than that. Charles understands he was born into privalege, and therefore feels an obligation to duty, one which he doesn't have to do according to our beloved constitution. He helps charities, he feels he has a duty to set a good example to the public, while raising two sons.

He does great work, I think the man has earned his right to speak, a right which no man or constitution should EVER be able or allowed to take away.

P.S The film "One True Thing" is SSSOOOOOO sad.

---

by KieranFrost
The politicians, in my view, leaked these letters to the press in an attempt to assassinate Charles' character, by saying he's becoming to involved in politics.

---

But he *is* becoming too involved in politics isn't he? If he is supposed to remain completely impartial, then any kind of comunication about what he feels are important issues with the government is *too* much.

OK. Prince Charles has in the past used the press to advertise his views - though usually the more popular ones (modern architecture is rubbish and GM food is wrong), his less popular views (no ban on fox hunting and people of the countryside are being treated worse than blacks and homosexuals) don't seem to get that treatment though.

Fortunately, the views he does express publicly are usually considered to be not party political and therefore escape censure, although they could be described as reactionary. However, the problem with the letters is that here he is trying to use direct influence - secretly trying to influence members of government. This is far worse than making political comments in public, this is an attempt to exert influence over members of the government covertly. That's at the hub of this.

As for the idea that any individual should be placed as above the constitution of a state (and therefore the law) is just silliness beyond measure.

Desire, in answer to you questions about the consequences, there are a number of problems. Firstly, Tony Blair has said publicly that he sees nothing wrong with the letters. Therefore there is no chance of government taking action. Secondly, the monarch is in theory the guardian of the constitution. It is therefore unlikely that She's going to publicly berate her son over this.

No, more than likely nothing will be done, and it will all blow over and be forgotten. However, not everyone will forget. What should happen is that Prince Charles will be privately advised not to continue with the letters to ministers. If he does and it becomes public again then a few bull headed lefties are more than likely to try and censure him, possibly through the house of commons. Time will tell.