Saturday, 12 December 2009

Can Charles possibly be the future?

This blog is, as we’ve said before, Republican in nature and was gratified the other day to find in our poll a pretty hefty support for a republican future for Scotland...

However, I have no gripe with the Queen personally. She’s an old woman who has done a job for us for nearly 60 years. She’s actually 83 and like most people of that age she’s starting to slow down. It’s not the personality of the Queen, but the nature of monarchy that I have a problem with, and I’ve always hoped that the independent Scotland that I feel will someday come, would opt for a more modern and democratic form of government.

With monarchy you get what you get, instead of what you choose.

So, whilst the Queen has done her job pretty steadfastly, sometimes even with a smile, and kept the crown out of politics, her successor has poked his nose in to all and sundry, fired off letter to ministers demanding meetings, involved himself in all manner of things including, most recently, planning permissions and generally ‘got political’. Furthermore, it has been reported that he would hope to carry this political involvement into the future and his kingship. Now Charles may sometimes be right, at least in the opinion of some people, but that doesn’t matter at all. In that the present situation has worked at all, it has worked on the basis of complete neutrality from the palace. Rather like the civil service, the monarch has to work with whatever government the people choose with no bias, and as far as we know the Queen has done that.

Both the Queen and Prince Philip have toured the world many times. In fairness to them they have never shied away from the work, even in recent years when they are both into their 80s.

Prince Charles insisted that he be allowed to marry Mrs Parker–Bowles, despite the fact that the Church of which he will one day be titular head could not approve this marriage, Mrs Parker-Bowles being a divorcée with a living spouse. He has also indicated that he wants her to be crowned Queen, when he becomes King. This will put the Church in a position where they will have to recognise their marriage, although it goes against their teachings. However Charles does not like to tbe thwarted and will probably have his way.

At the same time it appears that Mrs Parker-Bowles does not care for touring around the world on official duties. She recently pulled out of the final leg of a tour of the Far East and looked very far from happy on a recent tour of Canada. A palace source apparently said that the last thing that she wants is to have her calendar packed with foreign tours. There’s nothing she likes better than having her kids and grandchildren over for Sunday lunch. She finds the heat in the tropics unbearable and just wants to spend time with her grandchildren.

It might be as well for her to remember that she is in receipt of a large sum of our cash.... and has several homes at our expense.

I respect the views of the monarchists in our midst who wish to maintain Elizabeth on the throne, and personally, I’d be the last to throw an old lady out of her home, but I do feel that, when the Queen finally dies, we may need to consider whether or not we want a non-executive hereditary head of state who insists on being executive, and who insists on his wife being crowned Queen despite the fact that this will be contrary to the teachings of the church of which by that time he will be the head, especially when all she really wants to do is stay and home and have meals with her grandchildren.

Maybe Prince Charles has chosen the wrong woman for a wife, again. She seems rather badly suited for the work. The photograph above certainly suggests it.

Source for much of the information here can be read by clicking on title.


  1. If I understand the article there is talk of having William as a sort of shadow king, if true it suggests that the establishment is well aware how bad Charles will be as King. An interfering busy body, a know all and a selfish individual who does not like to take no for an answer all rolled into one. You don’t think that they are planning on giving him the heave ho in favour of his much more attractive son, who has so far not blotted his copy book in any serious way and has seemingly convinced the majority of monarchists that he is just an ordinary person. As if!

    I sincerely want Charles to have his bite at the cherry, because I think that he will forward the republican cause no end. Big Ears and the Crocodile will between them hammer several nails into the coffin of an outdated and discredited institution that had had its day 100 years ago.

  2. But surely Prince Charles, when he does get political, can oversee some rather valued outcomes?

    I know that you Munguin and Tris both appreciate and always concede the very valuable charity works of the Prince in fighting poverty- and seeking to aid the struggle to save our environment from global warming. So why criticise him when he seeks these valued achievements?

    The Prince has a position in life where he can raise money for any political cause, where his name and presence alone could make all the difference; so why waste such influence and opportunities in the fight against; for example; child poverty in the UK?

    Tris you have very eloquently described some of the worst features of poverty, of fiscal worry and constant hunger. Surely you appreciate that Prince Charles has seen those very same people, and he merely seeks to use his royal position to achieve even just modicum of help to ease their unfortunate burden. He is, if anything, political sometimes yes- but he is the peoples Prince; figthing for causes which quite frankly mainstream politiciansc have utterly failed to properly focus on. If the Prince cna knock some political heads together, and get these members of the political class to get those fingers out of the expenses sweety jar just for long enough so that they actually do something to help the people then the Princes intervention was worthwhile.

    "It might be as well for her to remember that she is in receipt of a large sum of our cash.... and has several homes at our expense."

    Remember Tris, Munguin that most of these royal palaces are now owned and the property of the State, and therefore the governments. Indeed have you seen the complete neglect the government has left Buckingham castle fall into? It is an utter discrace; not jsut because our most royal defenders have to inhabit the woeful piles; but also remember that those palaces ought to be regardeds as public assets- vital in our history/people. To allow the neglect of any castle is woeful, but to condemn the budgets that upkeep them just because of the nature of the family that lives in them is equally sad and depressing. I therefore cannot agree with you.

    ...but I will say, its a good article nonethless. And I always enjoy reading your stuff boys.

  3. "With monarchy you get what you get, instead of what you choose"

    Tris that is the downside of the monarchy, we sort of get landed with some sort of big oversized family that non of us voted or asked for.

    I don't have a problem with the Royal family and they do look good on biscuit tins but its the size of it and all the hangers- on's that I canny be bothered with.

    Just slim the Royals down to the same model as the dutch then more people might accept them.

    To be honest I'm not really into the Royal family but I do have a soft spot for the two boys and I think they deserve a lot of credit.

    ach ah dinna ken, coz I like Charles but its all the rest of them that just flap about doing nothing I canny be bothered with.

    Hey Tris, I wasn't going to comment on blogs again but I left a comment on Murkins blog so I thought I had better leave one on yours soz you dinna run to your bed crying lol..

    Nighty Night...

  4. I find the continued existence of the monarchy insulting. It's like the elite are laughing in our face. Time to grow up and ditch the fairytales.

  5. I think you're cruel to poor Camilla. She wants to use the money we give her to play with her grandchildren. Surely we can all sympathise with that.

    I mean to say, carting her stuff and her staff from house to house to play with kids is an expensive business.

  6. I always admire people who selflessly put themselves out for charity; for example I always used to think very little indeed of Jeremy Beadle, who I never thought was very funny or very clever, but it turns out that he tirelessly did £100,000,000 worth of things for charity and only ever got an MBE. What a much better example he is that Prince Charles who has every title going and never lets you forget his charity work because that is almost all that he is. He has a position that he never earned, one that puts him above people like Jeremy Beadle as a matter of birth right and one that he can use to inflate his contribution way beyond what it is actually worth.

    Child poverty is a serious issue that ought to be dealt with by our elected government and not tinkered with on the sidelines by some opinionated playboy who would not know poverty if it slapped him in the face. Poverty to him is having the shaving things put on the wrong side of the sink by your flunky. The same holds true for all political issues, if he holds to this political course it wont be long before people think they are being patronised by him and he succeeds in alienating the people we did vote for. And out he will go and hopefully take the whole rotten institution with him.

    Dean: I remember you told me that you admire the Queen for her a-political stance, are you now saying that you admire her son an heir for his political one as well?

    AS for palaces, I just don’t see why they need four palaces in London when Buckingham Palace has 400 rooms. Who owns Sandringham, Clarence House, Windsor Castle and Balmoral?? Added to St Jamses, Buckingham, Holyrood House and Kensington it’s hardly surprising that even the British state cannot afford there upkeep.

  7. Dean.

    I agree that Charles can do and has done much. I’d be the first to admit that the Prince’s Trust is a fantastic organisation. I’ve seen the result of some of its work and it is quite amazing. I also know that it’s not his fault that he is who he is. For the charity work that he has done I congratulate him.

    However, I simply disapprove of someone being something because he was born to be that someone. He is there through no merit whatsoever. I’m not saying he doesn’t have any merit, I’m saying that it’s not what got him the big house and the country estates. His brother is a representative for business, not because he has any knowledge or experience of business, but because he is a royal highness.

    I’m not denying that they do some good, but I still don’t believe that it is the right system. Merit should dictate where we end up in life, not who our mother is.

    As far as Charles’ interference in government is concerned, he may or may not be doing it for the good of people, but, if he tries it as King, he could bring down a democratically elected government. And, it might be a democratically elected Tory government!!!!! That’s not his job.

    Sorry my friend, we are destined to disagree about this subject, but as always you are polite and express your opinions fairly, and it is good to get the other point of view. Thank you for that.

  8. LOL AMW. I had just got my hanky out when I noticed that you had trotted along here and left your mark... so I'm feeling all better now.

    I just disapprove of hereditary position. That's the top and bottom of it. Whether it is Mrs Thatcher's hapless and criminal son having his father's title, or the Viscount Falkland living off us in the House of Lords and cheating on his expenses because it suited his lifestyle, or the royal family. I know some of them do good; it would be stupid to deny that, and Dean is right about some of Charles' charity work. Because he is who he is he can get things done, but as you say, the whole thing is incredibly top heavy. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and other Europeans seem to have dealt with it much more sensibly, but for me, even that is wrong. You should merit what you get in life; not be born to it.

  9. Scunnert: I'm inclined to agree. It's unfair to ask royals to live the kind of lives we look for in a fairy tale. Let them go off into the world and make their way like other people. If they relly are special they will succeed anyway and be able to do the charity work by dint of ability and personality rather than inherited position

  10. SR: I'm sorry if you feel I was a tad rough on poor Mrs Parker-Bowles. I can't help feeling that she's used Charlie. She's got the title and the big houses now, but her side of the bargain would have been to smile a bit and shake lots of hands in horrible places that she didn't want to be. (Although I see she insisted on hanging on to her own house only down the road from Highgrove just in case. It's a pity really because now we have to have security staff on it 24 x 7 at pretty high cost.)

    Can you imagine the Queen giving up on a tour because she didn't like the heat?

    I think Mrs Parker-Bowles maybe needs to get out of the kitchen.

  11. Munguin:

    I think that if we keep the royals (I'm talking about a UK situation now), we should allow them to live in Buckingham Palace and Holyrood. St James's, Clarence House, Windsor Castle, Thatched Lodge and Kensington Palace should be sold off. We simply can't afford them.

    I see that the retirement pensions have effectively been reduced and that taxes are going up on people earing over £20,000 a year in order to repay the HUGE debt this idiot government has incurred. The UK is a small very very broke country. It simply can't afford to provide the royal family with 7 state owned palaces to live in.

    Of course, what the Queen does with her own properties is her business. Sandringham House and Balmoral are hers and nothing to do with us and the rest of them have other private places to live.

    The government is in the process of selling off everything that it can lay its hands on. It should be looking at these extra palaces. Billionaires would pay good money to live where the Queen lived.

  12. I think Royalists should get to pay a "Keep parasites in luxury" Tax. How long till they became Republicans?

  13. Conan:

    Maybe the Tories will privatise them, like the railways.... oh no, that would mean they would cost us even more and they'd always be late....

    ah well.....

  14. PS AMW.... What was the score with Vale of Leithen?

  15. Tris: what a good idea, the House of Windsor plc we could flog them off to Dubai or let England footballers buy them up as investments and then lose their shirts when their stock pluments.

    Don't quite see the need to subsidies them, after all they are not as useful as say the railways to the UK are they. I see them going more the way of shipbuilding, coal and steel which went under in a private environment due to Mrs Thatcher's long term shortsightedness. After all if we ran Brenda and her blood sucking brood like a household budget (as Mrs T was want to do) they would be way down the list.

  16. Hush Munguin. Didn't your mummy tell you it's rude to call people names... and it doesn't advance your argument.

    Never catch me doing a thing like that, even about that wee fat guy that is Gordon Brown's chargehand in the Scottish parliament... what's his name again?

  17. Tris..

    Good point btw, Charles can get stuff done because of who he is. If Joe public was to condemn some of the people Charles has (Ie architects etc) then he would had been told where to go.

    Yeh I'm not a big fan of people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and this lot clearly were born with several. Its all the pomp and crap that comes with the royal family that I cant be bothered with.

    I like the two boys though and I hope when they are older and some of the older ones have passed away then they could bring back some credibility in the Royal family.

    At the moment its just a burden on the tax payer and despite what some people say about them bring money into the UK, 99% will not benefit from it yet the cost us each about a fiver a year to keep.

  18. Tris..

    Erm we won 10-0 and I scored 7 of them but dinna take any notice of what the website says lol..

  19. Well AMW, I'm hoping that by the time we get to Wills and Harry we'll be a separate country and our President will be welcoming them as foreign heads royals, which of course wee will do with typical Scottish courtesy and style.."Ye'll've hud yer tea?"

  20. Yesh, well I had to ignore the website, seeing as how it didn't have any score up.... I'm just seeing the fixture there.

    Only 7 goals? Don't be so cheeky Mr!

  21. Don’t be silly Tris, I call her Brenda as a term of endearment and if it’s good enough for Private Eye it’s good enough for here. Sorry to contradict that wonderful rose coloured image you have of yourself but I think it was actually you that coined the term Big Ears for Prince Charles so I just assumed that was okay. And it was the good Mr Al Fayed that called Mrs P/B a Crocodile, right enough that last one may be a bit close to the bone.

  22. Tut Tut Munguin. Do as I say, not as I do. Did I really come up with Big Ears? Sounds miles too clever for me. I must have heard someone else say it.

  23. There are a good few in England who don't believe Charles should ever sit on the throne. Yes the Queen has done well, but her son is no man of the people and is regarded by those trying to be kind as rather odd.

  24. Tris,

    Always happy to offer up a more nuanced Conservative view!


    Ah, your last question at the end is one rather large elephant trap! One which I shall side-step for the good of my feet

  25. QM:

    I've always thought that they were more popular in England than here, probably becasue that's where they live. They spend 10 days a year in official residence in Edinburgh, and to be honest they are seen by many as being distant from us, and always 'visiting', rahter like they must be in Canada and New Zealand.

    I think we're more likely to think of the Secretary of State as being representative of London than the Queen is LOL... what a thought... King Jim.

    Yes, Charles is considered odd here too. I think from what I read in other papers today the Queen may think that Charles will have to be by-passed particularly given his wife's aversion to public duties that are not to her taste.

    In the good old days the Queen would have had a junior incommer like her in her rooms and told her where her duty lay, but all things must change I suspect. It's probably against her human rights or something ....

  26. Dean

    Thank you. Always best to look after your feet. The mother of a friend of mine once told me that if I could only afford to buy two expensive, real quality things they should be a bed and a pair of shoes, as you spend half your life in one, and half your life in the other. :¬)

  27. Dean: I won’t press the matter, but at least it shows that I am reading what you say and taking it on board, a compliment surely.

  28. Tris..

    Well lets hope so. I voted in your poll for the first option but when we do win independence and say we voted to keep the monarchy, then would had hoped it had been slimmed down to 1 corgi, a king and that's about it.

    Oh aye, dinna laugh at that score line btw. I stand by it even though I'm talking rubbish..

  29. AMW: Och, go on, we'll give him 2 corgies. Don't want the poor wee thing to get lonely, unless Maverick fancies muscling in there?