 |
| And what is it you do for a living? |
The reason he gives for this is that the letters are extremely 'frank'. This. I assume means that they show a considerable passion for having things done HIS way.
The English Attorney/Northern Irish Advocate suggests that were they to be made public, they would display Charlie's political bias. This would then render it impossible for him to appear to be politically neutral when the time comes (god help us) for him to take up his job as king.
It seems that you are afraid that were we to get to know what Charlie's politics are, we wouldn't be able to accept him as a neutral king. Doesn't that mean that he is not suitable to be king?
I think it does... and you mr lawyer person, have just told us that.
I suppose there is no point in putting forward the same FoI request in Scotland. Old Wallace of Tankedness would undoubtedly follow the same set of instructions as Grieve.
As far as I'm concerned Charlie may one day become king of England but I'll be damned if he ever becomes king of Scotland. I can not abide this guy. He turns my stomach even before he opens his mouth, and don't even get me started on the back end of a horse that may very well become his "queen" of England!
ReplyDeleteAs far as this idiot Grieve is concerned the whole thing stinks! Methinks he is after a knighthood perhaps!
We all know that Charlie is up for sticking his nose into everything, something his mother, bless her little cotton socks doesn't. thankfully. We all should be able to find out what his nibs has been rattling his gums about. He wants to be a future king then publishing his "letters" would ensure he kept his nose in place and didn't speak out of turn. This is what lies at the bottom of this fiasco I reckon.
Charlie has been pushing his awe into points where it is neither wanted or required! The time has well been past for him to wind his bloody neck in!
Yes Arbroath. I'm a republican, but I would admit his mother has done a reasonable job (although, if bringing up children was part of that job, which it must be, she sure as hell needs points deducted, seeing as Anne is the only decent one out of the four of them.)
ReplyDeleteHe's clearly not fit to be king and his ex mistress, who is clearly a liar and a cheat, given she was married to Mr Parker Bowles all these years and quite happy to be Charlie's tart, is clearly not fit to be queen, which is presumably why his mother has said she cannot be (making up the constitution as she goes along).
I'm not sure though how a man who married a woman with a spouse living could possibly be head of the church of England, which forbids that behaviour!
The whole thing stinks.
Grieve has clearly indicated that if we knew what he knew, we would not think Charlie fit to be king... which suggests that he is not.
I imagine that Grieve was following the orders of Cameron, who got his first chance in the Conservative party thanks to interference from "the palace". After that of course, once everyone knew that he had connections, it was plain sailing and now we are lumbered with the hateful thick little creep.
It's certainly who you know in Britain that matters.
I suspect it will be Lord Grieve of Creepingsville soon.
They make my flesh creep.
I've always maintained that Charlie should never become king Tris.
ReplyDeleteOnce he married the back end of a horse, sorry Mrs Parker- Bowles, Charlie effectively became ineligible for the role as king. As far as I'm concerned president has already been set.
I refer to a certain king Edward who wanted to marry a certain Mrs Simpson! Granted Edward was already king but he had been in a long term relationship with Mrs Simpson and it was evident that they would want to get married. However, if I remember correctly, the Church of England stuck its awe in and maintained that Edward could not remain king so long as he maintained an interested in marrying a divorcee.
If my memory is correct in this matter then as I said president has been set and therefore Charlie me boy can not become king.
No doubt some one, probably Niko, will be able to correct me on this assumption.
Awe? Oar? (Whatever floats your boat....)
ReplyDeleteArbroath, you demean your own argument when you bring Camilla's looks into it. For one thing, she looks absolutely fine. But even if she didn't, that has no bearing at all on the issue.
To insult Camilla for her looks is nasty, sexist bigotry. I'm sure there are lots of far better reasons you can come up with to insult her.
And I think we should be a republic rather than let jug-ears become king too.
Whoa there Rolfe.
ReplyDeleteYou tell say I'm being sexist etc. Whit one woman about another?
I suppose I could use the back end of a bus if you prefer?
Anyway if I'm being nasty sexist and bigoted what's with your jug ears remark? :D
Amongst my nationalist friends, I don’t believe I have ever met one who was really in favour of the monarchy. Republicanism is a perfectly honest and respectable political position. Moreover it has to be said that the likelihood of the monarchy lasting long in an independent Scotland has to be about nil. It would be more honest therefore if the SNP admitted their republicanism, rather than try to put forward the fiction that somehow the Queen or King of Scots would continue post independence. At present it looks like the SNP are trying to kid the Scottish people, just because they know the majority of us are pro monarchy.
ReplyDeleteYou republican Swines. You. Insult. Our beloved royal family
ReplyDeleteWhom alex had swore an oath to defend to the death and
Whom he wishes to rule even an independent scotland
How very dare you
No he's not fit to be Head of State. I believe that an independent Scotland would become a republic following Betty's death. I think she has earned the right by good conduct to "serve het time". I do get annoyed with the personal comments about looks though. He's got big ears - so what? And personally I think Camilla is attractive enough though showing her age. Aren't we all!
ReplyDeleteThe whole notion of an unelected head of state is something I have hated since I became more aware as a teen. I hated all the Princess Diana stuff as I do the Kate Middleton rubbish. We should be ashamed that in this day and age we still allow an unelected familt to hold such sway over us poor folk.
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Family only serve to keep the privileged in their positions and for the same privileged to throw a bone sometimes such as an MBE. I cringe when I see Scottish people picking up those honours and Nighthoods get righ up m y nose, Sir Chris Hoy, Sir Alex Ferguson. These people have forgotten where they have come from and what it's really like to live in this country for the majority.
This system supports the politicians, I don't care if we get to see letters that show that Charles (no real second name)is a right wing tory. I think we can all see what this family is and part of that is a drain on our society.
Bruce
Arbroath: I agree that once Mrs Parker Bowles was married to Charlie, that was it. If you follow the constitution (which is all about precedent) you have only to go back 70 years to Edward VIII, as you point out.
ReplyDeleteWhen the church said "no" then, it still held a lot of sway in England. If they had gone against the church, there would have been outrage from the people. Now, pretty few people bothered that the future head of the Church couldn't get married in one of his mum's establishments, because it was against their rules.
His sister had to come to Scotland to get married for the second time. It appears, no one in the Scottish church is bothered about these matters.
I'm not sure why Charlie didn't come here. It would have brought tourists to gape.
Obviously I'm not bothered from a religious point of view, but what annoyed me was that HE demanded that HE have HIS way, although it was going to look ridiculous. Then HE demanded that the church, in the form of the archbishop of Canterbury, bless the ceremony.
That alone tells me that he isn't fit to be king. ME ME ME all the time with Charles. And his mother won't be cold in her grave when HE is demanding that Camilla, HIS "wife" be called the Queen.
In my book she's still Mrs Parker Bowles.
But really my point was that Grieve has already admitted that if we saw these letters we would think him unsuitable to be king... so now whether we see them or not we are going to think that (if we didn't already know).
You don't actually have to see poison kill to know that you shouldn't drink it. Being told about it is usually enough.
Ha ha Rolfe/Arbroath!
ReplyDeleteI think there was a bit of a joke going on there!!!!
Effie: There are many different views in the SNP, and I suppose the other nationalist parties about the constitution, in particular with regard to the royals.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Labour has its republicans too.
Alex Salmond is, I believe a royalist, and a fair section of the party is too. A lot of Scots regardless of their affiliations are royalist.
Alex is a friend of Charles.
As it goes, in an independent Scotland, I'd rather see some figurehead president, elected maybe for a year at a time (like the Swiss), but I'd have little problem with a very slimmed down monarchy (of the Scandinavian type), where they were grand for state occasions, but the rest of the time were just like normal people and cost us almost nothing.
If we are stuck with the Windsors, I do have a problem with Charlie, because I think he will be a terrible king pushing his nose into things all the time.
But you must be careful not to assume that nationalists are all republicans. It's just not true.
In the days when the Labour party was socialist in nature, you would have assumed that most of its members would have been anti- monarchy, but not so. Some of the most dutiful and loyal of subjects were poor people, trades union members without a bean.
I think many of the monarchists in the SNP are the kind that, like my mum, think that the royals are a perfectly good idea (and fear the idea of a President Brown, or Blair or Thatcher!), but personally wouldn't cross the road to see them drive past.
You're right Niko.
ReplyDeleteAlex has indicated his [preference for the Windsors to continue as the royal family. I suppose that, as a privy counsellor, he will have sworn some oath to the Queen.
You could hardly be her privy counsellor without it, and you certainly can't be the First Minister without being a PC.
Anon: You are quite right. We shouldn't talk about them being ugly and old, as that's the way most of us will be at some time, although hopefully one's ears won#'t stick out like Charlie's!!.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that it is an over reaction to the way that everyone talks about (with an element of pride) how beautiful Kate Middleton is, and how handsome Willie is. I don't particularly think it's true. She's rather sharp looking and if it weren't for all the money would probably look plain and a bit common, and he has lost the Spencer looks now and is starting to look like his uncle Eddy!
However, it's always been a habit for people to love the young royals for their good looks (largely down to expensive tailoring and great make up), and deride the middle aged ones for their debauched looks (you have to admit Charlie looks older than Philip, and from a strictly male point of view, it is hard to imagine why anyone would leave Diana's bed and rush off to be with Parker Bowles!!).
It's funny how the public tend to like them once they are very old. The Queen mother was incredibly popular in her very old age, and now the Queen is too.
I suppose it's the "Wow, nearly 90 and still working" syndrome.
Bruce:
ReplyDeleteI think they are a treated like "stars", a bit like Hollywood, pop stars, One Direction sort of thing.
They look like they have incredibly glamorous lives, which in some ways they do (and in others they do not).
It's the fairy tale notion that remains in some people, possibly most people. We want to be like them. We want to have servants and money, and be able to travel in private jets and Rolls Royces and snap our fingers and make things happen.
It's pathetic, but it's natural, particularly in people who don't have much glamour in their lives.
I guess it was ever thus. I'm always struck by these Agatha Christie stories from nearly a century ago, where the servants are so struck by the glamour of "film stars".
Plus ca change; plus c’est la même chose.
I like the idea of everyone being elected, being responsible to the electorate, which is why I disapprove of the House of Lords, the power of the church, the FPTP system and an hereditary head of state.
To me, making film stars out of these people just encourages them in their ways... but it seems to be what the people want.
Maybe this unsuitable man as king will change that!
Much as I agree that it’s invidious to employ insults over personal appearance or traits. I think that if Private Eye can do it over Brenda and her odious brood, why not? And was Spitting Image not something we all applauded and fell about laughing at? And should we not take the lead from our dear English leader David Cameron who, I believe, approved the description of Alex Salmond as the “mad Scotsman”, now there is “respect” in action! Did the would be King himself not describe one of his most devoted toadies as “ghastly”. While the Duke of Edinburgh dines out on insulting and derogatory remarks.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that Camilla is a horsey faced woman and Charles does have big ears. What is the difference between saying that and saying that Brenda and her odious brood are a bunch of scroungers whose ancestors managed to murder more people and steal more stuff than everyone else and got to keep it all when the music stopped!
LOL.
ReplyDeleteYou put it quite convincingly Munguin.
I know I do it myself, but I always feel that, in the great scheme of things, it is decidedly less important that Charlie has a face like a relief map of the Himalayas and big sticky out ears, than the fact that that he is a spoilt brat of a man, who simply will have nothing other than HIS way about everything, and to hell with everyone and everything else.
This insistence that he have Camilla parker Bowles one way or the other is just typical of his attitude that everything must be done his way.
It's at the same time pathetic and hilarious to see these documentaries about his "work", where he is holding meetings and everyone else there is agreeing with everything he says and laughing at any little joke he cracks.
That said, some of what he does, or rather his organisations do, is first rate. I've seen the prince's Trust change people's lives.
The Princes Trust, all the charity work they do, going to see poor people in Lesotho and so on, is at the end of the day just a great big party political broadcast for the royal family inc. Intended to make us all go gooey eyed and start simpering about how worth it they all are. And it’s what keeps them in their vastly expensive and privileged positions. Just because you do a lot of charity work does not make you a nice or fit person, Jimmy Saville is an excellent case in point. Buying merit for such a repulsive person as Charles is never in my opinion worth the candle! How much of the work does he actually do? What could all the money that is chucked at it not do in other places? And what about the army of people who do much more than him but without the benefit of his and his families publicity arm (which we pay for)?
ReplyDeleteThe Prince's trust runs courses for people in the UK. These courses are very effective Munguin. I've seen them, and occasionally lectured on them. They are first rate.
ReplyDeleteThat of course, does not make him a nice person. As I have said, he's a complete horror.
I agree with your view about Mrs Parker Bowles Tris.
ReplyDeleteShe was Mrs Parker Bowles.
She is Mrs Parker Bowles
She always will be Mrs Parker Bowles.
I for one am not a Republican nationalist. I think a lot of this has to do with the four year shenanigans that go on across the pond in the U.S.A. not to mention the huge cost of running the Presidential office, their travel and security etc.
My other main concern about having Presidential elections every four years is that we will more than likely run into the situation where we have say an SNP government but a Labour President.
Who gets the final say on the passing of new laws?
Who decides on what new laws to debate and bring into force?
Who is the superior force, Holyrood or President?
I do think we should have our own Royalty exactly the way that you describe the Scandinavian model Tris. They are good for tourism but have little or no say in the running of the country. Perhaps rolled out once or twice a year to open Holyrood and officially rubber stamp new laws etc. Apart from that they are "normal" people permitted to have normal jobs.
The main thing is we don't have four yearly expensive elections and there is no confusion over where the power of the land lies. I am more than a bit concerned that the Holyrood/President "norm" would turn out to be one where one party held sway at Holyrood and another held sway as President and nothing or very little would actually get done during each four year term.
My other concern is that by having a President we are looking at having a Presidential election every four years.
Right that's it rant over, I'll crawl back into my hovel and shut the door now! :lol:
Now as things stand we already have E.U. elections.Holyrood elections and council elections. Are the people of Scotland really up to having Presidential elections as well?
I mean we would be looking at,effectively holding one set of elections every year. I think the Scottish electorate would very quickly get sick and tired of these annual events.
Maybe the letters show that he's pure mental and the govt don't want us to worry about him.
ReplyDeleteTalking to flowers, marrying a horse, loving windmills, dreaming of being a tampax, having 7 eggs boiled each morning and picking the best one, getting flunkeys to put his toothpaste on his brush and floss between his teeth for him etc.
I was thinking more along the lines of a ceremonial president, like the Irish one or the German one, Arbroath.
ReplyDeleteI think the Swiss parliament appoints the president for a year. he has no political power and is there to greet guests and host dinners. Actually I've never heard of the president of Switzerland making state visits abroad but maybe he does.
I suppose the Presiding Officer could do that job as well.
I would have no real problem with a monarch who didn't think they were something terribly special, unlike this lot, and the HUGE family that goes with them. I mean, why we are keeping Prince John of Wessex... I really do not know.
Yeah Monty. He as mad as a March hare or even maybe David Cameron...well maybe not quite THAT mad! :)
ReplyDeleteMy dear Nat pals
ReplyDeleteSUPPORT for Scottish independence is continuing to fall, according to the first poll published since the historic “Edinburgh Agreement” was signed this week paving the way for a referendum.
• Support for independence down 9% since January according to Ipsos Mori poll
• Women and voters from affluent areas least likely to vote for independence
• SNP conference begins in Perth this week
Only 30% of Scots back leaving the UK according to IPSOS Mori, with support for remaining in the UK twice as strong (58%). The news will come as a blow as the SNP heads into its conference this weekend in Perth.
Only 12% are undecided, among those who are certain to vote.
It means backing for separation is down five percentage points since the last poll in June and nine points since January. Support for the Union has increased three points since June and eight points since January.
Down down deeper on down
Alex said
He added that he had not changed his mind that the vote was a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
bit of a Freudian slip there must know deep in his inner ID he is going to be whupped.
well peeps this launch aint going very good so far still 24 months to bore the pants off Scotland
My apologies Tris, I've only ever been aware of Presidential elections like those in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your comments about a Scottish royal family, these are similar to mine and that was what I was trying say.
I understand that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and Belgium I think, all have their own Royals and all these Royals behave in a way that I believe is much more acceptable to the people of Scotland rather than the "we are your rulers" attitude emanating from South of the border.
mmm opinion polls niko.....
ReplyDelete"In March 2011, two months before the election, Labour held a double-digit lead over the SNP in the opinion polls, 44% to 29%. The SNP's support subsequently rallied, with the two parties level in April polling. In the final poll on the eve of the election, the SNP were eleven points clear of Labour. A swing of 26% "
Landslide followed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011#Opinion_polls
No apology needed Arbroath. I should have made it clear I wanted a non executive president.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I'd settle for Margarethe of Denmark, Faroes and Greenland type of monarch. Or the Swedish blokey Gustaf who has absolutely no constitutional role at all.
The Scandinavians seem to like them well enough, and if it's good enough for these sensible people it would be good enough for me.
I'd like to think of the king as someone I could reasonably go for pint with... Can you imagine going for a pint with Charlie....?
Ha ha. Yeah Monty. They don't really seem to be that reliable in Scotland.
ReplyDelete"Women and voters from affluent areas least likely to vote for independence." says Niko.
ReplyDeleteYep Niko. The rich are happy with belonging to the Tories and London.
They look after themselves. They know where their bread is buttered, and how. You can't be affluent without others being dirt poor and starving. They are rich on the back of other people's poverty.
So the rich vote for England, the Tories, inequality and unfairness...by God Sir....
Monty
ReplyDeleteTurnout old boy turnout remember the snp only have the support of 25% of the electorate or a quarter in old money.
and if we consider the 2010 Westminster(the real and not pretendy Parliament)
we see 1913854 votes for the UK
And 491,386 votes for the snp seperationists (just love that word note how all the msm use that delicious term 'seperationists' just rolls off the tongue)
A much truer picture of how the Scottish people vote on the UK And one the polls support.
god how good it feels to fillet ole Monty
tris
ReplyDeleteI am in training to KO brownlie wid one of me mindblowing comments ..........pow! pow!
Watch those brain cells now Niko as you don't have many left as they can only absorb so much nonsense before they self destruct.
ReplyDeleteYou've sadly failed again Niko.
ReplyDeleteYou're getting the Yes to independence voters mixed up with the SNP voters and assuming they're the same thing( there's even a Labour voters for independence grouping).
Like many thousands in Scotland I don't support the SNP ( or any political party for that matter) but will vote yes for independence.
I only gave the SNP polling results to show that the polls can swing wildly.
That's you filleted, covered in batter and deep fat fried until crispy I'd say.
ch
ReplyDeleteumm! brain cell
Ah... I do like to see some healthy intellectual debate on the good old blog chaps...
ReplyDeleteI wish you luck, Niko, trying to get the better of JB... lol... I'm looking forward to this!
Separationists, eh Niko... Very nice.
tris
ReplyDeleteThe greater the difficulty, the more the glory in surmounting it. - Epicurus yeah Brownlie
and to keep yer pecker up
Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head. - Euripides
Separationists not just a word more a Unionist cudgel to bash the Nationalists with.
anyway am off for the night
When did you start wearing glasses Niko?
ReplyDeletetris I think the twitterspere will meltdown over the QT from Easterhouse as the panellists tonight 5 unionist to 1 Independence + 1 neutral, they must read things that a nationalist is worth 5 unionists.
Sir J Bloggs Labour original thoughts!
ReplyDeleteNiko:
ReplyDeleteYour intellect never ceases to stun me.
How can someone as intellectually superior be a unionist, I ask myself?
I know the answer. it's actually Taz the nationalist dog that is providing all these classical references.
own up Niko... there's a good chap.
Well, when you look at the unionists there, and then weight them against Nicola, that's pretty much the odds.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit shoddy of them. There probably should have been someone from the greens on, given that this week Alex and Nicola signed the agreement with England.
He looks a bit of an dodgy old blokey, that one, CH.... Of course his dealings with Labour councils and his generosity to Labour are in no way connected. Who would make such a suggestion!?!
Night night Niko... and everyone else. I'm for an early night...
ReplyDeleteI see he insists that he will continue to write these letter and get involved in politics once he is king.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219343/Aides-defiant-Charles-insist-duty-bombard-ministers-political-views.html#ixzz29dEqHkJw
Incidentally, does anyone know how a little man like Grieve has the right to overrule the High Court in England?
Thanks for that endearing image Tris.
ReplyDeleteNow how the hell do I get rid of the image of me, or anyone else going for a drink with Charlie....... ARGH!!!!!!
Thought that Mark Serwotka the General Secretary of the PCS trade union had a good Q.T. It looked like he was more of a pro Independence leaning panellist as opposed to the rest.
What really surprised me was Cochrane, he almost talk sense occasionally!
As for the other two, Davidson and Curran, well the least said about them the better I think!
Just be grateful it wasn't dinner, Arbroath.... wooops! Too late.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen it yet. I'm intending to watch the iplayer version so I can fast forward through some of the waffle.
Curren is the most bitter woman I've ever heard, and when I met her maybe about 8 or 9 years ago, she was really quite pleasant. It's a shame.
Davidson is just out of her depth I think. First time politician, leader of the party, put there because there was no one else and Dave wanted her. Plus she had had tv experience so wouldn't be too dreadful. But she's just Dave in Scotland. And Dave anywhere is not a good thing to be, never mind in Scotland!
Arbroath 1320
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on what a "President" actually does.
The US and French models have them as political leaders, replacing the Monarchy and with all their powers, with the elected Senate and Congress/Assembly counterbalancing the Presidency.
Ireland and many other countries have "ceremonial" Presidencies whose main job is to see that their written constitution is followed by the politicians. Effectively this type of President takes an oath to the constitution and the people. A perfect example of such a constitutional arrangement is that of Iceland. Remember when the politicians were about to cave in the banks, IMF and the EU to commit the Icelandic people to assume the debt personally. The then President called the politicians in and said that this was too far and beyond the democratic mandate. It would have to be presented to the Icelandic people in a referendum and we all know the result of that; a growing economy outstripping the UK.
They also put some politicians and bankers in prison.
Bravo to Iceland, Wolfie.
ReplyDeleteI've often wished I'd been born there. Fabulous place, wonderful people and amazing way of life.
Thanks for that wolfie, as I said to Tris I was only aware of the U.S. type of President, something I hate in bucket loads along with their nauseating Republican/Democrat elections and conventions.
ReplyDeleteJeez Tris, you really know how make someone ill don't you? :lol:
With regards to Q.T. last night I think we should let Margaret Curran have the final say on proceedings.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=165055603618526&set=a.147197615404325.3864.135402323250521&type=1&theater