Wednesday 12 March 2014


Dom with his silly hat on
Dominic Grieve’s  has had his refusal to allow the public see letters between the Prince of Wales and  government ministers ruled unlawful by three judges. Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, and two other judges, Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Pitchford, ruled that Mr Grieve had "no good reason" for overriding a previous decision to allow publication made by the Upper Tribunal (part of the court system) and that he (Grieve) had acted in a way which was incompatible with European law.

But the case is not yet finished. Grieve has decided to spend more taxpayers’ money taking the case to the Supreme Court because he thinks there are important principles at stake in the case. I suspect that this is less about principles and more about the fact that Charles wants everything done his way, come what may; that despite his years of training at his mother’s hand, he still believes he is living in the times of Henry VIII, and he should be able to instruct the cabinet of his wishes and that Her Majesty's loyal government doesn't want the public to know this.

Charlie with a silly hat and loads
 of medals for... erm... being Charlie
I’m not always a big fan of the Guardian but it is perusing this case with vigour and quite rightly so. It wants the communications between Charles and ministers to be a matter of public record. The newspaper reckons that the public has a right to know if the heir to the throne is advocating policy or promoting causes to government ministers.

I accept that not everything the government does can be made public. Clearly there are discussions, emails, letters and phone calls, made by ministers on behalf of the public, which must remain secret. I respect that in cases where state security, commercial sensitivity or personal details are involved information cannot be released, or can only be released in redacted form. But I don’t accept that this can be used in a blanket form to cover all communications ever sent by Charles. And I do think that government must remember that it is paid by us to run the country. That is to say WE employ it. It doesn't have a god given right to keep information to itself.

We have long been led to believe that the monarch has the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn, and we have, to a greater or lesser extent, accepted this. We would be foolish not to expect the heir to the throne to be involved in the government’s business; one day, possibly without any notice, he will be required to do it for himself. But recently it has come to light that, in fact, the Queen and her eldest son have far greater powers than we had imagined to have legislation altered, and that they have both used that power on a relatively regular basis to interfere with what we laughingly call democratic government. (An unelected head of state with power; a unelected house of aristocrats; and a house of commoners elected on a FPTP system where 60+% of seats never change hands.)
The Queen with an equally silly, but far more expensive hat

Nothing can be done about the letters until the case is heard in the Supreme Court. Grieve is clearly desperate to get the result he wants, and frankly I have no confidence at all that undue pressure will not be applied to ensure that it goes his way.

It seems that, given the time and money the government is putting into this, that the contents of the letter would be extremely damaging to either the government or Charles and the Queen. All the more reason why we should demand to see them. 

Forewarned is forearmed.


  1. Apparently they have changed the law so this cannot be a problem in the future
    There will be no right to know what Charlie and co. are up to
    You couldn't beat them with a stick

    1. Yes. I read that that was true. It's a wonder that Grieve hasn't done what IDS did and made the law retrospective.

      Interesting given that they are using surveillance to monitor every move we make but giving the queen, Charlie and William exemption from FoI.

      What is it they always tell us plebs... if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry about.

      Seems not to apply to them. Oh to have blue blood.

      As for beating them with a stick... what an idea!

  2. Tris

    As you know the idea of the monarchy makes me sick. I am not surprised in the least about this at all, this family will bleed the system dry for as long as they can get away with it. If we vote YES then I would expect that within a few years there will be a debate and a referendum on getting rid of this last bit of the empire that serves to keep us poor people in our place.

    This unelected head of state crap should end when the Queen dies, there is no way that any of the Windsors should pick up the mantle. If they were a decent bunch then I might not care but they are not, they do everything they can to keep their status and while some might say that is understandable it isn't, their status keeps people down in this country. I have met a few of them now and have never bowed and only shook hands when it has been offered to me, I am not better than them in any way but I am their equal, my children and everyone in this country is their equal and I refuse to ever bow down to them or their like.

    I suppose on the issue of Charles, I believe I have read a few times that he is alleged to be a very spoilt and difficult man to be around but why politicians etc bow a scrape to him is beyond me. I would like to read the letters though just to see how much this unelected family dictate policy in this country and how much this acts against the interests of the very people they are supposed to serve.

    The sooner we are out the UK and they out of Scotland the better, the SNP are wrong on this one.


    1. I don't like royalty either Bruce.

      I know that the leadership of the SNP is pro royal, and that Alex gets on well with the Queen and Charles, but some in the party are anti royalist. Just like some in Labour are anti royal. I imagine the Tories are all royalists, believing in the class system. They, of course, are the pinnacle of this awful class system which has dogged Britain and held it back.

      It's a difficult situation, and I imagine that the whole thing will come into question again when Charles gets the job. There is undoubtedly a loyalty to the Queen, mostly among older people.

      The argument against them is President McConnell or President ffoulkes.

      For me that is not enough, but I think if we held a referendum right now, the Queen would be the most popular applicant for head of state.

      As i say, after independence and when King Charles and Queen Mrs Parker Bowles are forced on us, that may change.

      I'd be happy not to have a head of state at all, and leave the Presiding Officer to do the entertaining of foreign "dignitaries".

      I have turned down an opportunity to meet royals as i was told that I could not speak unless I was spoken to and Prince Charles must be allowed to chose the subject. No questions could be asked and I must refer to him by some ridiculous style and thereafter call him "sir".

      I was also told what I could wear for the occasion.

      So I thought, not much point in meeting him if I can't speak freely with him; and I get dressed up on orders from no one; I will not use "Your royal HIGHNESS, or call anyone sir... so I expect it would be better not to go.

      In the course of work I have met Jock McConnell, Henry McLeish, Margaret Curran, and her deputy, Helen Liddle and I was never told what to say or wear.

      There was an occasion when Tony Blair came to Dundee and to the place where I worked at the time and we received a list of dos and do nots... so I took the day off, rather than embarrass my employers.

      A friend of mine was told to dress up for a visit from the SoS some time ago. He, being less kindly than I am, left the supervisor who gave him instructions to that effect in tears, and then turned up with an elderly and very shabby suit, with food stains on his tie.

      Needless to say the SoS was kept well away from him. And not long after he was made redundant!

      That of course is why all these English cabinet ministers come to companies where they are protected from ordinary people who want to ask them questions. Doors are locked and on pain of sacking employees are told what to do and say. It doesn't pay to get the sack now for being rude to a minister, or even asking him to tell the truth, of course, because you get no benefits and are treated like detritus by Cameron’s hate squad at the dWP.

  3. Replies
    1. Seems to have worked for them.

      Although I'd prefer a republic, I'd have no real problem with a Swedish style king. ie, no pomp, no nonsense, no involvement in politics, at all.

      Just someone to welcome visitors and open things.

      And no extensive family to be kept, housed, clothed, guarded, etc etc like the nonsense we have now. Utter madness to be maintaining 5 palaces for one bloody family to live in, when they all have pots of money and their own houses.

      And whilst I understand that there would have to be staff to run state dinners and the and the like, why do we pay for dressers and butlers and maids and footmen and ....all for the likes of Mrs Parker Bowles...

      Just why?

  4. OT: I cannot now get into

    Whitefeatherclub | Dedicated to those who have let Scotland down

    Derek Bateman Broadcaster1

    Auld Acquaintance

    I know you had/have difficulties tris with some sites but these all happened to me 2 or 3 days ago and was wondering if this is an ever increasing problem.

    1. Three wordpress blogs CH. I've just tried to get into them, and I have, but I can't comment on them.

      I'm definately the wrong one to ask for help with technology as I have to get the furry wee Munguin to a switch the thing on for me.

      What browser are you using? Can you get in if you use another browser?

      Can you get into other wordpress blogs?

      Anyone, who knows a computer from a dish of scrambled eggs, suggest anything?

    2. Opera tris have just tried Chrome and its there so must be something at my end although nothing has been updated to cause the problem. Thanks for tip as browser hadn't occurred to me paranoid of dark forces in these times of change that I have become.

    3. Lord love me... I helped someone with the computer... I don't believe it!!!!

      Seat in the House of Lords for Tris!!!

      OK... I'm joking...

      Glad I helped!

    4. A new day has come and everything has returned to normal so the fairies at the bottom of your garden have been busy.

      This poster tells the truth but pictures are suspect.

  5. I used to be ambivalent about the royals, I regarded them as a tourist attraction or interesting theme park for over-weight Americans and/or Germans.

    This tips me over though, we should definitely get rid.

    As you say, I expect after the Queen pops her clogs or steps down or whatever it is they do; their popularity will dip quite badly.

    What you've done there with hats Tris has also helped tip me over. Its the picture with Charles in bowler with his medals, anachronistic, pointless nonsense.

    1. I'm glad I helped you to make up your mind about the form of government we have, Pa, by showing Charlie in a silly hat, with medals he didn't earn.

      At one time I was a supporter of the royals. Not perhaps strongly, but the balance was in their favour. I guess I just accepted the status quo without too much thought. But then we started to find out more and more about them. And the more we found out the less I liked them.

      The whole thing is anachronistic. If you are going to have special treatment because of who your parents are, then you have to maintain the myth that you are in some way different from other people. Better maybe; but definitely different.

      But their behaviour shows that they are not. And in these less deferential times, the papers have made no secret of that. Then of course, there is the fact that they marry ordinary people... completely ordinary people, just like the rest of us... who overnight become duchesses, princesses, ladies and countesses all in one, without ever once having done anything at all to deserve it.

      It annoys me that someone can give their entire life to charitable work... helping with old people, or kids or animals and if they are extremely "lucky" get an MBE for their services.

      And Kate Middleton can set her cap at William, get him and overnight have the most amazing honours, unlimited wealth and treatment, all handed to her for sweet nothing.

      There's Charlie, as you say, with a chest full of medals... for doing absolutely sod all.

      It demeans the efforts of people who have done amazing heroic things, whilst Charlie, on the other hand, once squeezed his own toothpaste.

      Apparently the Queen said that Charlie could marry Mrs Parker Bowles, against the teachings of the church of which she is head (relax God’s words for Charlie and Mrs PB), as long as they didn’t get married in her church. So they got married in a registrar's, or whatever they call it in England, and then spoiled the whole thing by getting the marriage blessed by his mother's senior archbishop.

      His mother also said that Mrs Parker Bowles could not become queen. I bet you his mum won't be cold in her grave before he is summoning the prime minister to say that by royal proclamation, he is overturning the previous monarch's ruling on that. She will be Queen Camilla.

      He's a selfish spoilt little pratt, and clearly not fit to be the head of state (otherwise Dom Boy wouldn't be making such an all-fired fuss about these letters, which must contain some powerful interference).

      The royals may be good for tourism, but they are in competition with reality tv stars for that top place in Hello or the Sun, the Star or other trashy papers for the terminally dim. TOWIE, Big Brother, I'm a celebrity, Strictly, and the Windsors.

      I saw an article in a French magazine that suggests Middleton may be pregnant again.

      I wonder if they could be so crass as to try to interfere with the outcome of the referendum by presenting us another bloody mouth to feed, educate, protect, house, clothe etc etc.

      I'd not bet on it. But by the same token the French celebrity press is every bit as repugnant and unreliable as the English one so it may be a pile of nonsense.

  6. A bit off topic but its had me thinking all day, when you compare, Ukraine's political position to Scotland's it has some glaring similarities, incidentally the name Ukraine come from the word Ukrania, meaning borderlands.

    Like Ukraine, Scotland borders a larger nation,(England) like Ukraine Scotland has many puppet politicians who are loyal to the larger nations aspirations, (Westminster England), like Ukraine, in Scotland the propaganda machines of media and newspapers, are focused on negativity towards the smaller nation. Moscow (Kremlin ) needs the Ukraine to transport its Gazprom pipeline through, Westminster (England ) needs Scotland to, transport its tax profits from North sea gas/oil through, like the Ukraine regarding Chernobyl, the larger nation Westminster (England) needs Scotland to harbour, its weapons of mass destruction.

    Like the Ukraine many nuclear leaks have happened in Scotland, such as Douneray and HMS Astute at Faslane,and like Ukraine its larger neighbour Russia, England (Westminster) has been scaremongering and trying to gain favour with other nations to prevent Scottish independence, such as Spain.

    When you look beneath the surface, Scotland and the Ukraine, have a common cause, one of independence.

    1. Interesting comparison Anon.

      However, unlike Ukraine, Scotland is anything but broke!


  7. Every utterance of this dangerously deluded ecolunatic should be in the public domain !

    1. Yeah, but on the other hand, who the hell would want to read his drivel?

    2. Like it or not the bloody idiot influences the other ecoluatics in government

    3. Well of course he influences people, Anon. I'm told that he is very persuasive and that most ministers are extremely cowed by his presence. If you are summoned to Clarence House for a meeting, you are obliged to go.

      And people agree to his demands, either because they fear him, or they wish to curry favour with him.

      He should have no power at all. It should not be in his remit to summon ministers to an audience, not now; not when he is king.

      The principle that he should is simply wrong.