At the risk of crossing swords with my dear bloggy mate Dean, I feel obliged to put down my feelings about the Duke of Rothsay, Earl of Carrick, Great Steward and Lord of the Isles, and his use of his position and connections to intervene in matters well outside the remit of the Royal family.
This time it has ended in tears as a high court judge described his opposition to building plans as "unexpected and unwelcome".
Justice Vos ruled that Charles's intervention in plans for the £3bn Chelsea barracks redevelopment placed the rulers of Qatar, who owned the site, in "an impossible position" and had an impact on the views of the elected politicians charged with deciding on the plans' merits.
The whole story is here, but in essence Voss found that Qatari Diar, a property development company owned by Qatar's royal family, changed its plans for the prime London site as a result of the Charles's direct complaint to the Emir that he did not like the designs by the firm of Lord Rogers.
Charles made clear his opposition to the plan at a meeting with the Emir and he wrote to the prime minister of Qatar saying the designs were part of a "gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city".
He wanted instead something more "old-fashioned" like the buildings in "Bath or 18th-century Edinburgh" in its place.
Justice Vos said that Qatari Diar was "caught between a rock and a hard place" as a result of Charles’s intervention and that the company had been forced to make decisions with "diplomatic and political implications".
The judgment said that the Duke had used his powerful influence lobbying fellow royals and was prepared to put pressure on the mayor, Westminster city council and the media. This put Qatari Diar in a very difficult position and left Qatari Diar executives trying to "calm the political waters and prevent royal feathers being further ruffled".
Vos also ruled that even after the Qataris had decided to
pursue an alternative scheme, Charles's position continued to have an "impact on the views of the officers and politicians (but primarily the latter) at Westminster city council and the Greater London authority".
This is absolutely insupportable. The role of the monarch is to be aware, to advise and to warn her Prime Minister, in private, without ever expressing a public view. The role of her family is to support her in this.
The people who deal with planning consent are elected not bred, to do so.
I predict that when Charles takes over as head of state he will have the delicately balanced relationship between government and monarchy tumbling down round his ears within a couple of years, possibly sooner if he insists on having that woman that the Church, of which he will be head, does not recognize as his lawfully wedded wife, crowned as Queen Camilla Parker-Bowles.
It’s no secret that this blog would be happy to see the royals replaced with an elected head of state. If Charles of Rothsay continues to behave in this way we may well get our wish.
This time it has ended in tears as a high court judge described his opposition to building plans as "unexpected and unwelcome".
Justice Vos ruled that Charles's intervention in plans for the £3bn Chelsea barracks redevelopment placed the rulers of Qatar, who owned the site, in "an impossible position" and had an impact on the views of the elected politicians charged with deciding on the plans' merits.
The whole story is here, but in essence Voss found that Qatari Diar, a property development company owned by Qatar's royal family, changed its plans for the prime London site as a result of the Charles's direct complaint to the Emir that he did not like the designs by the firm of Lord Rogers.
Charles made clear his opposition to the plan at a meeting with the Emir and he wrote to the prime minister of Qatar saying the designs were part of a "gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city".
He wanted instead something more "old-fashioned" like the buildings in "Bath or 18th-century Edinburgh" in its place.
Justice Vos said that Qatari Diar was "caught between a rock and a hard place" as a result of Charles’s intervention and that the company had been forced to make decisions with "diplomatic and political implications".
The judgment said that the Duke had used his powerful influence lobbying fellow royals and was prepared to put pressure on the mayor, Westminster city council and the media. This put Qatari Diar in a very difficult position and left Qatari Diar executives trying to "calm the political waters and prevent royal feathers being further ruffled".
Vos also ruled that even after the Qataris had decided to
pursue an alternative scheme, Charles's position continued to have an "impact on the views of the officers and politicians (but primarily the latter) at Westminster city council and the Greater London authority".This is absolutely insupportable. The role of the monarch is to be aware, to advise and to warn her Prime Minister, in private, without ever expressing a public view. The role of her family is to support her in this.
The people who deal with planning consent are elected not bred, to do so.
I predict that when Charles takes over as head of state he will have the delicately balanced relationship between government and monarchy tumbling down round his ears within a couple of years, possibly sooner if he insists on having that woman that the Church, of which he will be head, does not recognize as his lawfully wedded wife, crowned as Queen Camilla Parker-Bowles.
It’s no secret that this blog would be happy to see the royals replaced with an elected head of state. If Charles of Rothsay continues to behave in this way we may well get our wish.
....
