I'm not Prince Charles' biggest fan, as most of you will know, but after reading this, I'm very glad that I don't have to live in his Duchy. I thought you might like to read it too. Far too much privilege, far too little accountability or democracy. My thanks to the author of Cornish Republican for bringing it to my attention.


For the information of anyone who is remotely interested, Kate Middleton wore a pair of earrings to go to the kirk on Christmas day. They were a present from her husband, William, and according to AOL News, they cost £1,900. I wonder how many of his colleagues in Search and Rescue, Wales, were able to spend that much money on their wives... or come to that, how AOL News found out how much he spent on her...

Talking of royalty, you have to hand it to Phil. He certainly knows how to enjoy himself. He got out of hospital this morning, and although we only have the BBC reporter's word for it, he was told to rest for some time. But instead the old goat was out shooting defenceless birds this afternoon. Whatever you think of that (and I take a dim view of it), you have to laugh at the Telegraph's reporting: "Dressed smartly in a blue shirt with a green patterned tie and grey jacket, he sat in the passenger seat of a blue Range Rover for the 60 mile, one hour 13 minute journey."!!!!!!!! Goodness. He was dressed smartly, was he? How else was he going to be dressed? With his money he's hardly likely to look like he fell out of a bin, is he? Oh yeah...and the journey was 1 hour and 13 minutes? Bang on.


Sinead O'Connor latest marriage lasted 16 days... that's a record, even by her standards.


Alex Salmond has gone and got himself voted Briton of the Year. He is reported delighted! Oh the irony.

Those who predicted that Scots looking for cheap, cheap booze would head over the border to England for their Diamond White cider and offers of '3 for the price of 2', were a wee bit previous in their predictions. Cameron has just announced a similar scheme of minimum pricing for his country. It had to come. Chief medical officers in all parts of the UK have been advising it for a long time. It's not perfect, and i don't think it's the only solution, but it may help a little.

CHARLES WIELDS POWER OVER A WIDE RANGE OF MATTERS

Lithograph of the Black Prince (2nd left)

Under an ancient law dating from 1337 which has never been revoked, The Duke of Cornwall has the right to veto legislation of the Westminster parliament if it affects his private interests.


Breathtaking, isn't it?


Nonetheless, ministers have been forced to seek the duke's permission on matters as far ranging as road safety, gambling, the Olympics, co-operative societies, economic development, housing, regeneration, energy and planning amongst others. 


Whilst his mother technically has the right to interfere by "advising, encouraging and warning" on matters affecting her subjects, and a veto over matters that affect the royal family, it seems that  HRH, has a secret right to demand changes to Bills if they get in the way of his private interests.


The information came to light as the result of a Freedom of Information demand by the Guardian. The government recently exempted official correspondence between ministers and the Queen, Charles and William, from FoI legislation (meaning that Charles could continue to summons ministers to discuss legislation without it becoming embarrassing). However, with their customary panache from messing up, clearly no one thought to include this "right" in that  cover-up legislation, which, ironically, was unobtrusively tacked on to a Bill on openness in government!!!! 

Coinage of Edward, the Black Prince

The legislation originates from Edward III  when he created his son, the Black Prince, Duke of Cornwall and has been passed down since that time, seemingly without alteration. The Duchy provides Charles with £18 million a year of private income, quite separate from the money given to him by the state for royal duties and maintaining his wife.


The revelations have caused both MPs and Peers (although why the peers, I'm not sure) to protest and demand publication of details about how these powers have been used to interfere in legislation. Both the government and Charles' office is refusing to give any details of any changes that he has demanded. The Liberal MP for St Ives in Kernow, said that he was astonished to hear that Charles has a veto over government business, and a minister Lord Berkeley who was recently obliged to ask permission over a marine navigation bill, wondered why other landowners who would be affected by it should not have an equal say.


Charles has been accused on many occasions of poking his nose into government and meddling in the affairs of ministers. While some may think that a disastrously out of touch Cabinet might benefit from a little steering in the direction of the needs of the people, it's surely the constituency MPs who are supposed to do that. Not someone whose reality is so far removed from Mr Average as to be on a different planet and in a different time zone.

THE REAL COSTS OF THE ROYALS TO BE CUT

We are often told that the cost of the royal family is a Civil List of around £45 million a year, and the royalist loyalist press work out that that is 67p per person per year, and gushingly implore us to rejoice at the value for money that we get.

But of course they never take into consideration the far larger added costs like the Duchy of Cornwall’s £16 million+ which could be used in Kernow for the benefits of the people, not the personal living expenses of Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles in addition to the grant in aid money that Charles and his “wife” get to perform their duties.

There is the expense of running and maintaining the Queen’s Flight, covered by the Ministry of War, ditto the royal train, charged to the Department of Transport, and the mother of them all, security.

For some reason, no one will tell us what the security costs are. Apparently it’s secret for reasons of security, as if terrorists could circumvent security if only they knew how much it cost.

The costs for this fall on the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police, the Foreign office and, of course, the local police forces all over the UK which have to mount massive security operations on every occasion when a member of the family is in their area.

I remember a few years ago that the Queen and Philip came to open a park in Dundee. I had never seen so many police in my life. I had no idea that there were so many. All over the park, everywhere as far as the eye could see, were uniformed police, and heaven only knows how many plain clothes officers were hidden in the crowd. The cost must have been enormous.

I remember too that many years ago, Alex Salmond criticised Charles and his then “partner”, Mrs Parker Bowles, for announcing that they were going to be at Crathie church on the Sunday of a weekend visit to Balmoral, only to change their minds at the last minute, meaning that a massive security operation, costing the Aberdeenshire police tens of thousands of pounds, had been mounted for nothing.

The overall cost of this must (spread across the country) be hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

There are massive costs of providing security for the Andrew sisters who contribute nothing to the life of the country. Fortunately this security has been a casualty of the policing cuts in England, and now it has been announced that Edward is to lose security on his 80+-roomed, £30 million mansion. He’s not happy about it, of course. His family will continue to enjoy security when they are in their royal apartments in London and elsewhere, and when on royal duties but not on their private home.

What always amazes about these people is that they seem to think that it is out of the question for them to pay for anything like this from their own pockets instead of sponging from the “hard pressed, hard working British Family”.

They are inordinately rich. Although they do now pay tax on their private incomes from farms on their estates and other enterprises, they do not pay inheritance tax and as such the fortunes that they have amassed over the years are left untouched. If they are so desperately afraid that someone will get in to their mansions, they should do what other people do and install a security system.

At their own expense.

Pics: DIY royal security. "Does one want some?"; Eddy and the snippy bitch will have to learn some self defence, or maybe just fork out for security themselves?

ONEN HAG OLL, KERNOW BYS VICKAN!

One and All, Cornwall Forever

The Coalition last night voted down an amendment to protect the integrity of Cornwall as far as parliamentary seats are concerned in the so called Devonwall controversy, whereby parliamentary constituencies will cross the border between Devon and Cornwall. The vote was 315 to 257, a coalition majority of 58.

There are 6 Cornish MPs, 3 Liberals and 3 Tories. As far as I can make out all of them voted against the Government, but it seems that very few of their colleagues followed.

It seems very strange that if all the Cornish MPs were prepared to vote against their party whips on the subject, the feeling in Cornwall must be very very strong.

I would suggest that, given that the extreme North of Scotland is to be given exemption to the equal sized constituencies, the same might have been allowed in Cornwall. As has been pointed out, cross border constituencies would never be considered on the Scotland-England border, nor on the Wales-England border. Cornwall may not technically be a separate country in the UK, but it certainly is a separate nation with its own customs and language: a language which, although nearly dead some years ago, has found new life and popularity and whose daily use is spreading across Kernow rapidly.

By not being prepared to make this exception the government will have poured oil on the fire of Cornish nationalism.

This is a bad night for Kernow and a bad night for the Tory-Liberal Coalition Government. It's certainly the wrong decision. I hope that it comes back to bite them.

THE CUTS WILL DISPROPORTIONATELY HIT THE POOR

It seems that it is an excellent time to bury bad news.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has reported that the coalition’s budget has affected poor households disproportionately, but little has been made of this in the press, as Nick Clegg settles his feet under the desk for a prolonged period as acting Prime Minister.

As an aside, do you remember the derision which met Nick Clegg’s statement, made only a few months ago, that he came into politics to be prime minister .....? Eat crow people who smirked or even belly laughed!

The IFS’ assessment highlights impact of the looming cuts to public services, which will hit poorer households significantly harder than richer households. The Financial Times, no less, reckons that the IFS conclusions will put massive pressure on Liberal Democrat MPs. After all, which Liberal could honestly say that he came into politics to vote for measures that target the poor as a means of bringing down a deficit which has largely been caused by the rich?

The FT’s own calculations, based on the effect of cutting public services by 15%, showed the losses were heavily concentrated in poor families and dwarfed the effects of other Budget tax and benefit changes. Losses for the poorest 20% of households would be around 8% of income, with losses of less than 3% among the richest 20% of families. Given that the richest really do not use all of their income on a daily basis, and the poor usually do, the unfairness is compounded and will in some cases, bring real misery.

The results, interesting, contrast with the Treasury’s own analysis, which amazingly, and conveniently, does not include the effect of public spending cuts, and so shows larger proportionate losses among the richest.

Spokesmen (people) for the chancellor said that he had been “totally straight and clear” about what was included in the Treasury analysis and what was excluded. One claimed the chancellor’s boast that the Budget “was progressive” was accurate. He said the government had implemented some of Labour’s policies.

As if that were some indication of progressiveness!!!

But, in most media this was small beer compared to the Earth shattering news that, in Kernow, a wealthy lady had given birth to a baby daughter just like approximately 1,900 other women across the United Kingdom.

Awesome.