If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Prince Charles vs The Mail on Sunday
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I'm well-aware that the P&D forum on this board is stuffed to the rafters full of left-wing republicans who seem to believe that Jacques Chirac makes a better head of state than a queen who is above politics, but no matter. This is about the case going on concerning Prince Charles.
Now, last November, The Mail on Sunday published diary extracts from Prince Charles. It was revealed he keeps a journal, and circulates it to his close friends. In a sense, it's like a version of LiveJournal. I write in it, and my friends on the list get to see it. Before anyone asks, yes, I have read the extracts. I thought they were very measured, a very interesting set of opinions and well-written. I quite enjoyed reading them.
However, this case raises a serious question. Traditionally, the monarchy has kept quiet about politics. We know royal family members have political opinions, but constituationally, they're meant to keep quiet about them. Charles is openly expressing political opinions. Should a man in his position be allowed to do this?
Hugh Tomlinson QC for Prince Charles: << details >>
"We say it is absolutely vital to the position of the claimant, and anyone else in his position, that this sort of document cannot be published willy-nilly by the press. The claimant does not intend or wish to publish the journals although it is possible that after his death, edited extracts may be published."
On the one hand, I can see his point. I wouldn't be too keen if a Sunday newspaper started publishing extracts from my diaries either. But the paper could easily claim "this is in the public interest". Or is it? The other side...
Mark Warby QC for The Mail on Sunday: << details >>
"This case is about politics, political opinion and the role of the heir to the throne in relation to these issues. These journals are not what he did on his holidays. They are records of public events in which he engaged as a public servant. We say the nub is the prince's status and conduct. It is not open to him to complain when the public is told of the fact he is circulating political opinions and what his opinions are."
Again, I sympathise with the Mail's point of view. But I really don't know what else to think. This case could have some constitutional implications potentially.
What do you all make of this?
Now, last November, The Mail on Sunday published diary extracts from Prince Charles. It was revealed he keeps a journal, and circulates it to his close friends. In a sense, it's like a version of LiveJournal. I write in it, and my friends on the list get to see it. Before anyone asks, yes, I have read the extracts. I thought they were very measured, a very interesting set of opinions and well-written. I quite enjoyed reading them.
However, this case raises a serious question. Traditionally, the monarchy has kept quiet about politics. We know royal family members have political opinions, but constituationally, they're meant to keep quiet about them. Charles is openly expressing political opinions. Should a man in his position be allowed to do this?
Hugh Tomlinson QC for Prince Charles: << details >>
"We say it is absolutely vital to the position of the claimant, and anyone else in his position, that this sort of document cannot be published willy-nilly by the press. The claimant does not intend or wish to publish the journals although it is possible that after his death, edited extracts may be published."
On the one hand, I can see his point. I wouldn't be too keen if a Sunday newspaper started publishing extracts from my diaries either. But the paper could easily claim "this is in the public interest". Or is it? The other side...
Mark Warby QC for The Mail on Sunday: << details >>
"This case is about politics, political opinion and the role of the heir to the throne in relation to these issues. These journals are not what he did on his holidays. They are records of public events in which he engaged as a public servant. We say the nub is the prince's status and conduct. It is not open to him to complain when the public is told of the fact he is circulating political opinions and what his opinions are."
Again, I sympathise with the Mail's point of view. But I really don't know what else to think. This case could have some constitutional implications potentially.
What do you all make of this?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
can't speak out ...can't go down the pub for a game of dominoes ...can't go to the **** shop on the corner ...
He can talk to his plants though.
there's a head shop next to the palace?
That's 2/3 potential future heirs on drugs (that we know of). If Harry was caught sniffing gear, i might have to consider becoming a Royalist.
Youre really weird. SG....
*hic*
He must have been off sick the day they taught in Monarchy 101 that Heads of State must not interfere politically. Because that's what he's been doing all his life. He's unfit to be King.
Mind you, it'd be nice if he takes down the HateMail on Sunday.
Too many words -
Charles is a liability.
Much better. Frankly I don't give a shit what the jug eared feudalisitic fucknut gets up to, just as long as I am not being asked to pay for any of it.
As for the monarch not being political, what the fuck have you been smoking?
http://www.johannhari.com/index.php
Well its too long to post so youl have to click on the link
Its not like he stood up and made a speech, so its a bit unfair to say he was getting involved in politics.
PS does anyone else find it a bit odd that whilst he travelled in cattle class when coming back from Hong Kong, socialists like Robin Cook took first class.
Anyway, he's a bit too full of himself and to be frank rather a bit of a bother. From architecture to food produce to foreign relations, the man won't shut up.
Isn't that kind of ironic that any of us who post regularly on P&D (or any other board) can complain about other spouting their opinions
Were they private diaries? If so, they should get their dirty bastard hands off them.
Ha, friends only, then. Not friends and scummy tabloid only.
Since when was Robin Cook a socialist?