Reply to: Prince Charles letters

[SimonMac]

The "secret" part of the meeting is the fact the PM is not allowed to disclose what is said in it. The Queen doesn't talk in that fashion anyway which is a blessing.

Well that goes with the politically neutral thing you wanted in the first place!

[minestrone]

when the Tories start in-fighting over Europe as she's seen it all before....

The mask slips

[SueEllen]

Its not a secret meeting if everyone knows about it!

The "secret" part of the meeting is the fact the PM is not allowed to disclose what is said in it. The Queen doesn't talk in that fashion anyway which is a blessing.

Anyway at least the Queen will be able to give Cameron counsel when the Tories start in-fighting over Europe as she's seen it all before....

[SimonMac]

Without consulting the dictionary, I note that the monarch and the heir to the throne have a right, which they regularly exercise, to read and discuss proposed legislation before it is written into a bill and to alter or remove anything in it that in their opinion might be detrimental to their interests, either in their royal capacity or their personal capacity; without this intervention being known to the public.

Are you sure that I still need to look up "intervene"? I think that I have a good idea what is going on; and I have trouble calling it democracy.

Close, the monarch alone "has the right to be consulted and to advise and warn ministers"

[SimonMac]

So like with the Chelsea Barracks affair he intervened on the side of the public.

The Queen actually intervenes as every week or so the Prime Minister has an audience with her that is completely secret.

Its not a secret meeting if everyone knows about it!

Remember the Queen is the Head of State, as such the Prime Minster serves at her pleasure, she instructed Cameron to form a government and can dismiss him at any time, the UK does not have a constitution so as such the Queen is the absolute monarch and basically the buck stops with her.

However over 500 years from the time of Charles I etc the monarch slowly the royal prerogative has been transferred to the PM, not Parliament (Thatcher did not consult Parliament until after war was declared on the Falklands, similarly Heath joined the EEC without informing parliament)

Remember the people of Britain are not citizens, but subjects of the monarch!

[SimonMac]

It seems to me that the problem, and it is a glaring problem for a democracy, is not the detail of Prince Charles's interventions but the very fact that he is constitutionally allowed to intervene at all.

Quite the opposite, the problem is that he has no "officially defined role" yet, he is an ambassador for the country like most other senior royals so would be approached by parties with views on certain subjects, absolutely nothing wrong with him passing on these issues to those who can do something about them.

I agree that the Guardian must be pissed that 10 years of work has ended in a damp squib when everyone say's WGAS

[minestrone]

You are naïve if you think the Queen doesn't intervene in politics at all.

She is the head of state not the PM.

While the PM is elected by their constituents to be an MP, unless you are member of the parliamentary party you don't get a say in who the PM is.

[minestrone]

Without consulting the dictionary

I was inviting you to consult the dictionary.

[SueEllen]

No,

You're a fruitbat for even mentioning it.

You are naïve if you think the Queen doesn't intervene in politics at all.

She is the head of state not the PM.

While the PM is elected by their constituents to be an MP, unless you are member of the parliamentary party you don't get a say in who the PM is.

[SueEllen]

Without consulting the dictionary, I note that the monarch and the heir to the throne have a right, which they regularly exercise, to read proposed legislation before it is written into a bill and to alter or remove anything in it that in their opinion might be detrimental to their interests, either in their royal capacity or their personal capacity; without this intervention being known to the public.

Are you sure that I still need to look up "intervention". I think that I have a good idea what is goin on; and I have trouble calling it democracy.

You are a fruitbat too.

BTW I forgot about that part

[expat]

I think people have to look up intervene in the dictionary before we go further with this thread.

Without consulting the dictionary, I note that the monarch and the heir to the throne have a right, which they regularly exercise, to read and discuss proposed legislation before it is written into a bill and to alter or remove anything in it that in their opinion might be detrimental to their interests, either in their royal capacity or their personal capacity; without this intervention being known to the public.

Are you sure that I still need to look up "intervene"? I think that I have a good idea what is going on; and I have trouble calling it democracy.

[minestrone]

So having "secret" meetings with the Prime Minister of the day is not suspect?

You can say things to people and by the tone of your voice alter their actions.

No,

You're a fruitbat for even mentioning it.

[SueEllen]

I think people have to look up intervene in the dictionary before we go further with this thread.

So having "secret" meetings with the Prime Minister of the day is not suspect?

You can say things to people and by the tone of your voice alter their actions.

[unixman]

I have not actually read them but only noticed a front page in a Scottish tabloid saying he wrote to Blair and told him that the army needed more equipment for soldiers on front line duty in Iraq. If that is the biggest headline they can find then I really can't be arsed reading the rest.

Agree. And I agree the army was under equipped. It is not surprising Charles should stand up for the forces, since his mother is their head and he will likely be one day.

[minestrone]

I think people have to look up intervene in the dictionary before we go further with this thread.