Prince Charles has jeopardised his reign. amoneyccepting

I think that this pile on on Grany should stop right here.

She is as entitled as anyone else to post whatever she wants that conforms to the T & Cs. If you don't like it, don't bother to read it

I think it is downright rude (not to mention childish) to be telling posters off for posting things that bore you...

I have a mind to use the report button if pile on continues.

Anniebach wrote:
"
If we had an elected President he/she would be involved in a
political party"

That could also happen with an elected monarch. The value of dynastic monarchy within constitutional rules, such as the Windsor monarchy, is that who becomes actual monarch is not a political move but , in the insurance sense, is 'an act of God'. It's irrational so can't be political.

lemsip

but grany you go and on and on..become boring

Indeed lemsip, I'm sure if you ever find out who started this thread you'll give them a piece of your mind.

Yes, Maizie and Petera are right. We can post anything at all on here as long as it’s within guidelines. Lots of posters love having a monarchy and some posters don’t, that’s life. It’s not boring to those who are interested, and if anyone finds a thread boring they can join in with a thread they don’t find boring.
I like reading Grany’s posts and find them interesting. I don’t want her to stop posting.

I copied and pasted The OP with no opinion on it at all
. It's the way to start discussion........ Gransnet may become more interesting if more people found news items from BBc or newspapers etc to copy and paste .. for discussion with no opinion of their own initially.....
so much going on!

I’d forgotten you’d started the thread lemsip but you are right, we should discuss all topics. However, I do like reading Grany’s posts on the monarchy and I’ve learnt a few things from them. Probably this thread has run it’s course now at twelve pages long

25Avalon

Property deals involving Prince Charles and Havisham properties are the latest to be investigated by a charity watchdog. Havisham is owned by Tory Lord Brownlow. It relates to properties bought from Charles failed eco Knockroon development in Ayrshire. Perhaps our Scottish friends can fill us in a bit more?

I am reposting my post as everyone is so tied up in republic v monarchy nobody seems to have noticed yet another possible dubious money deal.

25Avalon

25Avalon

Property deals involving Prince Charles and Havisham properties are the latest to be investigated by a charity watchdog. Havisham is owned by Tory Lord Brownlow. It relates to properties bought from Charles failed eco Knockroon development in Ayrshire. Perhaps our Scottish friends can fill us in a bit more?

I am reposting my post as everyone is so tied up in republic v monarchy nobody seems to have noticed yet another possible dubious money deal.

It happens all the time with the Royals they haven't got a proper job so have to keep themselves occupied somehow.

Royals and Russians

Tory peer who spent £1.7 million bailing out his failed eco-village in a string of secretive deals.

Then there is the cash for honours. Met investigating.

www.cumnockchronicle.com/news/17412139.prince-charles-dream-knockdoon-eco-village-never-made-sense-deprived-east-ayrshire-area-according-leading-scottish-architect/

This from 2019. Charles has no idea of what is required.

MaizieD

^Our elected head of state would be free to speak out on important issues of the day, but would not be allowed to speak on party political matters or get involved in party politics. The head of state could give a voice to the people's concerns or hopes, put new issues onto the public agenda or support community groups and charities in promoting non-partisan causes.^

And how would that work, Grany seeing that anyone in the public eye who speaks out about anything the government does or doesn't do is immediately branded as attempting 'political' interference?

Who is going to define 'political'? Who is going to decide what is, and what isn't, 'non partisan'? Aren't 'important issues of the day' usually intensely political? Where would climate change fit into all that?

Sorry, but I think that this is just magical thinking.

The problem is that our head of state should be allowed to speak on certain issues, as President Higgins did recently on housing. But in doing so the president used his judgement about what he could say so as to not stray into party politics. If he got that wrong he be removed.

Thank you MaizieD for speaking up for me regarding a pile on. It's right people can post their opinions respectfully others should not attack the poster either ignor or offer a different opinion

And there’s more…

I wonder how many more will come out.

From The Times at the weekend.

“The Prince of Wales gave an honour to a controversial Tory peer who spent £1.7 million bailing out his failed eco-village in a string of secretive deals being investigated by the charity watchdog.

Prince Charles presented Lord Brownlow with the award during a ceremony at Buckingham Palace after accepting millions of pounds in donations from him”.

It’s obscene.

Caleo

Anniebach wrote:
"
If we had an elected President he/she would be involved in a
political party"

That could also happen with an elected monarch. The value of dynastic monarchy within constitutional rules, such as the Windsor monarchy, is that who becomes actual monarch is not a political move but , in the insurance sense, is 'an act of God'. It's irrational so can't be political.

I have no idea where the idea of us having an elected monarch came from. How are they different from a president? Just imagine King Boris; I'm sure he would be up for it.

Why not a president? Although I think that too is a very flawed position.

Daisy Anne:

"Elective Monarchy
A monarchy in which the king or queen is chosen from several candidates is known as an elective monarchy."

My idea is that a monarch may be elected by universal suffrage. So far I can't imagine why not. I imagine the British elected monarch may still keep all the traditional processions with gorgeous horses.

PS Anniebach's objection is valid. The benefit of a dynastic monarch is that the monarch is not elected for political reasons. A dynastic monarchy could be replaced by pulling names out of a hat, but there would be no benefit in that over and above dynastic monarchy. So my vote would go to keeping the Windsors.

We understand Charles is now accepting donations in Lurpak.

Way back in time Ireland, Wales and Scotland had semi elected monarchs under the system called tanistry, which was also used for appointing Clan Chiefs. The idea was that a tanist was chosen by the 'Nobles' from among the King's kinfolk while the King was still alive, and became the Heir, thus there would be a smooth transition to the new King when the reigning one died. The choice also ensured that the heir/tanist was a healthy, adult man, rather than a weakling.

I haven't read all this thread. I just popped on to say Grany is entitled to post her views as much as anyone, without others being rude.
I find her posts interesting and informative.

Thank you nadateture

This about Buckingham Palace.

Buckingham palace should be open all year round like the White House and the Vatican. It's now open till October was closed from March 2020 No one lives there now apart from staff. Queen is in one of her private residences. Charles is in one of his many homes.

We pay for repairs from SG
In 2017 MPs controversially agreed the grant would be increased over 10 years to allocate £369m to refurbish Buckingham Palace.

The costs last year were the highest yet at £47.8m - £16.2m more than the year before.opening all year would pay for the cost of repairs.

"We have arguments about public sector pay being kept down and all the while we're pouring millions and millions of pounds into fixing this one building.

"It is an absurd waste of money."

There just is no justification for leaving it standing there unused, all year round, except for the occasional garden party."

I meant nadateturbe

Next Head of State

Charles accepted bags of cash from a Qatari politician with alleged Al Qaeda connections. We have no idea what was promised in return.

Granny23

Way back in time Ireland, Wales and Scotland had semi elected monarchs under the system called tanistry, which was also used for appointing Clan Chiefs. The idea was that a tanist was chosen by the 'Nobles' from among the King's kinfolk while the King was still alive, and became the Heir, thus there would be a smooth transition to the new King when the reigning one died. The choice also ensured that the heir/tanist was a healthy, adult man, rather than a weakling.

Sounds not unlike the current Leader of the Tory party shenanigans.
Looking forward to that smooth transition

EXCLUSIVE: Prince Charles accepted £1m payment from the family of Osama Bin Laden

Prince met and secured money from 9/11 terrorist's siblings — including family patriarch Bakr — despite objections of palace aides

One was "shouted down" for raising alarm

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-charles-accepted-1m-from-family-of-osama-bin-laden-7pd55sgn6

Shows yet again why the Windsor family should be subject to the #FOIA

So tired of the Royals. So tired of the government. So tired at the state of this country.

The world knows, except for Britain. Royal Family, not your honourable and Charity focus as you may think.

To recap, Charles is at the heart of one Metropolitan Police investigation and four statutory inquiries. He accepted money in a suitcase, solicited funds from a Russian fraud convict, and met a Saudi billionaire in undisclosed meetings in Riyadh and London.

A reminder, given the news that #PrinceCharles thinks it’s a good idea to take money from the family of #OsamaBinLaden, that there is another way… and before anyone says it, it doesn’t involve President Johnson or Blair.

The budget for Ireland's president is small enough to fit into a Fortnum and Mason's carrier bag. #AbolishTheMonarchy

Of course we should #AbolishTheMonarchy Charles accepting millions from dodgy associates is the least of the royal family immoralities. Once the Queen is gone we have to close down this unedifying spectacle. Royalty is an abomination that puts these people above the law.

And
Judge was right to ban media from Prince Philip will hearing, court rules Court of appeal dismisses Guardian challenge over private court hearing in which Philip’s will was sealed

This is absolutely disgraceful. This fantasy of the Queen's dignity being protected through secrecy and unique privileges in law cannot carry on.

As Norman Baker says here: "Dignity is earned by not behaving in an undignified manner"

Forgot to say so tired of the government opposition

Oh come on, the man is being framed. Someone, somewhere doesn’t want him to succeed to the throne. I am not a monarchist by any stretch of the imagination but fair suck of the sauce bottle ,as they say.

I also shocked to hear this news today.
We need to be given more information when this kind of accusation is made.
Too much secrecy.