Prince Charles has jeopardised his reign. amoneyccepting

Anniebach

11 trips in a year, a month, a week ?

Sorry that should be Charles made 20 flights in the UL last year to avoid being stuck in traffic, according to The Telegraph.

Good post DaisyAnne.

11 trips in a year, a month, a week ?

Prince Charles made 11 trips by private plane to avoid traffic according to The Telegraph, so maybe that’s what the extra cash is for - said she tongue in cheek. I suppose his time is valuable but how does he offset that against the well being of the eco environment which he likes to preach about? As I’ve said before he is a hypocrite.

I do know that Elegran, but thank you for giving me your explaination.

To go back to the beginning, a man named Publius Clodius Pulcher sneaked into a party intending to seduce Caesar’s wife, Pompeia. Publius’s was arrested and tried. He went free because Caesar did not give evidence against him. Caesar did not punish Publius. However, he then divorced his wife.

And who do we remember - the women. She may have no smear on her purity because it reflects on the man. If it were to happen today, people would be out on the streets demanding equality for women.

I doubt anyone thought Caesar expected his domestic arrangements to be quoted so far into the future. Perfection in humans is impossible. Expecting anyone to be "above suspicion", just because they hold high office, is a bit rich in this day and age. Just look around you. Is Johnson "above suspicion" are all the bullies and sex pests in the government "above suspicion"? It's not going to happen.

All we can hope for is that we continue learning and become better people. Charles and his office appear to have done just that. Caesar saying what he did could happen then because that was then; this is now. Just as accepting a donation in cash was then but would not happen now. We are always learning.

And yes Elegran,I also think your post and analogy is good.

It’s the source of the money that particularly worries me. Prince Charles may or may not be whiter than white, but I’m certain the donor isn’t.

DaisyAnne It is how Caesar's wife herself (or any other person who is at the top of the pyramid of society) should behave that doesn't change with time. She should be above reproach, so that she cannot be accused of anything dishonest. Not just in her character, but also in how she presents that character in public. If it would look as though she were doing something illegal or immoral even if she were not then she should be aware of that and change her actions so that no suspicion can fall on her.

That is a principle which is timeless. It is also a very high standard to live up to, needing constant attention to detail. How many ordinary people can say with confidence not only that they have never done wrong but also that never in their lives have they been in a position where they would not have been able to prove their innocence to an accuser. And an ordinary person doesn't have millions of people hawk-eyed to catch any mis-steps.

My reasons for wanting a republic have nothing to do with the morals of some posh bloke who has had everything handed to him in a plate. Or in a Fortnum and Mason's bag, even...

But then we live in a country where people don't understand analogies about Caesar's wife. There's no hope. ?

It seems to me that how someone behaved towards Caesar's wife in 67 BC is stretching how people behave today, especially with the alternative examples we have around us.

Prince Charles was put in a difficult position and has learned from it. He is human, so as one amoung thousands of human beings, I would say he has behaved reasonably.

Whether or not I would want a republic would depend on someone showing me it would be better for our country not on a right-wing press ad hominem attack.

Thank you, Volver

The source at the palace said that donations had not been made like that in the last five years —and "wouldn't happen today" — and noted that Prince Charles passed the money onto his charities.

What a very good post Elegran.

Charles and his bags of cash

m.youtube.com/watch?v=4mhv-rdCrRE

I do not believe that Prince Charles would do anything dishonest.

No, of course not. After all he was a chaste husband who never cheated on his wife. He's obviously not capable of duplicity at all.

"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" So must Caesar.

Not that no-one should ever believe her (or him) to be capable of anything suspicious, but that they must make sure that they do not do anything which would cause them to be suspected.

That is not an easy thing to do. They would have to weigh all their actions and reject any which someone else could think were not honest. You only have to look at the actions and words of our current PM to see how the eyes of the country, if not the world, don't miss a move. Sooner or later, anything dodgy comes back to bite, and so do things that were actually quite innocent but naive, and were not clearly seen to be innocent. Proving that they were innocent after the event can be impossible.

I do not believe that Prince Charles would do anything dishonest.

Well that's enough then for me. Why would he? I mean look at his brother. I do not believe that he would get involved with people who procure young women, or pay women off to the tune of $12 million...oh, wait.

I'll say this again. If somebody gave anyone else a bag full of cash, wouldn't you just be the slightest bit concerned about that? What if it was Johnson who accepted the money? Or Corbyn maybe? Or Trump? Or the blooming Archbishop of Canterbury? Nobody is incorruptible, but our RF need to behave as if they are.

However much unsavoury and unpleasant stuff there is on here, it won't change my mind one jot. I do not believe that Prince Charles would do anything dishonest. It doesn't make sense. Why on earth would he? It does seem to be fact that money was paid in carrier bags, but then it was dealt with in the proper manner. And it was not recently, and the method in which such charity money is paid has now been regularised.
No amount of republican propaganda will affect my thinking, for all the endless unpleasant efforts on here. Quoted words can be bent to suit the cause by some people; this is what often happens.
Just because some of us do wish the monarchy to continue it doesn't mean we are brainwashed. It could well be the other way around.

icanhandthemback

^The day may come when schools teach enough about critical thinking for the ignorance...^

DaisyAnne, they have been doing this for years. For example, History teaching has been about looking at artefacts and documents so that young people draw conclusions from what they analyse rather than just being taught 'the facts'.

I'm very aware the universities have been pushing back, into schools, learning to reference, quote properly and know how to write and understand an argument, icanhandthemback, as I am sure you are.

The drawing of conclusions is probably one of the most difficult areas for young people if all you hear at home is opinion. We do all learn from our children so perhaps they take some of what they learn, home.

Even where opinion is concerned children will be set tasks in Junior school to show examples of opinion and fact from, for example, commonly read newspapers or online news sites.

That makes my hope that the day I described will come a very reasonable one, I would have thought.

The day may come when schools teach enough about critical thinking for the ignorance...

DaisyAnne, they have been doing this for years. For example, History teaching has been about looking at artefacts and documents so that young people draw conclusions from what they analyse rather than just being taught 'the facts'.

Queen’s approval of laws must be more transparent, Scottish ministers told
Holyrood aims to open up opaque mechanism after Guardian revealed secret influence on draft legislation

The review by Johnstone of Holyrood’s rules was triggered by Guardian articles last summer that revealed the extent of the monarch’s vetting of Scottish bills.

Documents uncovered by the Scottish Liberal Democrats also showed the Queen’s lawyers had secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions.

The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy.

DaisyAnne.

You are entitled to disagree with me. You are not entitled to cast doubt on my abilities to carry out critical thought or suggest I am ignorant. You want to discuss the ability to tell the difference between fact and fiction? I'm up for it when you are. We can talk about the ability to apply moral judgements to people whom we have always believed to be unimpeachable, as well.

Or maybe you don't mean me. Difficult to tell when you are casting aspersions about others around so liberally.

Joseanne

DaisyAnne I think a lot of posts and links on here purport to be facts, when probably no one knows. I guess we all convey our own perceptions of the family one way or another. I'm happy to see what transpires should unlawful dealings be found, and have confidence in the system.

Exactly, Joseanne. No one knows - yet. However, they will tear someone's reputation apart because they believe they do.

I would have challenged the posts on here had they all assumed innocence on behalf of those whose actions will be looked into. The day may come when schools teach enough about critical thinking for the ignorance that can change governments against the voters best interests and take away people's rights will disappear. At the moment, I will not hold my breath

or even carrier bags

I guess I'm always a bit stupefied when actual real facts are presented and people still say, oh no, they'd never do that.

Like, oh I don't know. Clarence House confirming that the PoW did actually accept big carriers bag full of money. Or proof that the RF got the law changed to favour their own interests. Then people excuse it by saying they HAD to do it, its for our good.

But for me, it doesn't matter if they are corrupt or not. I think they're probably not, just a bit naïve and entitled. What matters is that the populace are so brainwashed that even if they were corrupt, they'd still want one of them as head of state