The Future King Arthur

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:13 am

Peg C, I know it was a rhetorical question. Personally I think Putin is on the up-and-up, in the sense of doing his best by the Russian people. But doubtless someone will come in and show me why I'm wrong. We live in an insane world. On that same page with the link to the Act of Settlement you will find another link to Kings and Queens of England and Scotland. If you press on that link you will find that Queen Victoria was the last born Hanover, and that Edward VII was of the House of Saxe-Coburg. She did not accede to the Crown of Hanover because she was a woman, and the crowns were divided. Her anger and resentment at this slight drove her for the remainder of her life. That same hatred for men also drove the lives of Alexandra, Mary and both Elizabeths. It will be most fitting that the accession of Princess Charlie leads to the division of the Crowns of England and of Scotland. Most fitting. He loves his kilts, and the Highlands. He is most welcome to the Crown of Scotland.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:18 am

...is being added to <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Prince Charles is not yet king, so does it really matter that he keeps making political statements? You bet it does Stuart Jeffries Monday February 27, 2006 The Guardian Prince Charles will forbear from making political pronouncements when he becomes king, the Observer reported yesterday. After his coronation, he will be as Sphynx-like as his mother and, fingers crossed, just as sullen. Love the princely confidence of that "when", incidentally. But only if he could take back every syllable he has ever uttered on farming, GM crops, architecture, communist China, Tibet, hunting, and, ideally, tampons, would such a self-denying ordinance be worthwhile. But he can't, so it isn't. Arguably, then, Charles isn't fit to be king. "We pay for him to have someone squeeze his toothpaste ... and he stays out of politics - that's the deal," said Labour MP Stephen Pound last week. This colourful interpretation of the ramifications of the 1688 Glorious Revolution is not absurd. The heir to the throne must not make political pronouncements, because he is likely to become king - a constitutional role that enjoins neutrality. Equally, the Prince of Wales is hardly an ordinary citizen whose views count for as hopelessly little as yours or mine. With privileges come responsibility, but while consuming the former lavishly he has not taken the latter seriously. But, comes the reply, Charles is not yet king, so it doesn't matter that he is a self-admitted interfering busybody. Indeed, we should count ourselves fortunate to have a maverick, politically engaged prince. Without much wittering in Gloucestershire, who would speak up for organic farming and other good causes? This is the patricians' perspective, but it is one that highlights the barrenness of current British politics rather than one that should lead us to indulge the prince's outbursts. It does matter what the prince says because the future king's subjects will not forget his earlier political stances. Like "Sexy" Dave Cameron's insistence that he will not publicly discuss his youthful indiscretions, Charles's proposed forbearance is a brazen, insulting attempt by a public figure to bracket off parts of his life and deem them irrelevant. Yesterday, columnists defended Charles's right to witter. "He does genuinely speak for a large number of people who are no longer represented at Westminster," argued Peter Hitchens. But even if he did, he shouldn't: Charles's inordinate influence and his constitutional role should preclude that. Yes, contended Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times, but Charles doesn't really have influence: "The royal family could demand that the earth be flat and the school curriculum be led by intelligent design and it would make no difference to government policy." But Charles thinks he can influence policy - or are we to believe that all those letters to ministers, including Clare Short, were billets doux? We must suppose, then, that the man who would be king is grotesquely deluded - no disqualification for the job, but it hardly makes his views worth listening to. Jenkins adds: "All the prince can do is add another voice to the public debate." Both Hitchens and Jenkins admire that voice and surely want it to be heard because of the welcome possibility that it will have an impact on that debate. And thus on government policy. But even if Charles's defenders are right that he provides a voice that is otherwise unheard in British politics, that calls for a democratic renewal - something in which, by definition, a prince can have no role.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/backbench/comment/0,,1718720,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/b...20,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Payback: Charles freezes out 'those bloody people' By Guy Adams Published: 28 February 2006 Say what you like about Prince Charles, he's nothing if not willing to learn from previous mistakes. After the debacle of 2005, when a stray microphone broadcast his stern views on the Royal press corps - "those bloody people!" - our future king has decided to cancel his annual media call in Klosters. Clarence House yesterday confirmed that the Prince, left, had called off a press conference traditionally held during the April ski trip. Contrary to previous reports, neither Prince William nor Prince Harry - who were said to have invited girlfriends on the holiday - will attend, either. Both are instead required to fulfil day-to-day duties in the army. "The Prince is indeed going to Klosters, but neither William nor Harry will be," said a spokesman. "There won't be a press facility this year. There isn't necessarily one every year." News of the move will be greeted with dismay, as it puts the kibosh on a rematch between Charles and the BBC's reporter, Nicholas Witchell, right. Last year, Charles said of the likeable Witchell: "I mean, he's so awful, he really is." It will also make BBC and ITV think twice about sending crews to the Austrian resort, as they will garner only limited footage. Newspaper hacks see the move as "payback" for the Prince's recent legal troubles. However, a Palace source insists otherwise: "It was canned because, without Harry and Wills going, we've no need to bribe the media to behave."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article348161.ece">news.independent.co.uk/pe...348161.ece</a> Must be a REALLY hard life

by **Peg C** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:22 am

Don't go totally negative yet. There's a conscious groundswell under way. The "powers" don't have all the power. There's a singularity beyond past and future that determines truth and that which exists, and the elites cannot undermine it. Hold on to that.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:59 am

Peg C You misunderstand me. They are on the run on so many fronts. THIS story is about how the Prince of Wales has been forced to cancel his FAMILY holiday. All the arrangements had been made. The girlfriends had been invited. But they DARE NOT ALLOW THE "YOUNGEST WINDSORS" out of barracks. It cuts both ways, and that is what you may have detected. I WAS in contact with my eldest daughter via e-mail. She had made contact with me through this board. But after what Dreams End said to me I have again had to cut her off. May God forgive me.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Times March 02, 2006 Revealed: the Prince's 'black spider' letters By Andrew Pierce THE Prince of Wales launched a three-pronged attack on the Government’s Human Rights Act in one of his most overtly political campaigns, The Times has learnt. The Prince personally lobbied the Prime Minister, wrote a series of letters to the Lord Chancellor and ordered his own staff to gather evidence from the military about the impact of the new laws. He scrawled the word “rubbish” on a letter to him from Lord Irvine of Lairg, then the Lord Chancellor, who had written to him in 2001 with a robust defence of the legislation. A copy of the letter, complete with the Prince’s distinctive “black spider” handwriting, has been passed to The Times. It confirms the evidence in the High Court last week that the Prince regularly corresponds with ministers on a range of contentious issues from the environment to international development. But the sharp exchange of views on the Human Rights Act, which came into effect in 2000, will reinforce the claim by a former aide that the Prince deliberately operates as a “political dissident”. It will also add weight to the criticism from some MPs that he interferes in the party political arena: the Human Rights Act divided the Commons and was opposed by the Conservatives. Both claims have been denied by Clarence House. In a strange twist, it was the Human Rights Act that was deployed by Lord Irvine’s successor as Lord Chancellor to allow the Prince to marry last year in a civil ceremony which, under the Marriage Act, was prohibited for the Royal Family. In a letter in June 2001, Prince Charles, the Colonel-in-Chief of more than 20 regiments, warned Lord Irvine that there would be a sharp rise in litigation in the public services, from the police to the Armed Forces, because of the human rights legislation. Lord Irvine, the head of the judiciary, brusquely rejected the Prince’s argument in a letter in August: “There is in fact scant hard evidence that people overall are more litigious,” he wrote. “There has been no upward trend in the work of the civil courts over recent years.” The Prince, who is engaged in a high-profile civil action alleging breach of copyright by a newspaper that published extracts from his travel journal, scribbled an initial response all over Lord Irvine’s letter in his spidery black handwriting. His handwritten comments were addressed to Lieutenant-Commander William Entwisle, of the Royal Navy, his military equerry, who was instructed to show it to Stephen Lamport, his private secretary. The Prince wrote to Commander Entwisle: “William, I want to return to the change over the Human Rights Act as it affects the Armed Forces in particular. Could you collect evidence of all the problems afflicting them (by talking to the) commanding officers of my regiments and your colleagues running ships? Lord Irvine should know of the aspects of this legislation which are causing unnecessary problems etc.” He contradicted the assertion by Lord Irvine that society could not be more conscious of individual rights but less conscious of individual responsibil-ity. The Prince wrote: “He may find it more difficult to conceive of, but it is becoming a society that is less conscious of individual responsibility.” In a second missive obtained by The Times, written in February 2002 — which indicates the length of the correspondence — the Prince returned to the subject in what he admitted was a “rather over-long letter”. It ran for almost five pages. He wrote: “I simply do not accept, as you suggest in your last letter, that rights and responsibilities are marching forward hand in hand. “The Human Rights Act is only about the rights of indi-viduals (I am unable to find a list of social responsibilities attached to it) and this betrays a fundamental distortion in social and legal thinking.” Expressing his fears about the effects of the legislation on the Armed Forces, he said that he had heard that soldiers could now sue superior officers who made poor decisions in the heat of battle which resulted in them being wounded. “In short, why should individuals continue to operate in the way which has always made our Armed Forces so capable and professional if a different set of rules based on individual rights makes the potential penalties too great?” The letter disclosed that the Prince had raised the issues with Tony Blair, whom he sees regularly. “As the Prime Minister has warned me, I am sure you will not agree with much of this, but I should welcome the chance to talk about these issues with you privately, in more detail when we next have the chance to meet.” One Cabinet minister, who had been regularly targeted by the Prince since Labour came to power, said: “He relays information he has received in his role as Colonel-in-Chief of many regiments or through his charities. “He is always polite and argues his case. But equally we have to put him right and he then usually goes away.” <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2065521,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...21,00.html</a> Added on edit You can view the "black spider" letter here <a href="http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,273795,00.jpg">images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD...795,00.jpg</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 3/1/06 6:05 pm

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:44 pm

As the Guardian implies, it's not often you get TWO examples of gross hypocrisy in a single item of correspondence. But Charles Windsor, the people's "dissident", has managed to do so. You people can vote your head of state out of office. Even the dreadful George W Bush is now a lame duck because he cannot be elected again, so you could argue that his tenure lasted five-and-a-half years. THESE people, by contrast, we are stuck with for life. That's why it matters. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>11.45am Charles 'rubbished' Human Rights Act defence Michael McDonough Thursday March 2, 2006 Prince Charles wrote "rubbish" on a letter defending the Human Rights Act, a leaked copy of the document showed today. The letter was part of an exchange between the prince and the former Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg about a perceived rise in litigiousness in British society. Charles - involved in high court litigation in an attempt to prevent a newspaper publishing further extracts from his journals - wrote to Lord Irvine in June 2001. He expressed concern that the Human Rights Act risked promoting an "American-style personal injury 'culture'." A copy of the letter appeared in the Guardian in September 2002 after being leaked to the Daily Mail. Today's edition of the Times printed Lord Irvine's response, complete with handwritten comments from the heir to the throne. In the leaked letter, the peer rejected the claim that Britain was heading towards a compensation culture. "There is in fact scant evidence that people overall are becoming more litigious," he wrote. "There has been no upward trend in the work of the civil courts over recent years." The prince underlined a statement beginning: "[I see the challenge we face as ensuring that] as we become a society more based on responsibilities and rights ..." According to the Times, he dismissed the claim with the handwritten comment: "But this is rubbish - we're a society based on rights alone." The part of the letter featuring those comments was not visible in the paper today. A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs refused to confirm the authenticity of the letter, saying: "We don't comment on leaked documents." No one was immediately available for comment at the prince's Clarence House office. Leaked contents of a letter from Charles to Lord Irvine in February 2002 - which appeared in the Guardian in September that year - were also printed in today's Times. In it, the prince returned to his fears over litigation and the Act. The correspondence began four years before Charles married Camilla Parker Bowles in a wedding only made possible by the Human Rights Act, which came into force in 2000. The current Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, deployed the legislation to allow the civil ceremony, which would have been unlawful for members of the Royal Family under the Marriage Act. In the high court case, the prince's former aide Mark Bolland last month said the heir saw himself as a "dissident" working against current political opinion. A three-day hearing in that case drew to a close last week, and the judge's decision on whether to hold a full jury trial will not be known for several weeks. When Charles's letters to the Lord Chancellor were first made public in 2002, they prompted criticism that the prince was interfering in the party political arena. However, the prime minister, Tony Blair, said the prince was entitled to express his opinions to ministers.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1721835,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/h...35,00.html</a> So litigation leads to a compensation culture, and is to be discouraged - unless it is a prince who wants to litigate. And the Human Rights Act is rubbish - unless it is a prince who wants to use it. Actually it is much worse than that. The Prince of Wales used the right to marry to "trump" the Marriage Act. But this is the text of the Human Rights Act on the right to marry. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ARTICLE 12 RIGHT TO MARRY Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.<hr></blockquote> Yes, read it again. The Human Rights Act CANNOT be used to override the Marriages Act, on its own terms. THE MARRIAGE IS A FRAUD ON ITS FACE.

The Future King Arthur

Kings and Queens of England and Scotland

One Small Voice...

He's Going to Ground

Hey, Anti...

Re: Hey, Anti...

The Prince, the People and their Human Rights.

Serial Hypocrite

Who is online