Cycling UK Forum

I've started this thread in response to another thread currently running. Just to say that were it not for Prince Charles many causes from organics to traditional architecture would have been flattened by our current culture. It's only the fact that he is unelected puts him where he is - thank goodness he's prepared to misuse his position. He doesn't cycle but actually makes cycling a bit more worthwhile. I don't expect any support for this point of view on the forum BTW.

It's only the fact that he is unelected puts him where he is

Well, he's had exactly the same number votes from me as Cameron has - thus he has an equal right to be 'the boss of me'

Seriously though, given his up bringing and his position, I find him extremely liberal in his outlooks. Obviously there is plenty I could find to disagree about regarding both him and his position, yet he could be so much worse.

horizon wrote: I don't expect any support for this point of view on the forum BTW.

Sorry to disappoint you!

I think he's great, and I agree with you completely. I wonder how long it will be before the rest of the world catches on.

There are plenty of people who share his views but have no chance of the sort of media attention he receives. It is a sad fact that he and all the other people in his family are in the position they are in simply because of a history of exploitation of the population. I have never, and will never, agree with a monarchy. It's good that he speaks his mind, but I disagree with the elevated position he speaks from. He has bad as well as good ideas, it just depends on your point of view.
Kelly.

Charlie has a good heart. I like his yoof programmes, I loved Highgrove, but I think he's a bit like the curates egg. Poundbury is absolutely awful IMO, soulless. His green views I don't agree mostly, he hasn't got a rounded view based on any practical experience, although that's not his fault. His position renders him largely harmless though. All in all he is a passionate force for good, but fairly ineffective. I blame the Duke, what a rottern dad he was.

Al

I am a good republican. I certainly dont approve of having a Prince imposed on us by the English crown.

However I too am a bit of a fan of Charlie. He has plenty of the qualities missing in the leadership of this country.

The one great strength of the inherited super-rich monarchy is that they are not after anything.
How can you bribe somebody like that?

Interestingly all the bad things I have heard about the DofE come from the press.
His enterprises like his award scheme speak for themselves. I have also met some of the lowly people who have had to do the running around when he has visited and they all say he was very considerate of staff (even as his first action).

So as slave owners go, we have some fairly good ones.

meic wrote:I am a good republican. I certainly dont approve of having a Prince imposed on us by the English crown.

It's always struck me as a bit odd. "Here, we've beaten your lot, so all your base are belong to us. What? You want a prince of your own still? OK, here's my son, how about him?"

Rather missed the point, I feel.

horizon wrote:It's only the fact that he is unelected puts him where he is

on the other hand, what use is a democracy unless it's an informed democracy?
if 25% or more are solely informed by the mail and facebook fuel protests/immigration rants, what harm can a benevolent future king do other than add educated balance to public debate?

horizon wrote:I don't expect any support for this point of view on the forum BTW.

on the whole, i'm also going to dissapoint

If he's that good and honest,thoughtful,wise and alround good egg.
Why doesn't he abdicate,start his own politrickal party and see how many people vote for him at the next election?
Lets no forget where his and the rest of the monarchy's wealth came from.These people's ancestors (and not too distant either) were gangsters.

He' also employs a spin doctor or two.

thirdcrank wrote:He' also employs a spin doctor or two.

That's the great thing about spin doctors. No longer do you have to live the life the public expect, you simply employ people to tell them that's what you're doing...
Remember Princess Anne back in the 80's(?) and all the flack she used to get. Then suddenly overnight she was a hard working all round good egg...

I'm not a fan of an extended royal family and I think that they could consider giving up just one of their many royal palaces - perhaps they could provide a large number of homes for the huge number needing them from just one palace! (They have loads to spare). I can live with a small royal family, not the large number of hanger-ons we currently have.
Prince Charles put his own money into starting up the Princes Trust, which has done a great deal for young people. He has supported plenty of charities and he does what he says.
Mind you he does seem to own half of Devon and Cornwall and makes a very healthy profit from all his rents, whilst many here struggle to afford to live.
Pity about his views on architecture; there's a wealth of wonderful new architecture without needing to always look back to a previous era.

I think that he is an amiable but silly old buffer. It would be appalling if someone with so little experience of real life had any influence in a democratic state. He is arepresentative of a very small class with much more power than it should have. He can't even manage to put his own toothpaste on his toothbrush. He put the obligation to produce an heir to what ought to be an empty title ahead of the happiness of three people.

dodger wrote:Pity about his views on architecture; there's a wealth of wonderful new architecture without needing to always look back to a previous era.

But hy should Charles be inflicting his views on anyone? We don't need the unelected under employed and over privileged to lecture us on anything.The strength of the Queen is that we have no idea what her ideas are on most things. Then on the big decisions she is usually right. She did well on her recent visit to Ireland. After the first SNP victory she visited Scotland while Tony and Gordon were still sulking and refusing to talk to the new Scottish Govt. Even a well known lifelong nationalist wrote after that visit "Last week Elizabeth of Windsor acted as a worthy Queen of Scots. I never thought I would write these words. God Save the Queen."

http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/?p=150

irc wrote:But hy should Charles be inflicting his views on anyone?

I think that about all celebs.
I guess the fault is really with the great unwashed, you can't really blame the celebs for rabbiting on about what they think important...