To think, "Well said Prince Charles!"

[FrancesNiadova]

I agree with the news commentators who say he shouldn't be writing to cabinet ministers, trying to influence policy. However, Putin, invading countries & handing out Russian passports, is behaving like a land-grabbing dictator.
Prince Charles is not the King, yet, so he is maximising his opportunity to say, well, what we're all thinking, basically.
I remember the controversy of the State Visit of the Chinese President. Instead of joining the formal greeting party & banquet, he booked himself to attend a much more minor event in Cornwall, to show his disgust for human rights abuses. The snub was not missed by the Chinese & the media.
Is it unreasonable to be pleased that he speaks out & a bit by the bad press he's getting for it!

"bemybebe I haven't read through the detail of what you and math are arguing about but I fully support her re Charles."

Good for you Phaedra, keep NOT reading through the detail.

doctor Russia has a naval base in Syria. HTH

He was in Canada to represent The Queen who is the epitome of discretion, he has a lot to learn

He has indeed, and by his age I'd have expected him to have learned it

Those who support his involvement in politics have yet to answer an important question: While he'd undoubtably want the credit for anything he's believed to "be right about" would he be as keen to take responsibility when he gets it wrong?

After all that's the nature of politics (at least in theory) - whereas Charles is only too quick to hide behind his position when it suits; does anyone seriously suggest he'd be willing to change??

puzzled This thread has gone way off course and apart from math , you and me no-one seems to have addressed the point you raise.

I really can't be bothered ploughing through math's and bemybaby's analysis of the situation in the Crimea but none of what they say is relevant to the original AIBU.

This thread has gone way off course

True enough, Phaedra - though of course it's not my place to suggest what can and can't be discussed

Still be interesting to see if anyone else ever addresses the point, though ...

It's an interesting point, puzzled. How much does he hide behind his position & is it right for people like me to think well said this time, but not on other occasions. As I said earlier, I do think he's right this time, but not right when he sends his spider letters.

On the other hand, he's not the monarch. Does he have a right to free speech, or not?

Everybody has the right to free speech, Frances - and that includes him

The issues here, though, are more about understanding, responsibility and an appreciation of when it's appropriate to speak out (or not) ... all of which he appears to lack, except when it suits

As you rightly said, sometimes people will agree with him and sometimes they won't; however if he really wants to open his mouth whenever he wants, he'll have to accept the consequences of getting it wrong as well as the bouquets when he's right ... and that's something he shows no sign of doing

LOL at 'export of corruption to Georgia'. An analogy would be 'coal to Newcastle'.

Was Saakashvili not the target of protests about how horrible a place Georgia was to live in and do business in? Were there no mutiny attempt by the army during his presidency? Were there no problems in the prison system that were secretly taped and later broadcast?

Have you taken a gander at the allies the US has all lined up? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not exactly shining beacons of liberty, or equality for women or domestic servants, and neither are the rest of its ME friends. SA in particular exports Wahabism worldwide this is the sect that wants to see Sharia law imposed on Muslims everywhere. Israel continues to pursue a policy of settlement in the West Bank and ghettoisation of the Palestinians despite international alarm there is no major uproar however, or rumblings from NATO or the EU, as the US won't allow that.

He surely understands that he is not some just bluff English country gent when he goes abroad to represent HMQ -- unless he really is the quintessential bore who thinks everyone who makes eye contact needs to hear his opinions. Or the quintessential court idiot who doesn't understand that nobody would give him the time of day unless he had HRH in front of his name..

mathsanxiety, I believe part of the problem is that royalty are surrounded by people telling them how incredibly wise, clever, talented, etc they are, with nobody prepared to offer a different view. To be fair, most of them can probably to see it for what it is, though I doubt they object to hearing it - it's just a shame that Charles has taken it all a bit too literally and lacks self-knowledge

BeMyBaby you and math have taken this thread way off from whether it was right for Charles to express these opinions on to what the rights and wrongs of Putin and the Crimea.

It is irrelevant whether Charles had just said the most intelligent thing ever or whether he was spouting bollocks. Charles and the monarchy's place in a democracy is only tenable if they do not get involved in politics or seek to influence the elected government. Math is spot on there.

The thing is, the Queen advises the rest of her family not to vote or to get involved in politics. Nowhere in law does it state that members of The Royal Family should not vote or be involved in politics. The Queen deems it unconstitutional for her family members to be politically involved as it would affect her neutrality.

So, if none of the political party leaders have a problem with what Prince Charles said and he's not breaking any laws, should he still not have said it?

Nowhere in law does it state that members of The Royal Family should not vote or be involved in politics

If Charles wanted to invoke the letter of the law about what he can and cannot do, then surely he'd also be happy to allow access to his ministerial letters and the report into the legality or oherwise of his "marriage"

Unfortunately, against all legal precedent and common morality, he's chosen not to do this, instead using back-door wrangling to have them suppressed

Once again it comes down to a matter of judgement and his seeming determination to have it both ways ...

It isn't a matter of judgement, it's a matter of law.

Prince Charles is not currently the Monarch or head of The Church of England.
Both Prince Charles and Camilla were divorcees, which is why they had a civil marriage ceremony instead of being married in church.
They are married, in law.

Frances you're getting into dangerous ground. We don't have a properly unified written constitution. Part of what makes that work is the monarchy stays out of politics.

math russia - ranked 127 out 177 countries (1 - least corrupt), georgia 55/177, which is amongst some european countries. 26% of people reported paying bribes in russia in 2010, I am reassure you this figure would not be any lower today. georgia - 3%. 52% in russia feel government efforts fighting corruption is ineffective, in georgia 77% think it is EFFECTIVE. why are you so grossly misrepresenting the situation math??

all transparency international figures.

phaedra - my country is sinking because all Putin and his elite is interested in is staying in power and sucking out of the country as much money as possible and not what is the best for the country, the people and for the world. i am all for as many people talking about this as possible. the op opening line was "AIBU To think, "Well said Prince Charles!"

And my answer is notwithstanding constitutional position of the heir - yes, he bloody was!

(and please forgive all the spelling and grammar mistakes)

It isn't a matter of judgement, it's a matter of law

The law requires accountability too - I gave some examples above - but Charles has a long and unfortunate history of ignoring this when it doesn't suit. Any research into his actions involves words like "unprecendented" "questionable" "irregular" "contentious" and much more, and the fact that he's not yet the monarch makes no difference; after all, does anyone honestly believe he'd change??

You might want to believe he's legally married, but unfortunately we can't actually know since the commissioned report on the whole thing has been sealed for his lifetime. Quite apart from this being irregular (again!!), it's hard not to think he'd have been only too happy to see it published, had its conclusions suited him

It's a big subject, but luckily the monarchy is about much more than one person; all three of our most recent monarchs didn't originally expect to reign and there's no reason it couldn't happen again. I think it was A.N.Wilson who wrote "the biggest threat to the existence of the monarchy is this existence of Prince Charles" and personally I find I hard to disagree

There is nothing in law to stop a member of any Royal Family standing in an election, including a European election.
In Britain, the monarch is part of the legislature, so chooses not to vote for 1 side of the legislature over the other. She also advises her family not to vote.
As he is not the monarch & it wasn't part of a formal speech, I think Prince Charles did nothing wrong in law or in ethics. I don't think it would have been right for him to say it in a formal speech.

Are those figures post-Saakashvili or pre-Saakashvili?

People in Ireland would have felt Ireland was a nice place to live and not much affected by corruption until they found out they were expected to carry the can for massive corruption.

Looking at this simplistically, when Charles is visiting anywhere in an official capacity, he is meeting people in an official capacity so any conversation held there is not a private one and he should not express personal opinions. If he has friends around for dinner that is private and he can say what he likes.

If I have a consultation with someone at work I would regard anything said as being part of that consultation.

If Charles carries on with this behaviour of expecting his own way all the time he will be a bigger danger to the monarchy than republicans can ever be

He was in Canada on an official visit representing the Monarchy, so anything he said while on duty represented the view of the Monarchy. The Monarchy in turn represents only the views of the government. Not only has he crossed the line of substituting personal views for those of HMQ's government, he has also substituted personal views for those of HMQ. And since he was standing in for the Monarch who is head of state of all the Commonwealth states he also took their name in vain so to speak.

Putin's no angel, but he has not built gas chambers to murder millions and millions of people, so likening him to Hitler is utterly ignorant. It's offensive, too, because it trivialises the suffering Hitler caused.

I agree with that Auntjane.