am I the only person on MN who likes prince Charles?

[MrsLargeEmbodied]

and thinks Camilla is a great choice for him?

I keep thinking of the Peter Ball and Jimmy Savile friendships - poor judgement.

I have been reading how the Duchy of Cornwall which he heads, operates on the Scilly Islands. Shocking. It is feudal. Arbitrarily ruling people's lives and taking money, while claiming large government grants for anything they do there

And again agree entirely.

That's without taking into account intestate estates in Cornwall reverting directly to him rather than to the general public purse.

And before anyone starts I know he directs the funds to 'charity' (including megabucks Gordonstoun - the school he professed to hate) but the point is he gets to choose and he also gets to sit on an undisclosed sum and its interest in case of previously unidentified beneficiaries coming forward. No danger he's going to dig into his own pocket for recompense.

Did you read about the 'personally owned trees' grown on Duchy land and sold back to said Duchy (effectively himself) at a couple of million profit?

Have we covered off-loading the loss making Duchy Originals brand to Waitrose?

The man is all about his wallet.

He can do basically whatever he likes isn't that correct? If he does anything that smacks of sleaze, interference, or influencing Government etc. who is going to challenge him to a duel at dawn? That is the scary thing, it's like an absolute monarchy. Not overtly like in historical times, but under the radar.

The Duchy of Cornwall situation is appalling. But then again, who could or would challenge him about it? The residents of Scilly and elsewhere have tried, and their rents went up and it seems life was made difficult for them by the Duchy Officials. Makes you want to punch them, sorry.

I often wonder how much money is enough for them!

Democracy my foot.

So agree

Spot on, BreakorMake, and doubly so once he's king as the monarch's beyond all prosecution

Do you really believe that this only happens inside the house of Windsor? While it is true that the family has some unsavory characters, it is not more or less than the rest of the general population, including people from the lowest social classes. You have got to be kidding yourself if you believe that overthrowing the monarchy would make them any poorer or less influential - probably, the opposite is true and the public in general would lose their tourism income made off the backs of the institution.
I have an insider's view of both worlds and I can assure you that the sleazebags have always been outnumbered by genuine philanthropists and enlightened people who make the world a better place without publicizing their good deeds.

I don't mind him. And I like his and Camilla's relationship. He's a bit useless but he will be the king who is the link between an crusty, outdated monarchy and the new European style hardly there reign of William and Kate so I think he's quite important (future historically)

Queen above the law is she?

Yes, she is - quite literally - and while this matters less with someone who as far as we know avoids the very worst scumbags, it'll soon apply to Charles too

And his 0roven record so far suggests this will suit him only too well

The monarch is above the law because they are the law!

They can commit a crime, any crime, and not be prosecuted, they are immune from a civil suit or a criminal prosecution.

This could happe anywhere in the world because of diplomatic immunity.

The monarch would never have to testify in court or be interviewed by the Police

It's bonkers isn't it....

the public in general would lose their tourism income made off the backs of the institution

Please link to provable figures showing the relationship between tourist income and the royals.

Soffit if by sleazebags being outnumbered you mean sleazebags within the RF, please actually count the number of overpaid pseudo do-gooders compared to the proven liars and scoundrels among them. I think you're wrong, I think their ethical balance is heavily in deficit. And in any case their pseudo-do goodery is funded by us and they don't need to "own" half of Cornwall / Scotland / Scilly Isles etc to do it, while actively damaging ecosystems (PC oysters, uncontrolled shooting).
Your tourism argument is also an urban myth and this is at least the 4th thread where evidence to support that myth has been requested and strangely not forthcoming.

I know, Puzzled. Proof that the law is indeed a complete ass. How are we, the plebs, supposed to respect a system that ridiculous?

They are becoming a caricature of themselves. When HM dies I reckon the gloves will come off, and the obsequious Press will have a field day. They won't care anymore because while HM has the respect of monarchists and very many non royalists aswell, the next one does not. And the generation that lived alongside HM during her reign are also dying off now. The current generation and those coming up have more important things on their minds than caring about the extremely privileged and often under educated/intelligent RF.

The peasants will revolt. Tampons at dawn!

The serfs of the Duchy will not labour in the fields anymore and be obedient to the King/Lord of the manor, and they will not be kept outside the castle gates anymore either. Access for all!

the sleazebags have always been outnumbered by genuine philanthropists and enlightened people who make the world a better place without publicizing their good deeds

As a general thing I agree with this, but not necessarily when it comes to the RF

Certainly that's the impression the PR seeks to give, but it all falls down at the least enquiry into where the money's coming from, what costs are hidden, who's doing the actual work, etc., and the few plus points such as the often claimed but never proved "tourist income" appear to be based on a mirage

It's a mirage which seems pretty popular among the unenquiring though, but whether that'll last through Charles's reign remains to be seen

I like him, op. He wants the best for British people. People who have met him say that he's genuinely interested in them and is very well informed on a wide range of subjects.
And I love Camilla. I love seeing them laughing together. It seems such a shame that he had a miserable marriage, (a shame for Diana too) when he could have been so happy. Camilla is such a better fit.

Thanks for saving me some typing, I agree!
And for those going on about paedophiles, J. Savile etc,. do try and remember that he, in particular, fooled a lot of people for a very long time. He had the unfortunate gift of making himself indespensible. I heard some very nasty things about JS long before it all came out and I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I told who actually believed it.

I think he received an old style royal upbringing and then has been expected to operate in a modern royal setting - and this has caused real challenges.

e.g. Jimmy Saville. In the old world it wouldn't have been a reputational issue that Charles was taking in by the wrong person, because the media would have conspired to keep Saville's crimes hushed, hushed anyway. However, in today's world, we demand (rightly) that people in a position of responsibility are a lot more worldy wise and savvy than that. And that they choose their aquaintances with a great deal more care.

One of the reasons why giving younger royals real world experience is sensible. The question is: how to you give anyone born into a life of wealth and priviledge any sense at all of how it is for the rest of us - especially if they don't want to know?

I'm not sure it's possible.

I don't know him, but I don't understand the vilification because of Diana. He should never have married her (or she him) but I don't think that was his choice. I expect he was explicitly told that his marriage to Diana was just for show and that his personal life could carry on as before.

I actually think her family, who must have know what she was in for, have a lot to answer for.

And for those going on about paedophiles, J. Savile etc,. do try and remember that he, in particular, fooled a lot of people for a very long time

Sir James' activities were a very open secret in certain circles. Even Esther Rantzen has admitted she'd heard rumours. The excuse was she was a junior journo building a career yet even when she went on to find extensive fame in her own right and found Childline during JS's lifetime the whistle was silent. It's beyond belief the army of royal whisperers at Charles's disposal heard nothing.

That's before we get on to the already cautioned Peter Ball, the house purchase and the 'enquiries' on his behalf at Lambeth Palace.

Yes. Do you still like him OP - after the recent revelations?

i like Camilla =- from what i have seen.

what are the recent revelations?

Possibly the nicest famous person I have had the pleasure of meeting. Really lovely man. Very sincere. Smelt amazing too!! His suit was just oozing money.

A very very nice man. I approve!