In a seven month period between 2004 and 2005, Prince Charles sent 27 letters to Government Ministers and last month a ruling by a tribunal agreed with the Guardian newspaper that 'the public had a right to know how the prince sought to change government policy'.
Now the Attorney General has come along, kicked the tribunal decision into touch and blocked any disclosure of the letters as they 'could damage prince's ability to perform duties as king'.
Obviously all it has done is make everyone even more curious what the man who will be King had to say that is so bad that if we knew it would stop him doing his duties?
As we are paying him £1.6 million a year from our taxes, i think we have a right to know what we are paying for and how to know if an unelected aristocrat is using his role to influence Government policy.
If whatever he said is explosive enough to cause outrage that the people will rise up and stop him becoming King (as if we could), then Charlie shouldn't;lt be saying these things and because he did, we should know what sort of person is going to be ruling over us in the very near future. It's not good enough to say that he can meddle and then not allow is to know just what he has been meddling in and surely its the sending of the letters that makes him unfit to be king, not us finding out about them.
Even more outrageous is the idea that whatever are in these letters will stop him doing his Royal duties. What could he have possibly have written that would stop him waving out of a car window, shaking hands with people and saying, 'and what do you do?'
Where's Oliver Cromwell when you need him?
2 comments:
Interesting... I hadn't heard about this.
"we should know what sort of person is going to be ruling over us in the very near future"
If I was you, I'd be qualifying that word 'ruling'. It implies actual rather than just symbolic power.
"Where's Oliver Cromwell when you need him?"
Still rotting in hell, if there's any justice? ;)
Aren't kings and princes so quaint?
Post a Comment