So What Is Your View On Prince Charles Viewing Papers We Cannot?

[youngmafbog]

Personally as a commit ed Republican I think it is totally wrong, but even if I try to put the Royalist hat on I still can't see why he should, especially given his interfering and extreme views on some subjects.

Still, I reckon that once Charlie boy gets on the throne (and not the one in the small room) it wont be long before he brings the Monarchy to its knees.

http://news.sky.com/story/1606651/charles-receives-secret-cabinet-documents

[mushroom25]

by the same token, should Jeremy Corbyn be denied access to documents of affairs of state because of his extremist views?

[beso]

Even when I was child in the 1960s people were saying Charles would never be king. He is far more likely to pass it up to Wills and Kate.

[jackthehat]

///Heirs to the throne are thought to have been on the list since the 1930s.///

So, it's hardly a new thing....

[ummmm]

My view - I don't care.

[woofgang]

Well I can’t see how its "quite extraordinary” given that its been happening since the 1930’s From a practical point of view, it seems quite sensible to keep the heir to the throne up to speed in case anything happens to the Monarch without warning.

[Old_Geezer]

I don't see any reason for there being royalty at all, but if we are to go around claiming that family is at the top of governing the country, albeit in theory more than practice, it seems right they should know what's going on in "their" country. Of course the solution is to get rid of that unnecessary part; confine it to history.

[ummmm]

I love the royal family. I don't know why....

[venator]

OG - of course Charles is irrelevant, and the press roll him out whenever there's not much real news.

A monarchy prevents anyone else from being head of state.

Who would you put up as leader of your Republic - Jeremy Corbyn?

[New Judge]

"He is far more likely to pass it up to Wills and Kate. "

Not a chance.

"I don't see any reason for there being royalty at all...Of course the solution is to get rid of that unnecessary part; confine it to history. "

You need to revisit your history lessons, OG. It was tried once and it didn't work out too well.

On the basis that the Queen is almost 90 and that Charles may have to step into the breach at short notice (having had 67 years to get ready) it seems sensible that he should be briefed to the same level as the Queen.

[youngmafbog]

Mushroom, how about Mr Corbyn has been elected, presumably to represent others that share his views. Charles has not.

So it's been happening since the 1930's. So what? Perhaps it was wrong all the time? However I think the big difference here is that others knew and recognized the impartiality of the Royal family whereas Charles, with views share by a minority, does not and indeed goes out of his way to abuse his position and attempt to influence decisions.

[youngmafbog]

//Who would you put up as leader of your Republic - Jeremy Corbyn?//

Whoever won the most votes, so if MC won the vote - yes.

[viv41]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest !

[Old_Geezer]

Th Prime Minister is already the de facto 'Head of State'. Royalty are just wheeled out to please other less advanced countries' visiting royalty/president/whatever. In any case why would one want a separate function as 'Head of State' when all the important stuff is covered by the Government anyway ?

[Islay]

I think it is a good idea that we have a monarch who is up on whats happening and that have their own ideas on how to make the country better.

I am all for royalty!!

[jackthehat]

///.....and indeed goes out of his way to abuse his position and attempt to influence decisions.///

Many people in similar positions will do the same....there is nothing to suggest that they are successful.

[Old_Geezer]

It was tried once and worked better than what went before; but the country didn't have the sense to build and improve on what was achieved. Those with an eye on their own personal interest rushed to bring back an individual to put into a privileged position and who would then return the favour by discriminating in favour of them, and against the rest of society.

We should be well more advanced by now to want elites wielding power and sycophants supporting them. The people have many more options these days, albeit that they still elect an elite to make their decisions for them. One day tech will make true democracy possible. Unlikely to happen in my lifetime though.

[jno]

fine by me. He's in training for the job (though at this rate he may never get it), so it makes sense for him to know what's going on. Some day, maybe, the job won't exist; but at present it does.

[youngmafbog]

I still think he's taking liberties.

As I said before, he simply does not get the impartiality of the Crown.

[jno]

I'm not bothered by impartiality either. He has no power, and his mother has no power; so any government is free to ignore him. If they don't, then it's the government you need to worry about: you elected them.

[youngmafbog]

//you elected them//

Well that is unlikely to be true all the time isn't it?