Here are some photos of Prince Charles in Miclosoara, Romania earlier this week. I thought these photos were random as hell – Charles did a photo-op involving big, old trees! – but as it turns out, there was some method to this tree-tastic photo-op. Charles “has long been enamored of Romania’s rural traditions and now he’s set up a foundation to protect and promote them.” He was in Romania to launch the Prince Charles Romania Foundation which will focus on sustainable development and rural life. And in case you think he’s a Romania-come-lately, Charles has a “country retreat” in Romania. Yes, all of this was news to me. I had no idea he was Romania-crazy.
Meanwhile, more of Prince Charles’ letters to government officials became public yesterday. These are not the “Black Spider Memos,” although the legal wrangling involved in making those utterly mundane-if-not-blatantly-beneficial letters opened the door to this new batch of letters getting a release. And much like the release of the Black Spider Memos, it just seems like Charles is a nice guy who genuinely cares about certain issues (rural life, affordable housing, food waste, non-traditional medical treatments) a lot and will openly attempt to persuade other people to care about those issues too. You can read more about the new batch of letters here. My favorite? Charles’ letter about affordable housing.
The issue of affordable rural housing was raised by Charles when he wrote in August 2007 to Yvette Cooper, then housing and planning minister in Gordon Brown’s administration. He refers to an earlier meeting he had with Ms Cooper when they discussed affordable rural housing.
Charles then goes on to say: “I have seen from my visits around the country the real problems finding an affordable home causes for those on low incomes in the countryside – many of whom are carrying out essential jobs, such as farm workers, teachers, shopkeepers and health workers and on whom the future viability of rural life depends.”
See, that just makes me really like Charles. He travels a lot and he listens and he reads and he advocates for real, working people. Does he have a personal interest? Of course. He loves rural life, he loves country life. But he’s also spent years working towards making country life beneficial for ALL people, of all incomes.
Clarence House issued another defense of Charles’ advocacy work – which is what it is, no more, no less – but I think Charles’ press office should just let the letters speak for themselves. People will get it, and they might even like him more.
Oh, and a BBC reporter tweeted that Queen Elizabeth had died a few days ago but it was all just some sort of stupid mix-up – go here to read that story.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
I think he’s been villainized and misunderstood for a very long time. That’s not to say that he isn’t also sometimes a spoiled child but I think he’s gotten a needlessly bad rap. He does have causes that he cares deeply for and he’s taken a good bit of flak for them over the years, in particular his sustainability ideas. He was simply ahead of his time!
Charles’s causes themselves may be valid and even really great, but isn’t the point that he should not be meddling in legislative matters or trying to influence the prime minister or parliament?
Yes, yes, and thrice yes.
I mean, technically, no, because he’s not the monarch yet. But there’s a clear problem when it’s the future monarch, right?
I would think so. An ethical issue to some extent and definitely a balance of powers issue. He’ll get his weekly briefings with the prime minister when he survives his mother.
Exactly.
Nothing wrong with asking nicely, I guess…
But what good is a Queen or King if they aren’t allowed to advocate for their people? I don’t get it – I mean, I get it, I understand the historical reasons for it, but the Monarchy isn’t good for anything else. It’s not as if your Parliament cares about the everyday person (nor does the US Legislature, I’m not trying to single out the UK on that point) Why not give it a modern reason to exist? Is that too simplistic?
A constitutional monarch can – and does – advocate for the country’s citizens and common causes. This isn’t that, nboudicca.
A constitutional monarch can’t influence the policy set of an elected government. Political parties set out manifestos and the citizen electorate vote on them. A constitutional monarch must be non-aligned, politically.
And in this particular case, a constitutional monarch cannot PRIVATELY lobby government about policy. The publication of these memos isn’t about which causes Charles was or wasn’t lobbying for or against – it’s whether or not he was trying to influence government policy, which the monarch isn’t constitutionally allowed to do. So that’s why it was important to see what he said. Was he, or wasn’t he, trying to change government policy when that government was elected by citizens on the basis of its manifesto.
I take your point, Sixer. However, is he not allowed to express an opinion? Where is the line drawn between expressing an opinion and lobbying an influencing? I haven’t seen the latter in his letters, I don’t think. That’s where I’m scratching my head.
Writing SECRET letters to government ministers is the distinction, bluhare. You know?
I mean, there will always be blurred lines. Charles supports green causes. The current administration pays lip service to environmentalism, but in practice opposes any genuinely ecological measures (protection of the green belt, removal of subsidy to agribusiness, green taxes), for example. So the monarch can make pro-environment speeches but can’t attack – or explicitly support, for that matter – specific government policies.
But that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is that Charles was writing lobbying letters to government ministers behind the electorate’s back, and then both Charles and government went to court to keep those letters private.
He’s not king yet. The monarch does have some powers and meets with the prime minister but her underlings do not
He’s not wrong about affordable homes affecting rural people, as well as those in the big cities. That’s why everyone where I live detests rich second-homers wasting good houses for 50 weeks of the year, just because they’re near the seaside.
Housing + UK = disaster. Really. The average house price in my rural area is 10x the average annual wage for the whole country and 11.5x the average annual wage in my area.
But I’m really not giving him a pass on the endless badgering to make a cash-strapped NHS offer homeopathic treatments. You want woo-woo? You pay for it. And the rest of us can get better and more timely SCIENTIFIC medical interventions for our money.
I don’t think a lot of people would call homeopathy and naturopathy woo-woo, Sixer. Our insurance where I live must pay for it, and it hasn’t caused costs to skyrocket. Some people have been immeasurably helped.
Homeopathy is bullshit. Period.
Not all alternative medicine is woo-woo, Bluhare. I can agree on that. But you’ll never convince me that homeopathy is anything but woo-woo, sorry!
The NHS should provided evidence-based treatments only. I’m more than happy that my GP surgery is financing mindfulness-based CBT, for example, since peer-reviewed evidence speaks to its efficacy. But there is no way a single NHS pound should be spent on quackery – especially when costs are limited, as they are in today’s austerity Britain.
From what I’ve seen, homeopathy has mixed reports on efficacy, so whether it’s ‘woo woo’
Is still open for debate.
You’re in the US bluhare? (I get confused who’s from where … but the US is always a safe bet.)
Total healthcare spending per capita in 2011 (converted to purchasing power parity): US = $8,745 (17.7% of GDP), UK = $3,405 (9.4% of GDP). Huge difference.
If you’re elsewhere, you can compare on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita Healthcare spending in the UK is pretty low, by first-world standards.
@Lucrezia
And the vital point is, for about half the GDP spend you point out, the UK gets better outcomes than the US on 11 of the 13 WHO/OECD health indicators. (Not that I’m out to bash the US; just to emphasise that we in the UK get a fantastic deal on health compared to spending, and silly princelings shouldn’t be suggesting we ruin it by paying for quackery).
Charles can utilise homeopathy if he wants, but personally, I find it an outrage that he contributes to the lobbying for it to be included in NHS treatments even though both the Chief Medical Officer and NICE (the official UK health body) state that it has no proven efficacious effects. We hoi polloi need that 9.4% of GDP to be spent on things that actually make us better.
(Although this doesn’t really factor in to whether or not the black spider memos should have been a) written or b) published. I agree with probably 80% of the stuff he says in them, just not the homeopathy bit. Whether or not I agree just isn’t the point).
Franca, I disagree with your opinion. Period.
Lucrezia, I think US healthcare costs are high; however I don’t think it’s because homeopathy or naturopathy are covered, and they may not be covered everywhere either. I can only speak to what I know where I live.
I agree with you about the British system (overall) vs the US system, Sixer. However facts can always be skewed to make the argument especially when people making the arguing have a vested interest in the outcome.
I do agree that whether you agree with Charles is beside the point,though, Sixer.
ChArles is close with Crown Princess Margarita of Romania who is very active in Romanian charities since the former royal family was allowed to return in the 90s. Former King Michael is a cousin and contemporary of Prince Philip. He’s also the last living head of state from WWII as he wasn’t overthrown until the Communists took over–coincidentally while he was attending the wedding of Philip and Elizabeth in London. His mother was born Helen of Greece and a first cousin to Philip but Michael and he are the same age. So there are long ties between the families and Charles has long been interested in the Greek and Russian sides of his heritage.
I’m not even going to lie. I am a Charles sugar. Always have been and always will be. Like all people he has his faults but I think he is caring, forward thinking, curious about the world and anxious and pro-active about doing his bit. Wee Willie has big shoes to fill.
Questions for residents of the UK (or others in the know):
1. Can or will Harry be in line to inherit Highgrove?
2. Can Charles (now or when he is King) “designate” that a portion of monies from the Duchy be funneled to Highgrove for upkeep & maintenance if Harry inherits it?
3. What’s likely to happen to Highgrove?
4. Finally, was it here (the Daily Mail or somewhere) upon Harry’s marriage that likely dukedoms might include Sussex or Lancaster? I hope I asked that correctly.
Thanks. Been meaning to ask those questions for awhile now.
High grove is Charles’s personal property and can be left to anyone. Same with Sandringham and Balmoral–they don’t have to go to the heir though they must certainly will. They were bought personally by Edward VII and Queen Victoria respectively. He can use Duchy money up until he becomes King. Once he succeeds the Duchy of Cornwall goes to William automatically as heir. Sussex is bandied about as one of the few eligible dukedoms. Lancaster is a subsidiary title of either the monarch or the Prince of Wales, I can’t remember, and can’t be given to someone else. Clarence is another availability but has some bad luck attached to it. York will become eligible again upon Andrew’s death.
Further to what Kori said, unfortunately Highgrove was transferred to the Duchy of Cornwall which means William inherits it. I’m hoping Charles will give Harry Harewood Park Estate in Hertfordshire which he had originally purchased for William and Kate as their country estate back in 2007.
Charles has no say in who inherits the Duchy. By law, the next MALE heir to the throne inherits it. Something overlooked in the rush to correct the gender inheritance law for the throne.
Duke of Lancaster title is for the Monarch only. Currently held by HM.
Fun fact: The Duke of Lancaster is the only dukedom that doesn’t provide a shared courtesy title for the Duke’s spouse. ONLY the monarch holds this title and It’s always Male in gender. This means that HM is DUKE not Duchess of Lancaster, and Philip doesn’t get any courtesy title of Lancaster. Or to clarify, when Charles/William becomes King, Camilla/Kate won’t be Duchess of Lancaster.
Re: Harry’s title, my personal favourites are Clarence and Suffolk. I hope he doesn’t get Sussex….that’s an endless pun waiting to happen.
Lancaster is for the monarch. Note: A female Monarch is the DUKE of L. Reason? Duchess is lower than duke. Smacks of sexism.
If Highgrove is uncoupled from the Cornwall Duchy properties, it can be left to whomever Charles wants. But that’s the key.
I don’t think it can be uncoupled. It was purchased with Duchy money, it is part of the Duchy. Just like the Romania lands are part of the Duchy. Harry will only get what “private” funds HM leaves him and will be leased whatever royal property Charles decides (or William will allow when/if Wm is king).
Cool!! Got it. Thank you all so much for responding. And yes Sussex is just one nasty pun after another waiting to happen. Lol. Interesting about Lancaster. I learned some good stuff today😊😊😄😊😄
I think both my country ( Romania) and Charles could use good rap 😀 I currently reside in UK and the house pricing is astronomical.
Romania is a beautiful country and Bukarest is one of my favourite cities, though I have come to understand that property prices there are also crazy.
Prices have come down significantly in the last five, six years. A fabulous apartment that cost half a million Euros is now worth about 250,000 and you can get a beautiful semi with yard and garage for about 150,000 in a nice central location. (Trust me, these are not second hand reports… Family properties.) so compared to a lot of Europe, including UK, Bucharest is a huge bargain.
The locals btw love. Charles and appreciate his conservation efforts, and his owning a property (wants to develop a nature retreat,classy and high end accommodations etc. ) are well regarded.
If only English people liked Romanians as much. Or at all.
I like Romanians! I wish many of my fellow citizens were less obnoxious, too.
So, so, so unrelated. Forgive me. It’s still early. But if I had body guards or royal protection officers, I’d be like a little kid who has endless amounts of energy. I’d take their asses on runs up hills and through forests, hikes thru mountain trails, skate-boarding down the side of volcanoes. We’d trudge thru the mud and navigate all types of crazy streets, hot desert sands, and lush oases. And just before I’d take off running or walking like I have motors in my legs I’d say “let’s rock” and snicker as they groan and roll their eyes heavenward because I know in their hearts of hearts they’d be thinking “this motherfu****.” Not that I do any of those things now but just saying if I did . . . I would.
I thought it was common knowledge that Charles has property and a foundation in Romania?
Harry goes to Romania as well, usually to help out on Charles’s Romanian adventures. Lots of pap pics of his visits.
It tickles me that the guardian is still trying to get the public foaming at the mouth about letters that show a decent person.
It’s funny because The Guardian is treating this like a coup of some sorts but I end up laughing because I think all these letters are helping Charles’ image and making The Guardian look foolish. But that’s me.
Me too.
I think the mistake they made was to build a swell of public expectation that the content in the letters was very negative.
It’s also clear that they didn’t know what was in the letters otherwise why build up expectations in that direction.
What they should have done was talk repeatedly about the constitutional aspect of it and educate people about that in order to get the reaction they were hoping for.
Instead Charles’s image is getting a huge boost.
I absolutely agree, LAK. The Grauniad have messed it up. On the one hand, I’m annoyed because I do care about democracy and constitutional issues. But on the other, I do think Charles was in line for some decent image-boosting. He kinda deserves it (much as it pains me to say it).
I think the fact that The Guardian didn’t realise it was the smoking gun they thought it would be — is a big error. They are still writing articles as if this is the Coup of the Century rather than seeing the letters as what they are.
But The Guardian’s ego keeps tripping them up and it looks as if The Guardian is too proud to admit they bungled this one.
Prince Charles interferes into government business in a rather inept way. Making the taxpayer pay for bogus medicine is not royal caring but rather incomprehensively id**tc.
The Guardian did absolutely understand that this is a smoking gun. But the back and forth from permission to publish and then the forbidding to publish is the result of several high-ranking people of high social standing interfering and. The Guardian got throttled for a while which is why they had to stop publishing those letters.
If you demand respect for Charles and his deeds then do also respect the Guardian who stepped on many important people’s toes to publish those letters.
@Subconsciously
I have enormous respect for The Guardian as their investigative reporting is often second-to-none. However, they framed the release of these memos as a sure-fire blow to the Monarchy and would hasten the cause of republicanism. It did none of those things. In fact, it’s bolstered Charles’ image by quite a bit. And The Guardian is still operating under the delusion that these memos hurt the Monarchy — that’s my issue.
I’m ALL for transparency in any democracy (except in the rare instance of public security) and advocate more transparency not less. But, as others have pointed out, that’s not the angle The Guardian took and it hurts their credibility when they aren’t flexible.
As for health care, not all non-traditional medicine is bogus. In fact, traditional medicine is coming under fire because of its not profitable, it’s not being recommended. THAT should concern people greatly as doctors are being fed information by drug companies — huge conflict of interest there. There’s way too much of a following for many non-traditional methods (iodine for one) to dismiss them all out of hand. (Btw not saying it should be funded either — just that we need to be more open about all the methods available).
What North Star said.
As the royals demonstrate with their PR, perception rather than facts is everything.
The Guardian are losing the battle here and they haven’t re-framed to win it back.
The Romania property is listed on the Duchy website, so it isn’t exactly a secret.
Hazza was made a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order. YESSSSS…. He’s EARNED his way into an order unlike Lazebridge.
Regarding the spider memos: Perhaps Charles isn’t stupid enough to put anything down in writing after the waxsworks comment. Repealing the change to the FOI Act is the real battle. The Guardian should have a column just on their finances.
Their finances are scandalous enough without full access to that information, if the guardian were to obtain proper accounting for the tax payer aspect of it, I bet it would be on a par with MPs’ expenses.
If someone managed to get all that collated into one, easily understandable, whole, I think the nation would have forty fits and die quiet! LAK – remember when HM’s bods tried to raid the government’s fuel poverty fund to pay for Buck House upgrades/renovations?
Sixer: yes, YES!!!! I’m surprised more people weren’t outraged, but there is always the double whammy of the Queen being exempt from FOI AND the gentleman’s agreement of a press ban on reporting on her thus the story wasn’t given as big a spotlight as it should have been.
On the subject of exposes, I discovered recently that someone I share an exercise class with for years is the lady who exposed the MPs expenses.
It’s sort of weird to talk to her about it because our previous interaction was a coffee after class and mundane girly stuff with no reference to our jobs or hobbies.
I found out because there was an article in the evening standard, which led to a lot of ribbing from everyone in class.
I’m itching to talk her into going after the royal finances.
I was surprised to find so much of Prince Charles in the Huffington Post. He seems to be a very thoughtful man: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hrh-the-prince-of-wales/
There was an article once which described how Prince Charles helped demolish affordable housing and then he built some model village in the same place but prices were much higher. When I saw him praising that tiny little house in a video I nearly laughed my a** off. There was barely enough room to open the window because the double bed did fill out that tiny room indeed. And Prince Charles stood there and praised this modern and affordable and generous housing thing he had built.
It would be worth google-ing if Charles has some financial interests of his own.
And yes, there isn’t enough housing in Great Britain. No idea why they don’t build more …
Additionally the big cities suffer from a serious lack of housing and additionally everything tends to gravitate towards the south of England.
Additionally many young couples don’t want to build a house as British employment laws are so lax that you never know when you are going to loose your job or when you are sent to the other end of the country by your company. Or when you have to work hefty over-time. When you built a house you need to be there occasionally so over-time is a killer. As many young couples pay down hefty university fees they aren’t going to build a house of their own.
The British housing crisis is a home-made crisis. Somehow several British governments didn’t get that.
It’s common knowledge that he spends several weeks at his home in Romania each year usually without Camilla, but It’s not very well known that Charles also spends a week or two each year at a monastery in Greece (one of those ‘high on an inaccessible mountain-men only- no visitors’ establishments) to wind down and meditate. In fact it is whispered that he finds more spiritual inspiration and satisfaction from the Greek Orthodox religion than that of the C of E.