An elected dictatorship.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Des youre a naïf! Join the cynics today!

Where I live we vote for constitutional amendments every election. The amendments require the government to clean the water and fund the schools and stop using animals for research, etc. And the pols and courts ignore it all.

We increase our taxes to fund health care and buy pristine land, and the money goes for other things.

The elites decide. And the voters and laws be damned.

 

[Braschi]

Quite true. And that's what I'm 'whining' about. A long time since our government acted as the servants of the people they are supposed to.

And I have plenty of idea what a real dictatorship looks like. My grandfather escaped with half his family from Nazi Germany in '33. The other half wasn't so lucky. The government is granting itself and its successors unprecedented powers, which the Stasi, for example, in post-war Eastern Germany, would have killed for.

Britain is more and more ruined day by day, and 'mindless' (your word) optimists like you are part of the enabling mass which allows it to happen.

I'm going with Godwin's law here; just because your grandparents experienced something doesn't mean you know what it was like. Neither of my grandparents survived the Nazis, but that doesn't mean I know what it was like to be in Dachau.

 

[patient1]

The Prince of Wales' expertise? I think you underestimate him. The Duchy of Cornwall demonstrates organic farming on a commercial, profitable scale. His various charitable interests cover a wide range of activities. The Prince's Trust engages with disaffected and marginalised communities and provides help, finance and expertise for young entrepreneurs. The amount of work he does in a given year is staggering.

Whether you or I agree with him? That's a different matter. On some things I will. On others I'd disagree vehemently.

Comparing him with John Cleese? John is an entertainer. Why should I respect his opinions on anything except entertainment? Richard Branson? I might respect his advice on commercial risk taking, but not on entertainment.

Whatever else can be said about the Prince of Wales, no one should underestimate his passion for some subjects, and in a few he has considerable expertise. He also has an army of paid and unpaid advisors, many of them world experts in their fields.

I suspect that some of his letters were written because others thought the Prince's intervention would be more effective than their own, or they are not allowed to express their opinion - e.g. serving Army officers worried about the uselessness of their equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Charles is Colonel in Chief of several regiments. If the regiment's officers privately told him their concerns which they couldn't voice publicly, then Charles would be likely to (and did) respond by writing a letter to the Prime Minister.

So far the response to the publication seems predictable. If you don't like the Monarchy, he shouldn't have written them. If you support the Monarchy, or are neutral, then the reaction has been "Why can't Charles write these letters? They seem normal, sane, well-informed and sensible."

The real argument is about whether the letters exerted undue influence. The public record suggests they didn't and don't. They might irritate politicians or remind them of facts they'd rather forget.

The modern equivalent of Charles' letters is the on-line petition or a Twitter campaign. Some of those work, like some of his letters. Some of them don't but they show that the politicians' actions are watched.

There are several campaigns already started about Freedom of Speech, Privacy online, How to tackle extremist preachers etc. Some show obvious bias and are unlikely to influence any elected government. Some are expressing real concerns that should be considered.

As far as I am concerned Charles can keep writing. I certainly will. It gets us past the stage of "Someone must do something about..." and relieves the irritation even if that is all it does.

Apparently I did underestimate the Prince.
The last I read anything on his organic farming project it was propagating weeds and ill will according to the royalist who wrote it. But that was back when Andrew was getting married. I admire his persistence of vision to make it a success.

I knew he was involved with many charities in his role as ambassador at large, so I really should have added fundraising to his resume.

As for Cleese, he is a Cambridge educated entertainer, so when it comes to expressing a personal opinion he's head and shoulders above other entertainers in my experience.

I knew the Prince had some regiments during the Napoleonic Wars, but I didn't know they were still in existence.

I had no idea he had an army of experts. If they're paid with public money rather than from the family fortune, shouldn't the public have the benefit of that expertise? No point in keeping it secret, is there?

Again, Og, thanks for the explanations!