Prince Charles cover-up

babygravy

Lantern Swinger
#5
I'm trying hard to give a damn about what Chuck wrote ten years ago to Blair &Co but failing miserably.
He is supposed to be neutral politically, yet there may be evidence he was using his position to push his own political agenda.

Grieve, the government's chief legal adviser, said that any perception that Charles had disagreed with the previous government of Tony Blair "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".
If he has nothing to hide, why not publish the letters?
 
#6
He is supposed to be neutral politically, yet there may be evidence he was using his position to push his own political agenda.



If he has nothing to hide, why not publish the letters?
The Queen is supposed to be politically neutral, not sure about the rest of the family.

If the letters were private mail, what the ****s it got to do with us?

I always thought there was a law about reading other peoples mail without their permission?
 

(granny)

Banned
Book Reviewer
#7
It would be interesting to know how the newspaper came to be in possession of personal letters? One or two may have been leaked, but 27 of them is more like a flood. If it was his Dad sending these letters we would all think that it was a great laugh.
If Prince Charles had written these letters to the Times then there might be a story. As it is I'm glad he stated his thoughts privately.
 

Top