Jump to content

52 posts in this topic

Posted

Report: Prince Charles compared Putin to Hitler

 

LONDON (AP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It was a private comment in a private conversation, he can say what he likes.

 

Also:

 

 


Labour Party lawmaker Mike Gapes tweeted that in a constitutional democracy, "monarchy should be seen and not heard."

 

This berk is a FORMER minister, and currently looks after trains.  He is no more a lawmaker than any other MP and should keep his fat nose out of things he's not involved in.

 

EDIT:  Look what I just saw on the BBC website!!

 

_75001694_022334074-2.jpg

 

Sieg heil! :p

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The more important thing is that he is free to say what he wants in public out loud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As an unelected hereditary heir, Charles shouldn't be meddling in such things and conducting discussions around other countries' foreign policies. At a time of heightened tension, his remarks are unhelpful to say the least, even if they were made in a private conversation.

 

It is even worse than former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's equating Putin to Hitler. According to her, issuing Russian passports to Ukrainian citizens is a terrible thing. She clearly never heard of dual citizenship... :rolleyes: 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As an unelected hereditary heir, Charles shouldn't be meddling in such things and conducting discussions around other countries' foreign policies. At a time of heightened tension, his remarks are unhelpful to say the least, even if they were made in a private conversation.

 

It is even worse than former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's equating Putin to Hitler. According to her, issuing Russian passports to Ukrainian citizens is a terrible thing. She clearly never heard of dual citizenship... :rolleyes:

I see no problem having a private discussion and saying this.  This was not a speech, this was a private conversation that got reported on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As an unelected hereditary heir, Charles shouldn't be meddling in such things and conducting discussions around other countries' foreign policies. At a time of heightened tension, his remarks are unhelpful to say the least, even if they were made in a private conversation.

 

Until he becomes reigning monarch, he has a right to say what he likes in private conversation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As an unelected hereditary heir, Charles shouldn't be meddling in such things and conducting discussions around other countries' foreign policies. At a time of heightened tension, his remarks are unhelpful to say the least, even if they were made in a private conversation.

 

It is even worse than former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's equating Putin to Hitler. According to her, issuing Russian passports to Ukrainian citizens is a terrible thing. She clearly never heard of dual citizenship... :rolleyes:

Meddling? Are you serious? He made a comment on how he feels, nothing more.

 

Personally, having someone speak the truth instead of what they are "supposed" to say because of their position is quite refreshing. More honesty is a good thing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Marienne Ferguson shouldn't be telling the world what Prince Charles says in a private conversation. TBH it's nice to see the future King having an opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Until he becomes reigning monarch, he has a right to say what he likes in private conversation.

 

Private citizens don't even have that right anymore.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Compared to his father, the comment made in private was suprisingly unoffensive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As an unelected hereditary heir, Charles shouldn't be meddling in such things and conducting discussions around other countries' foreign policies. At a time of heightened tension, his remarks are unhelpful to say the least, even if they were made in a private conversation.

 

It is even worse than former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's equating Putin to Hitler. According to her, issuing Russian passports to Ukrainian citizens is a terrible thing. She clearly never heard of dual citizenship... :rolleyes:

He is not an unelected heir.

He was Her Majesty's first born.

Putin should go mind his own business and leave sovereign states alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Glad to see the guy speak about what's on his mind. He should be able to say anything. What he shouldn't be is one of the largest welfare recepients in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Glad to see the guy speak about what's on his mind. He should be able to say anything. What he shouldn't be is one of the largest welfare recepients in the world.

 

1. He isn't

2. What does that have to do with the topic anyway?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He is not an unelected heir.

He was Her Majesty's first born.

Putin should go mind his own business and leave sovereign states alone.

 

Obviously he is an unelected heir. He has not been elected a heir, has he? All members of the royal family are unelected. If Western leaders are calling for wishes of people who were on the streets of Kiev to be respected, it is just as fair to respect wishes of people of Crimea. Before all these shenanigans broke out, Crimea was an autonomous republic with only Sevastopol under administration of Ukraine's government. In the same manner as Kosovo cession from Serbia has been recognised and supported by many Western countries (US and most EU states), it would be hypocritical to say that cession of Crimea from Ukraine must not happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Private citizens don't even have that right anymore.

That right is reserved, to the royalty.


It was a private comment in a private conversation, he can say what he likes.

 

Also:

 

 

 

This berk is a FORMER minister, and currently looks after trains.  He is no more a lawmaker than any other MP and should keep his fat nose out of things he's not involved in.

 

EDIT:  Look what I just saw on the BBC website!!

 

_75001694_022334074-2.jpg

 

Sieg heil! :p

You know how childish it is, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You know how childish it is, right?

 

Since when is it against the law to be childish?

 

Anyway, blame the BBC, not me! THEY posted that pic, right above the article about Prince Charles.  I just found it hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1) his right of free speech trumps the attempts at strangling the conversation by those who want to appease Putin. See Neville Chamberlain.

2) it's not as if he's wrong or anything. Putin's actions are so 1939.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Genuinely curious, what happens if someone labels him as Hitler? Or someone else from the royal family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Glad to see the guy speak about what's on his mind. He should be able to say anything. What he shouldn't be is one of the largest welfare recepients in the world.

How's that? The Royals are independently wealthy.. the Money that "goes to them" doesn't, it goes to cover the cost of maintaining historic sites, and some of the costs associated with their duties. Additionally, the UK gets more money from tourists, and other events surrounding the Royals, than it costs them. They make the UK money.

 

 

 

Anyway, he said it in private, he has no power, who cares. I mean sure it's a story.. but it has no effect on the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Since when is it against the law to be childish?

 

Anyway, blame the BBC, not me! THEY posted that pic, right above the article about Prince Charles.  I just found it hilarious.

Did I say or even implied that being childish is against the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Genuinely curious, what happens if someone labels him as Hitler? Or someone else from the royal family?

Nothing happens.. They probably wouldn't even respond to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nothing happens.. They probably wouldn't even respond to it.

 

Aha, so it is not like the whole "you cannot say bad things about your leaders!" thing? (y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How's that? The Royals are independently wealthy.. the Money that "goes to them" doesn't, it goes to cover the cost of maintaining historic sites, and some of the costs associated with their duties. Additionally, the UK gets more money from tourists, and other events surrounding the Royals, than it costs them. They make the UK money.
 
 
 
Anyway, he said it in private, he has no power, who cares. I mean sure it's a story.. but it has no effect on the world.


They are tax exempt and get financed mainly by the public money. Their so called "historic sites" are nothing but mansions in their possession. They are basically the most known welfare recipients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They are tax exempt and get financed mainly by the public money. Their so called "historic sites" are nothing but mansions in their possession. They are basically the most known welfare recipients.

 

Incorrect.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Aha, so it is not like the whole "you cannot say bad things about your leaders!" thing? (Y)

 

Nope, they have the same protection from libel and slander as anyone else.. actually less as they are public figures..

 

They are tax exempt and get financed mainly by the public money. Their so called "historic sites" are nothing but mansions in their possession. They are basically the most known welfare recipients.

lol.. Riiight..

 

Most of their mansions/castles/whatever are not in their possession. They are also open to the public, used for ceremony and other events, and are one of the biggest tourist attractions in the UK. As for financed, no, most money the Royals use is their own, not public. The public money they get is used to pay for the duties expected of them.

 

In addition, while it is true that they are in part tax exempt, they Voluntarily pay a sum equivalent to what their income would be taxed at. They are under no legal obligation to, but they do anyway. For income they made outside of their own assets, and the funds given to them for their duties, they are taxed on as normal.

 

In addition to their properties, which bring in tourist dollars, there is also their art collection, and other assets that are the property of the Royal Family, but are held in trust by the state, and used and displayed all over the empire. Again, providing income that goes to the state and not the family.

 

Lastly.. in WWII, unlike the other royal families of Europe, they didn't run away.. So I don't care if it does cost money, atleast till the end of the current reign they get a pass in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.