The story of Sarah Ferguson falling victim to a sting operation while attempting to peddle access to her husband (British Trade Representative) is now legend. This kind of thing not only put the friendship Sarah had with her husband and with the Royal Family on the line, it also put the Monarchy there as well. Most important, it indicated the degree of power they still hold.
This past week Prince Charles once again tried his level-headed best to ensure that the monarchy would end with his mother. His continued relationship with Camilla that largely led to his divorce put his popularity in the basement. AND he openly continued his relationship with Camilla following the divorce up to Diana’s death after which he waited a prescribed period of time and married Camilla. It will be a trick to have Charles one day be head of the Church of England if he shoud inherit the throne. It is his sons with Diana who have carried on the normalcy of Charles’ marriage to their mother as well as her work.
It is clear that the Prince has championed worthy causes – land use reform, organic foods, relief organizations and minds the fast disappearing look and feel of London – now hostage to some of the worst modern architectural styles now embraced. It is in this area where he overstepped the bounds of a Constitutional Monarchy but at the same time laid bare the on-going and innate power of the monarchy – an institution anything but democratic.
FROM THE GUARDIAN VIA BRITTISH ROYAL WEDDING
Prince of Wales’s intervention in the £3bn Chelsea barracks redevelopment placed the rulers of Qatar, in ‘an impossible position’
- guardian.co.uk, Friday 25 June 2010 19.48 BST
- Article history
Prince of Wales’s intervention in plans for the Chelsea barracks development has been described as ‘unexpected and unwelcome’ Photograph: David Jones/PA
A high court judge today dealt an unprecedented blow to the Prince of Wales’s ability to interfere in public life by describing his opposition to a major planning application in London as “unexpected and unwelcome”.
Mr Justice Vos ruled that Charles’s intervention in plans for the £3bn Chelsea barracks redevelopment in the capital placed the rulers of Qatar, who owned the site, in “an impossible position” and had an impact on the views of the elected politicians charged with deciding on the plans’ merits.
In a historic judgment, Vos found that Qatari Diar, a property development company wholly owned by Qatar’s royal family, changed its plans for the prime London site as a result of the prince’s direct complaint to the emir that he did not like the designs by the firm of Lord Rogers, a leading modernist architect with whom he has clashed on several occasions.
Charles had voiced opposition to the plan for more than 500 homes on the former Ministry of Defence site at a teatime meeting with the emir at Clarence House last spring, and also wrote to the prime minister of Qatar attacking the designs as part of a “gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city”. He said it should be scrapped in favour of something more “old-fashioned” like the buildings in “Bath or 18th-century Edinburgh”.
The judge ruled that by withdrawing the application shortly after his intervention, Qatari Diar breached its contract with co-developer CPC Group, owned by Monaco-based businessman Christian Candy, clearing the way for a claim for costs and damages
REMAINDER OF ARTICLE here.
This is just more grist for the anti-monarchist mill. Charles may never be king.
Posted on June 27, 2010