He's compared Putin to Hitler! Maybe he should head for home! We don't need Putin looking for him here!
Chuck looking to start W.W.III?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who has backed Mr Putin's anti-EU stance in the past, said: "Prince Charles has made those comments - I know some people feel that way about Putin.
"I think there's a difference. The difference is right from the very start Hitler was expansionist, and we haven't see very much evidence of that until now from Putin and arguably, what's happened in the Ukraine is because he's been poked with a stick by the rest of the world."
"There are times when it might be better for Prince Charles not to get involved in things like this."
According to the Daily Mail, the prince compared the Russian president to the Nazi leader when talking to Marienne Ferguson, a museum volunteer who moved to Canada with her Jewish family when she was just 13. "Now Putin is just doing the same as Hitler," Charles is reported to have said.
Charles's remarks have been criticised across the political spectrum in Britain: the Labour MP Mike Gapes called for his abdication.
MP Gapes, a current member and former chairman of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, said the prince should have kept his views private. The Ilford South MP tweeted: "If Prince Charles wants to make controversial statements on national or international issues, he should abdicate and stand for election."
Britain's former ambassador to Russia, Sir Tony Brenton, said it was a "grotesque exaggeration" to compare Russia's actions in Crimea with those of the Nazis. But he said Charles' intervention could help Russia reconsider its policy in Ukraine.
Last edited:
Aaah crap! Prince Charles makes a comment likening Putin's behaviour to Hitler's in the run-up to WWII in a PRIVATE conversation with some yappy female who just couldn't wait to pass this little tid-bit along in a "look at me; I've been privy to a confidence by a Prince" moment.
Everyone's going ape-chit over his failure to observe the niceties of diplomacy as regards this assswipe invading another country and annexing a portion of it while making his intentions no secret to the rest of the world who seem all too willing to overlook his excursions as "none of my business what he does waaaay over there."
Prince Charles, for all of his lack of finesse, has done the world a favour in expressing an opinion held by many who are just too chicken chit to verbalize it. Now the conversation can begin with vigor and if some of it reflects badly on Putin along with his protagonists, so much the better.
Til now, his annexation by invasion has been discussed as though it were simply another military coup in Thailand. Yaaawn.
If this less than tactful offering by an irrelevant Prince gets the debate flowing and winckles out some of the more 'cover your azz' talking heads to actually put a position forth and stand by it; again, so much the better. Putin might not be a Hitler but he is sure as hell a bully of the first order. The only thing standing between him becoming another Hitler is the world forming an opinion and forcing him to consider his own citizens changing their worship into cautious tolerance.
Charles has done us a service with his bumbling comment to a simpering groupie.
Everyone's going ape-chit over his failure to observe the niceties of diplomacy as regards this assswipe invading another country and annexing a portion of it while making his intentions no secret to the rest of the world who seem all too willing to overlook his excursions as "none of my business what he does waaaay over there."
Prince Charles, for all of his lack of finesse, has done the world a favour in expressing an opinion held by many who are just too chicken chit to verbalize it. Now the conversation can begin with vigor and if some of it reflects badly on Putin along with his protagonists, so much the better.
Til now, his annexation by invasion has been discussed as though it were simply another military coup in Thailand. Yaaawn.
If this less than tactful offering by an irrelevant Prince gets the debate flowing and winckles out some of the more 'cover your azz' talking heads to actually put a position forth and stand by it; again, so much the better. Putin might not be a Hitler but he is sure as hell a bully of the first order. The only thing standing between him becoming another Hitler is the world forming an opinion and forcing him to consider his own citizens changing their worship into cautious tolerance.
Charles has done us a service with his bumbling comment to a simpering groupie.
Charles does have a habit of airing his opinions on politics and current affairs in public. It riles some people because the British royals are supposed to be politically neutral and therefore some people think they shouldn't let their political views be known. I disagree, though. I think Charles and other royals should be free to air their views in public like everyone else, whether we agree with them or not. Charles does have a lot of good points on many topics, such as architecture - he hates these modern "carbuncles" - and the environment.
Is that the comment that pays for half his vacations this year?
How would it have gone over 'at home' if he compared Crimea to being the Falklands rejoining Britain after Argentina took her away. A referendum by the people of the land would have been a good enough excuse to 'invade' in that case so why not in Crimea?
How would it have gone over 'at home' if he compared Crimea to being the Falklands rejoining Britain after Argentina took her away. A referendum by the people of the land would have been a good enough excuse to 'invade' in that case so why not in Crimea?
What makes you think the so called referendum in Crimea was either open or honest? Especially since it was enforced with Russian armed forces.
You have to bear in mind that Crimea was part of Russia until 1954, and was handed by Khrushchev to Ukraine when Russia and Ukraine were still in the USSR, so it didn't really matter. It's only in 1991 when the USSR broke up that Crimea became part of, from a Russian perspective, a foreign country. Today, 59% of Crimeans are ethnic Russians and only 24% are ethnic Ukrainians. 77% of Crimeans speak Russian as their first language. So I can't see why the majority of Crimeans wouldn't prefer to be part of Russia rather than Ukraine.
OMG you really are naive about how your own country works.
Cut a ribbon in Australia, $50,000 plus travel expenses, dedicate a highway in Canada, $150,000 plus travel expenses and the list goes on .........
It is more important that he not be coached in what is let out. The Hitler comment saw Britain enter a long war and come out with a profit in term of territory and influence with other Nations. The many dead boys meant almost nothng to the political agenda, one the Royals would have had full knowledge of and they fully supported it as they never spoke up against it. The Balfour Declaration was from Lord Balfour not PM Balfour and that was 1915 era so don't tell me anything has changed in that 100 years.
This is just a setup so you have two entities and if one is caught doing something wrong the 'other one' can come to 'the rescue' and then things go the same way.
So Charles mad a comment so what, many people have the same opinion
Secondly the Crimea Vote actually ethnically the people of the region are in
fact more closely associated with the Russians than the west. For several
reasons the mood is pro Russian. The Naval Base is the prime reason its
the main employer for the region and jobs come first you know eh?
We have this hand over the heart flag waving hymn singing crowd that
exudes the patriotic movement Yet when the same things happen in another
part of the world by people overcome more by emotion than logic we cry foul.
And yes the over the top patriotism of some is not logical at all it clouds the
rational thought process and its used
Secondly the Crimea Vote actually ethnically the people of the region are in
fact more closely associated with the Russians than the west. For several
reasons the mood is pro Russian. The Naval Base is the prime reason its
the main employer for the region and jobs come first you know eh?
We have this hand over the heart flag waving hymn singing crowd that
exudes the patriotic movement Yet when the same things happen in another
part of the world by people overcome more by emotion than logic we cry foul.
And yes the over the top patriotism of some is not logical at all it clouds the
rational thought process and its used
I know how my country works.
You don't.
Prince Charles is a multi-millionaire, and makes millions of quid from the Duchy of Cornwall. This is worth, in total, just over £400 million and makes tens of millions every year.
You can't go on such trips for free. They have to be paid for.
Who, What, Why: What can and can't British Royal Family members say?
Who, What, Why
The Magazine answers the questions behind the news
The allegation that Prince Charles compared Vladimir Putin's annexing of Crimea to Nazi actions has caused a stir. Just what can and can't the royals say?
Marienne Ferguson, a former Polish war refugee, was showing Prince Charles around a museum in Nova Scotia, Canada. They were discussing Hitler's takeover of countries, and the prince said "something to the effect of 'it's not unlike…what Putin is doing'", Ferguson later told reporters. Questions have been raised in the UK about the wisdom of Prince Charles's remarks. And in Russia, the Moskovskij Komsomolets newspaper said they risked "triggering an international scandal". So just what can and can't royals say?
All of the Queen's public speeches and actions are taken on advice from ministers, says constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor. But other royals, including the heir to the throne, are not bound by any rules. In practice, Prince Charles shows his speeches to ministers before delivery, Bogdanor says. And the convention is that senior royals should not embarrass the Queen in either public or private statements. The key unwritten rule is to avoid party politics. Bogdanor argues that the prince's Putin remark did not overstep the mark. "It reflects a consensus among all the main parties. The comment is controversial rather than anodyne. But it is not party political."
The prince is known for sending memos to ministers on subjects ranging from complementary medicine to architecture. Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee has no problem with his opinion about Putin, but says that articulating it does not fit the future monarch's role.
"If one insists on having the institution of the monarchy then you have to behave like a dumb monarch and not say a word." It was also diplomatically "impolitic", she argues, as Prince Charles is due to meet President Putin for the D-Day anniversary commemorations next month.
Getting a member of the public to spill the beans about a private conversation is a "classic royal scoop", says former royal correspondent Jennie Bond. But there's nothing wrong with what Prince Charles said, she believes. "We've got to get over this shock horror 'he's got views!' It's perfectly correct that Prince Charles should speak out on matters of social justice."
The answer
No rules on what British Royal Family can say
Queen has her speeches vetted
Unwritten rule that royals do not speak out on party politics
Follow @BBCNewsMagazine on Twitter and on Facebook
BBC News - Who, What, Why: What can and can't British Royal Family members say?
My mother was English so my knowledge goes further than the schoolroom.
British history is full of deceptions and lies. The Magna Carta allowed business owners to have slaves for employees.
You barred Jewish bankers for 350 years because they were fleecing the king's sheep and they were his alone for the fleecing. Now you think you can dictate what happens in other land where you are a minority and insist the minority remain a minority on home turf.
Your blinders mean you know what the Monarchy wants you to know (given that the Mayor of London and the BAR Association are the current power) Illusions one and all so you can act as the 'middle man' who lives off the sweat and possessions of others.
Yeah, Old Pip can be a bit of an A$$hole when he puts his mind to it!
And indeed that same situation endures today!
No, it didn't.
In 1102, the Church Council of London convened by Anselm issued a decree: "Let no one hereafter presume to engage in that nefarious trade in which hitherto in England men were usually sold like brute animals."
Slavery has been illegal in England for over 900 years.
That's why loads of American slaves escaped over here after the Yanks got their ill-deserved independence. Those slaves were freer here than they would have been in Yankeeland.
The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire except "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company ," the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena."
Slavery has been illegal in England itself for over 900 years.
This was highlighted during Somersett's Case of 1772. James Somerset was an enslaved African who was bought by Charles Stewart in Boston and brought with him to England in 1769.
Somerset escaped in 1771 but was recaptured in November of that year. Somerset's three godparents from his baptism as a Christian in England asked a court to determine whether or not Somerset's imprisonment was legal.
The court held that chattel slavery was unsupported by the common law in England and Wales, though the position elsewhere in the British Empire was left ambiguous (until 1833). Slavery had never been authorised by statute in England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield's decision found it also unsupported in common law. Lord Mansfield limited his judgment to the issue of whether a person, regardless of being a slave, could be removed from England against his will, but even this reading meant that certain property rights in chattel slaves were unsupported by common law.
It was this case which was one big factor in slaves in America fleeing to Britain, where they could live as free men.
Somerset v Stewart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited: