Go get 'em Charles ...

the_neurotic_cat · 31-03-2005, 18:46

Woohoo !! Yeah !! <wolf whistle> !!

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4333767

Next time I hope he chucks some feces at the journalists and screams like a chimp

(he must learn to speak to journalists in thier native tongue)

31-03-2005, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat

Next time I hope he chucks some feces at the journalists and screams like a chimp

(he must learn to speak to journalists in thier native tongue)

While I know that journos can be beyond contempt at times, in this case I think the Royal Family do OK - they get left alone much of the time and certainly don't suffer as much as some. (Then again, if I had his money/lifestyle I think I could put up with the odd photo shoot!)

It wasn't as if it was some sort of surprise - it was prearranged, so he might have been a bit more graceful about it.

Particularly since he will be looking for favourable reporting on his forthcoming marriage...

Paul K · 31-03-2005, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat

Woohoo !! Yeah !! <wolf whistle> !!

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4333767

Next time I hope he chucks some feces at the journalists and screams like a chimp

(he must learn to speak to journalists in thier native tongue)

The problem here is that the journalists were invited there to do a photoshoot, ask some questions and then bugger off and leave them alone for the rest of the holiday. This invitation was done through Clarence house so if he wasn't happy to do the press questions why did he sit there moaning instead of allowing the boys to face the questions for him? All it's done is made the possible future monarch look a prat.

31-03-2005, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

All it's done is made the possible future monarch look a prat.

A very minor task.

Chimaera · 31-03-2005, 18:59

Well I'm not usually bothered by the Monarchy, but now I'm veering towards the Republican movement! How ungrateful - ok I know the paparazzi are a pain in the elbow, but some of his subjects like to read everything royalty gets up to. They need to remember that by and large the British public pay for their extravagant lifestyle - and if Charles keeps alienating people like this he may find himself out of a job!
And as for his personal comments about a BBC reporter - well!

He obviously needs to learn how a microphone works

Paul K · 31-03-2005, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

All it's done is made the possible future monarch look a prat.

A very minor task.

No task at all really, it seems to come naturally to him. I'm afraid that if he doesn't like the present media attention in reference to his wedding plans then maybe he should have gone to Vegas and got a quickie marriage by Elvis

punky · 31-03-2005, 19:00

I can understand his frustration at their behavior, and he has a right to hate whoever he likes... But what a pillock... If you are in the public eye, and specifically in a bloody press conference, keep your mouth shut and give short, relevent answers. Bitch about them afterward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

No task at all really, it seems to come naturally to him.

Chip off the old block isn't he? Don't even need to mention his old man, he's a legend in his own right, in that respect.

cookie_365 · 31-03-2005, 19:35

Hmm, Prince Charles -v- Nicholas Witchell ......

Who do I dislike the most ...... ? Got to think about that one a bit ....

31-03-2005, 19:44

Well at the risk of being thrown in the tower...

I think he is a pompous prat, he should have at least have had the guts to say it out loud rather than mutter it under his own breath.

31-03-2005, 19:56

Boy

Me

and says "would they have backed the press if this was Diana ?". It was not long ago, some were screaming off with there heads when it came to the press

.

Me i just detest the press full stop. I don't buy newspapers any more. As for the SUN well that used to give me the feeling when i did read it of the enquirer in America

31-03-2005, 20:57

Personally I think "good for him!"

The Royals are supposed to sit there and take all the crap that people throw at them (most especially the media!) and ignore it/ laugh it off, but why the hell should they?

They have as much right as anyone to privacy, but the media think they should be allowed to snoop and pry and stir it up with impugnity.

I always considered that, were I to win the lottery, I'd like to hire a few photographers etc to go around and harass the Paparazzi by trying to take pictures of them in the bath or out with their children etc, just to see how *they* liked it!!

cookie_365 · 31-03-2005, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

Personally I think "good for him!"

The Royals are supposed to sit there and take all the crap that people throw at them (most especially the media!) and ignore it/ laugh it off, but why the hell should they?

They have as much right as anyone to privacy, but the media think they should be allowed to snoop and pry and stir it up with impugnity.

I always considered that, were I to win the lottery, I'd like to hire a few photographers etc to go around and harass the Paparazzi by trying to take pictures of them in the bath or out with their children etc, just to see how *they* liked it!!

I'd respect his 'right to privacy' if he'd shut up about things he has no understanding of (architecture, GM food, nanotechnology, etc etc etc) instead of using his position to shout down anyone who didn't share his view.

the_neurotic_cat · 31-03-2005, 23:13

Upon further reflection (and remembering when Harry wore the swasika, which was funny as hell) I think Charles knew exactly what he was doing, as did Harry.

Causing media outrage (I say media and not public outrage being as most of us are like sheep when it comes to situational awareness of the world) seems to be an emerging new sport amongst the royals ... I love it ... more please

**Chris** · 31-03-2005, 23:22

This question is being done on Question Time right now...

He's entitled to hold such an opinion of course, what bothers me is that he apparently had no idea that his aside was being picked up by microphones and transmitted around the world.

This man is going to be our head of State, for goodness sake. Gee Dubya is routinely slaughtered for making gaffes less significant than this, but at least the Americans had the chance to decide he was a liability and vote him out (why they chose not to is a real mystery). We don't have that luxury. Why on earth should we be compelled to have a complete buffoon as our head of state for the remainder of his natural life?

01-04-2005, 00:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie_365

I'd respect his 'right to privacy' if he'd shut up about things he has no understanding of (architecture, GM food, nanotechnology, etc etc etc) instead of using his position to shout down anyone who didn't share his view.

"using his position to shout down anyone who didn't share his view."???

Sorry, *when* exactly has he done that? He's expressed an opinion, just as anyone and everyone else is entitled to, but I've seen no sign of him trying to suppress debate or say "I'm going to be King so you'd jolly well better agree with me!"
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

what bothers me is that he apparently had no idea that his aside was being picked up by microphones and transmitted around the world.

Why on earth *should* he know that? Hell, if I'd been in his place I wouldn't have expected it to be picked up. AFAIK they weren't miked up by the media.

Quote:

This man is going to be our head of State, for goodness sake. Gee Dubya is routinely slaughtered for making gaffes less significant than this, but at least the Americans had the chance to decide he was a liability and vote him out (why they chose not to is a real mystery). We don't have that luxury. Why on earth should we be compelled to have a complete buffoon as our head of state for the remainder of his natural life?

So we should be free to elect our *own* "complete buffoon" and that makes things better somehow??

Personally I'm damn glad we *can't* elect someone like Bush or President Tony the First!