I’m a nutter according to Prince Charles

Lord Berkeley

I’m a nutter, according to Prince Charles!


xd150208 Nutter

I have a private member’s bill waiting second reading in the lords, which is designed to make the necessary changes to legislation so that the Duchy of Cornwall is classed as a private entity, alongside many other private estates.

The Duchy, in its Consultation Document on turning St Mary’s Harbour in the Isles of Scilly into a Trust port, says that one of its reasons for doing so is to confirm this:

So my Bill would make the following changes in order to make the Duchy as close to a ‘normal’ private estate as is possible without going back into legislation passed several centuries ago.


So why all the fuss about this and the new book by Catherine Mayer?

Surely he should want to sort out these mediaeval rights that the Duchy retains?  He will be a modern King, and will want to avoid special privileges that royalty still enjoys!   So presumably no more spidery letters that make ministers and officials quake in their shoes.

Anyway, my Bill is still in the queue for debating time in the Lords.

In the meantime, a few comments on the Daily Telegraph article so far received, attributable to avoid blushes!

‘Charles clearly wants sole dominion over ‘nuttery’ and resents this intrusion.  I think it’s hilarious that even the Queen doesn’t want Charles to become King.



‘A friend of mine made this point on Facebook:

Dear The Queen, isn’t the point of hereditary succession (which got you your job) that you just have to run with it?’


‘Rock on!!!! Very impressive.’


‘Dear Tony,

‘On behalf of my ‘German’ family, we have to admit that the statements of German Prince Charles against a German noble Berkeley is utterly a shame. You are not a nutter, you are pushing for tax democracy and that is good so.

‘As you know, we got rid of our German aristocracy for various reasons and some have managed to escape to the UK. The only one left in high rank and which makes the headlines is Ernst August from Hannover (the one who is hanging around with a prostitute whilst being married to Princess Caroline of Monaco). We also have some others, but I prefer not to mention them.

‘So, there seems to be a serious problem with your “Prince” and we cannot accept that he calls you a nutter. We consider him quite gawky in our country and if indeed already his mother Elisabeth questions his ability to reign, than there is a serious problem;.

‘So, consider his statement as a compliment…and continue!’


7 comments for “I’m a nutter according to Prince Charles

  1. MilesJSD
    04/02/2015 at 8:33 pm

    Exploitation and manipulation of this Earth-1 Living Environment can no longer be viewed, and individual-capitalistically-constituted, as being “Private”.

    The whole thing is very much a Lifesupport of All-of-the-People,
    hence should be Participatively-Democratised and Directed,
    as, for instance :-

    “The People’s Grand-Estate of Cornwall [previously the Duchy of Cornwall: Patron-cum-CEO, Charles – Prince of Wales]” –

    (I give way -)

  2. luke1234
    11/02/2015 at 2:11 pm

    Test comment – LBM

  3. luke1234
    11/02/2015 at 2:16 pm

    Test comment 2 – LBM

    • MilesJSD
      11/02/2015 at 4:27 pm

      [ luke1234 – It appears that the “shut down” on all comments, except to Lord Norton’s posts, has been lifted ]

  4. Senex
    11/02/2015 at 8:20 pm

    What you must consider is that the next regent will be a King who was formerly a Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall. The Queen never held the title because she refused it in deference to her sister? It was the Privy Council that made her regent a decision based entirely upon the timing of her birth. She got the short straw.

    A Prince of Wales when he becomes King gives up the title of ‘Duke of Cornwall’ to his heir. Can you see the difficulty for a future King? The Duchy of Cornwall is not Crown property and so the King would not need to give ‘Royal Consent’ to a bill for changes to this estate.

    This is how you are able to consider a private bill concerning the Duchy of Cornwall and reasonably explains the unfriendliness toward you. Some might say the Prince has never wanted to be King and this has directed the choices in his life.

    So why has Parliament stood by the Monarchy for such a very long time. What is it about the Monarchy that is so important?

    The answer is the anointment of the regent at coronation.

  5. Senex
    11/02/2015 at 8:22 pm

    The Romans with their laws are gone and the dark ages have begun. The Saxons are the new ruling elite and must govern, bring order through their laws.

    But the Kings laws are not religious so why should people obey them? Solution: unite the King with the Church by anointment, a solution provided by the first governing councils or Witan around 600AD. The Kings laws now serve God’s purpose.

    Political stability thus operates on a very simple basis without the need for widespread literacy or numeracy. Parliament is operated by God fearing people for God fearing people. Everybody wants to go to heaven, the more laws people obey the better are their chances.

    Much nearer to now the King does not always agree with Parliament. He is obliged to give Royal Assent but withholds God’s perfection from the law created by Parliament. Attendance at the prorogation ceremony declines to become conventionally lost.

    Powerful forces operating within society bent on devaluing Gods moral purpose weaken both the Monarchy and Church. A Parliament filled with atheists, agnostics and their like is a failure of Parliaments executive to ensure a necessary and proportional diversity one essential to political stability.

    Should a Royal Line fail us another Parliament would offer Mickey Mouse a Crown Prince of France the throne if by his anointment people abiding by or obeying our laws as an act of free will would see them earn afterlife reward points in a way that no republic can offer.

    • MilesJSD
      16/02/2015 at 11:20 pm

      Most people, even young under-forties, and I’ve heard teenagers too who’ve already ‘given up’;
      and many seriously or with a sourish grin, saying in dead earnest:

      “What can we do ? We won’t be here to see the ultimate collapse, anyway”.

Comments are closed.