You can try, especially if you’re an MP.
An interesting point…
It’s probably a rather grey area. Part of Charles’ job description would involve entertaining high profile guests which would require chefs. Butlers (akin to restaurant servers) would also be required.
I’m a bit stuck on the valet, though…
Nothing so salacious, I wouldn’t lower myself to red-top levels 
I seem to remember a story of an Education Minister (I think) who reportedly had to endure a session of Charles wailing and gnashing his teeth because his ideas about the curriculum weren’t being adopted.
Details are hazy, I’ll see if I can find a cite.
Not one of the red-tops. IIRC it was The Sunday Times which ran the story about the unnamed senior member of staff on the front page. Entirely coincidentally, in the same edition it ran a profile of Michael Fawcett. Why it was on also on the front page as well is anyone’s guess. Maybe it was a slow news day…
Any thoughts on The Prince’s Trust?
Chance for what? The monarch doesn’t actually do anything other than play dress-up. It’s pretty much an historical re-enactment society.
She’s well respected around the world. Foreign heads of state have been known to get offended if they don’t get invited to dine with her on official visits.
The armed forces swear allegiance to The Queen, not the government.
She’s been head of state for 63 years and seen 12 British prime ministers come and go.
Not to mention The Commonwealth nations.
A touch more than The Sealed Knot Society, I’d say…
It’s mentioned in this Guardian story, which also reveals that for Chuck, irony is unknown country.
He’s also very worried about the loss of hedge-laying skills.
Yeah, I was kidding with that one, Charles doesn’t inspire nearly the same level of devotion and interest as Diana did (and to an extent still does).
I think people would feel somewhat sorry for him and there would be a large funeral etc, but it would all be ceremonial rather than heartfelt.
Just on a side note, I never understood why people found Diana so physically attractive, I keep hearing words like ‘beautiful’ thrown around, in my opinion she was moderately attractive but certainly nothing unusual.
I’ve no problem with the monarchy having their pet projects (honestly not meaning to disparage by that phrase) such as the DoE awards, Diana’s landmine campaign, and yes, the Prince’s Trust. I suspect some of these schemes are instigated more by royal advisers than the royals themselves though. Having said that I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that Charles took a more active and geniune interest than others.
However, that’s very different from using his position to attempt to influence policy . He simply doesn’t have a mandate.
So what? So has everyone else the same age on planet Earth.
Compare her to Charles, then tell us she’s not attractive. 
Conversely I feel a bit sorry for Camilla, and people comparing her looks vs Diana unfavourably. Apart from that being a tad shallow, let’s not forget that when Charles first knew her she looked like this:
OK, still maybe not everyone’s cup of tea, but c’mon.
Whoah. Mind and testicles blown.
Firstly it’s not about these people - it’s about whether Charles would make a good King. Clearly he leads a lifestyle which is foreign to practically all his subjects.
Secondly, some of my taxes go to the Royal Family. :rolleyes:
Thirdly you’re stating that if these people weren’t employed by Charles , they’d all be unemployed. Cite?
I’m surprised you didn’t take it further:
- 22 people in employment, paying taxes. Would you prefer they were terrorists killing millions of innocent children? :smack:
That is interesting. I actually kinda like his enduring affection for Camilla despite so much disapproval.
We were actually discussing the royals at work today, I pointed out that as William gets older he looks less and less like his mother and more and more like his father…poor guy! 
And I certainly don’t think she was unattractive, but for myself she was only somewhat above averagely attractive physically, but her personality and faux-shyness, put on coyness and all that eyelashflutteringness made me dislike her.
But the common opinion seems to be that she was drop-dead gorgeous and incredibly beautiful. Sorry, I’m not seeing it.
Not my cup of tea, but yes the comparisons are definitely unfair. As you imply I think its that Diana was the blue-eyed girl and public/media darling and Camilla is the interloper explains the negativity towards her.
You clearly have very little understanding of the monarch’s role.
In your first post you said “before, *during *and after the marriage”. Naturally I assumed the ‘after’ meant subsquent to the divorce, by which time both he and Camilla were unmarried. They couldn’t have committed adultery at that point. Fornication yes; adultery no.
She’s seen 12 Prime Ministers come and go to and from her house on a regular basis to ask her advice. I think she’s virtually unique in that respect.
He hasn’t got many subjects left. I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the vast majority of Brits have been citizens since 1981.
Almost all leaders live lifestyles foreign to the majority of people, whether it be two kitchens in their mansion or eating hot dogs with a knife and fork.
Some of my taxes go to things I don’t agree with.
Fair enough, they themselves might not be unemployed, but there would be 22 people less in employment. Surely you’re not so far behind the times that you think there’s still full employment in this country?
And well you might slap your head after making such a ridiculous statement.