Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Prince Charles
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Wyot |
I think the real problem comes with upholding the pretence that honours are bestowed for individual achievement only.
The irony here is that no one would be willing to give millions in the first place for an honour if this fiction was not maintained. The media, too, are playing along to the fiction: pretending there is a system that isn't already about money. Otherwise, no story.
The fiction is needed, to generate the money in the first place, because these people are buying status not a medal. These revelations threaten the fiction. This is why Charles is being portrayed as being in trouble. |
|
Honey |
In general, yes, you would think the more money the better, really. But I think the implication is that some money was pocketed and not given to the charities.
With the charity I have been involved with, the people who have asked for swish hotels, travel costs, fancy meals and entertainment (all of which I have had nothing to do with!) have been utterly utterly USELESS.
Those who genuinely want to help and can be of use don't need bribing, or recognition.
If someone is wriggling their way into actually having authority in the charity by spending cash, it could be seriously harmful, but I am not sure if this is connected to the honours situation? |
|
Jeremy |
The ultimate destination of donated funds is an issue. The Castle of Mey and Dunfries House in Scotland were refurbished by funds received from foreign benefactors, who had gardens there named in their honour. Several Royal attended functions were part of the whole process. |
|
JK2006 |
Can somebody explain why giving honours to a wealthy person in exchange for millions that will go towards saving the lives of thousands of children is a bad thing? Sell a hundred more, I'd say, and save a million more kids. |
|
|
|
