Royal activism  On 17th November 2008 the Guardian carried a report that Prince Charles proposed to pursue a more ‘activist’ role when he became king. The same article quoted Jonathan Dimbleby, his friend and biographer, to the effect that plans were being mooted for the prince to ‘speak for the nation and to the nation’, on topics of his choosing, to bodies such as the European Parliament  and  the US Congress.  

The Dimbleby Lecture 8th July 2009  By a strange coincidence, the person invited to give the 2009 Dimbleby Lecture on BBC1 was none other than Charles himself. His chosen theme was ‘Facing the Future’. He highlighted what he considered to be the key problems facing the world and speculated on how they might be solved.   

The not-so-independent BBC  The fact that the prince should be given this opportunity to ‘speak to the nation’ reflects the uncritical and deferential mindset of the current BBC management as regards the prince. The topic chosen requires someone with particular expertise and outstanding intellectual grasp, not someone like the prince who lacks any awareness of his intellectual limitations and will brook no criticism of his hobbyhorses. 

Implications for the future  However, what is sinister about this particular venture by the prince is the way it can be seen as a ‘trial run’ for his future ambitions to be an ‘activist’ king - not only making his views known, but also speaking as Britain’s representative at major international forums.  

Action needed  Bearing in mind the British constitutional convention that the monarch does not intervene in political matters, and remembering that the Queen has observed this convention for 57 years, the British government should make it clear to the prince that he will have to keep his controversial ideas to himself or he will have to do the decent thing and give up his claim to the throne. If he took the second option then he could get involved in politics and campaigning to his heart’s content, but of course he might not be given the privileged access to the media that he enjoys at present, and he would find himself obliged to defend his views in public debate.   

The consequences of inaction  Failure to give Charles an ultimatum on this matter in good time will lead to a potentially disastrous outcome for our democracy. There is no law that states that the monarch cannot speak out on public issues or try to influence politicians, there is only a long-established convention. In the possible future scenario of a weak Prime Minister, a passive Parliament, and popular disenchantment with the political classes, an ‘activist’ King Charles III would most likely feel free not to follow his mother’s example of strict non-intervention. Before long, the new king could be parading his views round the world while the Prime Minister ‘took lessons’ from him on domestic and international issues.