Maestro reflects on Charles’s political interference
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.
- Maestro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Trained from birth?
We’re often told that Prince Charles has been trained from birth to be king. He doesn’t seem to have learned much from the Queen about staying above the political fray.
Neither has his life-time training given Charles the poise, self-confidence and dignity that are the Queen’s hallmark: remember the compulsive fiddling with his cuffs in public, and his habit of walking about with both hands in his coat pockets.
Now 61, he is unlikely ever to change his behaviour. His mindset and his fidgety public persona are fixed for life.
So when he becomes king and starts stirring things up by speaking out on controversial public issues what will the government do?
Free speech
It’s a free country, isn’t it? Prince Charles ought to be able to express his opinions like everybody else. He has his human rights, too.
I welcome his views on modern architecture and on the teaching of history in primary schools. Plans to build architectural monstrosities in London or proposals to drop proper history teaching are too important to be left to experts or to politicians.
The Windsors must keep their side of the bargain
RoyalUnwin misses the point.
Prince Charles and the other members of the royal family are not like everybody else. They occupy a uniquely privileged position in British society. They are shown an extraordinary level of deference by their 'subjects'. Their special status is emphasised by the royal protocol requirement for ordinary people to use grandiose styles of address such as 'Your Royal Highness' when speaking to them. They have vast residences, numerous servants, and abundant sources of income provided by British taxpayers. They live in incomparable style and luxury at public expense.
The reciprocal obligation on the royal family for their privileged position and their luxurious lifestyle is as follows:-
Keep Your Nose Out Of Politics!
Politics covers everything from local to national to international politics. It covers planning applications for building developments, education, agriculture, health, GM food, science, etc. It also covers national & international environmental policy.
To permit unelected princes to interfere in the political arena undermines our democracy: it is a regression to the pre-democratic era.
No more preaching or lobbying
Stop preaching I don't want to know the royal family’s views on nanotechnology, homoeopathic medicine, the environment, or the man in the moon. I don't want to see Prince Charles’s opinions splashed across the media.
Stop lobbying Charles has plenty of rights (e.g. to enjoy £18 million pa from the taxpayers) and privileges (e.g. to live in Clarence House and to have round-the-clock police protection). He does not have the right to lobby government ministers behind the scenes. His responsibility is to mind his own business.
No comment Members of the royal family are not supposed to have public views on any debatable matters. Their role is to be a stable and re-assuring presence. When they speak in public they are supposed to make unexceptionable remarks that nobody can possibly disagree with.
'The Prince is passionate…'
Apparently Prince Charles ‘is passionate’ about the teaching of history, the treatment of cancer, GM food, rainforests, and lots of other topics. Being passionate doesn’t mean he’s right. Being the heir to the throne doesn’t give him a monopoly of knowledge, expertise, wisdom or judgement.
There are many public issues on which the British government and local authorities must take a position. There is usually a wide range of views on these issues and there is often deep division or polarisation of opinion. There is no sound reason for Charles’s views or passions on public issues to carry any more weight than those of Fred & Gladys Bloggs.
Unfortunately, the media, and especially the BBC, take an excessively deferential attitude towards Charles and fall over themselves to publicise his opinions. In addition, Charles does not hesitate to pull rank in trying to influence ministers and other powerful figures e.g. on planning applications. He has access to publicity and to decision-makers which is denied to Mr & Mrs Bloggs.
This is not fair, democratic, or in line with the long-established principle of royal discretion and political neutrality. In exchange for holding their privileged constitutional position and leading a life of luxury at the taxpayers’ expense, the royal family are expected to observe strict impartiality on any matters likely to involve public disagreement, debate or controversy.
Prince Charles cannot be allowed to carry on intruding into the public arena. If he is unwilling to change his behaviour, then constitutional and legislative action will have to be taken.
Enforcement action
The government’s priority in reforming the monarchy must be to entrench the objectivity and impartiality of the royal family in binding legislation. All members of the royal family must be bound by law to keep their views on political and general public issues to themselves. They must be prohibited from speaking out on such matters and from openly or secretly lobbying ministers or other figures on policy or executive decisions.
Any member of the royal family who feels unable to abide by such legislation will have to renounce their position in the royal line of succession and surrender all claim to taxpayer-funded income, capital, residences, travelling and living expenses etc arising from the Civil List, Grants-in-Aid, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, or any other government sources.