A constitutional monarch is best seen and not heard when it comes to politics
James Forsyth 11:27pm
Jonathan Dimbleby's essay in The Sunday Times about the kind of king Prince Charles would be suggests that the monarchy will be in for a turbulent time if and when Charles ascends to the throne. Dimbleby reports that Charles intends to move away from the strict silence on political issues of his mother and instead adopt a role more akin to that of the German or Irish president.
Obviously keen to avoid encouraging comparisons to To Play the King, Dimbleby stresses that Charles would avoid partisan issues. But the examples of topics where Charles might speak out that Dimbleby gives are intensely political, even if they are not particuarly party political at the moment:
“In a time of grave financial and economic turmoil, for example, Charles-as-king would be in a uniquely nonpartisan position to offer perspective and bring the nation together; to remind us that the British people have endured great troubles in the past but that they have invariably triumphed over adversity; that their genius is their strength and tolerance and their ability to work together for the common good; but that, perhaps, the international community should seize the unhappy opportunity of this crisis to reexamine the structure of the global market with a view to ensuring that it reemerges in a more sustainable form on a planet which, within a few decades, will have 9 billion mouths to feed.Or, to take another example: in the run-up to a climate change summit, he might find a suitable platform - the Guildhall, the European parliament or the US Congress - to reflect on the threat posed by global warming and to urge all leaders to commit themselves to the policies and timetables required to avert the “catastrophe” he and others foresee.”
Placing the Monarchy into the middle of such political debates is intensely risky. Part of the reason the Monarchy is currently relatively uncontroversial is that the Queen has avoided this; The Sunday Times’s scoop about her opinion of Margaret Thatcher caused such a stir because people had so little idea about her politics.
A King who speaks out on political issues would endanger the delicate balance that allows a constitutional monarchy to exist in modern Britain. If and when he ascends to the throne, Charles would be well advised to be satisfied with the opportunity to offer his opinions and advice to the Prime Minister at their weekly meetings.
Previous
Joseph
November 17th, 2008 1:25am Report this commentWell I think there is a lack of realisation that the reason the Queen is so popular is because she is from another age and is very regal. But times has changed the 1950s. I predict that once the Queen departs this world and Charles becomes King, it will be impossible for Charles to be aloof and removed from every day politics like his mother has successfully done. Questions will be undoubtedly raised about the future of the monarchy - what his secret weekly meetings with the PM of the day consist of, how much the monarchy cost. Is it practical for a modern democracy to still have a monarchy etc. For once, I think he is actually right on the money here. By allowing Charles to speak about issues that are important to him will bring him closer to his 'subjects' and he will have some kind of purpose rather than float around outside the public eye with his duchess living off the taxpayers' money. The future of the monarchy depends on modernising the institution and by allowing Charles to have his while making it crystal clear that he cannot influence the democractically elected government policies, I think Charles could quite likely become a likeable and affable King.
Incidentially I saw in the times that there is public support for Charles to break with current convention. So the future could be exciting times indeed.
Verity
November 17th, 2008 3:08am Report this commentJames's comments are wise.
Charles's comments are stupid, self-regarding and arrogant. Surely he doesn't genuinely believe that he has more insight than ordinary people and those they elect to represent them in Parliament?
That's the whole point, YRH! The Monarch stays out of the process. It is the people who have a voice, and you haven't been elected to speak for them.
If I were you, I would keep my head down and stay very quiet.
Paul B
November 17th, 2008 9:13am Report this commentI`m a reluctant supporter of a constitutional Monarchy, on the basis if it ain`t broken, and because the Queen is just so good at her job. There is a part of me that favours an elected Head of State and if Charles when he become King and starts venting forth his opinions & interfering in politics, than Im afraid he would have to go the same way as his illustrious namesake- namely Charli Boy the first.
Susan Hill
November 17th, 2008 9:17am Report this comment'Charles would be well advised to be satisfied with the opportunity to offer his opinions and advice to the Prime Minister at their weekly meetings.'
But he won`t be.
starpworld
November 17th, 2008 9:21am Report this commentCharles appears to be talking himself out of the job.
First he wants to be defender of all faiths when he forgets our history.
Now he wants to speak on current affairs. That is a recipe for disaster.
Where are the House of York when one needs them?
Let the 'Royal' families fight it out.
LIVE ON SKY PAY PER VIEW.
Thomas Cussans
November 17th, 2008 9:28am Report this commentIf Charles as king opens his mouth in this way he will be making a monumental blunder.
The lesson of GVI and his mother is unmistakeable: the monarchy can best be preserved by ensuring it remains resolutely non-political.
It seems astounding that Charles should not have had this lesson drummed into him time and time again.
Nicholas
November 17th, 2008 9:34am Report this commentGood. Rather Prince Charles than Prince Liam Byrne or President Tony.
dennis
November 17th, 2008 10:03am Report this commentBut if he is a global warming catastrophist, why should anyone pay respectful attention to anything else he may say?
Geoff
November 17th, 2008 10:22am Report this commentPresidents are elected by the people. Our monarchs are not. If Prince Charles wants to play a political role, let him stand for election. I fear his arrogance could end the monarchy.
Richard Gordon
November 17th, 2008 10:48am Report this commentWhat is the point of the monarchy if it cannot have an effect on the government of the country? I can't understand why people object to a monarch that does something. What sort of a "check" is the monarchy if it is so weak that any attempt to check anything ever will see it toppled?
JONNY
November 17th, 2008 11:07am Report this commentSo just like that other stupidly obstinate King Charles he seems destined to put his foot in it in a right royal way.
What a pity.
Kevyn Bodman
November 17th, 2008 12:11pm Report this commentIn the 21st century the strongest recommendation for a constitutional monarchy is that it keeps separate the roles of Head of Government and Head of State.(I'm assuming that nowadays we recognise that the idea of fitness to rule by birth is absurd.)
This separation needs non-involvement in controversy if it is to be maintained; not just in the fact of it but in the perception of it.
So Charles, or whatever he chooses to call himself after his accession must keep quiet.
Personally I favour a nonp-executuive President. There are a number of countries we could follow:Italy, Ireland, Germany, Israel.
But the French or US system of having a Head of Government who is also Head of State is something worth fighting to reject.
David Lindsay
November 17th, 2008 2:17pm Report this commentEven the present Queen has not been "non-political". She certainly wasn't when everyone wrongly thought that Macmillan was on his deathbed, for example. She has merely grown old, that's all.
Opposition to the aristocratic social conscience is also opposition to organised labour, by the same people and to the same ends.
Those who removed trade union barons then, by means of whichever party came more readily to hand, removed hereditary barons, because both were bulwarks against neoliberal economic policy, neoconservative foreign policy, and the attendant assault on liberty.
All that is left is the monarchy. And the next King knows it. Well, most of the time he does.
Furthermore, as global capitalism, European federalism and American hegemony fall apart, we have never had more need of the full political involvement of the institution embodying and securing our abiding ties to the Commonwealth.
Floyd Rose
November 17th, 2008 10:42pm Report this commentIf Charles is to be a political monarch, where does that leave his "subjects" who don't share his views?
If we are to have a monarch then he or she should reign on behalf of all of us, not just those whose views happen to coincide with their own.
Wilfred
November 17th, 2008 11:26pm Report this commentWe seem to have lost sight of the fact that it's the institution that's important, not the temporary occupant of the throne.
I don't care if Charles turns out to be the most egregious monarch ever. It won't change my opinion of the monarchy one jot.
Mr. Daniel Alexander Craver, Ty Coed 968474, Cwm Cych, Newcasltle Emlyn, Dyfed, Wales, SA38 9RR
November 18th, 2008 6:02pm Report this commentWhen one regards the the above contributors it is obvious that there are always views espoused by people who wish to remain anonymous to a lesser or greater degree, for what ever reason. Having a head of state who can triangulate the feelings of the unheard citizens and so add impetus to topics of great importance without being in that mind of the dutiful politician (dutiful politicians being in the mind to 'win elections) I believe to be beneficial. There are truths that are self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and that beyond these is included the the right to reflect on truth.
queen of corona guess!!!!
November 19th, 2008 4:07pm Report this commenthello everyone
well don't worry the queen is going to take care of her business. she is a fighter and will survive and keep her throne
Back to top