Letting his opinions be known

Monarchist

He'd better stand for parliament, then, and renounce all the essentials so that he can do that.

Dave B

I think it would be better if the monarch, as head of state, DID publicly express opinion on policy matters.

I think it's wrong of HM to always sign bills into law. The head of state should act as a check on the executive, ours doesn't.

Austin Barry

"One is awfully anxious to ensure that our children are properly schooled in literature and history, and certainly when I become Caliph..er, no, hang on...er, Monarch...."

Alan Scott

Well, thank God someone - whether through an Institute or a spokesman - is speaking up on this issue, which our "elected" leaders seem unable to address except in terms of class ranting or outdated modernist educational "philosophy".
Open up the debate about the real issues, for Heaven's sake, instead of hiding behind fake posturing.

A J Scott

I'm sorry I forgot to add: reference "constitutional disaster":
what does Mr Forsyth think we are well into already, and nothing to do with the Monarchy?

Hugh

Who thinks that the inclusion of history in the curriculum is Political?
PC has an Institute to make this point for him, and quite right it is too.

DavidDP

There is no constitutional bar on the heir to keep quiet. Only the monarch.

Nicholas

The education curriculum should not be political but is only political because New Labour have made it so. Prior to New Labour wrecking the education system and politicising the curriculum this statement would not have been seen as political at all but merely as an understandable statement of commendable aspiration. Only New Labour and their Comintern friends hate our literature and hate our history so they will be the ones making all the noise about this, eh James?

Children need a good grasp of literature and to understand the history of our country? Political debate? Nonsense. The real story here is that such a remark is seen as being political thanks to 12 years of socialist malarky in the education system.

John Bracewell

Literature and History should be part of anyone's education.
Seems like commonsense to me.
How is it political to state what is obvious?

Minnie Ovens

Possibly Mr Forsyth you may not have noticed the state of this country.
The constitution of this country has been under attack for thirteen years and I take it you have noted the Lisbon Treaty.
The whole of this country is in meltdown, not of the Queen's or the Prince of Wales' making while you take the Prince to task for his most sensible and indirect expressed opinions.
That is, quite simply, eggregious.

Moraymint

We already have a constitutional disaster.

I just wish Her Majesty had been able to step in recently and effect the ejection from office of the raving Marxist nutters that have been dictating to us with an ever increasing vengeance for the past 12 years.

Don't make me laugh with the "constitutional disaster" thing, please. If ever we needed the monarchy to get political for a while, now is the time.

The alternative, as far as I'm concerned, is the for the citizenry of this country to start withdrawing its consent to be governed by the political gangsters and shysters in Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff that are hell bent are ruining this nation.

Be off with all of them ... and say what you will Charles. Constitutionally, things cannot possibly get much worse than they are.

Get a grip James; ordinary folk of this country are at their absolute limits of tolerance of this nation's disgusting and incompetent political class.

Victor Southern

I was taught history without any political slant at all. It was presented as a series of facts.

I will say that we cannot understand the modern world and its varied political systems unless we first learn how the political world developed and the rush for resources that dominated a period of 100 years or so from the mid-18th century onward.

I cannot see why Prince Charles should be denied an opinion on this if so many others who may have political motivations are allowed to speak and even to legislate.

Dennis Churchill

After the failure to protect the electorate, from the government of the day subverting sovereignty using a Treaty signed contrary to a manifesto commitment; questions must be asked as to what purpose our present system for a Head of State serves.
As for the teaching of history, this is only normally controversial in occupied countries.

Piers Fallowcherry

I'm sure that others on here know the technicalities more than I do but how can the Prince's comments – indirect or no – be construed as political?

Perhaps certain politicians' desire for a box-ticking fit-for-employment schooling is preferable to a well-rounded education. I don't think so, however: well rounded means fit for an unexpected future, not the horizon-limited present.

Fallowcherry

immcintyre

Bernice McCabe is only touting for a DBE!

steveal

"reading" and "history" are political?

You attitude almost defines what's wrong with our country!

Toxictony

Sometimes one wonders if one has woken up in a topsy-turvy world where the Spectator has become the New Statesman. Some of the articles are jaw-dropping in their banality and it is shocking that political commentators accept, without question, the effluent that flows from the sewers of the New Labour spin machine. What on earth is political in teaching children literature and the history of their country, even when adopted? Surely it is the manner in which teaching is carried out that is political?

porkbelly

Surely there are more pressing...er..."constitutional disasters"...that you might blog about? The Weather Report...no, that's not it...the Leather Report...no...Feather...oh well, it wasn't important.

Alan Douglas

"subjects that are part of political debate like education, climate change, and the built environment "

Whoa ! How come these things are POLITICAL ? Because politicians have started yabbering on about them ?

I'd say they were UNIVERSAL, and all of us have the right to our opinions and the right to express them.

There have been quite a number of times in the past where I was very grateful for Prince Charles uttering some opinion, because if I had done so no one would have taken a blind bit of notice. Being NON-political (above it all) he does us all a vital service. He as a prince can and does propose - but we are a nation (via our elected governments) still dispose.

Alan Douglas

PS Only in totalitarian countries is education "political".

Pricky Gayes

"a rule that the Queen has observed" - no she hasn't. She waded in to support the Good Friday Agreement. I refer you to: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/05/a_political_que.html

Andy Leeds

Don't be silly. The Prince has been right on virtually every issue - the public are always with him. He is NOT the sovereign and as such has a right to express an opinion. When he becomes sovereign he can also express an opinion in Bagshot's famous dictum, 'the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn'.

thedarknight

The Prince of Wales isn't the monarch. Furthermore, I don't think it is any more a political point to say that children should learn history and literature than it is to say that people should look after the environment. How could any of these things be controversial? They are all good causes which he has done well to promote, and done far more to make the monarchy a relevant institution than if he had flitted around Monte Carlo for the last 60 years.

Peter From Maidstone

What a foolish criticism of the Prince of Wales. It says much more about James Forsyth than Prince Charles. He is saying no more than that what any reasonable person would, and it is not politically controversial at all, except in the context of a government that is actively working to destroy our English culture.

Your criticism of Prince Charles shows which side you feel most comfortable with. I wish that the Spectator staff were a whole lot more angry than most of you seem to be. You are all too comfortable with the soft-left and Marxist status-quo. We need to here more from the Prince of Wales, and any others who see the loss of our identity and want to do something at this 11th hour. Those who demand his silence are part of the problem.

Judy

And what precisely are the qualifications and experience that stand behind HRH's prescriptions about education? What evidence do we have of his having a good grasp of literature and a real understanding of history, particularly since his behaviour suggests he doesn't really understand the constitutional history of this country?

Bernice McCabe is the headmistress of North London Collegiate Girls School. It's a shame that she's compromising her own reputation and that of her school by allowing herself to be HRH's mouthpiece.

HRH's most worrying contribution to education is his establishment of "The Prince's School of Traditional Arts", where you can gain a PhD in "sacred geometry" or as I prefer to call it, mystical crankery.

The real nature of this organization can be seen from a few moments study of the thoroughly derivative and plodding work shown in the school's gallery, as well as the eyebrow-raising summaries of the work and self-defined research of some of its most senior and influential academic staff-- Keith Critchlow and Paul Marchant in particular.

How has this institution gained the credentials to award PhD degrees? It's certainly not part of the mainstream national or international higher education system. Still, if your mother is the Queen, I suppose she has the power to award your pet pastiche art school a Royal Charter to award any degree it cares to.

dilys

AFAIR, he had trouble getting a couple of O levels. Why does anybody listen to him?

AAE

James! What is this hissy splenetic at the mote in our own eye whilst ignoring the beam in our opponents? Nicholas, as ever, has got it right. It is The Spectator who should fulminate about every aspect of our lives being politicised, and maybe even shame Balls for the fact that most children leave school not only having never read an English novel cover to cover, but for being incapable of doing so.

The Bellman

@John Bracewell, PfM: Quite so. Suggesting that a basic grasp of history and literature is 'political' is ceding valuable ground.

Also it is grand to see HRH wearing his Black Watch tie in the photograph. Stout fellow.

JONNY

Can someone please remind me about The Prince's own academic record?

I seem to remember his prize collection of A Levels needed to qualify for Cambridge was sadly below the standard normally required from anyone else.
Being consistent only in achievement of mediocrity.

Fergus Pickering

But, my dear fellow, the Prince of Wales isn't King yet. He is free to say what he likes. You may, or may not havew noticed that the Duke of Edinburgh sounds off on whatever takes his fancy. If Charles's sister and brothers don't it is because they are too vacuous to have any opinions at all. Charles can say what he likes. It is, I have been told, a free country.

Baroness Booth of Bury

Goodness! J. Forsyth Esq. is foaming!

The convention (it's not enshrined within the constitution, is it?) by which the monarch makes no public pronouncements upon political matters may, perhaps, need rethinking now that HMQ is now an ordinary taxpayer: shouldn't she get the same rights to voice her opinions as any other taxpayer?

Perhaps not. However, the convention has never extended to other members of the royal family (taxpayers, all, one hopes) so it is discourteous to expect them to shut up and mind their own businesses all the time.

As many above have noted, education has not historically been within the political arena.

Prince Charles possibly needs to add The Constitution to his list of vital subjects to be taught.

Verity

Perhaps HRH could move "inside the Beltway" and get the approval of the life residing therein?

Verity

Newcomer The Dark Knight writes: "I don't think it is any more a political point to say that children should learn history and literature than it is to say that people should look after the environment."

Slyly put, but not sly enough. Why should "people" look after the environment if they don't feel like it?

Personally, I never feel like it and do not want this duty thrust upon me.

The environment can go all to hell as far as I'm concerned, but children should still be learning history and our literature.

Fergus Pickering

Good Heavens, Judy, have you SEEN what you can get a Ph.d. for these days? Why NOT one in witchcraft? Perfectly respectable subject. And I wouldn't get TOO loud in your criticisma if I were you or you might make up a frog, and I don't mean one of those estimable snail-eating people across the water.

mac

Expressing the view that schools should teach history and literature is controversial and 'political interference', James? Don't be daft.

Just what is in the water that several of you Speccie hacks are drinking at present?

Peter From Maidstone

Isn't it interesting how the real issue, of the destruction of our culture by denying our children an education in our history and literature, is turned by the Marxists into an issue of whether or not a member of the Royal Family should have the cheek to point out this destruction in remarkably mild tones.

It suits the Marxist hierarchy to enforce a Pol Pot type Year Zero, so that our children are unable to imagine that things were ever different in our nation or could ever be different. We should not allow anyone, even Spectator writers, to collude with such efforts. (Funny how that word collusion keeps coming up).

The attack on traditional arts and crafts is part of the same attack on our culture. I am even looking at going on a local course in traditional basket making because our traditional culture should not be lost, it is part of who we are as English people, and if they succeed in destroying it then the English as a people will have been destroyed to a great extent.

I don't enjoy Dr Who very much any more, but what anoys me most is that the BBC have chosen to act as if there was never a Dr Who before the present run. They have renumbered the series so that anything before the present doesn't exist at all. Just like Pol Pot, just as Marxists always wish to do, just as this Government has tried to do.

We must not collude in this. Those who speak out for the English are with us, those who carp and criticise such comments are a Fifth Column.

EC

thedarknight, "[He has ..] done far more to make the monarchy a relevant institution than if he had flitted around Monte Carlo for the last 60 years.

On the contrary! Over the years his egocentric behaviour, fostered by granny, has done nothing but endanger the future of the monarchy. Sycophantically capering around the back passages of Buck House has obviously coloured your judgement.

However on this occasion he does actually have a point. Not exactly rocket science is it.

Michael Booth

The very fact that reading and history are considered within the political arena shows just how far the tentacles of right-think have reached. In totalitarian countries, and here one things not only of Hitler's Germany but Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Kim's North Korea, history is constantly air-brushed and re-ordered to fit the regime's dogma, and even reading is taught in a political way with political primers. Rather than froth at the Prince of Wales' justified and reasonable comments (he is not the monarch and is not bound by the convention hitherto referred) wew should be chomping at the bit to get our hands on Commissar Balls and his 'Community Cohesion' classes, his Health and Safety guidelines, his Safeguarding policy, his Equality agenda, his anti-this and anti-that agendas, which take up over half of the school curriculum. Schools have become engines of social manipulation - you may or may not think that is ok, but it is not what schools were set up to do.

Keith

Wrong, James. The fact that some politician shoves his oar in where it doesn't belong does not make the subject of his interference 'political.' In a totalitarian state like Labour's Britain there is nothing that is not political. This is entirely in line with the general outlook of lefty theorists and philosophers to the effect that all the things we say and do (and indeed our decisions about what we omit to say and do) are to a degree political. Accordingly, there is so far as I am aware no aspect of modern life that is not subject to interference by the government.

The subject matter of education is a matter of entirely legitimate universal concern. The fact that politicians constantly bugger about with it does not mean that only they have the right to say anything about it.

Go Charlie!

Keith

Dorothy Wilson

So Charles is now in trouble for expressing views that are shared by a large percentage of the population.

Nicholas

OT (slightly) but Peter from Maidstone's mention of Dr Who has reminded me how the "development" of this character has mirrored the creeping ageism that is such a hallmark of modern Britain. 370,000 men over 50 on unemployment benefits and I'd love to see the stats for how many others are actually still employed in jobs within their original career field. At the same time government is pushing the retirement age and bleating on about working until 70. Mixed messages.

The current encumbant Dr Who is a dead ringer for the sort of Yoof policy wonk SPAD MP-makee-learnee that infests our political system - a kind of Marvel comics Milliband or Alexander. We just know that after McChicken the next Dr is going to be even younger, possibly black, female, muslim or disabled and how about a gay sidekick and gay sub-plot this time? There must be some minority or victim group the BBC have not yet patronised in their thinly disguised propaganda.

The BBC is so riddled and raddled with Political Correctness, the "collective chumminess of the Left" and an over-arching ageism that it has actually become incredibly narrow and bigoted in its approach. If it were to be truly innovative and pushing of the boundaries the next Dr Who would be someone OLD. What about Stephen Fry? He seems to be BBC prolific luvvie flavour of the month and choosing him would tick a few boxes.

Naomi Muse

There is a constitutional crisis which is the Lisbon Treaty and public representatives who appear to largely be on the take rather than guarding and acting in the public good.

Although it is a tradition not to be 'political' as the Queen knows so much it might actually help us all if she did comment.

Andre

Intriguing this business of divided loyalties. How loyal are any of us to Great Britain? The rise of Scots and Welsh nationalism, even the Cornish are at it, underlines the transience of the British state - created by the union of Scotland and England in was it 1707? I remember an SAS trooper saying he did not fight for Queen and country but for 'me and my mates.' I look at Prince Charles and realize I can feel little loyalty to him, nice chap though he is. He hardly embodies my views of the dangers of Islam or the sanctity of marriage. The British state as we know it will pass away in another generation. Yet the twin poles of civilization, Judaism and Christianity, endure. As a catholic I can connect with a phenomena that is enduring and eternal, not like Britain. However, that said, I like being British and mourn for my country. I want a country that stands for what i believe in. In this the British state fails us. Has its end come? I can't help wandering if a powerful Europe run by christian democrats like Gert Wilders is the better bet. However last nights news of Hercule Poirot and a batty baroness taking its leadership is hardly reassuring. More seriously the best guarantor for Jewish freedom and survival in the world is the state of Israel. What I wander would be the Israel government's response to a new Nazi regime openly advocating the extermination of the Jews? The question of Iranian terrorism will be solved by Israel - not the US, Europe or indeed Britain.

Norman Dee

Several points occur to me having read the article and the comments.
The first is what qualifications have you got Mr. Forsyth that makes your opinion more valid than PC's, and don't even try quoting a list of academic qualifications because as those who have brought up the question of PC's lack of academic Qualifications have failed to point out is that Parliament is stuffed with well qualified people who talk crap all the time. Which was the second point.
No, thirdly I think it's a matter of him poaching on your patch, and worse still, giving it no spin, political text with no spin how awful !

Peter From Maidstone

Andre, I am not sure that we have to feel a personal warmth towards the monarch, though I believe that our present Queen is worth much personal loyalty. We are surely loyal to the crown because it embodies our nation. Just as a bishop is the guarantor of the priesthood of all believers by his particular priesthood, and has the charism of calling the Church into being, so the Christian monarch has the charism of representing the nation - not like a cheap El Presidente, but by incarnating the nation in some sense. Perhaps Charles will be less worthy of the vocation, but the vocation remains.

For myself, I am still British in some sense, but I am also increasingly describing myself as English.

Chuck Unsworth

"I happen to agree with the Prince of Wales on this point, but it is completely unacceptable that someone is speaking for him on what is a political issue."

Why?

Name anything which does not constitute a 'political issue'. This government has politicised everything and everyone - including your good self, it seems.

So, where is political neutrality these days?

Frank Leader

Labour do not like history. History records mostly the truth. History lessons would show that Every Labour Government without exception has left the Country in a Financial Mess. This present one is the worst so far.
Let’s hope they never get another chance to show that they can make an even worse one. How Gordon Brown can sit on TV with his revolting grin is beyond comprehension. Prince Charles is quite right to speak his mind on this and other matters. It is about time someone did.

Angela

I'm bewildered by this post. How is it wrong for Prince Charles or anyone else to express an opinion on education? He's only been reported as saying what plenty of columnists thunder on about every day. And he's right, we SHOULD be passionate about our children's education. It's just our bad luck to be lumbered with a government that mistakes social engineering for education and doesn't even make a very good job of it.

Andy Carpark

The key to this post is the cant phrase 'completely unacceptable' (trans. completely unauthorised by me, commissar of the bien pensant).

Managing an organic farm is a political statement. Hosting country sports on One's estate is a political statement. Joshing about the epitcanthic fold as a marker of the Sinitic race is, one would have thought, a political statement.

Chazzo has been shooting his mouth off about whatever takes his fancy for upwards of three decades without precipitating a 'constitutional crisis' and, in his seventh decade, is way beyond the pale of re-education by a scruffy oik like you.

Listen, the House of Windsor serves two purposes and serves them admirably: (1) it provides a sovereign which is above party (thank Christ) and (2) it provides a near inexhaustible source of comic potential.

I have finally come round to the view that not a single one of the paid CH commentariat would get the point of a needle if it jabbed them in the a*se.

My advice to you, young man, is to find a dark corner, curl up in the foetal position and try to come to terms with your own basic uselessness.

Promise of Avalon

That people should have an understanding of literature and British history in school is hardly political.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Frank Leader

"History records mostly the truth."

Debatable. History is mostly written by the winners. Some historians get pretty close to the realities, but then - as has often been said - what is truth?

EC

Andy Carpark,

Metaphorically speaking, was that also an innuendo?

Peter

Unless he is prepared to abide by the conventions which his mother has so assiduously done for 50 years he should renounce his rights to the throne in favour of his son and speak in the Lords as an Hereditary Peer, with no more rights or responsibilities than a commoner.

He speaks a mixture of poppycock and good sense, but at present his position allows his words undue sway and weight.

JONNY

We're all agreed then
Prince Charles should ideally be learning History and Literature.
Not much sign of progress yet.

Andre

Peter From Maidstone I take your point about respecting the office rather than the office holder. I think this works in the church in that the office confers supernatural or divine grace upon the holder (some of the time). However with kings I don't accept this is so. Politically the monarchy has survived because the people wanted it to. When they haven't the results have been quite distressing - I do hope HRH is mindful of the fate of his namesake. Even Queen Victoria was lectured on the damage her protracted mourning for her husband, Albert, was doing to the monarchy. Come Wallis Simpson in the 1930s and the king was forced to abdicate for the sake of the monarchy - and a the country which would not settle for a divorced American as queen consort - special relationship notwithstanding. I make this prediction: Charles will never be king. The crown will pass - if it survives at all - to William. Mind you it might prove wiser to restore the house of Stuart - the current pretender is a Bavarian duke, an anti-Nazi he was banged up by Hitler during the war and is a good catholic to boot. One in the eye for Brussels.

Magnus

I think you're defining political so broadly as to make it impossible for Prince Charles to say anything at all. "Clarence House - HRH Prince Charles says weather is a bit wet this summer." becomes "Prince Intervenes in Flooding Debate - Where will his meddling end?"

If it is 'too political' for the Prince to say, 'children ought to be properly educated, eh.' then I feel sorry for the man. I'd rather more people listen to the Prince than almost any of the crazed politicians in the Labour Party.

Everything the Prince says is perfectly reasonable, and perfectly sensible (except, perhaps, on homeopathy), and in his role as patron of various organizations he has every right to say these things. He's not being party political or attacking particular policies, unless you count his entirely justified objections to governments and councils blighting our country with horrific 'architecture'. Good on him, I think.