This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The sheer hypocrisy of Prince Charles

This is also a political issue and if he's willing to speak out now, he should have spoken out then.

Admittedly I did use the Queen and royal family interchangeably but the Queen has exercised her royal prerogative in the past

He didn't 'speak out' it seems like it was a private opinion, seized by the media. Also you can't seriously be saying that the Queen should have spoken against the Iraq war when Parliament gave its approval. That would have been a deplorable perversion of democracy. I understand your annoyance but I think you are blowing this out of proportion a little.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 61

RayApparently

21

Original post by Drewski

Because he understands the difference between making a comment in a private conversation about a subject that he has no direct influence over and making a comment about something over which he holds influence on. A distinction you seem incapable of.

For the record:
Prince Charles: Iraq War Was 'Big Mistake'

"Checkmate." lol

Reply 62

MostUncivilised

3

Original post by RayApparently

He didn't 'speak out' it seems like it was a private opinion,seized by the media

It was a remark made in public, to a member of the public, accurately reported by the press; it is therefore a public comment. Prince Charles would (or should) be fully aware that anything he says, excepting to close friends, family and servants, may well end up in the papers (in this instance he was probably careless rather than wilfully transgressing the bounds of constitutional monarchy)

Also you can't seriously be saying that the Queen should have spoken against the Iraq war when Parliament gave its approval.

It would appear you understand precisely why it would be inappropriate for the Queen to speak out against the Iraq War; the same principles apply to this case. Our relationship with Russia and with its head of state is a matter of high policy, of utmost sensitivity and this is a critical time in that relationship. The Prince could not have picked a worse moment to make such a comment, and the Foreign Office should not have to be cleaning up messes made by the monarch or heir. They are supposed to be helping HMG and making their jobs easier, not harder.

A good test to apply is to assess whether his mother would have made the same comment; I think you well know that there's not a chance in hell Queen Elizabeth would have said such a thing. She undertakes her role with wisdom, discretion and forbearance. Prince Charles would do well to emulate her example.

Reply 63

MostUncivilised

3

Original post by Drewski

Because he understands the difference between making a comment in a private conversation

It was not a private conversation. A private conversation is one that you might have in your house, with close friends or a servant. It doesn't extend to a comment made in public to a member of the public. If you are at a public event as an invited guest, with media present, you can fully expect what you say to end up in the papers. Prince Charles has extensive experience with the media, he should know better.

about a subject that he has no direct influence over and making a comment about something over which he holds influence on.

No, on three points. The first is that the monarch (and he is indisputably starting to act-up in some duties on the Queen's behalf, and being eased into the kingship) has a Bagehotian right to advise and warn their government. The Queen provides useful insights to Prime Ministers given her very long diplomatic experience; she was around when Churchill was Prime Minister and Eisenhower was American President.

Second, the Queen and PoW do act in diplomatic capacities and travel overseas on behalf of HMG, to build relations with foreign countries. Foreign countries know that any message the Queen conveys is that which has been given under advice from her ministers (who are democratically accountable for their performance and what they constitutionally advise the Queen to do) and it is absolutely fundamental that there is no difference in opinion between the monarch and her government. They must be as one, in the official sense. That is why this is scandalous, it will be hard for the Russians to truly know whether Prince Charles has done this acting under advice from ministers, or has gone rogue and is expressing his own opinion.

Third, he clearly does have influence considering the problem this has caused. It is simply unacceptable for the Prince to be at odds with the elected government of the day, for it calls into question fundamental principles and conventions under which our constitutional monarchy operates.

It's fair to say that Queen Elizabeth would never have made such a comment, she undertakes her role with exceptional discretion, wisdom and forbearance. Prince Charles would do well to emulate her.

Reply 64

Drewski

19

Original post by MostUncivilised

Third, he clearly does have influence considering the problem this has caused.

A lot of what you say is often very much the case, but I must disagree here. We've seen recently with the way that extremely minor members of UKIP have had things that they said 2+ yrs ago been made into a huge deal that anything can be pulled up by the modern media. The problem is in no way related to whatever influence he may or may not have.

It is simply unacceptable for the Prince to be at odds with the elected government of the day

Is it, though? It's in the public domain that he was vociferously against some of decisions made by previous Governments and none of the three current party leaders have said they disagree with him.

Reply 65

MostUncivilised

3

Original post by Drewski

A lot of what you say is often very much the case, but I must disagree here. We've seen recently with the way that extremely minor members of UKIP have had things that they said 2+ yrs ago been made into a huge deal that anything can be pulled up by the modern media

If the media had pulled something he'd said years ago, in a different context, then I would say fair enough. But he said this at a public gathering, to a member of the public, the opinion he expressed was extremely controversial and undoubtedly inflammatory (I mean, come on; comparing anyone to Hitler really is incredibly strong words, it's simply inconsistent with the fact that the monarchy is non-controversial by necessity, it must not court controversy or scandal if it is to be sustainable in the 21st century), and he said it at a time where lives literally are at risk if we get the management of this conflict wrong.

I don't like when he expresses opinions about Chelsea Barracks and so on, but architecture is not really a matter of high policy and I can live with it, grudgingly. However, when he expresses an inflammatory opinion (whether you think it's true or not, it will inflame the situation) on a matter of high policy, in a policy area that is of the utmost sensitivity and at a time of heightened tensions, that really is quite careless. Personally, I would have preferred the paper's editor had gone to Number 10 and offered to spike the story in the national interest, and Charles had a talking to by the Queen

Is it, though? It's in the public domain that he was vociferously against some of decisions made by previous Governments and none of the three current party leaders have said they disagree with him.

There are two relevant considerations there. The first is that in the past, he was considered harmless as his kingship was something that would occur in the far-distant future, and it was presumed he saw himself as having a right to speak out as PoW that he would not have as King. The problem is that we have some very credible biographies that show that he does envisage his reign as being that of an activist king. I think the problems with this will become self-evident upon his accession to the throne and as problems start cropping up.

The second consideration is that party leaders are being polite, they would not criticise the royal family in public, and if comments needed to be made, they will be made behind the scenes, for the same reason that any feedback from the monarchy to the government should happen behind the scenes. It is a fundamental convention of constitutional monarchy that you couldn't slide a cigarette paper between Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government. Not in public, at least.

As a corollary of that second point, the party leaders are very cognisant of the popularity of the monarchy, but my own view is that people mistake the popularity of the present monarch for popularity of the institution and the royal family in general. Because most people have only experienced one monarch, they don't quite realise just how exceptional our present Queen is. She has performed her duties flawlessly, literally. To do that over 6 decades is astonishing, and I simply do not think most human beings are up to that. I don't think her son will be able to perform at that level and I think there will be a consequent drop in monarchical popularity.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 66

Ben_Dover

OP

8

Original post by RayApparently

He didn't 'speak out' it seems like it was a private opinion, seized by the media. Also you can't seriously be saying that the Queen should have spoken against the Iraq war when Parliament gave its approval. That would have been a deplorable perversion of democracy. I understand your annoyance but I think you are blowing this out of proportion a little.

Declaring war is the function of the executive, not the legislature. The queen is part of the executive

Reply 67

pol pot noodles

19

Original post by Narcissist

We see a very biased view of the Ukraine conflict. There's probably an equal amount of people I'm the country who want to move closer to Russia and away from the EU.

As a country I find us very hypocritical considering we refuse to relinquish territories such as The Falklands, have a heavy army presence in Ireland etc.

How is that hypocritical? We're seeking to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. We seek to protect the territorial integrity of the UK and our overseas territories. That's the complete opposite of hypocritical.

Reply 68

pol pot noodles

19

Original post by WitnessMO

The people from that annexed part of Ukraine want to be part of Russia, they held a referendum

A referendum the Russian president's own Human Rights Council slammed as a sham. 97% in favour on a 83% turnout? Try barely 50% in favour on a less than 50% turnout. The fact that 40% of Crimea's population are either ethnically Ukrainian or Tatars who are generally loyal to Kiev would suggest that the Kremlin's reporting of the referendum results are a bit exaggerated.

Reply 69

RayApparently

21

Original post by Ben_Dover

Declaring war is the function of the executive, not the legislature. The queen is part of the executive

That doesn't mean she should interfere with the decisions of elected officials. The PM and his cabinet exercise power on HM's behalf but if a monarch ever supposes to dictate to the people when we should go to war, it is time to abolish the monarchy!

The sheer hypocrisy of Prince Charles

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you