Prince Charles seeks more powerful role as King

Scroll to see replies

One of the downsides of a Monarchy is that you don't get to choose the head of state! You either agree with the existence of the institution or you don't.

That's a puerile statement. You seem to be saying that you will support the monarchy no matter what the monarch does.

Some people proceed on more pragmatic considerations; if you have a discrete monarch with good judgment, like the present one, then it works well. If you have a terrible monarch, the system is less attractive. If the cons start to outweight the pros, then it's worth looking at whether it should be reformed.

I suppose you believe Edward VIII should not have been forced to abdicate?

Reply 21

young_guns

I think what makes this particularly objectionable is that often Prince Charles is throwing his weight around on subjects where he is literally clueless (his interventions on legal subjects is a good example). When you add in his zany mix of environmental extremism and socially-reactionary beliefs, it's a recipe for exposing the institution of the monarchy to ridicule, and dragging it into the gutter of public controversy when the monarchy must remain above politics and controversy

The problem is that the most ardent and sycophantic pro-monarchists are so blinded by their adoration for the Windsors as individuals that they aren't able to see how this damages the monarchy. Surely if one supports the monarchy, they would not support a state of affairs that increases the likelihood it will be abolished

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 22

Maid Marian

Well, he seems to care about the environment so that's a thumbs up from me. :yy:

Reply 23

SnoochToTheBooch

The current queen should be the last monarch. Enough is enough. It's 2015 now and it's an embarrassment that 'royalty' still exists.

Reply 24

Swanbow

Original post by young_guns

If it wasn't for the issue that Wallis Simpson was sleeping with von Rippentrop, and that she was possibly a German spy, then no I don't think he should have abdicated for wanting to marrying a somewhat trashy American divorcee.

I just think that it is weak and unprincipled. It is like an American deciding they don't want the office of President, with all it's executive powers to exist, because they don't like the current Commander in Chief but drop the position when a President they like gets elected. I just feel that is better to discuss the institution of the Monarchy, and whether it should stay or go, without turning it into an individual argument for or against the Windsors. Of course pragmatic and ambivalent opinions are valid and needed. I just don't like people who only have their view point because they dislike Charles.

Reply 25

young_guns

Original post by Swanbow

I just feel that is better to discuss the institution of the Monarchy, and whether it should stay or go, without turning it into an individual argument

The weakness of a certain individual is the whole point. With monarchy, you can't get rid of them. At least with democratically-elected figures they are out within a few years.

If Charles is a complete disaster, are you saying we should wait until he's dead just because you don't like making it about an individual? As I said, a particularly execrable occupant of the throne is an argument against monarchyu

Reply 26

Swanbow

Original post by young_guns

I think the point in itself is stronger than any potential for a disastrous future Monarch. I'd rather people stuck to academic points such as that, and others such as the fairness of having an unelected Monarch in a supposedly democratic society. I'd rather we chose to become a Republic based on points such as this, with extensive public debate and a referendum, rather than through a dislike of a particular Monarch, provided he wasn't a tyrant.

No. If Charles is a complete disaster then of course it will create a debate about the Monarchy and rightly so. But I don't think that article from the Daily Mail was entirely accurate, or backed up by any credible sources. Charles will in all likelihood seek to follow his mother in example and keep his mouth shut in public as Monarch, or at least only touch lightly on issues such as environmentalism. I can imagine him wanting to take a more engaged role when meeting with Prime Ministers, although to be fair Elizabeth is pretty engaged herself. My problem is I suspect that he will always remain unpopular, regardless of how he conducts himself as King, and the republican movement will latch onto that as a main argument.

Reply 27

lucaf

Eh, if we are going to have a monarchy we may as well have them do something. I obviously don't think he should have any power over government or people, but that doesn't mean he needs to be apolitical

Reply 28

william walker

Well it doesn't matter, he will still be under the manipulation of Parliament and the government unless he gives up the grant the Royal family gets from Parliament. Instead they live of their own income and property rights. However he is man and men make better Monarchs than women, they are more powerful. The sooner the Queen dies and Charles III takes the throne the better from my point of view. I am also currently attempting to form a political party in support of Charles succession, I understand Parliament and the government may attempt to stop it. He will need political support in the House of Commons, from the Church of England and the aristocracy to force his succession through.

Also any attempt to remove the Monarchy will be met by force through the Loyalists. So don't attempt to remove the Monarchy.

Reply 29

Drewski

Original post by young_guns

If Charles is a complete disaster

At what? Making a few speeches, greeting foreign dignitaries, things he's been doing for 40+ years anyway.

Reply 30

young_guns

Original post by Drewski

At what?

Haven't you been paying attention? It behooves you to at least read the OP article

Reply 31

Drewski

Original post by young_guns

Haven't you been paying attention? It behooves you to at least read the OP article

I have. And I've followed his past.

Yes he speaks out on things, but never things that don't already have a following, that don't already have backing.

Your notion that he's out of touch is not backed up by the public, either, only 20-something% think he's out of touch according to a yougov poll this week, with over half of the respondants believing he will be a good king.

It don't see how speaking out on issues is something that one can "fail" at, especially when those issues are shared by the public.

You not liking it is not the same thing.

Reply 32

young_guns

Original post by Drewski

I have. And I've followed his past.

Either you haven't followed him in the past, or you are in full accord with his zany environmental views, his hatred of modernity (I mean, blaming Galileo for the ills of the modern world? Really?), homeopathy and related bullcrap. Need I go on?

The two men he's been closest to in British politics were Peter Hain and Michael Meacher, both on the lunatic fringe of the Labour Party (for different reasons). Charles has a very high opinion to facts/knowledge ratio, and if he wasn't the Prince of Wales no-one would give a crap about what he thought. Thankfully the Queen has never thought that the position permits her to intervene publicly in political or controversial issues. Based on briefings from Charles' friends, and what his own authorised biographer says, he clearly thinks it does

His neo-feudalist views are on the same planet as the Greens, and if you believe the Greens are mainstream, you clearly don't know much about the UK

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 33

Tom78

This is ridiculous there shouldn't even be a monarchy in the 21st century, do off with the whole thing and make the next PM the president

Reply 34

Drewski

Original post by young_guns

Either you haven't followed him in the past, or you are in full accord with his zany environmental views, his hatred of modernity (I mean, blaming Galileo for the ills of the modern world? Really?), homeopathy and related bullcrap. Need I go on?

His neo-feudalist views are on the same planet as the Greens, and if you believe the Greens are mainstream, you clearly don't know much about the UK

A minority viewpoint is still a viewpoint. Again, you are mistaking the fact that you don't like them for them being wrong.

And those were not my figures, they are yougov's, published in today's Sunday Times.

Do I agree with everything he says? No. Does that man I don't think he should say anything? No. But somehow you do.

Reply 35

william walker

Original post by Drewski

Yep Loyalists think we will stand up for them and Republicans think he will stand against them. However he will in all likelihood be no different from the current useless Monarch we have now. Unless he gets support for using the power of Monarch to block Parliament and stop the government. Which is really what the Loyalists want, a the Monarchy to have powers restored to it and for the Monarchy to use their power.

Reply 36

william walker

Original post by Tom78

This is ridiculous there shouldn't even be a monarchy in the 21st century, do off with the whole thing and make the next PM the president

Doing so would mean getting rid of the Church of England and aristocracy, this destroying the British state and governmental system. I.e you can't it.

Reply 37

Tom78

Original post by william walker

Doing so would mean getting rid of the Church of England and aristocracy, this destroying the British state and governmental system. I.e you can't it.

Neither of which are relevant to the nation anymore, do off with it all simple.

Reply 38

young_guns

Original post by Drewski

But somehow you do.

Actually, I don't say it. The British constitution says it. The monarch is not to be seen at odds with their government. End of story.

Reply 39

william walker

Original post by Tom78

Neither of which are relevant to the nation anymore, do off with it all simple.

They are relevant to tens of millions of people. Also I want them to have power and be able to curtail the governments power. However you don't want that, because you are a Puritan. I am a High Tory, there is a document called the English bill of Rights which was a compromise between the two of us in 1689. I am willing to stand by that document which brought peace to Britain. Are you?