Prince Charles seeks more powerful role as King

OP

Original post by Drewski

Well, 1 there's not really any such formal document

You seem to be confused by the fact it's an unwritten constitution. There is a pretty obvious distinction between an unwritten and non-existent constitution

2 there's nothing wrong with a monarch signing something into law that their government has drafted but at the same time saying "i don't personally agree with it"

Thanks for demonstrating just how little you know about British constitutional conventions.

I take it you haven't heard of Bagehot?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 43

Original post by Drewski

Well, 1 there's not really any such formal document and 2 there's nothing wrong with a monarch signing something into law that their government has drafted but at the same time saying "i don't personally agree with it", plenty of politicians are the same way, and expecting someone not to have an opinion is just naive.

Well there is a founding document of the British nation state. The English Bill of Rights. After which is just law passed by Parliament, the Monarchy and the Courts interpret it. Queen Ann blocked a law sent to her from Parliament, she sent it back for further reading. Monarch's have stepped into politics before, such as the Irish home rule bill. So this idea idiots have that the Monarch should be seen but no heard, just doing whatever the government wants is rubbish and isn't supported by the legacy of the British nation state. This Monarch is out of the ordinary, and must not be counted as ordinary for the good of the British nation state.

Reply 44

Original post by young_guns

You seem to be confused by the fact it's an unwritten constitution. There is a pretty obvious distinction between an unwritten and non-existent constitution

Thanks for demonstrating just how little you know about British constitutional conventions.

If there is no written constitution, or rather not a constitution that anyone could read all you have laws which can be changed. So saying this is the law as interpreted by the Courts is meaningless because the law can be changed and the Courts can interpret the law differently. We don't have a constitution we have laws and a governmental system.

Reply 45

OP

Original post by william walker

If there is no written constitution, or rather not a constitution that anyone could read all you have laws which can be changed. So saying this is the law as interpreted by the Courts is meaningless because the law can be changed and the Courts can interpret the law differently. We don't have a constitution we have laws and a governmental system.

Again, you appear to be confused. The fact we don't have a written constitution doesn't mean we don't have a constitution.

A crucial aspect of the British constitution is convention. Do you know what that word means?

Reply 46

Original post by young_guns

Again, you appear to be confused. The fact we don't have a written constitution doesn't mean we don't have a constitution.

A crucial aspect of the British constitution is convention. Do you know what that word means?

Convention can change, and it has. It is meaningless over time. What matters is power.

Reply 47

MrJAKEE

5

Tbh I don't think Charles will be anywhere near as obstructive as the media and some on here are making it sound.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 48

OP

Original post by william walker

Convention can change, and it has. It is meaningless over time. What matters is power.

Right. And conventions have increasingly circumscribed the power and influence of the monarch to the point where convention essentially entails, "Whatever Elizabeth II does"

I'm quite happy with that. The nation is happy with that.

Reply 49

OP

Original post by MrJAKEE

Tbh I don't think Charles will be anywhere near as obstructive as the media and some on here are making it sound.

Umm.... the media hasn't just made this up. It's Charles' own friends, courtiers and authorised biographer who have been briefing the media in this vein, presumably to prepare the ground

Reply 50

Drewski

19

Original post by young_guns

Thanks for demonstrating just how little you know about British constitutional conventions.

I may not be as well versed as some.

I am, however, intelligent enough to not base opinions on hearsay and conjecture.

Reply 51

TheHistoryStudent

11

Get rid of the bloody lot of them.

Reply 52

MrJAKEE

5

Original post by young_guns

Umm.... the media hasn't just made this up. It's Charles' own friends, courtiers and authorised biographer who have been briefing the media in this vein, presumably to prepare the ground

From the extract you put up on the OP there was nothing wrong with what Prince Charles would be doing. It's not as if the PM on his Friday meetings with the Queen ISNT asked questions on the running of the country & influenced by her.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 53

OP

Original post by MrJAKEE

From the extract you put up on the OP there was nothing wrong with what Prince Charles would be doing. It's not as if the PM on his Friday meetings with the Queen ISNT asked questions on the running of the country & influenced by her.

Well, the whole point is that neither you nor I know what goes on in those meetings. What we do know from former PMs is that while the Queen does ask incisive questions and offers sage advice, for the most part she is simply a good listener and a political shoulder to cry on, and that's how it should be.

The difference is what Charles appears to have in mind is to make public interventions on issues he feels strongly about (for example, making speeches or briefing the newspapers), outside of his direct relationship with the PM and ministers in private meetings.

That clearly moves outside the Bagehotian conventions under which the British monarchy has operated for the past 150 years. The monarch is not to make themselves a figure of public controversy, or be seen to be at odds with their own government.

What makes it worse is that Charles is a fruitcake of the highest order. He really is far outside the mainstream, and I don't want him pushing his lunatic, extremist environmentalist views on elected politicians

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 54

Original post by young_guns

Right. And conventions have increasingly circumscribed the power and influence of the monarch to the point where convention essentially entails, "Whatever Elizabeth II does"

I'm quite happy with that. The nation is happy with that.

Yes and another Monarch with the support the Aristocracy, Church of England and a party in Parliament could change that convention. It comes down to power and the government normally uses recessions and wars to increase its power. The Monarchy normally regains power after time and things settle down again.

Obviously people aren't happy with 45% of people in Scotland voting to leave the British nation state and create their own. With many different political parties wanting to get power away from the government and into other institutions or local government. If the Monarchy, Aristocracy, Church of England, Media, Courts and Parliament were independent of the government and powerful these issues wouldn't be here.

Reply 55

OP

Original post by william walker

Yes and another Monarch with the support the Aristocracy

What on earth are you blathering on about?

Out of interest, do you actually know any aristocrats?

Reply 56

MrJAKEE

5

Original post by young_guns

Well, the whole point is that neither you nor I know what goes on in those meetings.

The difference is what Charles appears to have in mind is to make public interventions, outside of his direction relationship with the PM and ministers in private meetings.

That clearly moves outside the Bagehotian conventions under which the British monarchy has operated for the past 150 years.

The PM doesn't have to do a single thing the monarch says..the monarch only has the ceremonial duty of signing off the legislation to make them laws. All that goes on in the meetings is discussion & debate. It doesn't mean the PM has to take on board a single bit of what the monarch has to say.

I expect Charles to be more public but not so much more than what he is now. The fact is is that Charles hasn't been popular with the public since Camilla and it's always a good money-making story for when people decide to criticise him.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 57

Original post by young_guns

What on earth are you blathering on about?

Out of interest, do you actually know any aristocrats?

Well every Monarch needs support for their succession within the nation state. So Charles will need support from Aristocracy who have lost a great deal of power under this useless queen we have now, they will seek through their support and backing of Charles to regain some of their power.

I am friends of facebook with many people from aristocracy, I talk with them often. However I don't know any personally.

Reply 58

CuddlyViking

I think he should be the ceremonial head of state and help maintain ties with the rest of the commonwealth etc.

He is unelected and so he shouldn't have a platform to lobby the government.

His views on homeopathy and genetically modified crops are ill-informed and would be controversial, and would undermine support for the whole institution.

Providing he keeps his opinions to himself a monarchy is preferable to a republic because it's part of the history of the country and pumps money into the tourist economy in a way I don't think a president ever would.

Reply 59

OP