This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

When Prince Charles becomes the King, should he be allowed to speak out on issues?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOoKIjwwzmHOSVXqen0teSqa50RA

I'm not sure what to make of this. The sovereign is above politics because she isn't elected by the people. Of course in a private sense, she is free to have her own opinions on things, but I don't think she should influence her ministers based on them, for the fact she isn't democratically elected.

But when her eldest son becomes King? lol, I'd like to see if he has the balls to publicly criticise leaders of foreign governments or even his own ministers....

Reply 1

Prince Rhyus

15

No, no and no.

Definitely Not.

If he wants to do so, he should abdicate in favour of someone else, hand over all the wealth that he's accumulated, become Mr Chaz Windsor and either work up expertise in whichever field he wants to comment on or do the done thing and stand for election.

Half of the responsibility is with the media, who should otherwise ignore him.

If he has neither the expertise in the given field or a democratic mandate, his voice should be no louder than anybody elses.

Reply 2

magicbuspass

12

I am probably leaning towards the no - option as the monarchy is supposed to be above politics.

However I don't really mind if he speaks about charity and good farming, I would hate to see the good work in The Prince's Trust go to waste.

Reply 3

AWZC

13

Well, we all know what happened to the original King Charles...

Reply 4

L i b

19

Ultimately, no. His present role, whilst in many ways commendable (and I agree with a lot of what he says), is incompatible with being King.

He'll have to cut back a lot on the 'issues' stuff when he finally accedes.

Reply 5

numb3rb0y

15

Yes. Preventing anyone from speaking about politics is blatant censorship and unacceptable regardless of the circumstances.

Reply 6

Simpsonsmania

1

I think it should be IF he becomes King because he is 60 and just because he is heir to the throne, it does not mean the KING of all Kings (God) will not end his life before his mother's.

As for your question, I couldnt care less as the monarch, today, is a symbolic figure. Nothing more. They have no real say in political decisions, and so they shouldnt. They're NOT elected.

SIMPLE!!

Why not?

Simpsonsmania

I think it should be IF he becomes King because he is 60 and just because he is heir to the throne, it does not mean the KING of all Kings (God) will not end his life before his mother's.

yeh this... i think it would be better if he just passed the throne to William anyway because the Queen doesn't look like she's dying yet and then he will be really old and what would the point be of being king for a year or so, i mean he cant realistically do anything as king.
Although if he does become King i think he should try be 'involved' and keep telling us his views

Reply 9

Drummer23

10

AWZC

Well, we all know what happened to the original King Charles...

Because names have a lot to do with it, and there's still a lot of mad protestants, and this one has a spanish wife, and this one's just as big a fool... No.

Yes, Yes he should be allowed to! The monarchy should have that power. The civil war left the monarchy in England in tatters, and it's just gonwe downhill ever since. The old days of absolutism were simpler than democratic politics within a so called constitutional monarchy, within which there is NO monarchy involvement. It's a shambles. When Charles was ridiculed for 'straying into politics' it was unbelievable. If the monarchy of the country aren't allowed a say, then things really have gone to pot. A crown should imply the lack of need for a ballot box.

Reply 10

Invictus_88

1

I'm about as strong a monarchist as you're likely to find here, but the answer must still be 'no'.

To answer yes would be to both undermine our democracy and endanger the Crown.

Reply 11

rajandkwameali

OP

2

electriic_ink

Why not?

Because it goes against the current system. I suppose IMO it's a matter of the implications of it. Does this mean he would publicly criticise his government's policies if they didn't turn out as planned? If he did that then it's egg of his face since he is the executive. The PM and Cabinet would make the decision on his behalf, and they couldn't really do it without his consent.

Reply 12

jacketpotato

20

numb3rb0y

Yes. Preventing anyone from speaking about politics is blatant censorship and unacceptable regardless of the circumstances.

QFT

Should he speak out on issues? probably not
Should he be allowed to speak out on issues? Of course, we have this thing called "free speech".

Reply 13

L i b

19

Simpsonsmania

As for your question, I couldnt care less as the monarch, today, is a symbolic figure. Nothing more. They have no real say in political decisions, and so they shouldnt. They're NOT elected.

That's a bit naive: the monarch has enormous influence without exercising any of his actual 'powers'.

loopykitten!

yeh this... i think it would be better if he just passed the throne to William anyway because the Queen doesn't look like she's dying yet and then he will be really old and what would the point be of being king for a year or so, i mean he cant realistically do anything as king.
Although if he does become King i think he should try be 'involved' and keep telling us his views

I doubt that the Queen will only outlive her son by a year. What's most regrettable is that Charles may well not come to the Throne until he's in his 80s. Personally, I reckon he'll be de facto Regent before then though.

I can see the need for young blood (well, William won't be all that young by then) but ultimately it is a monarchy, he will become King and he will have a duty to reign.