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?

I think it's funny how people assume the queen has no power. She has plenty, just chooses not to excerise it.

Charles can say what he likes. Whether people like it or not, he has a huge influence (if crowned) on what will happen in the country.

Reply 21

fraternité

adilmorrison

Why should he not be able to say what he likes? Why does he need your approval, or anyone elses for that matter?!

If you read my post, I clearly stated that I do not think he should be prevented from doing so; he should be able to say what he likes. He doesn't 'need my approval' - where on Earth did I say that? Please stop responding to various points that I never actually made.

I would disapprove of his doing so because he wields enormous influence based on heredity alone, rather than real or even perceived expertise, so to do so would be irresponsible.

Reply 22

Jak_

10

Yes, he can speak on whatever he likes who cares. Not as if it's gonna change anything so let the man speak.

Reply 23

willenium

10

the headlines of some awful newspaper (the sunday express, maybe) told me he'd become king at 65 and that liz would step aside. i don't know if i believe it/care.

as king he's going to have to stop getting involved so much though

Reply 24

sarcastic pratchett fan

8

When King, he should not get involved in political issues at all. Like generals and judges, he has a constitutional duty to not get involved in politics. Yes he has the right to do so should he wish, but that does not mean he should. However, he should encourage his sons to get involved with the work he is currently doing, so that they can take it over when he becomes King.

Reply 25

ChemistBoy

16

I personally don't think that he should now, or ever, abuse his position in the way he has to promote his business interest. The largest organic farmer in the UK should not abuse his media privilege by accident of birth to promote his business and smear the competition (even if it is nasty big corporations). As for everything else he speaks about, he has no educated view on any of it, his views on nanotechnology are simply ignorant and rather embarassing.

Reply 26

cottonmouth

10

If we do have to carry on with the charade of having a Royal Family, then the proper answer is no, for obvious political reasons. I actually feel sorry for Charles the individual, because it's obvious he doesn like talking about important issues, and i can imagine it would be torture for him to have to keep his mouth shuts. There are obvious downsides to being born into that family.

Part of me wants him to become King and **** it up by poking his nose where it isn't allowed, because it would set the ball rolling for the collapse of the institution. I think the Queen is probably the last proper monarch, because she is residing through a massive transition in media and global technology. The world propelled into modernity at such a fast rate throughout her tenure, and probably will for the next decade or so. It is fast becoming the case that the Royhal Family is just too visible, and it is becoming increasingly impossible to take them seriously.

For his own good, he should be passed over, so that William becomes King. Hopefully he won't want to do it, and it will all be thrown into disarray.

Reply 27

flugelr

19

He should say some things. For example, he could speak out about ill equipped troops; after-all his own son has seen action and I am sure that HRH was as worried as every other parent whose son or daughter serves.

However if he said the British troops are being used wrongly then that would be political and he should not say it.

Reply 28

dismal_laundry

15

AWZC

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

History needs repeating in this case.

Reply 29

Invictus_88

1

dismal_laundry

History needs repeating in this case.

On what grounds, Dear Dismal?

Reply 30

dismal_laundry

15

Invictus_88

On what grounds, Dear Dismal?

To encourage the rest of the whole decrepit lot to retire into the obscurity they merit.

Reply 31

dismal_laundry

15

Sorry, Invictus, that was the rationale, but the grounds? Compensation for all those poor souls he bored to death.

Reply 32

Prince Rhyus

15

I think we need to separate the difference between an individual speaking out, and the person undertaking the role of monarch speaking out.

I'm a civil servant and one of the responsibilities - or rather restrictions, that goes with my job is that I am not allowed to undertake party political activities. As soon as the monarch starts "speaking out", you run the risk of politicising the entire public sector, which in itself would be very expensive if you had to replace the top echelons of the civil and public services every time a new administration came to power.

So, no. Whoever is the monarch should not be allowed to speak out publicly because there is a strong potential for a precedent to be set - and the whole thing unwinds, and we end up with a politicised civil and public service which then ends up costing us lots of money.

THe monarchy, like the judiciary, police, army, health services etc are part of the "non-political" state, and thus their ability to speak out is curtailed and for good reason. You tamper with that convention at your peril.

Reply 33

flugelr

19

Prince Rhyus

I think we need to separate the difference between an individual speaking out, and the person undertaking the role of monarch speaking out.

I'm a civil servant and one of the responsibilities - or rather restrictions, that goes with my job is that I am not allowed to undertake party political activities. As soon as the monarch starts "speaking out", you run the risk of politicising the entire public sector, which in itself would be very expensive if you had to replace the top echelons of the civil and public services every time a new administration came to power.

So, no. Whoever is the monarch should not be allowed to speak out publicly because there is a strong potential for a precedent to be set - and the whole thing unwinds, and we end up with a politicised civil and public service which then ends up costing us lots of money.

THe monarchy, like the judiciary, police, army, health services etc are part of the "non-political" state, and thus their ability to speak out is curtailed and for good reason. You tamper with that convention at your peril.

What if it is like in my example?

It isn't political but I would see that as a Monarch's duty. After all, he is head of the Armed Forces

Reply 34

Tory Dan

11

This happened in the tv show spinoff of House of Cards, To Play the King (playing a fictional version of Prince Charles) who eventually becomes so vocal that the PM Francis Urquhart forces him to abdicate. If Prince Charles did this he would undermine the Crown and cause a constitutional crisis, not good for the reputation of the monarchy if he gets the job.

Reply 35

Kolya

17

flugelr

He should say some things. For example, he could speak out about ill equipped troops; after-all his own son has seen action and I am sure that HRH was as worried as every other parent whose son or daughter serves.

The problem there is that it is a public statement about what the monarch thinks the political focus of the government should be. Increasing military spending is presumably required to better equip troops, and that means raising taxes, or reducing spending on the NHS, or on education. With Britain having one of the largest military budgets in the world, any statement about current military spending cannot be anything but a controversial political statement.

Unless you are suggesting it should be done within the current military budget? Even then, he's making a political statement about the war: he's implicitly suggesting that the war should continue with better equipped troops. If the lives of troops were his primary concern then presumably he would call for them to be brought home, but he would be seen to reject that option for another option which involves the continuity of war. You may argue that such an inference is incorrect, but that many people will make that inference is unavoidable, and thus he should simply stay out of the entire issue.

Reply 36

Prince Rhyus

15

Tory Dan

This happened in the tv show spinoff of House of Cards, To Play the King (playing a fictional version of Prince Charles) who eventually becomes so vocal that the PM Francis Urquhart forces him to abdicate. If Prince Charles did this he would undermine the Crown and cause a constitutional crisis, not good for the reputation of the monarchy if he gets the job.

One of the best political dramas of modern times.

Reply 37

Prince Rhyus

15

flugelr

He should say some things. For example, he could speak out about ill equipped troops; after-all his own son has seen action and I am sure that HRH was as worried as every other parent whose son or daughter serves.

However if he said the British troops are being used wrongly then that would be political and he should not say it.

The ill-equiping of troops is also a political issue - the issue being that the troops should never have been put into battle without proper equipment. Senior members of the royal family meet with ministers as and when they want to and give the ministers concerned a good going over. The Prince of Wales regularly writes to ministers - for which ministers have to sign off all correspondence. It's not as if he doesn't have access to those in control of whatever the issue is.

One of the reasons why the Queen as an individual holds a lot of respect across the country as far as her constitutional role is concerned is because if she is concerned about something, she will raise it privately and deal with it that way rather than going to the media. Hence even if she does have controversial views, no one knows about them. Charles's views on some things are very controversial and to "speak out" on them as monarch would gravely undermine the institution and only provide more ammunition to those who oppose the monarchy - such as http://www.republic.org.uk/

Reply 38

Prince Rhyus

15

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-charles-as-president-not-in-my-name-1026170.html may also be of interest

"Johann Hari: Charles as President? Not in my name

Even if the heir to the throne was a genius, I'd still oppose his right to unelected leadership"

Reply 39

L i b

19

Prince Rhyus

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-charles-as-president-not-in-my-name-1026170.html may also be of interest

"Johann Hari: Charles as President? Not in my name

Even if the heir to the throne was a genius, I'd still oppose his right to unelected leadership"

Well, most people don't agree with that, so whilst he is very welcome to his view on 'unelected leadership', he can keep it.

The title of this thread reminds me of a George Bernard Shaw play, The Apple Cart, where a King realised he couldn't push his views on an elected Prime Minister - and so abdicated in favour of his son, and stood as PM, and won. Quite a thing really. One of the morals of that tale is that Kings can and often do speak as a voice and conduit for their subjects, and their advice is ignored by the establishment at their peril; they often are rather closer to the people than those who claim to represent them are, and despite ruling as constitutional monarchs, no King - indeed, no human being - will be reduced simply to a signature-generating machine.

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

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you