Prince Charles Being Political?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Well, if he were king when the letters were written, it WOULD be an issue. Written as PoW, I can't see a problem with his personal position on ugly buildings or other matters. His family pays the Inland Revenue. Really, if a royal family is not what the people want, hold a referendum and cut the
c--p re: the royals. This is just something that hit the papers because nothing is going on with W&K.
 
KittyAtlanta said:
Well, if he were king when the letters were written, it WOULD be an issue. Written as PoW, I can't see a problem with his personal position on ugly buildings or other matters. His family pays the Inland Revenue. Really, if a royal family is not what the people want, hold a referendum and cut the
c--p re: the royals. This is just something that hit the papers because nothing is going on with W&K.
Click to expand...

No one knows what is in the letters .... Wether it's ugly buildings or not. I'm sure his generation like to write letters and enquire about and keep in touch with the people running the country he will one day be king of ... Agree big fuss about nothing ,
 
The usual suspects will whine and complain but that's it. The public understand Charles' role and he is as popular as he has ever been. The lefties over at the Guardian initiated all of this so that tells you all you need to know about the merits of the case.
 
The Prince of Wales is a highly opinionated man who has a tendency to complain about the state of things. I suspect that the letters might have been highly critical of government policy and might reveal more about his opinions than HRH intended when he wrote them. Perhaps there were statements in them which would be unpopular with many people.
 
Mermaid1962 said:
The Prince of Wales is a highly opinionated man who has a tendency to complain about the state of things. I suspect that the letters might have been highly critical of government policy and might reveal more about his opinions than HRH intended when he wrote them. Perhaps there were statements in them which would be unpopular with many people.
Click to expand...

I agree, he can be a bit black and white though I think he means well, always. I think it must be hard to know that though they have told you from the time you were a wee child that you would be king, but that when you are, your role is to guide, question, advise, moderate, etc. but not ever to dictate.

Oh wait, that's the same thing excellent managers do! :)
 
To me this is a bit like 'retrospective legislation' - how can you be found guilty of a crime that wasn't a crime when you did the deed?

Charles wrote the letters believing they would be private and so expressed himself, possibly/probably, more forcefully than he would have done had he known they would be made public within a certain time-frame.

These ones should remain private for that reason alone but...any future ones should be made public at the end of each government's term of office - and not only Charles' but all communication between the government and any other person.
 
All of this is coming from the Guardian with their FOI requests. As recent polls have shown, despite the Guardian's decades-long campaign against the Monarchy, the institution is just as popular with the British people as it was 60 years ago. The Guardian (and the Independent) have failed totally in convincing the public to their POV and, as the reaction to the royal wedding last year and Jubilee this year have shown, there is no chance of their getting their republic any time soon.

This is why the Guardian is going down this route. It's why they're also going after the Duchy of Cornwall and all the historic rights and privileges that go with it (even though Charles has chosen not to avail of any of the privileges that most insult the left).

We're seeing the downside of the FOI Act in all this. Politicians, civil servants etc. are so petrified of FOI requests that a lot of official business is now being done via conversations, personal email and personal mobile phones to try and avoid it. We don't want to get to a stage where the PoW is too scared to write to ministers, and vice versa, because it might become public at some stage and be a bit uncomfortable. No one wins in that situation.
 
Point well made Iluvbertie, and I am in total agreement. Making laws retrospective smacks of political rather than public interest. I really like your idea of making all correspondence public at the end of a term.

For me, the problem in publishing the letters lies in the letter's being made public out of context as most situations will have resolved, be under discussion or have died a natural death, for which the Republicans will naturally blame Charles.

A think the AG made a very wise decision.
 
Last edited:
:previous: As always EIIR, your comment speaks for so many, myself especially.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article by Jack Straw, former Cabinet Minister, in The Telegrapah today. See weblink below for full articule

*********************
The Prince of Wales must be free to give his opinions

Any minister will tell you that the confidence of the Crown is vital for the system to work

Jack Straw
7:47PM BST 17 Oct 2012
comments.gif
176 Comments

I’m mighty pleased that the Prince of Wales has opinions. If he hadn’t, my Blackburn constituency would be a less prosperous place. In June 1988, the Prince came to my area to launch the country’s second “whole town” partnership between the local business community and the local authorities. Relations between the two hadn’t been bad, but they were not close either. With the Business in the Community organisation, of which he was the leading patron, the two sides began to work constructively together, to the point where, today, there are no longer sides. The Prince’s visit marked the point where the area began to recover from the job losses of the early Eighties, as most remaining textile mills closed down. His work with the Prince’s Trust has also helped to transform the lives of many young people in my area, as it has across the nation.

If the Prince had had no opinions, I doubt if he’d have had the motivation to devote the time and effort which he has to these and many other innovative projects. He has also stuck his neck out to celebrate the religion of Islam. He didn’t have to do that, either, but it’s been of great importance to British citizens of the Muslim faith that the heir to the throne is speaking up for them.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9615128/The-Prince-of-Wales-must-be-free-to-give-his-opinions.html
 
I know I will be in the minority, but I have a different point of view.

I do think the Sovereign’s role is to advise and warn his/her ministers, but it is a power that should be used wisely, subtly and without passion. The aim, for me, is to help and guide the Prime minister, by being his/her confident, by asking the questions that will make him/her reflect again on something or see things from another perspective, by making sure he/she has seen all the possible consequences of his/her decisions, by adding some useful information on what his/her predecessors may have done in similar circumstances, etc.

It is an important role and one of the advantages a constitutional monarchy may have over an elected presidency : someone unelected, above the political parties, not courting any votes, but who commands respect from the most powerful politician in the land, is able to gain his/her trust and keep him/her on his toes and on tracks, and who doesn’t pursue any personal interests, other than the well-being of the country and its people.

But it has to be done right.

The Sovereign’s role should never be to express strong views on something and try to impose them to ministers, unless the integrity of the state or individual rights are at risk. If a Prime minister and a Monarch disagree on a public policy and if implementing that policy is legal and not threatening the state by any rate, then I’m afraid, in my view, the Prime minister is always the one who will be “right”, and for one reason only : he/she would be the only one that has been elected, for good and for bad, by the people ; and in a democracy, the vote and the rule of the majority are the only way we have found to decide who is “right” and who is “wrong”.

To me, Prince Charles is acting as a lobbyist, not as a future King. His letters aren’t meant to help the government, but to push his own ideas. Some people may support his causes, but others don’t. He should be able to discuss with ministers and even advise or warn them, but he doesn’t seem to be doing it with restraint and with the respect an elected government is entitled to. You know he has gone too far when a Prime minister has to complain.

I don’t think either that his success as Prince of Wales as anything to do with him complaining strongly and at lengh to ministers. He has done a lot of very good things – the Prince’s Trust, his charities –, more so than any other Prince of Wales in British history, and is rightly acknowledged and thanked for that. By contrast, his “meddling” has only attracted him bad publicity; so it wasn’t necessary.

Prince Charles isn’t King yet, but he isn’t an ordinary person either. His position gives him access to ministers and very important people, an access only a few people could dream of, but with this privilege “by birth” may come responsibility : he should only use it with parsimony and with care. He is going to reign over millions of people: they won’t all share his views and may choose a government he won’t like, but he will have to represent them all none the less and to act “on the advice of his Prime minister”.

I still believe he can turn out to be a very good King and that’s why I would like him to be more careful and avoid putting himself in controversies that threaten the fragile equilibrium a constitutional monarchy is in modern times.
 
Alpa - as the letters haven't been made public can you explain how you know
His letters aren’t meant to help the government, but to push his own ideas.
Click to expand...

To me the only way you would know that is if you were one of the Labor Party politicians who received one.
 
Iluvbertie said:
Alpa - as the letters haven't been made public can you explain how you know

To me the only way you would know that is if you were one of the Labor Party politicians who received one.
Click to expand...
I am not, but Labour politicians (Tony Blair included) did complain about Prince Charles's correspondence, which means they didn't find that very helpful. Concrete examples are listed in this article from the Guardian : Princely opinions: Charles has his say about the running of Britain | UK news | The Guardian or this one from the Daily Telegraph : Why the Prince of Wales cannot stop being an 'interfering busybody' - Telegraph

As for the letters whose publication has been blocked, the Attorney General's statement says it all : "Much of the correspondence does indeed reflect the Prince of Wales's most deeply held personal views and beliefs. The letters in this case are in many cases particularly frank. They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality."
 
Last edited:
So like me you don't know what the letters are about but prefer to believe the negative than the positive. Me - I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt - being raised in a home with a lawyer I suppose.

I also like to give the full story - and Tony Blair has come out very publicly personally in support of Charles and his right to be in contact with the government of the day.

Tony Blair defends 'helpful' Prince Charles after diary reveals tensions | Politics | The Guardian

He writes: "A prime minister may sound off from time to time, especially when sensitive discussions with members of the royal family leak into the papers, in the middle of some high-profile issue.
"However, I want to make it clear that I always found my discussions and correspondence with Prince Charles immensely helpful. I thought he had a perfect right to raise questions and did so in a way that was both informative and insightful. So I welcomed his contributions, and have no doubt he will continue to raise issues with the new government as he is entitled and indeed it is his job to do, and that they will also find it helpful."


Tony Blair's own words. 'immensely helpful' 'perfect right to raise questions' 'informative and insightful' 'welcomed his contributions' 'entitled to and indeed it is his job to do so'
 
Last edited:
I didn’t know this, thanks for posting it.

I am glad Tony Blair finds Prince Charles helpful most of the time and agrees on the idea than the sovereign’s role includes advising and warning ministers, but I am still puzzled that the same man also confirmed having complained about Prince Charles on occasions and even once found him “silly”.

I think what we can agree on is that some ministers have welcomed Prince Charles’s input, whereas others have definitely not ; some have called it helpful advising, whereas others have complained about obtrusive lobbying. And yes, I totally agree with you when you say that I focus on the negative side : I do, because I think this is the kind of controversy that could really threaten the monarchy. No one would complain if a monarch isn’t really bright and insightful, but there will be an outcry if he/she was found to try to oppose an elected government and impose his/her own ideas.

I recognize Prince Charles, as a future monarch, has the right to advise ministers, but I just wish he could use it much more carefully in order to avoid accusations of lobbying.
 
Alpa said:
I am not, but Labour politicians (Tony Blair included) did complain about Prince Charles's correspondence, which means they didn't find that very helpful. Concrete examples are listed in this article from the Guardian : Princely opinions: Charles has his say about the running of Britain | UK news | The Guardian or this one from the Daily Telegraph : Why the Prince of Wales cannot stop being an 'interfering busybody' - Telegraph

As for the letters whose publication has been blocked, the Attorney General's statement says it all : "Much of the correspondence does indeed reflect the Prince of Wales's most deeply held personal views and beliefs. The letters in this case are in many cases particularly frank. They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality."
Click to expand...

Yes one of the views that Tony Blair complained about was the Prince's advice against relying on a mass cull of cattle and sheep to deal with the Foot & Mouth disease in 2001 & his support of a vaccination campaign instead. When the independent report on the British handling of the Foot & Mouth outbreak was published several years later by the European Union it came down in favour of a vaccination campaign and greatly criticised the Blair govt for its insistence on culling. Significantly perhaps the European Union report is not mentioned in the Guardian's list of Charles's 'interference'. If Blair had listened to Charles instead of being manipulated by his spin-doctor Alistair Campbell into referring to him as 'silly' tens of millions of animals would not have been needlessly killed & millions of £s of taxpayers money would not have been wasted on the consequent compensation to farmers. Incidentally Alistair Campbell's published diaries make it clear that his despisement of Charles was partly due to his having the 'hots' for Princess Diana, a fact that she would most certainly have been aware of and done her utmost to encourage.
 
It's clear that ministers have defied Prince Charles with regards to some of the issues he cares about. Although they take his opinions into account, as is only right given that he's going to be sovereign in the relatively short term, they clearly are not afraid to take decisions that wouldn't be to Charles's taste.

It's also apparent that Charles isn't writing to ministers in the service of his own personal circumstances. He's not writing to ask for more funding or for his own helicopter etc. He's writing about the Human Rights Act, health and safety, the compensation culture, the farming community etc. - all issues that are of great concern to the British people. He spends his life meeting people who tell him what's worrying them, their challenges and difficulties, in the expectation that he will do something to try and help. If Charles were to choose not to do so, to save some potential discomfort with sections of the media, then the nation would be worse off.

The Queen warns, consults and encourages her ministers in her weekly meetings with them. It is settled convention that the contents of those meetings remain confidential. If this is the situation vis-a-vis the monarch, then it makes complete sense for the same to apply to the heir to the throne.
 
BellaFay said:
If Blair had listened to Charles instead of being manipulated by his spin-doctor Alistair Campbell into referring to him as 'silly' tens of millions of animals would not have been needlessly killed & millions of £s of taxpayers money would not have been wasted on the consequent compensation to farmers.
Click to expand...

And what if Prince Charles had advocated the contrary and got it all wrong ? He would still have sent a memo to the Prime Minister “urging” him to take one particular decision. No one can always be “right”. In any case, I seriously doubt the efficiency of a memo sent by a Prince of Wales, in a middle of a very big crisis when, no doubt about that, the Prime Minister would have already been advised by all the experts available and be made aware of what every fraction of the population may feel about it. That he then took a bad decision is bad luck or stupidity or whatever, but it is his responsibility to make a decision; that’s why the British people have put him in charge and that’s why he is ultimately responsible before them and can be dismissed.

Likewise, in my opinion, Prince Charles’s views can never be those of the whole population, because no such thing exists. Otherwise, there would be no need for elections and political parties. The topics mentioned by EIIR may well be a concern for the British people, but I am certain not everyone has the same solution to these problems or give them the same degree of importance (if any). When Prince Charles writes to ministers about them, it is inevitably political.

But I am not saying Prince Charles should do nothing. He has set up charities for the causes he champions, and I understand there is a need for these charities to appeal to ministers to be given funds and advantaging policies. They are lobbying, and as long as this is public knowledge and they aren’t given privileges, I don’t see any problem with that. But if it is right that Prince Charles uses his own privileged access to ministers to do it on their behalf, I am not sure I would agree.

Indeed, to me, the role of the sovereign “to advise, warn and encourage “ is different, at least in the way the Queen has done it (as describes by herself and some of her Prime Ministers and senior aides). It’s much more subtle than giving your own views on something ; it is much more about listening and asking the right questions than giving answers ; it is much more about being the confident of the Prime Minister and help him stay confident than confronting him and challenging his views ; and it is definitely about trying to maintain political impartiality, even during those confidential meetings with Prime Ministers (as documented by Tony Blair or John Major).

For me, writing long and numerous memos to almost every minister in charge, memos where you express your own strong opinions on different topics and even on public policies (as documented by the Attorney General), is very different and goes beyond the traditional role of the monarch, at least, and I say it again, in the way the Queen has done it.

Prince Charles may well give another meaning to “advise, warn and encourage” when he is King and continue to write to ministers and express strongly his opinions in private letters and meetings. But I don’t think it could work in modern Britain.

I believe the confidentiality of the Queen’s views is strictly maintained partly because she takes trouble to try to stay impartial and doesn’t usually seek to defend strongly her own ideas. I am not sure the confidentiality of the letters and meetings eventually held by the future King would be as well protected if he is too political in private. Some ministers might take offense, leak the content of the private correspondence and audiences, and thus break the idea that the King is above politics, preventing him from being able to represent all Britons. This is already happening and in that way, I think, it could threaten the monarchy. Now, he is only Prince of Wales, the monarchy will not break down under Queen Elizabeth II and he may well be given a few more years to adapt ; I do hope so.

I just want to add that I am just giving my opinion here. I am not anti-Prince Charles at all : I think he is an interesting character and that he has done a lot for the country thanks to his charities. It is only because I would love the British monarchy to live on for many many more years that I do express my concern. I would be the first to jump with joy to be proven wrong and too pessimistic ! :)
 
Alpa said:
And what if Prince Charles had advocated the contrary and got it all wrong ? He would still have sent a memo to the Prime Minister “urging” him to take one particular decision. No one can always be “right”.
I believe the confidentiality of the Queen’s views is strictly maintained partly because she takes trouble to try to stay impartial and doesn’t usually seek to defend strongly her own ideas. I would love the British monarchy to live on for many many more years... :)
Click to expand...

Well reasoned, well stated and thanks for sharing. There is much common sense in your post.
 
AdmirerUS said:
Well reasoned, well stated and thanks for sharing. There is much common sense in your post.
Click to expand...

1. The Queen also has strong opinions which she delivers to the govt - see her recent complaints about the lengthy time it took to extradite Abu Hamza to USA. Opinions which she not only voiced to the Home Secretary but even went as far as directly leaking to a BBC journalist, who promptly headlined it on a major news programme!

2 Like the Queen, Prince Charles offers his comments as advice - at least that's what the former Labour minister Jack Straw stated in his Telegraph comment piece (see above), and I can see no reason to believe he is lying.

3. The Queen doesn't need to write lots of letters because she has very regular meetings with the PM & so can give her opinion orally. On the seemingly very rare occasions that notes were made from those meetings which were later released by the National Archives under the 30-year rule - e.g. 1956 and 1969 meetings released in 2003 and 1999 - they show her to be quite capable of intervening for her own personal or financial benefit. In fact in the case of the 1956 meeting she actually refused to take the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the highest legal appointee in the land, to abolish the 1772 Royal Marriage Act.

4. The main point I am trying to make is that there seems to be a persistent claim that the Queen always acts constitutionally and apolitically, whereas Prince Charles gets criticised for acting in exactly the same way.
 
As, I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, they have the right to state what they think, the government, also, has the right to ignore them. They have no particular right for the government to have to change their views to theirs. It is an advise and "keep your mouth shut" position.
 
BellaFay said:
4. The main point I am trying to make is that there seems to be a persistent claim that the Queen always acts constitutionally and apolitically, whereas Prince Charles gets criticised for acting in exactly the same way.
Click to expand...
Well, that's where we disagree ! :) To me, the ways the Queen and Prince Charles "advise, warn and encourage" are totally different :
- in style : listening and questionning vs writing memos to the government and "urging" a Prime minister to do something ;
- in scale : a weekly informal meeting with the Prime Minister vs numerous letters to different ministers ;
- in purpose : being the confident of the Prime minister vs trying to make a difference by having access to ministers ; the first one is subtely trying to help the Prime minister do his job without really telling him what his job should be, the second one is trying to help other people by suggesting to ministers how they should do their job better ;
- on which topics to express strong opinions about : the monarchy itself, the Commonwealth, a terrorist, ... vs education, energy, housing, ...

Now, some people might be all right with the way Prince Charles sees and does his job ; I am just concerned about those who don't.

As Prince Charles's "style" is getting more and more documented (see the Attorney General's new declaration as providing by Duke of earl - thanks!), I thought I would just add references on how the Queen sees her job and how it has been described :
- by the Queen herself : Queen Elizabeth II Reflects on her life, rare footage - YouTube
- by senior aides and politicians : The real Elizabeth II: part two - Telegraph

so that everyone can make his/her own mind.
 
CarolynHarris said:
Prince Charles's Correspondence and the Nature of Constitutional Monarchy

Prince Charles’s Correspondence and the Nature of Constitutional Monarchy | Carolyn Harris: Royal Historian
Click to expand...

This was a great read. Thank you for adding the historic context. While I realize the exemption from the Freedom of Info Act is a current issue, I do doubt letters written in 2004-2005 have much of an impact today on what the government is doing.
Yes, it may be a bother to get a critique from the future King, but I think people understand that he has his personal causes just as every other citizen does. I think it also well understood that his impact on public opinion about many of his causes is less than overwhelming. In the end - the popular vote does triumph. Women vote, the National Health exists, etc.
I look at the pics today from the State Visit of the President of Indonesia. I do wonder if people think all Her Majesty, Princes Charles and Andrew will say to the President is something along the lines of "How do you find the weather?... Did you enjoy the carriage ride?"... etc? Of course they probably will ask tactful, appropriate questions that show concern. Things like "How is your growing Democracy coming along?".... "Where are you finding economic success for your country these days?" are things I would expect any sentient human to ask. Yet, these questions are political. And to expect the Queen then to NOT discuss her impressions of the visit with the PM seems odd.
Her Majesty does, after all have more than an ounce of good common sense!
 
Alpa said:
Indeed, to me, the role of the sovereign “to advise, warn and encourage “ is different, at least in the way the Queen has done it (as describes by herself and some of her Prime Ministers and senior aides). It’s much more subtle than giving your own views on something ; it is much more about listening and asking the right questions than giving answers ; it is much more about being the confident of the Prime Minister and help him stay confident than confronting him and challenging his views ; and it is definitely about trying to maintain political impartiality, even during those confidential meetings with Prime Ministers (as documented by Tony Blair or John Major).
Click to expand...

Various politicians have described the way QEII interacts with them during these meetings and it always reminds me very much of the way physicians and mental health professionals are trained to communicate with their patients, (insert joke about the Queen as psychiatrist in chief here). I think her method of interaction is more likely to be respected, and actually more likely to benefit the population as a whole over the long term, than the blunter, "this is what's wrong and let me tell you how you should fix it" style of the PoW that's being hinted at in these recent articles.
 
On the updates POW website, under the EDUCATION heading it says the following
"On 12th May 1970, The Prince of Wales raised in public some of his concerns about the environment and conservation... In his debut at a Cambridge Union debate, he spoke to the motion that "This house believes that technological advance threatens the individuality of man and is becoming his master".The Prince made it clear that he was not formally for or against the motion. "I am in a slightly difficult position," he said..."


Under the BIOGRAPHY section it says..."On 11th February 1970, His Royal Highness took his seat in the House of Lords."


The former, I think shows a sensitivity toward having an opinion and not wanting to be POLITICAL (in the sense of undue influence on the sitting Government).


But the later shows (I think and correct me if I am wrong) he can legitimately and legally, as he is not yet king but does (or did) hold a seat in the House of Lords , speak his mind about issues there. Yet when I pull up membership on the HOL - he is not listed. I am confused. I know LPs create peerages.


In any case - I thought the fact that these comments made it to the official webpage throws some light on Claridge House's take on the issue of BEING POLITICAL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
King Lodovico I, King Lodovico II and Kingdom of Etruria
Replies
3
Views
620
Blog Real
Blog Real
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
457
Tatiana Maria
T
H
Royal Fears and Phobias
Replies
9
Views
1K
Biri
B
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
999
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
  • Sticky
Charities and Causes of King Charles III and the Prince's Trust 2, Sep 2022 -
Replies
13
Views
796
maria-olivia
maria-olivia

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom