Prince Charles Being Political?

[cepe]

What I will find more interesting (if the letters are disclosed) is not whether Charles asked Ministers to listen to his argument or change their minds etc. But whether they acted solely on his request against their government policy.

He doesnt have any power - so why would they do that?

AS Shakespeare has it "it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" - the idiot being the Guardian who started this in 2005.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

By contrast, Prince William is not known to have ever expressed political opinions in public.

Just another reason why many people would rather see William than Charles on the throne.

There is a difference between policy and politics. Prince William has expressed strong views on the ivory trade, which could impact Britain's relationship with China. It's a policy issue, not a political one.

Charles has discussed his views on the environment and historic preservation, but he is not associated with one particular political party. Diana also became involved in policy questions. For example, she publicly spoke out in favor of a ban on landmines, which was a policy issue being debated by the British Parliament at the time.

The difference between Charles and his mother regarding their public stance on policy issues is largely due to their different roles. There is also a generational difference. Charles came of age during the social changes of the 60s, while the Queen had a very traditional upbringing.

Further, unlike the Queen, Prince Charles has voluntarily paid taxes throughout his adult life. He gave himself a deduction when he married Diana but he began paying the full tax rate in 1992. The Queen started paying taxes in 1992. I don't know if William ever had a choice. I think that everyone who financially supports government policies has the right to try and influence them.

 

[SElizabeth]

What I will find more interesting (if the letters are disclosed) is not whether Charles asked Ministers to listen to his argument or change their minds etc. But whether they acted solely on his request against their government policy.

He doesnt have any power - so why would they do that?

AS Shakespeare has it "it is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" - the idiot being the Guardian who started this in 2005.

I so love this saying, I use it all the time on people where I live, sometimes I can't believe what comes out of the mouths of idiots who signify absolutely nothing.....

 

[CSENYC]

Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?

It used to be quite common for Kings and Queens to take sides on issues, in fact, it was required because they were the rulers. They would be overthrown in their decisions were very unpopular. Most of the cases I know of involve economics--specifically taxes.

Elizabeth was 25 years old when she took the throne--in the 50's. Who knows how events would have played out if Elizabeth had been raised during the 60s.

I suppose that it is possible that the UK will abolish the monarchy because they don't like his views on the environment, architecture, or organic food, but I doubt it. We can debate whether people should care about those types of issues, but they rarely win or lose elections. In fact, the people who are most passionate about the environment probably agree with Charles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?

The Queen hasn't been 'completely neutral' at all.

She has made her views known and has even told the PM of the day (Blair) that she would refuse to sign legislation if it was presented to her.

Blair decided not to force the issue and so the matter was dropped. That is hardly the 'political neutral' stance that she is portrayed as having but rather shows that she was prepared to intervene if necessary.

 

[CSENYC]

The Queen hasn't been 'completely neutral' at all.

She has made her views known and has even told the PM of the day (Blair) that she would refuse to sign legislation if it was presented to her.

Blair decided not to force the issue and so the matter was dropped. That is hardly the 'political neutral' stance that she is portrayed as having but rather shows that she was prepared to intervene if necessary.

She definitely has an image of being completely neutral, even if there have been incidents of non-neutrality. Please post a link to a news article about the Queen vs. Blair and refusing to sign legislation; I am not seeing it online.

For example, during the Scottish independence referendum campaign, she told people to think "carefully" about it and that made headlines. Her exact words were completely neutral even though it was clear what she might have meant- and I was amazed that she didn't speak up to keep her country together.

 

[Rudolph]

Any monarch threatening to not sign legislation is on a suicide mission. It hasn't happened in hundreds of years and isn't about to start.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen refused to sign any legislation that related to her losing the right to declare war in 1999 - which is why the legislation didn't go to parliament in the first place - hence no actual veto. She was asked beforehand.


Queen and Prince Charles given at least 39 chances to veto legislation they don't want to become law | Daily Mail Online The Queen's veto blocked the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a backbench bill making it necessary that Parliament must first consent before Tony Blair's government could launch air strikes against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.




Other links can be found here: https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=c...Queen+Declaring+War+legislation+Queen+refused

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen acted on the advice of her ministers. Military Actions Against Iraq Bill was a backbench bill, not a government bill, huge difference.

The royal prerogative to declare war is exercised solely on the advice of the Prime Minister and this was something Tony Blair didn't want to surrender to parliament, hence the advice to the Queen.

The royal prerogative is exercised for the very purpose it doesn't need the approval of parliament which is what the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill sought to do.

This is entirely different from the Queen refusing to sign a bill against the advice of her ministers, something the Queen as a constitutional monarch would never do

 

[SElizabeth]

All this fuss over whether PC will open his mouth or not, let's wait and see. And why think that if he does the monarchy will end, that is republican talk, so for anybody that wants a republican government come to the US and stay here for a while and view what is happening. I like QE very much, I think she should open her mouth more often and even though I understand why she doesn't, for me it['s just plain stupid, she is the Queen for heaven's sake and Charles is the heir. These people are there in those positions by an accident of birth(as I have said before) nothing more nothing less, so people just need to get over it and get on with their lives. I will take QE anyday of the week over that I have to put up with and if she has some influence on the prime minister then so what, if it's for the good of the country then no harm done and I really think that after all these decades (not years) she most surely has the best interest of her home country in mind. Sometimes I think *egos* get in the way of simple reasoning and after all who are these people that make those rules/laws, so this is no put down on anybody, it's men. Are all those rules/laws in the best interest of whom?

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen hasn't been 'completely neutral' at all.

She has made her views known and has even told the PM of the day (Blair) that she would refuse to sign legislation if it was presented to her.

Blair decided not to force the issue and so the matter was dropped. That is hardly the 'political neutral' stance that she is portrayed as having but rather shows that she was prepared to intervene if necessary.

I had never heard before that the Queen threatened to veto legislation if the PM didn't drop it. Considering that the royal veto has not been used in the UK since 1707, I seriously doubt the Queen would consider using it.

 

[Rudolph]

And even in 1707 it was on the advice of ministers. The Queen would never ever veto or refuse to sign legislation against the advice of her ministers.

Even Edward VIII, being a constitutional monarch signed his own abdication order on the advice of government

 

[Iluvbertie]

The point is that The Queen did tell the PM that she wouldn't sign it and that is being political. The bill was dropped from going to parliament for the simple reason that she had indicated that she wouldn't sign it.


That is how powerful she is - she can tell the PM in advance that she won't sign it and the PM will then actually drop the proposal, or make sure that the private member is aware that The Queen won't sign it and that member will drop it.


Edward signed his own abdication Act because by then he had agreed to abdicate. He could have refused and then there would have been an election on the issue of the monarch's power.


That is why the monarch tells the PM that they won't sign legislation in advance.


One day a PM will call the monarch's bluff and either the monarch will give in and lose that power by convention OR it will become an election issue and the monarch will lose their power.


Remember that this thread is talking about Charles being political on the assumption that The Queen has never been political but she has been so why assume that Charles should be any less than his mother has been for the last 62+ years?

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

The Queen, of course, can make her personal views known to her ministers, and undoubtably it happens behind the scenes. The Prince of Wales, when he succeeds will most likely do the same. But he cannot make his personal views publicly known if they contradict the policy of the Government. If that happened, and the Government felt it no longer enjoyed the confidence of the Crown, it might resign and trigger a general election. A general election that focused on the conflict between the King and the Government. Regardless of the outcome, it would be a disaster. If he "won" his impartiality would always be in doubt; if he "lost" abdication would be the only honourable action. The laws of the land are not made by some anonymous group of egotistical men. The are made by the members of the House of Commons; the women and men elected by the men and women of the United Kingdom. It would be at his own peril for a future King Charles III to publicly fall out with the elected representatives of his people.

The Queen has never vetoed any legislation. Agreeing, on the advice of her ministers, to withhold Royal Assent to legislation if it was ever presented to her is probably a handy way for a Government to kill off a bill, or just get it off the books. The same bill, supported by the Government, passed by the Commons and the Lords, and then presented for Royal Assent would be signed without question.

 

[Rudolph]

The point is that The Queen did tell the PM that she wouldn't sign it and that is being political. The bill was dropped from going to parliament for the simple reason that she had indicated that she wouldn't sign it.


That is how powerful she is - she can tell the PM in advance that she won't sign it and the PM will then actually drop the proposal, or make sure that the private member is aware that The Queen won't sign it and that member will drop it.


Edward signed his own abdication Act because by then he had agreed to abdicate. He could have refused and then there would have been an election on the issue of the monarch's power.


That is why the monarch tells the PM that they won't sign legislation in advance.


One day a PM will call the monarch's bluff and either the monarch will give in and lose that power by convention OR it will become an election issue and the monarch will lose their power.


Remember that this thread is talking about Charles being political on the assumption that The Queen has never been political but she has been so why assume that Charles should be any less than his mother has been for the last 62+ years?

Well the debate over veto is in the realm of the theoretical in 2014. Many scholars agree the power no longer exists by convention as it hasn't been exercised in hundreds of years. Such is the unwritten constitution.

The Iraq War Bill you cited wasn't a government bill and Blair didn't want it to pass in the first place much less receive royal assent

 

[Rudolph]

And even if the power to veto still exists, it exists in Common Law. Statute Law trumps CL, so the government of the day can remove the royal prerogative and reserve powers held by the monarch by an Act of Parliament

 

[Jacknch]

If the Queen (or Charles in the future) refused to sign a Bill, I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that it would be through common sense rather than being political.

 

[Osipi]

Yes, Prince Charles is not overtly partisan (attached to one political party or another), but his "heartfelt interventions" so far certainly could rile people up. He should hush up and just be the completely neutral royal that his mother has so successfully been. Does he not realize how many kings and queens have been overthrown because they took sides on issues of the day?

I've been thinking about this for a bit and have to point out that HM became Queen at a rather young age and also, until Edward VIII abdicated, she was never expected to be Queen. Looking at her lifetime, the majority of it is as a monarch in a constitutional monarchy.

With Charles, it was a total different kettle of fish. He was born to the role of heir apparent and when we look at his life, he's spent the majority of it as The Prince of Wales. He very well could have taken up interests such as race car driving, parasailing, a love of gambling in the casinos around the world and basically used the time to just hush up and wait and enjoy hunting, fishing and country house parties. He chose to make a difference. I would wager that it would be more accurate to say that Charles is/was a strong advocate for the things he is passionate about and believes in rather than intervening in matters.

I believe it will be for the better if Charles will be the type of king that not only knows what the issues of the day are but will also be able to make an intelligent viewpoint on them. Like his mother, he will sit with his PM and pull no punches when it comes to how he sees things and voice his concerns. I don't see that as intervening but as his role in advising.

He'll definitely be a king who will take his role very, very seriously.

 

[Rudolph]

According to Attorney General Dominic Grieve's statement at the time, the seven government departments the prince wrote to were Business, Innovation and Skills; Health; Children, Schools and Families [now the Department for Education]; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Culture, Media and Sport; the Northern Ireland Office and the Cabinet Office.

Mr Grieve said any perception that the prince had disagreed with the then Labour government "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".

Again these are the words of a Tory AG under PM Cameron, not mine. Hopefully the SC has the good sense to rule against this

 

[Dman]

Martin @CourtierUK · 19m
The Supreme Court's decision on Charles’s letters is due around early February. I’m fairly confident decision will be to publish them.

Martin @CourtierUK · 18m
The Charles letters will be fairly damning, there’s no doubt about it. Public response, however, could easily side with him. Happened before

 

[Rudolph]

It will depend on the nature of the interventions. There were 7 seven government department Charles wrote to and the letters are said to be very 'frank'. Charles expressing an opinion isn't a big deal but Dominic Grieve has hinted the letters will reveal Charles openly disagreed with government policy.

Its Charles's opinions being made public that is the concern not that he has opinions.

 

[Mbruno]

I've been thinking about this for a bit and have to point out that HM became Queen at a rather young age and also, until Edward VIII abdicated, she was never expected to be Queen. Looking at her lifetime, the majority of it is as a monarch in a constitutional monarchy.

The irony is that, since Edward VIII didn't have children, Elizabeth would have become Queen anyway, only 20 or so years later.

 

[Arrjann]

It will depend on the nature of the interventions. There were 7 seven government department Charles wrote to and the letters are said to be very 'frank'. Charles expressing an opinion isn't a big deal but Dominic Grieve has hinted the letters will reveal Charles openly disagreed with government policy.

Its Charles's opinions being made public that is the concern not that he has opinions.

There's a difference between having an opinion and trying to influence the government the way Charles seemed to have done.
The Queen will surely express her opinion during the PM's weekly audience, but I doubt whether she goes as far as her son.
Charles is on thin ice I think. One of the reasons the British monarchy (and others) have survived until this day is that they've stayed out of politics.
I like Charles a lot, but this affair worries me. I hope he won't try to meddle when he's king.

 

[Rudolph]

The other concern is neutrality. If we find out though the letters Charles is opposed to the EU for example, it will be difficult for him as king to be neutral on matters concerning the EU.
This is the reason the government opposed the release of the letters in the first place, they may damage Charles's neutrality as king

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In essence the Prince of Wales is not the Sovereign, he plays no role in the governance or administration of the United Kingdom and the many other Realms. Of course there is an "extension" of the political responsibility towards two specific royals: the Heir and then subsequently the following Heir.

Every British citizen has the right to have, to form and to express an opinion. The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge are aware that every word is weighed on a gold balance. It is understandably that, when they utter opinions, a certain discretion is sought. On the Continent we know the term Colloque singulier. This means the absolute discretion between a priest and a penitent, between a doctor and a patient, between a lawyer and a client, but also between a constitutional King and his government.

This colloque singulier is considered essential for a proper workings of these functions. It is a pity that the British press is, as usual, acting like bloodhounds and try to break this essential confidentiality. Imagine that the press would do the same effort to break the discretion between doctors and their patients?



:Ermm:

 

[Arrjann]

The other concern is neutrality. If we find out though the letters Charles is opposed to the EU for example, it will be difficult for him as king to be neutral on matters concerning the EU.
This is the reason the government opposed the release of the letters in the first place, they may damage Charles's neutrality as king

Indeed.
I hope the letters won't be that shocking and that Charles will learn his lesson: expressing an opinion is alright, but meddling isn't. And don't write those letters anymore!

This colloque singulier is considered essential for a proper workings of these functions. It is a pity that the British press is, as usual, acting like bloodhounds and try to break this essential confidentiality. Imagine that the press would do the same effort to break the discretion between doctors and their patients?

You can't compare this with the the relation between doctors and patients. Whole other story.
Charles has himself to blame I think: he put it in writing, making himself vulnerable as those letters could become public, as they will now.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

You can't compare this with the the relation between doctors and patients. Whole other story.
Charles has himself to blame I think: he put it in writing, making himself vulnerable as those letters could become public, as they will now.

Also Queen Elizabeth II writes notes, talks to politicians and forms opinions. Also this is considered strictly confidential, alike the colloque singulier on the Continent. Remember the upheaval when the Prime Minister by accident made public what Her Majesty's reaction was when she heard about the outcome of the Scottish Referendum.

Her Majesty had a clear opinion about the matter and expressed it. (Not surprisingly very much in favour for keeping the Union). This political stance of the Queen was never "naked" because all involved respected the confidentiality. Sadly the Prime Minister broke the confidentiality, to a foreigner even (Mayor Bloomberg of New York City)....


This is the best proof that claims like "the Queen can not have a political opinion" is rubbish. She can. The Prince of Wales can. To avoid that "the crown is naked", it is all surrrounded with discretion and confidentiality. Much to the discontent of the press but very much necessary to behold the Crown's classic rights: the right to be informed, the right to warn and the right to encourage.

 

[wyevale]

As I understood it the Prince wrote these contentious letters believing them to 'be in confidence' , at a date prior to legislation on 'public interest' access to government correspondence ? If that is so, then IMO the contents of these letters should indeed remain private !

Any letters written since the enacting of the new legislation should [of course] 'be in the public domain'.

 

[royal rob]

I found this very interesting
http://www.newsweek.com/its-not-prince-andrew-we-need-worry-about-its-charles-300222


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community