Prince Charles Being Political?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
L

love_cc

Courtier
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
589
City
Sydney
Country
Australia
I remember Jeremy Paxman in his "on Royalty", commenting that Prince Charles is very much political except that he is not foolish to say it directly. What do you think?
Personally I think it is part of Prince Charles' life. If he wants to achieve something in his life, he has to bear the risk of controversies which now covers in political mudding. It must be very difficut because he cannot just sit and wait everything happen. He does have a very strong sense of duty or social conscience to use his position to do things to help which may be condemned by others.
 
love_cc said:
I remember Jeremy Paxman in his "on Royalty", commenting that Prince Charles is very much political except that he is not foolish to say it directly. What do you think?
Personally I think it is part of Prince Charles' life. If he wants to achieve something in his life, he has to bear the risk of controversies which now covers in political mudding. It must be very difficut because he cannot just sit and wait everything happen. He does have a very strong sense of duty or social conscience to use his position to do things to help which may be condemned by others.
Click to expand...

I share your views.

He can't be party political, but I think he is definitely political in the sense that he has opinions about certain issues which tend to be treated as "political" and which different political parties have different attitudes to. He is a deep thinker and is strongly and actively committed to certain strategies to change how society deals with certain issues, like the environment and youth unemployment and town planning. Because of the stand he takes on these issues he may be regarded as being sympathetic to the party that has similar policies to his views, so he risks controversy.

Though being "king in waiting" for so many years is a very difficult job, it also provides a unique opportunity to achieve statesmanlike things of a "political" nature, on a national as well as international level, that as monarch he certainly would not be able to do.

I think he should do what he can, while he can.
 
Well this is my honest and slightly lengthy opinion;

At the moment, Britain is in a bit of a quagmire politically. Everyone has opinions but nobody has the opportunity to turn those opinions into actions. Nobody - except the Prince of Wales. To understand British politics, you need to understand that Britain has only ever really had two major political parties. The Conservatives and The Labour Party.

The Conservatives were always traditionally right-wing. They believed in privatising everything and they believed that society had a very natural structure and that the poor should be cared for by the rich and that the rich should hold high office with the major power being with the Monarch and the House of Lords. This came to form what we know as "The Establishment". The Monarch, Parliament, The Church, The Armed Forces formed the Establishment and the Conservatives always believed that to govern effectively you needed an indestructable establishment. Patriotism, nationalism and very right-wing policies were embraced for years and people believed that to save the Empire, you needed the Conservatives who would protect it.

On the other side, you have The Labour Party which was always very left wing and believed in socialism, equality and the smashing of the establishment. A secular Britain without a monarchy was always their view. The House of Lords was to be scrapped and everything nationalised. It was slightly communistic in many ways. Their party was formed of elected members and leaders whilst the Conservatives had their leaders chosen by the King or Queen.

Now, for many years we had the Conservative Party privatising before being ousted and replaced by the Labour Party which nationalised. When you voted for Labour or the Conservatives, you were voting for the Left or the Right respectively. In the 1980s, Britain had a huge swing to the far right - not quite Nazism but it was quite far right and it held Britain for 11 years. Whatever goes up must come down and so when Margaret Thatcher left office, the Conservatives self-imploded because they couldn't decide whether to follow the very right-wing Thatcherite policies or take the party to the centre. The Labour Party on the other hand had realised that the British people didn't want left-wing politics and so they became New Labour under Tony Blair and became a centre-left party - in other words, more Conservative which lost them alot of core support.

The Conservatives had in-fighting all over the shop and so they lost the election in 1997. Since that time, Tony Blair has taken the Labour Party furthur to the right and many see alot of his policies as Thatcherite. After a series of leaders, the Conservatives have now taken their party to the centre. So what we now have is two centre parties. And thats caused problems. When everyone is saying the same thing, they have to resort to party politics which everyone sees as a waste of time, money and trust. Therefore, you see the rise of small extremist parties like Respect and the British National Party (formerly The National Front) and people vote for them a) as a protest and b) because they aren't centrist.

So in a society where the two dominant parties have little to set them apart, people need a spokesperson and the Prince of Wales has realised that. He speaks out on the issues he feels are important and he also takes action. HRH writes to the ministers, he gets to know them. He set up The Prince's Trust which gives young people grants to set up their own enterprises which the Labour Party always promised to do and never did. Charles has actually set up a very political organisation in the form of a charity and it works so in that case, his political views and contributions are very popular and he's the only Prince of Wales who has actually done that kind of thing and he does it well.

Now, the problem we have is this. Will William want to follow the precedent his father has set or will he take the role of Prince of Wales back to simply a title and a social position? Will he want to be a Charles or a David? As Roslyn rightly says, Charles has committed and has taken action on the environment, youth unemployment and town planning and he can do that because he isn't elected. He isn't the monarch and so can be a little more political but he also won't run out of time like most Governments do. Charles has had 40 years to make political statements and promises and deliver upon them whereas most Governments get a maximum of about 10 years if they're very lucky.

Charles has had to evolve and adapt the role of the Prince of Wales to a society demanding a little more of the heir to the throne and Charles has reacted to that. He also isn't a fool. He needs to be seen doing something worthwhile and he also knows that the general view is that the Monarch should start being a little more politically outspoken because of the political staleness we have in British politics. We need someone like Charles to be political - not of a party but of the establishment and IMO thats what Monarchy is all about.

The people saying he shouldn't pitch in tend to be Labour MPs - the reason being that Charles is showing them up. They try to portray him as a Chinless wonder who talks to plants - he shows himself to be extremely intelligent and trustworthy. He also acts on his promises and thats something most MPs try to do and end up failing. I think Charles has been very politically wise to do what he's done in the political arena because he's actually predicted the future.

He has seen that as the political parties find themselves replaced with younger, fresher, more extreme parties that are firmly on the left or the right, there will need to be someone who doesn't belong to a political party that can speak on behalf of the people and is important enough to make a difference. So Charles is quite vital to the future of Britain because he's political and he has built that over 40 years. MPs will listen to him, they do listen to him and so although he does risk controversy, he is political and as Paxman says, he just doesn't state it directly.

I don't think it's got much to do with being a King-in-Waiting. I'd say it was more carving a role for future Princes of Wales and actually being of some use to Britain rather than just, "the next one". I would say he should carry on doing what he does. Most sensible people who can forget his private life see and state very publicly that he's a true assett because he says what most of us think and I think that some people are finding that hard to deal with. For example, John Prescott who doesn't like the Prince of Wales very much. Well, Prescott and Charles find themselves in a similar situation.

John Prescott is Deputy Prime Minister, Charles is Prince of Wales so both are "the next ones". Charles has pursued his role as a "next one" by building something of great use to the British people without being political. Prescott has pursued his role as a "next one" by generally embarrassing Tony Blair. It's interesting to note that Prescott is a Republican and would have Charles's role abolished - but who is the better value for money? Prescott recieves more money than Charles, yet Charles is of more use to us than John Prescott and what Charles has done, maybe deliberately or maybe not, is to show us that the monarchy has to be a little political sometimes to ensure the stability of Britain and to keep Parliament in shape which is surely what the monarchy is for in a constitutional setting?

Charles is careful not to go too far and I think if he did get too far into politics a la King Constantine, he'd face his downfall. But as it stands, it's a good thing that he's political and thank God we have him.
 
BeatrixFan - Wow. I really enjoyed reading your post, especially as a political science major here in Canada, where the role of the crown's representative (Governor-General) is in constant debate. I completely agree with what you said about the need for Charles to be political - but not partisan. Very well said. You have my respect for this post. :D
 
I, too, enjoyed reading your post, BeatrixFan. You made some very interesting points. Only time will tell whether William will be interested in continuing the role, and of course it is likely he will not have anywhere near as long to carve out his niche.
 
BeatrixFan, great post.:)
And I agree with your opinion about prince Charles. The guy is very smart and does a lot of useful things that politicians failed to do. He also was a pioneer in being concerned about environment. Years ago some people considered him a harmless krank but now everyone agrees that environment matters. So he was ahead of his time then.:)
 
Sorry BeatrixFan, but you seem to have rewritten the political structure of the UK.

17th to mid 19th centuries it was the whigs and tories,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Whig_Party

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp

During the 19th century, the political party's were Conservatives and the Liberals. The Labour party only came into existence in 1900.

While Charles has had more freedom to put his ideas into action, I don't believe that he has done so politically. He has, IMO, continued the 'charity' work, some of the aristocrats and upper classes have always done. As with anything, the way he has done this has evolved.

He has had very little, if any, impact on government policies, purely because he doesn't have the power and it would be unacceptable to government ministers and most members of the public. If he had, we would have been concerned about the environment a long time ago.

What he has had, is the drive and the money to follow through with some of his ideas, like the Princes Trust, the government is always dependent on what they can 'sell' to the people who elected them. A politician will always try to sell an idea they think people will like, Charles will make a comment on what he likes or doesn't, ie. the sorry state of architecture in the UK, without regard for popularity points.

I don't believe he is political but, he does have his own ideas on how we should, as a country, deal with different problems, just like plain old Mr Smith.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes I know that Skydragon, I was talking about since the war which I should have really pointed out. I do know that we once only had the Tories and the Liberals. Glad people enjoyed reading the post.
 
very informative, thanks beatrixfan
i've often thought what a horrible position- to be waiting for your mother to die before you can do your job. it must be a tightrope to stay above "politics" and yet try to make a difference in peoples lives.
 
Yes, i think Charles is a political person.
It does not mean that he is a supporter of a poilitcal party. He is a man who lives most of his time in the public and he sees it as his duty to work for his country, for the society, for the environment...
I think he is someone like the ´conscience of the nation´, someone who tell his opinion, someone who remind, someone who give a helping hand, someone who take care for others, someone who get more and more wise.
One reason i adore him, is that he is a political Prince!
 
I think everybody has opinions that could be termed "political opinions", including Charles. He just doesn't have the freedon of expressing them like the rest of us. I would think his position as heir to the throne means he has to remain fairly neutral politically, because the politicians are elected by the people, and the people contribute to his civil list pay, etc. He really lives according to the will and grace of the people. It's got to be frustrating!
 
Charles surely will, well should have more experance than any politcian - his mother - HM The Queen should by now be handing him more papers and stuff like that on how to run the country, If he becomes involved in politics now he will be a good King because he will know what the government want or are trying to attepmt and if he sees his public loosing out on the governments decsion he can take action. :ermm:

Another benift of Being a Royal he isnt tied down to any party so no one such as republicans can label him as tory-liberal-bnp-ukip or labour, i think it should in theory work to his adavntge.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Does this member of the Queen's Privy Council know that Prince Charles is also a member of the Queen's Privy Council? He is allowed to talk to/lobby people if he so wishes as a Privy Councillor and as a citizen.
 
Of course he's allowed to, but that doesn't mean it's prudent for him to do so considering the position he will hold in the future.
 
wbenson said:
Queen's Privy Counsellor: Meddling Charles is unfit to be a king with political interference 'verging on the grotesque'

Prince Charles is unfit to become King because of his persistent interference in political matters, according to a Labour peer who is a member of the Queen’s Privy Council.

The controversial suggestion has been made by Joyce Quin in a guide she has written to the British Constitution.
Click to expand...

Members of the Forum might like to know that Baroness Quinn was formerly the Deputy Minister for Food & Agriculture during the 2001-2002 foot & mouth outbreak in the UK. The distorted 'sectarian' comments that she claims Prince Charles made were in a letter that was drafted in April 2002 but never sent (but later leaked to the Daily Mail) in which he was critical of the government's policy on handling of the disease & their treatment of affected farmers. Several years later when the European Union eventually published their report on the UK govt's handling of the issue it too was highly critical of the govt (& effectively backed the prince's views). Ever since then Quinn has made statements criticising Prince Charles. As an MP until 2005 she also voted against laws intended to reduce climate change.
P.S. The Queen's estates are also GM free, but are not identified publicly as such.
 
I have no particular liking for Charles, but I have to defend him a little - he has been much less as a meddler in recent years.
Perhaps Camilla has been a positive influence on him ??
 
wbenson said:
Of course he's allowed to, but that doesn't mean it's prudent for him to do so considering the position he will hold in the future.
Click to expand...

Just because the PoW is willing to communicate his views to members of the government (just as any British subject can) does not mean that he will continue to do so once he is the monarch.
 
No, but it doesn't set a very good precedent for what is to come.

Unfortunately for Charles, it is the position he finds himself in by accident of birth. His not a politician and it is crucial for him to at all times, remain, constitutionally prudent.
 
Madame Royale said:
No, but it doesn't set a very good precedent for what is to come.

Unfortunately for Charles, it is the position he finds himself in by accident of birth. His not a politician and it is crucial for him to at all times, remain, constitutionally prudent.
Click to expand...

Charles certainly cannot support specific political parties, or align his thinking with those of any inidvidual political parties. However, IMO, he is entitled to put his views to the government of the day. At the end of the day, they are just his views - Ministers are not bound by the views, and do not have to accept his view. This, IMO, is constitutionally prudent.
 
Madame Royale said:
No, but it doesn't set a very good precedent for what is to come.

Unfortunately for Charles, it is the position he finds himself in by accident of birth. His not a politician and it is crucial for him to at all times, remain, constitutionally prudent.
Click to expand...

One of the constitutional roles allowed the British monarch (and her heir) is the duty to 'warn and advise' the government. As Prince Charles almost certainly had a good deal of knowledge about how farmers felt about their treatment during the foot & mouth outbreak (more so than Tony Blair or the then Mrs Quinn) he was duty bound to offer it. The only diference between himself & the Queen is that he offers advice via letter & the occasional informal meeting, whereas the Queen has an official monthly meeting with the PM and occasional meetings with other Privy Councillors.
 
muriel said:
Charles certainly cannot support specific political parties, or align his thinking with those of any inidvidual political parties. However, IMO, he is entitled to put his views to the government of the day. At the end of the day, they are just his views - Ministers are not bound by the views, and do not have to accept his view. This, IMO, is constitutionally prudent.
Click to expand...

If at any point should he wish to put his views, on whatever issues, to his government, then let it be done through his Prime Minister! Now that, is what I'd call constitutionally prudent.

whereas the Queen has an official monthly meeting with the PM and occasional meetings with other Privy Councillors.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And it's worked well enough for the past 58 years. If it's good enough for his mother, then I see no reason why Charles should try a more meddling, or shall we say direct, approach. That is largely considered as manhandling. And though I understand very well the points you've made above :rose:, one then wonders why the letter (mentioned on the previous page) was not infact sent if the PofW is in a position to relay his personal concerns. It would have been seen as being too political, imo. And that was quite likely to have been the concerns of his advisory team, hence the letter never being sent.

I certainly don't envy the man.
 
Madame Royale said:
If at any point should he wish to put his views, on whatever issues, to his government, then let it be done through his Prime Minister! Now that, is what I'd call constitutionally prudent.



Exactly. And it's worked well enough for the past 58 years. If it's good enough for his mother, then I see no reason why Charles should try a more meddling, or shall we say direct, approach. That is largely considered as manhandling. And though I understand very well the points you've made above :rose:, one then wonders why the letter (mentioned on the previous page) was not infact sent if the PofW is in a position to relay his personal concerns. It would have been seen as being too political, imo. And that was quite likely to have been the concerns of his advisory team, hence the letter never being sent.

I certainly don't envy the man.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the PoW is not entitled to share his views with the government of the day at all, as there is no "his Prime Minister"? That makes little sense to me.

Setting out ones views on a topic to a minister is not political interference, IMO. He is not pressurising them into accepting his view, nor is he siding with one political party over another - that, IMO, is the real issue that the BRF needs to stay out of.

Madame Royale said:
Exactly. And it's worked well enough for the past 58 years. If it's good enough for his mother, then I see no reason why Charles should try a more meddling, or shall we say direct, approach. That is largely considered as manhandling. And though I understand very well the points you've made above :rose:, one then wonders why the letter (mentioned on the previous page) was not infact sent if the PofW is in a position to relay his personal concerns. It would have been seen as being too political, imo. And that was quite likely to have been the concerns of his advisory team, hence the letter never being sent.

I certainly don't envy the man.
Click to expand...

The monarch's consitutional position is very different from that of the PoW, so I am afraid your example has little relevance.

My view is that this was a dissaffected politician who clearly was merely trying to use the PoW to gain some publicity.

The specifics around the release of the letter are not a matter of public record and therefore, I do not believe it is prudent to discuss them at any length.
 
BellaFay said:
One of the constitutional roles allowed the British monarch (and her heir) is the duty to 'warn and advise' the government. As Prince Charles almost certainly had a good deal of knowledge about how farmers felt about their treatment during the foot & mouth outbreak (more so than Tony Blair or the then Mrs Quinn) he was duty bound to offer it. The only diference between himself & the Queen is that he offers advice via letter & the occasional informal meeting, whereas the Queen has an official monthly meeting with the PM and occasional meetings with other Privy Councillors.
Click to expand...


There is no constitutional role for the Prince of Wales and Charles is one of the least political of those who have held that title (George V was less involved during his father's reign).

Edward VII served on Parliamentary Commissions and even wanted to vote in the House of Lords on some issues but was advised against it knowing that if he voted the vote would pass but without his vote it wouldn't (and didn't - it was a Housing Bill I am thinking about).

The Queen meets with her PM every week not every month.

Charles is sent a copy of the documents that the Queen sees (unless she or the PM decide that he can't see them). I know this because when I was at the Palace in 2005 I went into the Mews and this little carriage was returning - it is the mail carriage between BP and CH and takes the documents from the Queen and the Government to Charles each day.
 
PoW's have always been controversial, at least since Queen Victoria. Its always been a balance between the wise and stoic monarch people can look up too and a unconventional PoW people can get entertainment from.
Even though I do cringe often when I hear of Charles involvements, they are nothing detrimental and I does not make me worry about his time as King.
 
When Charles becomes King, his subjects will remember what his positions on matters like GM foods, global warming, farming, fox-hunting, etc., were while he was Prince of Wales. Even if he will no longer make public statements about things, people have long memories. This is the danger. I think that, as Prince Charles comes nearer the throne due to the passage of time, he should begin to practice more restraint. What happens if he espouses an unpopular idea one day and becomes the king the next day? He is, as he always has been, "one heartbeat away from the throne.":ermm:
 
Prince of Wales's letters to ministers 'given priority over Cabinet business' - Telegraph

Letters from the Prince of Wales "lobbying" government ministers were treated with greater priority than Cabinet business, a tribunal was told.

The Prince engaged in the systematic “lobbying” of Cabinet ministers in an attempt to influence various government policies through a barrage of private letters, the Freedom of Information tribunal heard.

The tribunal is being asked to rule on whether the private letters to several Cabinet ministers should be publicly released for the first time.

Prince Charles letters go to top of ministers' in-trays, says ex-adviser | UK news | The Guardian

Prince Charles's letters to government ministers go "to the top of the pile" and are "treated with great reverence", a former government special adviser told an information tribunal appeal today.
 
Last edited:
This baroness is just trying to shut Charles up. He has more influence than most realize. He also influences through his sons, as they appear to be pretty much in line with his leanings.

This woman simply does not have enough to do. She needs to do a little more stumping and a lot less opining.
 
Prince Charles's 'crusading' forfeits right to confidentiality, says expert | UK news | The Guardian

Prince Charles forfeited any constitutional right for his letters to government ministers to remain confidential when he surrendered his political neutrality, an information tribunal appeal heard today.

The fact that he had "gone considerably out of his way deliberately to draw the public's attention to his political views", meant there was "no sound reason in constitutional convention as to why his political correspondence with ministers should remain confidential", said a leading expert.
 
I think that we have to be "real" about this subject. Yes Prince Charles writes letters and, oh how awful, talks to people. But, so do all the movers and shakers of politics and business which directly influence Members of Parliament.

These people socialize together, dinner parties, theartre, etc. and we would all be naive in the extreme if we thought that all Bills passed were as a direct result of the totally unbiased MPs working for the good of mankind. MP's lobby for their constituencies, party members lobby their MP's trying to influence their votes.

If Charles writes letters so be it. He has as much chance as anyone else in being heard but, the fact that his letters are read and can sway thought only leads me to believe that what he writes is worth reading, is well referenced and credible.

Let's face it, we've rubbished previous members of royalty who were merely dilettantes and we know Charles is not trying to gain political or financial benifit from his "lobbying". A pure heart (politically) doesn't make him right all the time but it does give him, and those he lobbies for, an edge!
 
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
615
Blog Real
Blog Real
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
456
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
996
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