Should the British monarchy be more political?

[Victor McDade]

The Queen, who is admired for many things one of which being her public silence on all issues political, will eventually die. Her son Charles will then become King. However, he appears to take a different stance on political issues. Prince Charles has made it very clear where he stands on numerous issues from the environment to health to education to architecture. He's also made it clear he'll continue on airing his views in a similar vein once he's on the throne.

So is that a good thing or a bad thing? Could we see a situation when as King, Charles is publicly advocating a particular policy on, say, the environment. Then the king's position is opposed by the government of the day. Could we see a constitutional crisis?

So a political King Charles, positive or negative?

[Tsippy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/13/in...

If he keeps comeing out with nonsense like that, he might be better off staying quiet

[Blib]

Well, as his views on many of the important issues of the day are diametrically opposed to mine, I feel that he should shut the hell up.

[jmorgan]

Views, yes. Politics, no. I like what we have now and we can let the colonies play with presidents.

[davepoth]

jmorgan said:

Views, yes. Politics, no. I like what we have now and we can let the colonies play with presidents.

Indeed. If we have to pay someone to host dinners, it should be someone who has no delusions of grandeur. And perversely the Queen is probably the only person in the world who doesn't.

[Traveller]

jmorgan said:

Views, yes. Politics, no. I like what we have now and we can let the colonies play with presidents.

Nicely put. I agree with that.

[Derek Smith]

davepoth said:

Indeed. If we have to pay someone to host dinners, it should be someone who has no delusions of grandeur. And perversely the Queen is probably the only person in the world who doesn't.

Delusions of grandeur? Many dictionaries give a synonym of majesty and I think you'll find that does describe Chas: it's one of his titles.

The Queen, god bless 'er, demands protocol at most times. Many people might have thought to do something a bit off the cuff when Di hit the wall but not her.

The problem with Chas is that he's not the brightest spark in the royal household, and they've got some thick ones. But the worries about this are tempered with the fact that his mother is long lived.

Chas has been put firmly in his place by a PM some time ago. I can't remember which one but in essence the Queen, god bless 'er, was told to shut him up. The worry is that when the controlling influence of him mum is taken away he'll be a bit of a loose canon.

There were rumours in the papers that his aide was trying to influence research into alternative medicines. Whilst most of us thought there was only ever going to be one outcome Chas, it seemed, had great hopes of it proving that having bird seed waved over your forehead cured you of everything but gullibility. So when the research suggested that drinking water ain't going to cure anything he got a bit upset.

We probably have one of the best monarchs we've had in the last few centuries. Even those they praise, produce films about and eulogise were very suspect, especially the previous Liz. Henry V was quite good but since then they've been disasters or have just wallowed in their various drugs of choice, alcohol, misery or worry about uprisings. Queen, g b 'e, has been brilliant. She'll be a hard act to follow and I don't think Chas is the one to give it a go.

If you go to that housing estate he sponsored in Dorset(?) it really is disconcerting. It is a fitting memorial to the chap, but not close enough.

I suppose she should be good at queening given how long she's been at it but it doesn't always follow. When she goes I can't see the Commonwealth living much longer. All allegencies perish. We've kept Oz, NZ and the 52nd state happy enough but I can't see them sticking around for Chas. The only question is: will we?

Edited by Derek Smith on Sunday 3rd July 20:49

[Engineer1]

The Reason we have still got our Monarchy is they had the good sense to try and stay out of politics, they may get involved in State issues but politics is for politicians.

[davepoth]

Derek - I agree entirely, Charles is a berk.

[ewenm]

While he's not the monarch, Charles has been able to voice his views. Once he takes the throne he'll follow in Elizabeth's footsteps and keep it apolitical. He won't want to mess things up for his son.

Edited by ewenm on Monday 4th July 08:30

[Halb]

Victor McDade said:

So a political King Charles, positive or negative?

I see it as a positive...

[JMGS4]

Victor McDade said:

So is that a good thing or a bad thing? Could we see a situation when as King, Charles is publicly advocating a particular policy on, say, the environment. Then the king's position is opposed by the government of the day. Could we see a constitutional crisis?
So a political King Charles, positive or negative?

The constitution only lets HM be a long-stop on legislation is DOES NOT allow him/her to interfere with due process!!!

The fact that Jug Ears has cited various ministers and mandarins to his home in the recent past is very disturbing (even if they were labour idiots) as this sets a prerogative which he does not have....

Jug Ears as political is a VERY DANGEROUS thing, as all that prize Berk wants is greenscheiße, classical architecture and joghurt weaving...
He should keep to gardening with his fugly Camel...