Prince Charles Being Political?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
The monarchy in the sense of a continual and vital state institution needs to function seamlessly - when one monarch dies the next monarch is immediately in place and ready to act in the constitutional role.

Whatever the cabinet discusses (and goodness only knows what that might be) I am comforted in the knowledge that the link between the people and the state (i.e. the monarch and the heir/s) is privy to it as well.
 
Curryong said:
. . . . . It is what Charles does with the privileged information that he receives that I have problems with. I just don't agree that the heir to the throne should be acting as some sort of super-lobbyist for his causes, even if he does passionately believe in them.
Click to expand...
I rather think you will need to establish that such a breach exists.

If Charles has been using privileged information as a "Super-lobbyist" as you assert, the Spidery Letters would have been a non-issue as the members of the Cabinet would have raised hell over such a breach, and it would be all over the news and certainly have significant ramifications for the British Monarchy.

Since this is such a serious allegation, could you provide any verification via a credible source to confirm this?
 
 
Last edited:
totally agree with you curryong IMO it's not that he reads them that's what should happen, its because he has been known to lobby.
I have bad feeling about this topic but won't say what it is because of the reaction I will get. But I wish Charles would follow the Queen, perfect example. Charles has a lot of ego IMO .... Fire away
 
I don't think Charles would ever go off half cocked on an issue without researching it first and then totally weighing any outcome his involvement would make if he put his two cents worth in. I think he would be very painstakingly careful not to approach anything that could be considered bordering on the political either. As we've seen by the release of the spider letters, they dealt with issues that weren't political or of a political nature that would have information that came from the boxes he reads.

Of course this is only my viewpoint as I tend to see Charles as a perfectionist kind of guy and a perfectionist would clear all the bases before letting an opinion fly.
 
MARG said:
I rather think you will need to establish that such a breach exists.

If Charles has been using privileged information as a "Super-lobbyist" as you assert, the Spidery Letters would have been a non-issue as the members of the Cabinet would have raised hell over such a breach, and it would be all over the news and certainly have significant ramifications for the British Monarchy.

Since this is such a serious allegation, could you provide any verification via a credible source to confirm this?
Click to expand...

Does any other Heir Apparent in Europe do the kind of loobying that Charles does ? If they do, it has never been made public as it was case with Charles. The PoW seems to be at odds with the praxis of modern European monarchies.
 
^ I've never heard of any doing so, but of course most adult heirs to European thrones, Principalities, are a generation or more younger than Charles. He has had a long time to wait and occupy himself with various causes.

I just hope that he doesn't continue to do this when he becomes the monarch or I can see trouble ahead. A younger breed of politician is coming through the ranks who may well be no great respecters of persons or of the monarchy, and would have no trouble in telling Charles to butt out as a non-elected official.
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
Does any other Heir Apparent in Europe do the kind of loobying that Charles does ? If they do, it has never been made public as it was case with Charles. The PoW seems to be at odds with the praxis of modern European monarchies.
Click to expand...

It would be irrelevant whether any other heir does or doesn't as each country has their own laws regarding the role and powers of their own monarchies.

They may all be 'constitutional monarchies' but each country has different constitutions.
 
Curryong said:
^ I've never heard of any doing so, but of course most adult heirs to European thrones, Principalities, are a generation or more younger than Charles. He has had a long time to wait and occupy himself with various causes.



I just hope that he doesn't continue to do this when he becomes the monarch or I can see trouble ahead. A younger breed of politicians is coming through the ranks who may well be no great respecters of persons or of the monarchy, and would have no trouble in telling Charles to butt out as a non-elected official.
Click to expand...


And would help the republican cause no end.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
TLLK said:
Duc-At what age did Beatrix and later W-A become members of the Raad van State?
Click to expand...

By law The Prince of Orange becomes a member of the Raad van State at the age on which he effectively can succeed the throne: 18 years old. (Queen Wilhelmina already became Queen at the age of 10 but the royal prerogatives were -in her name- executed by her mother, the Regentess).

Picture: the gigantic paperwork given to the Prince of Orange (18 years) during his first council with the Raad van State.

:ohmy:
 
Curryong said:
[...]

It is what Charles does with the privileged information that he receives that I have problems with. I just don't agree that the heir to the throne should be acting as some sort of super-lobbyist for his causes, even if he does passionately believe in them.
Click to expand...

It is pretty normal that members of the royal family, all over Europe, are used as "super lobbyists". Of course all with backing of the responsible ministers.

The Duke of Cambrigde has lobbied for the London Olympics. The Prince of Wales has lobbied for the preservation of historic patrimonium. etc. The list is endless.
 
^ Yes, that's true. That sort of 'patriotic lobbying' is different to the sort that Charles has done for decades, though, isn't it?
 
The politicians don't have to agree with his "lobbying " either. He isn't donating millions of pounds to a party like a trade union or other special interests groups who if the politicians don't do what they want, they cut off the funding.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Curryong said:
^ Yes, that's true. That sort of 'patriotic lobbying' is different to the sort that Charles has done for decades, though, isn't it?
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, the issues that Charles has written his "spider letters" for mostly deal with things that are affect the people, the land, the environment and such where its not favoring one party over another politically. Offhand, I can't remember exactly what they were at this time (I'm sure its all archived here when Charles' letters were released) but his lobbying was more along the lines of writing to a minister who deals with a certain area (say agriculture) and expresses his concerns in regards to that subject.

He writes to enlist their aid and support or to point out certain factors but I don't believe its ever been his intent to change things politically. I still snicker thinking of when the letters were released that the public opinion comments on the Daily Fail ended up being so very positive for Charles. That had to be the first for the DF.
 
Mbruno said:
Does any other Heir Apparent in Europe do the kind of lobbying that Charles does? If they do, it has never been made public as it was case with Charles. The PoW seems to be at odds with the praxis of modern European monarchies.
Iluvbertie said:
It would be irrelevant whether any other heir does or doesn't as each country has their own laws regarding the role and powers of their own monarchies.

They may all be 'constitutional monarchies' but each country has different constitutions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well that answered that question clearly and with no obfuscation!
Skippyboo said:
The politicians don't have to agree with his "lobbying " either. He isn't donating millions of pounds to a party like a trade union or other special interests groups who if the politicians don't do what they want, they cut off the funding.
Click to expand...
And here we have another clear as crystal statement.

The questions that I asked Curryong, has yet to be answered:
I rather think you will need to establish that such a breach exists.

If Charles has been using privileged information as a "Super-lobbyist" as you assert, the Spidery Letters would have been a non-issue as the members of the Cabinet would have raised hell over such a breach, and it would be all over the news and certainly have significant ramifications for the British Monarchy.
Click to expand...
You have failed to establish that any such breach has occurred.

Had Charles used privileged information obtained from Cabinet papers as a Super-lobbyist, he would have been in breach of privilege if not the law as indeed would any Cabinet Minister or any other person with access to such papers.

The lobbying by the Guardian and the Republican movement for the publication of Charles letters, aka 'the Spidery' letters, was to supposedly prove just this point. Needless to say, they did not and were on of the worst setbacks for Republicans for years.

His lobbying for things such as liveable spaces et al may enrage architects, etc. but it's not breaking the law.

His Super-lobbying Internationionally on behalf of the UK and various Commonwealth Nations for Wool production and such is laudable as well as effective.
 
^ I did NOT suggest that Charles was breaking the law. I was stating what I have always had a problem with as far as Charles's lobbying is concerned, and that is, in his meetings with Ministers and letters from them he uses information gained to try to change their minds on issues he disagrees with.

As in the BBC report in which Labour Government Ministers complained that he tried to change their minds on education issues. I provided the link to that.

I also provided plenty of links of other lobbying, showing Charles's interference, in town planning decisions, for instance.

I just do not believe in Charles being a super-lobbyist for his own soap box causes, however firmly he believes in them. Ive always believed that and I stand by it.

I admire the Queen's neutrality. I also strongly believe that a new generation of politicians may very well be non-deferential to the Crown, which I believe will be unfortunate as I am a monarchist. They might well ask King Charles outright what expertise he has in the areas he pontificates on and whether as a non-elected official he should be trying to insert himself into Ministerial decisions on various issues, in the way he did as Prince of Wales.
 
Last edited:
Skippyboo said:
The politicians don't have to agree with his "lobbying " either. He isn't donating millions of pounds to a party like a trade union or other special interests groups who if the politicians don't do what they want, they cut off the funding.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Osipi said:
If I'm not mistaken, the issues that Charles has written his "spider letters" for mostly deal with things that are affect the people, the land, the environment and such where its not favoring one party over another politically. Offhand, I can't remember exactly what they were at this time (I'm sure its all archived here when Charles' letters were released) but his lobbying was more along the lines of writing to a minister who deals with a certain area (say agriculture) and expresses his concerns in regards to that subject.

He writes to enlist their aid and support or to point out certain factors but I don't believe its ever been his intent to change things politically. I still snicker thinking of when the letters were released that the public opinion comments on the Daily Fail ended up being so very positive for Charles. That had to be the first for the DF.
Click to expand...

Yes, that had to be the first time. The Daily Fail comment section with its psychopathic, vicious and misinformed trolls/bullies is on of the most stupid, idiotic forums/sites I know of. I haven't read any of these ridiculous comments since 2013, because they started to make me angry.

I respect those who disagree with me about the monarchy (republicans), but not those misinformed/spiteful people who call the royal family for parasites, murderers, Germans, lazy people who never work, and that they use all the money they get on luxury etc.

And you're absolutely right when it comes to Charles and his so-called lobbying.

MARG said:
Had Charles used privileged information obtained from Cabinet papers as a Super-lobbyist, he would have been in breach of privilege if not the law as indeed would any Cabinet Minister or any other person with access to such papers.

The lobbying by the Guardian and the Republican movement for the publication of Charles letters, aka 'the Spidery' letters, was to supposedly prove just this point. Needless to say, they did not and were on of the worst setbacks for Republicans for years.

His lobbying for things such as liveable spaces et al may enrage architects, etc. but it's not breaking the law.

His Super-lobbying Internationionally on behalf of the UK and various Commonwealth Nations for Wool production and such is laudable as well as effective.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything.
 
What greater risk does it run if the Heir doesn't know about the dealings of the country/kingdom?
 
A lengthy delay at the time of the accession while the heir is brought up to date as the new Head of State. He/she can't be expected to carry on with government business when they have no idea what is going on.


In the US, I believe, from the time of the election in early November until the inauguration in late January the President Elect is kept informed of decisions etc as is the Vice-President. Imagine that when the next President is inaugurated in January 2017 he/she then has to find out what is actually happening in the country having been kept out of the loop until after the actual swearing in ceremony - that would take quite some time to get up to speed.


Charles is the next Head of State and could be called up in a heart-beat - he needs to have the information at his fingertips - just as the Vice-President does or the next elected President after the election.


Common sense really that the next Head of State, when known, is ready to take over when that situation arises.
 
Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, has defended the controversial veto which allows ministers to block secrets being released under freedom of information laws.

The Government’s senior law officer said powers under the Freedom of Information Act to block the release of material are an appropriate “measure of last resort”.

But it was “plainly wrong” that only judges could decide what was and was not in the public interest to release under the Act, he suggested.

...In a speech to the University College London law faculty Mr Wright said: “This ‘veto’ has been used very sparingly – only seven times since 2005.

“The veto is a measure of last resort to ensure that sensitive information is not released in circumstances in which the Government considers that it would be against the public interest to do so.”
Click to expand...
Read more: Prince Charles' black spider letters veto defended by Attorney General Jeremy Wright - Telegraph
 
Good news

The Government has won a taxpayer-funded legal battle to keep details of discussions between Prince Charles and ministers confidential.

Charles met with the then housing minister Greg Clark and then transport minister John Hayes at Clarence House in 2014.

Papers detailing their discussions will remain confidential, after the Government won an appeal last week against a previous ruling from the Information Commissioner that it would be “in the public interest” to release them, according to the Mail on Sunday.
Click to expand...
Read more: UK Government wins right to keep secret talks between ministers and Prince Charles confidential | UK Politics | News | The Independent
 
The release of the Chilcott report has got me thinking: that as much as people complained about the spider memos C was correct about the problems of the army being undersupplied and badly lead. P Will and the rest of the RF were 100% correct in snubbing Blair by not inviting him to the wedding - hopefully Charles will find a good excuse to never give Blair the Garter - a political intervention we can all agree with!
 
:previous: Regarding the wedding invitations, I understood that former PM Major and the late PM Thatcher were invited as they were appointed as additional guardians to Prince William and Prince Harry after their parents divorce and their mother's death. In fact it might have occurred during PM Blair's term.
 
No, Cameron was PM by 2011. Official reason was that Major was a guardian, Thatcher was not but she was invited for the sake of form, PW hates Blair as do the rest of the RF for a vaierty of good reasons (Diana, Iraq, Cherie, the hunting ban, just being Tony etc...). Official protocol reason was that M and Th were KG/LG and Blair and Brown aren't (Yet - Brown will prob be K Th in time). So Brown wasn't invited either for reasons of form - and well its Gordy Brown, what can I say? I do recall that the decision to keep Tony and Gordy off the guest list was very popular with the public at the time though.
 
Last edited:
Lets get back on topic - this thread relates to whether Prince Charles is being political, not who and who wasn't invited to the Royal Wedding and certainly not what members of the Royal Family think of politicians. Thank you.
 
:previous: I find this compelling...
"The only serious privilege he wields is over the Duchy of Cornwall, where his special pleading to Whitehall is no different from that of any landowner. He runs a decent art college and a worthy foundation, which espouse his range of interests. But this hardly endangers the stability of the state. Indeed, the running message of the black spider letters is not potency but a plaintive sigh of woe at a world going to the dogs. The causes long known as dear to the prince’s heart are organic farming, alternative medicine, opposing GM foods, global warming and traditional architecture. There are strong opinions but no political partisanship in his interventions. The one topic on which he is said to exert unfair influence is over modern architecture" Simon Jenkins (see previous for link).
I know the worry is let him have an inch and he will take a mile in politics, but I could argue what Prince George wears, that Harry got an Aids test and that the family supports English teams more than UK/commonwealth teams has more social influence than the spider memos ever could. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HRHHermione
Meet Ella: The Dog Who Saved My Life by James Middleton
Replies
14
Views
2K
HRHHermione
HRHHermione
Somebody
Earning a living as a non-full time royal
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Silverpot
Silverpot
L
Prince William of Gloucester
Replies
3
Views
1K
RabbitRabbit
R
Marengo
  • Sticky
Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of Charles III
Replies
11
Views
624
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Toledo
Prince Paul Phillippe of Romania, just arrested in Malta
Replies
5
Views
2K
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom