Advanced search

Why is Prince Charles being criticised?

(64 Posts)
HappydaysArehere Thu 14-May-15 18:59:34

when I studied the British Constitution some years ago, I remembered the monarch was able a) to be consulted b) to encourage and c) to warn. I therefore do not agree that the Queen or Prince Charles should remain tight lipped and incapable of expressing a point of view. Whether the Government chooses to take any notice is another thing. From what I have seen Prince Charles is showing integrity and a caring, dutiful approach to his role as the monarch in waiting. If he did nothing but sit around as an empty head he would then be criticised for being useless.

frumpet Thu 14-May-15 20:12:35

Did you watch the clip on BBC news this morning with scary handbag , microphone grabbing lady ????

ajandjjmum Thu 14-May-15 20:14:24

Because he's Prince Charles, and that alone makes some people hate him.

lalalonglegs Thu 14-May-15 20:14:49

The precedent set by his mother is one of utter impartiality. Charles was believed to have tried to use his influence to coerce government ministers in potentially political matters. When the letters were published, however, they seemed rather unsensational. Storm and teacup.

Pico2 Thu 14-May-15 20:16:02

His opinions on alternative medicine demonstrate the type of thinker he is. Why would we want someone like that encouraging the government to waste money? What makes his views any more important than another member of the public?

wreckingball Thu 14-May-15 20:29:32

Because some of us think the a monarchy is an anachronism, a throw back to a time when people weren't very well educated and thought the King was next to God.
Some people would prefer to actually elect their own HoS rather than continue to have a family whose children are born to be heads of state and have no merit or qualification for the job.
Prince Charles is a mediocre man who has waited his entire life for a job he sees as his entitlement.
That's my opinion.

caroldecker Thu 14-May-15 20:31:21

None of his views/comments in the letters show anything he has not said publically. I would blame the ministers for being persuaded by him.

EdithWeston Thu 14-May-15 20:32:45

ajandjjmum Fri 15-May-15 07:53:48

Entitlement or duty?

Tanith Fri 15-May-15 11:12:12

Complete damp squib, imo.

I did fleetingly become interested when they said PC uses extensive underlining - reminded me of another poster on these boards wink

Now they've been published, I can see the style and content is quite different!

TeiTetua Fri 15-May-15 14:40:24

He ought to respond, "We shall attempt to be more humble."

KingCrimson Fri 15-May-15 14:44:22

Mumsnet, I think you've boobed with the new title you've given this thread in the "In the news" section ( Prince Charles criticised for impartiality ).

Surely he's being criticised for not being impartial?

Charis1 Sat 16-May-15 07:13:23

Prince charles is entitled to write to who ever he want s and express and opinion he wants, ( within the law) - as are all of us, why should he be any different?

cdtaylornats Sat 16-May-15 10:44:57

I think the big advantage of the monarch over an elected head of state are first; being unelected they have no political agenda which means they can advise when needed to by the head of government. At some time in her life the Queen has met virtually every powerful politician on the planet and most of the most powerful non-politicians - its an incredible resource.

Secondly she gives the head of government someone to unburden too, knowing the conversation is private and will remain so. Other heads of government may have therapists or advisers, but with a therapist there may be a change of allegiance, with an adviser they are already tainted with the same political shade as the person they advise.

Alexandpea Sat 16-May-15 10:46:42

He went up in my opinion after this.

ravenmum Sat 16-May-15 13:50:04

Yep, he's being criticised for partiality.

Theycallmemellowjello Sat 16-May-15 14:00:08

The three functions you refer to, OP, come from the analysis of Bagehot, a mid nineteenth century constitutional scholar. Not all nineteenth century constitutional scholars agreed with his analysis and as you might imagine, scholarship and the constitution have both moved on in the last c. 160 years. As we have no written constitution, much of the constitution of England is convention. And the convention of Elizabeth's reign has been monarchial impartiality. You can agree or disagree with this, but a change in this convention would in real terms be a change in the constitution. So people are very much entitled to discuss and if they wish criticise this.

Millymollymama Sat 16-May-15 16:05:59

I think this is an important constitutional issue. Interestingly Ruth Kelly as Education Minister took 2 months to reply to him in a non committal way. Other people, unfortunately, fawn and scrape at his interventions. He has tried to advance his favoured projects, eg homeopathy, and thereby asking for a change to NHS funding. He has also interfered with the planning process by writing directly to the Quatari Royal Family who then withdrew their plans for a major development Charles did not like. He has real form in this going back years. It has also cost £385,000 to fight the freedom to publish these letters. If they were so benign, why fight the Guardian over publishing?

The big, big, problem is that now he has a taste for interfering, can he stop? Lots of commentators think not, hence the constitutional problem outlined above. I bet if you or I had written to the Quatari Royal Family about their plans, they would have not only ignored us, I bet we would not even have got a reply. Would you even know where to write? It circumvents the agreed planning system and Charles is not an "ordinary" citizen. Far from it. He knows he has power and influence and he uses it. It is wrong and it is not fair because those who disagree with him, other than his Mother and Government Ministers, have less power. He needs to accept that he represents everybody. Those who agree with him and those that don't. That is the role of the monarch. If he continues like this, he will be divisive and William will not thank him for it.

sourdrawers Sat 16-May-15 16:18:39

The letters simply reflect Charlie's interests and passions. Most people are already pretty well aware of them and it's all a bit of a non-event it seems to me. As out-of-touch and hypocritical Charles obviously is, I find it fascinating that the moment someone (whoever he is) criticises the govt on it's lack of action on the environment and questions other policies, the media come out to brand that person a crank and an egotist.

And I say this as a committed British republican..

Jebel Sat 16-May-15 16:23:43

I agree with carol decker, ministers and Tony Blair were the ones who chose to listen to him. I think he is entitled to an opinion and to write letters like the rest of us, our elected officers should show more judgment.

HappydaysArehere Sat 16-May-15 19:16:48

Thecallmeyellowmellowjello....thank you for reminding me about Bagehot. You are correct I am sure. However, although the Queen certainly appears impartial, who knows what is said, or has been said, during those many years of meetings with the Prime Ministers of the day! I have always hoped that she would express displeasure if events were thought not to be in the country's interest. The Constitution is certainly a fascinating subject and likely to contain many props upon which various opinions can be established.
Thanks again........still thinking.

grimbletart Sat 16-May-15 21:46:05

The Guardian must have been well pissed off to find out that all the scandal they were hoping for was just, well, boring.

Springtimemama Sat 16-May-15 21:53:13

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BlossomTang Sat 16-May-15 22:07:07

He needs to remember what happened to his namesake Charles 1 when he claimed to rule by the divine right of Kings.

toothlessoldhag Sun 17-May-15 07:38:14

He is being criticised because of his undue influence outside of the political process. See this blog by on his involvement in attempting to derail EU scrutiny of herbal 'medicines' etc.:

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now