This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/26/activist-king-or-apolitical-britain-charles-decide

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
An activist king or an apolitical one? Now Britain, and Charles, must decide An activist king or an apolitical one? Now Britain, and Charles, must decide
(about 3 hours later)
The time has finally come for Prince Charles to put his cards on the table. As preparations for his kingship gather pace, it has become clear that the 66-year-old heir wants to rule in a far more outspoken way than the taciturn Queen. He plans “heartfelt interventions” in national life, whisper allies. “A quiet constitutional revolution is afoot,” said his friend and biographer, Jonathan Dimbleby.The time has finally come for Prince Charles to put his cards on the table. As preparations for his kingship gather pace, it has become clear that the 66-year-old heir wants to rule in a far more outspoken way than the taciturn Queen. He plans “heartfelt interventions” in national life, whisper allies. “A quiet constitutional revolution is afoot,” said his friend and biographer, Jonathan Dimbleby.
Now the supreme court’s historic decision to order publication of his “advocacy” correspondence with ministers means that the public are about to get their hands on the best hard evidence yet of just what Charles’s new deal might mean: an activist king, fuelled by a belief that he speaks for the disenfranchised in society, speaking what he is sure is truth to power. Now the supreme court’s historic decision to order publication of his “advocacy” correspondence with ministers means that the public are about to get their hands on the best hard evidence yet of what Charles’s new deal might mean: an activist king, fuelled by a belief that he speaks for the disenfranchised in society, speaking what he is sure is truth to power.
Public reaction to the letters will mean everything and the stakes are high. The former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, warned publication would damage the prince’s political neutrality, which would “seriously undermine [his] ability to fulfil his duties when he becomes king”. Public reaction to the letters will mean everything and the stakes are high. The former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, warned that publication would damage the prince’s political neutrality, which would “seriously undermine [his] ability to fulfil his duties when he becomes king”.
The 27 missives were sent between Charles and ministers in Whitehall departments ranging from business to farming and health. Do they contain demands on fox hunting, complementary medicine and traditional architecture? Is this something truly explosive? We don’t yet know. What is clear is that, after the judges ruled, a royal aide was quick to suggest Clarence House was “relaxed” about the letters’ publication. Perhaps Charles is hopeful his messages will play well with the public, so that he might win their approval and escape the shackles of political neutrality that underpin Grieve’s thinking about how a monarch should behave. Some observers believe the winds are blowing in Charles’s favour.The 27 missives were sent between Charles and ministers in Whitehall departments ranging from business to farming and health. Do they contain demands on fox hunting, complementary medicine and traditional architecture? Is this something truly explosive? We don’t yet know. What is clear is that, after the judges ruled, a royal aide was quick to suggest Clarence House was “relaxed” about the letters’ publication. Perhaps Charles is hopeful his messages will play well with the public, so that he might win their approval and escape the shackles of political neutrality that underpin Grieve’s thinking about how a monarch should behave. Some observers believe the winds are blowing in Charles’s favour.
“I used to think it would be fatal for Charles to depart from impartiality, but two recent events have made me rethink,” said Robert Lacey, the royal historian. “When he intervened to call for action over the flooding in 2014, there was a positive public response, and on his trip to Saudi Arabia he raised the case of the blogger Raif Badawi who was threatened with 1,000 lashes. He got a result and the man has not been beaten since. That again was well received by the British public.”“I used to think it would be fatal for Charles to depart from impartiality, but two recent events have made me rethink,” said Robert Lacey, the royal historian. “When he intervened to call for action over the flooding in 2014, there was a positive public response, and on his trip to Saudi Arabia he raised the case of the blogger Raif Badawi who was threatened with 1,000 lashes. He got a result and the man has not been beaten since. That again was well received by the British public.”
Royal aides and Downing Street will monitor public reaction closely. In January, a poll by YouGov found that 54% of people believe it is “appropriate for the prince to speak out about issues he feels strongly about”, while 34% think he should keep quiet.Royal aides and Downing Street will monitor public reaction closely. In January, a poll by YouGov found that 54% of people believe it is “appropriate for the prince to speak out about issues he feels strongly about”, while 34% think he should keep quiet.
But even if his messages please some, there will be a powerful backlash from enemies of both Charles and the monarchy, at Westminster and beyond. Paul Flynn MP has suggested that any question about Charles’s neutrality could trigger a groundswell of opinion in favour of Prince William leapfrogging his father to the throne. Already 31% of people would prefer to see William become the next king, according to YouGov.But even if his messages please some, there will be a powerful backlash from enemies of both Charles and the monarchy, at Westminster and beyond. Paul Flynn MP has suggested that any question about Charles’s neutrality could trigger a groundswell of opinion in favour of Prince William leapfrogging his father to the throne. Already 31% of people would prefer to see William become the next king, according to YouGov.
Certainly every nuance of the would-be king’s views will be debated in public forums, along with his right to express them – all when palace spin doctors would prefer to be focusing on the imminent arrival of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s second child – a more serene, if more bland, vision of the monarchy’s future. Certainly every nuance of the would-be king’s views will be debated in public forums, along with his right to express them, all when palace spin doctors would prefer to be focusing on the imminent arrival of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s second child – a more serene, if more bland, vision of the monarchy’s future.
People will be watching to see if the action taken is in line with what is thought to be his viewPeople will be watching to see if the action taken is in line with what is thought to be his view
Michael Meacher, the former environment secretary whom Charles lobbied over genetically modified crops, suggested that if King Charles wanted to intervene, an unprecedented new system of transparency about his communications with government would be required.Michael Meacher, the former environment secretary whom Charles lobbied over genetically modified crops, suggested that if King Charles wanted to intervene, an unprecedented new system of transparency about his communications with government would be required.
“I would favour the arrangement whereby, if letters are received, it is made known – either in response to a freedom of information request or without prompting, so people will know if the king has taken an interest,” he said. “People will be watching to see if the action taken is in line with what is thought to be his view … People are sceptical and suspicious, and they have a right to know if the king has taken an interest.”“I would favour the arrangement whereby, if letters are received, it is made known – either in response to a freedom of information request or without prompting, so people will know if the king has taken an interest,” he said. “People will be watching to see if the action taken is in line with what is thought to be his view … People are sceptical and suspicious, and they have a right to know if the king has taken an interest.”
The cache will tell another story too: that far from being a hobbyist meddler, the prince has been engaged in systematic and extensive lobbying of ministers.The cache will tell another story too: that far from being a hobbyist meddler, the prince has been engaged in systematic and extensive lobbying of ministers.
Republic, the campaign group for an elected head of state, thinks the letters will expose Charles “as a serious political force rather than as apolitical and harmless”, meaning that more people will question his right to reign.Republic, the campaign group for an elected head of state, thinks the letters will expose Charles “as a serious political force rather than as apolitical and harmless”, meaning that more people will question his right to reign.
In Charles’s favour, publication of his memos coincides with important changes to the monarch’s role in politics that could allay fears about an activist king. Adam Tomkins, professor of constitutional law at Glasgow University, said revisions to guidelines for dealing with a hung parliament ensure that the monarch will not be placed in a position to decide who rules. Add to that the effect of fixed-term parliaments, which takes away any remaining discretion the monarchy might have had over parliamentary dissolution, and, Tomkins said, “the Crown has much less power than they ever did”, meaning “Charles can afford to be a more politically active monarch that the Queen has been”. In Charles’s favour, publication of his memos coincides with important changes to the monarch’s role in politics that could allay fears about an activist king. Adam Tomkins, a professor of constitutional law at Glasgow University, said revisions to guidelines for dealing with a hung parliament ensure that the monarch will not be placed in a position to decide who rules.
Add to that fixed-term parliaments, which take away any remaining discretion the monarchy might have had over parliamentary dissolution, and, Tomkins said, “the crown has much less power than they ever did”, meaning “Charles can afford to be a more politically active monarch that the Queen has been”.
The greatest test yet of Charles’s acceptability to the British people as their future monarch is about to begin.The greatest test yet of Charles’s acceptability to the British people as their future monarch is about to begin.