Nick Cohen is fed up with Charles Windsor’s meddling. He starts by pointing out that however dull the current queen may be, she does have the virtue of not meddling with the government.
The palace and the politicians expect a smooth succession to the reign of Charles III, even though he is a man who has spent his life demonstrating how woefully unqualified he is to be a constitutional king. A small measure of his failure lies in the BBC’s decision to postpone and possibly ban Reinventing the Royals, which
itwas due to be shown tonight. I can just about understand why Prince Charles wanted to stop a documentary about the PR tactics he employed to recover his reputation after the death of Princess Diana. It would have made him look like a politician running for office rather than an heir apparent, who expects to become sovereign of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth states by the modern equivalent of divine right.
…But, come on, this is the BBC, whose deference before crown and altar is an embarrassment. Reinventing the Royals is a straight documentary. Any intelligent PR would have told Charles to ignore the programme. Unfortunately, you never see intelligence and our future sovereign in the same room. True to form, the prince’s “people” have gone ape and turned a routine documentary into a cause celebre.
The affair shows what anyone who raises their eyes from the floor in the presence of royalty already knows. The future Charles III expects to be heeded, not scrutinised, and above all he expects to intervene in politics with a regularity and partisanship his mother never dared imitate or, as far as we know, ever wanted to imitate either.
Annnnnnd…he’s not supposed to do that.
But “supposed” is the operative word – it’s not possible to use anything stronger, because the UK doesn’t have a written constitution. Apparently this means that however not supposed to he is, Charles can carry right on acting like a real future king with real powers.
There’s no secret. His aides have announced that King Charles will “reshape the monarch’s role” and make “heartfelt interventions”.
Couldn’t he just become a third Koch brother instead?
A by no means exhaustive list of his political interventions includes: health – he forced ministers to listen to his gormless support for homeopathic treatments and every other variety of charlatanism and quackery; defence – he protested against cuts in the armed forces; justice – he complained about ordinary people’s access to law, or as he put it: “I dread the very real and growing prospect of an American-style personal injury culture”; political correctness – he opposes equality as I suppose a true royal must; GM foods – he thinks they’re dangerous, regardless of evidence; modern architecture – he’s against; and eco-towns – he’s for, as long as he has a say in their design.
He abuses his absurd and antiquated power. He has no shame, no modesty, no sense that he is not wise or clever, no awareness that his position is entirely arbitrary and unconnected to real merit or talent or utility.
After four generations of telling the British that the monarchy is a unifying force “above politics”, politicians do not even trouble to pretend that Charles III is anything other than a “player” with his own manifesto and prejudices. When the former attorney general Dominic Grieve tried to stop the Guardian finding out how the prince lobbies, he did not say that a neutral royal should be left alone. On the contrary, he said that the prince’s letters to ministers expressed his “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and were in “many cases particularly frank”. They must be kept secret because publication would destroy the illusion of a royal neutrality no one in power thinks exists any more.
The UK needs an Edward Snowden. It needs someone to get all the letters to ministers by whatever means necessary and publish the fuck out of them.
As I said
‘Where are John Bradshaw, Lord Grey, Oliver Cromwell and all when you need them??’
Anyone got an axe?
@3 richardelguru: beware of your wishes.
The British have already proven they can’t handle republicanism – falling into Puritan theocracy just as Iraq-Syria is currently.
Someone might want to run this through a bit of reality check. Ordinary people have access to the law in the US??!!!! And ‘personal injury culture’ is what you need when the only way to get any kind of social support is to have blame legally assigned to someone else. It is however true that Charlie-boy is as thick as a brick and completely out of order.
krambc@ 2 –
Weren’t those Puritans approximately the same group that eventually wandered off to found the United States?
While we’re royal-knocking, I heard a wonderful (but possibly apocryphal) anecdote on an old QI last night:
The more things change…….
@ krambc You have a point, so maybe we just need to do it to the odd-numbered Charleses? (I mean II wasn’t too bad…I mean not incredibly too bad…)
As a UK citizen, I don’t mind who the next head of state is, so long as I have a vote in their election.
By the way, I refuse to consider myself a “subject”, which is my technical role under the constitutional arrangements of GB&NI.
Incidentally, and something not many people this side of the pond realise, the monarch can veto any legislative proposals which are contrary to their personal or family’s interests.
See, for example, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
Sorry this is better here than in the previous post:
@krambc: Yup, it’s just that he is such an upper-class-twit-of-the-year and then some….I think that the high point of my opinion of him came when he performed in a dustbin during a Cambridge Footlights review (I think doing something from the Goons—it was a loooong time ago), 1969!
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-1969-prince-charles-as-student-at-cambridge-university-in-a-dustbin-319909.html
If Charles becomes king and he increases his meddling, it might backfire on him. People may realize that having a king is too much of an annoyance. Do British people still want a monarchy?
I get that this blog is proudly republican (in the real meaning of the word). But, honestly, picking on old Charles? It feels kind of like kicking the mad aunt when she comes down from the attic for breakfast. Yeah, so he writes to politicians when he shouldn’t. In this country (USA) that could be a problem given the slavishness of Congress. Somehow I see the Brits withstanding it easily. I see the ministers rolling their eyes when they get another screed with the Prince’s seal on it. Charles doesn’t matter in a very fundamental way. He doesn’t seem worthy of your steel.
Never mind. I looked it up and it does look like the British people want a monarchy. Although, from what I read, it looks they don’t want Charles.
Couldn’t he just become a third Koch brother instead?
He’s not smart enough, unless the Koch brothers were looking to hire a court jester.
quixote – I used to take that view, more or less. But then I learned about his interventions on behalf of woo medicine, including talking dangerous bullshit in newspaper columns, and I changed my mind. I realized how appalling it is that he uses his position to talk dangerous bullshit in newspaper columns, and that he’s not just harmlessly “the mad aunt” in the attic. His medical advice could kill. He has no medical qualifications. He should shut up. Instead he uses his power to keep talking. It’s terrible.
quixote – You should read the link at #7 that Patrick posted. These people aren’t just powerless figureheads.
@3 Pen
“Weren’t those Puritans approximately the same group that eventually wandered off to found the United States?”
Yes, England in the 17th century was a relatively tolerant society, the Puritans didn’t leave England to escape religious persecution but to establish their own little theocracy.
As the monarch isn’t supposed to actually do anything, there’s no reason for them to actually be alive. Why not retain the present queen in perpetuity?
sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d
Splendid idea!
sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d @16
That system works in North Korea. The Great Leader Kim Il-sung is still legally president even though he died 20 years ago. His son, the Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, is the Eternal Secretary General of the Workers Party of Korea and Eternal Chairman of the National Defence Commission despite dying in 2011.
Not being a lawyer (nor an attorney, nor a barrister, not even a solicitor), I pass along without review the following which I was provided back in the year ’10 by a limey calling himself Donalbain to back the claim that he, and all his ilk, could claim citizenship rather than mere subjection:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810061_en_1
Shades of the second installment of the original “House of Cards” series, ‘To Play The King.’ I can surely see Cameron as Francis Urquhart, only this (potential) king (so obviously referenced in ‘TPTK’) strikes me as just as dangerous as the PM.
(If one has not watched Ian Richardson play the wonderfully loathsome FU, one’s life is incomplete.)
Admittedly, he has more of a platform than, say, me, or even you. Still, I never met a Brit while I was living in London who didn’t consider him a dork. And I was never aware of him having any actual effect on policies, although I could have easily missed something. I don’t pay all that much attention to him, what with the dorkiness and all. The loopy aristocrat spouting BS in newspapers (“I shall write a letter to the Times!”) is a bit of a tradition in England.
Chuckles is just a couple of weeks younger than I. Same generation, different universe. He oughtn’t to be allowed out without whiteface, oversize shoes, and a spherical red nose.
serious JAQ
What happens if Chuck dies before Liz?
That was nearly 400 years ago. Things have changed a little in the interim.
Then the succession passes to the next in line, which is currently his son William.
@quixote, 21:
And that’s the way he wanted it, that’s the way it’s going to stay.
@chigau, 23:
The first thing that happens is everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Probably the next thing is Liz abdicates (and even if she doesn’t, dies before very long anyway, she’s 88) and William becomes king. And since he’s the son of the Queen of All Our Hearts® and not vocally a nutbar, everyone will love him. And since he has an excellent stick to beat the press with (“You lot killed my mum” – he’s never said it, but he’s never had to), he will have a lifetime of privacy almost guaranteed, and the monarchy will continue. For the royal family as an institution, Brian predeceasing Brenda is the absolute best of all possible worlds, so much so that it wouldn’t suprise me if “they” bump him off like they did Diana /tinfoilhatalert/.
When I say we should appoint the Loch Ness Monster, I’m only half joking. Think of the tourism! (For those outside the UK, “tourism” is the one of the main justifications usually trotted out for retaining the monarchy. Yes, really.)
Yeah – the Puritans left England and established themselves a theocratic republic somewhere else. AND they were clever enough to put “separation of church and state” into their constitution, so it all looks above board – but they’d elect a serial killer before they’d elect an atheist. Meanwhile, with an established Church, England is for practical purposes one of the most secular societies on the planet, where an actually religious Prime Minister had to conceal his religious leanings for fear of being considered a bit dim. “We don’t do God”, said his press secretary. He “came out” as religious only after he had resigned. Funny old world…
@ sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d
“Why not retain the present queen in perpetuity?”
That’s one of my favourite Doctor Who episodes..’The Pirate Planet’: from back in Tom Baker days, and written by Douglas Adams!!1
Trouble is they had to steal planet,s and squish them REALLY small, to do it
@ sonofrojblake
“Yeah – the Puritans left England and established themselves a theocratic republic somewhere else. AND they were clever enough to put “separation of church and state” into their constitution, so it all looks above board”
The Puritans were not at all into the separation of Church and State, but I’m sure that when it did come to writing the Constitution (couple of hundred years after them) looking back at those evil bastards was a big part of wanting it.
And parliament could choose to repeal or change the powers granted under the Royal Assent Act, which is the root of the courtesy granted to seek royal consent on legislation which directly affects the Sovereign.
The fact is that the Queen has always been guided by the advice of her government – including on the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill. That was vetoed because the government of the day didn’t want to have to win a majority vote before going to war.
There is no actual veto, unless the Monarch chose to resist parliament by refusing Royal Assent, which would surely shortly precede the end of the Monarchy in Britain. This apparent veto is only available because democratically elected politicians choose, out of convenience to Government, to allow it.
DOXXXING!!!!!!! /sarcasm
Everybody cheers?
Okay, seriously. According to teh wikis, next in line would be Prince William. I’m not sure if this changes if Charles dies before taking the throne, so that the title instead passes to his brother, Prince Andrew.
A bit of poking hasn’t given an answer. Does anyone know?
@33: Yes, William is next in line no matter what happens. In order for Andrew to take the throne, all of Charles’ descendants would have to die as well.
I think that a majority would swear allegiance to their families first and foremost – it would require a huge popular swing to elect a leftist socialist government, so they’d be taking aim at their own friends and families.
I think that a majority of royalists in the UK hold so because they know that the Queen holds or exercises little power – I’m not sure that there is much of a hardcore who would like to see the Monarch wield power. Charles likes to think of himself as a defender of causes and leader of opinion, so I imagine that he would be more likely to bore the country into submission by speaking at length and on every available forum for the need to preserve the status quo. A couple of months of condescending explanation would be more effective than any number of rifles – actually, I might join the queues to be shot first.
Yes! Prince George and the royal bean (when ze arrives) are both before Andrew. If they don’t survive this notional catastrophe, I’m not sure whether King Henry IX would be the most astute monarch, but the Royal Garden Parties would be interesting…
@LykeX, 33: “Does anyone know?”
Yes. Did you read post 24? Or post 25?
@Bernard Bumner, 30 & 36:
And that is precisely the sort of poor judgement Brian has form for displaying. He’s flexed his muscles to block the broadcast of a BBC programme critical of him, and on paper he doesn’t even have the power to do that. The entirely predicatable PR disaster which followed was obviously of little concern to him. What makes you think he’d even hesitate to block legislation he had a problem with, given that he HAS that power?
Indeed. I believe I already said as much, here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/01/more-secrecy-for-the-royals/#comments
In the event of said notional catastrophe, the question of his true parentage would surely have to be settled first… http://melchettmike.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/harry.jpg
He probably didn’t have to flex very much – James Harding apparently has a history of trying to spike investigations which may damage the BBC. Private Eye reported that he tried to block the investigation into Comic Relief in 2013.
Using the threat of this veto to block Private Members Bills from reaching the floor of the Commons is one thing, but vetoing a government bill would be practically impossible, and refusing assent to an Act of Parliament is much more serious. George V considered it in response to the use of the Parliament Act to pass the Home Rule Act, but of course that was after the Lords three-times rejected it. No monarch has withheld assent in the past 300 years.
This veto is currently being used because the government wishes it, not simply because royals demand it.
I hadn’t seen your comment, but you’re largely correct. The only thing I think you missed there is the ability of the public to tolerate Charles because they see William (as Diana’s boy and very much the Queen’s grandson) as a fitting future King. I think that many people would put up with a few tens of years of King Chuckles to see William end war, disease, hunger, and poverty.
I’m sure that such a national tragedy would require unity and solidarity, not sensational and unfounded chattering about a War Hero prince. Or something like.
Besides, how would Jeremy Kyle even get the DNA samples?
Re: DNA samples: I’d be prepared to bet folding money that the test in question has already been done, at least once.
Obtaining a usable sample from either party would be trivially easy for a tabloid journalist. There are only two possible outcomes:
1. Hewitt’s not the daddy = no story, so we never find out they even bothered.
2. Hewitt IS the daddy = earth-shattering, on one level, but also utterly non-news given the existence of William, George and the soon-to-be other one. Career suicide, and if you believe the conspiracy theorists also potentially ACTUAL suicide for anyone involved, if it got out. Who would risk it?
No-one would dare to take on our Lizard Overlords.
I don’t know whether the test has been done, but I would expect that independent testing could easily disprove any test showing Hewitt to be the daddy, and that it would indeed end the career of said journalist.
Shortly before they disappeared into the gaping maw of HRH Komodo Dragon.
@sonofrojblake #39
FWIW, I’ve always thought that Harry so obviously resembled the Spencer side of his ancestry that the continued rumours were simply malicious mischief-making. Diana was not the world’s cleverest woman, but she was clever enough not to give birth to a child that wasn’t unquestionably sired by her husband. What she got up to once the heir and the spare had been supplied as per dynastic expectations was a different matter.
Incidentally, given the speculation about Charles’s intentions when or if he becomes king, there’s a much-praised play on in London- King Charles III. of course- appropriately in blank verse, which depicts him trying to apply his principles when required to accede to measures he disapproves of.