And on the issue of whether this affects his chances of becoming king, I think it does affect them negatively, but practically speaking there will be two options here. 1. He is bypassed in favour of William who is, and will continue to be, a voiceless puppet like his grandmother, and thus will retain the popularity of the monarchy, ensuring their continued existence for a long time to come. 2. Charles becomes king and continues to try to influence politics and public opinion on the range of issues he happens to have a personal interest in. This will take the monarchy into a new, and very dangerous, period of completely unacceptable interference with our democratic structures. And what will anyone be able to do about it? They need to go now.

The first is that of celebrities speaking out on issues that they don’t know much about. Whether we instinctively agree with Charles or not, he did not put forward any evidence to substantiate his claims and seemed to be confused on a few issues (one example being the Green Revolution crops he mentions – not GM at all, but conventional cross-breeding). This is a real problem for anyone who wants a genuine, open debate on GM. I accept, though, that there are many celebrities who do similar things – Madonna or Bono, for example.

But what makes Charles different to every other celebrity who speaks out on political issues is that he wants to become our Head of State. Can we really expect a person with such trenchant views not to try and influence Government policy?

Some may feel he is doing good, some may feel he is causing great harm. By taking a stand on a contentious issue he has proved he is incapable of the political neutrality being monarch demands. That’s fine, it’s certainly given republicans a boost! As I said in my post, Charles should become a full-time campaigner and give up any claim to a consitutional role.

Yes, he can influence issues, that’s the problem. He is ‘famous’ only because of the public office we’ve bizarrely guaranteed him when his mum dies. He can’t be held to account for his views or actions, he can’t be defeated in an election if we object to his views, he can’t be sacked or impeached. From that privileged and untouchable position he could theoretically launch wave after wave of attacks on government policy, completely undermining the democratic process. If he came out in favour of GM food would you support his right to speak out?

In fact, he should be able to speak out, but as a private citizen with no claim to public office… unless he is elected and therefore accountable for his views and actions.