13 Aug 2008
As you’ve probably heard by now, Prince Charles has been proselytising against GM food. Even the BBC have described this latest outburst as “extreme.”
Whatever your views on GM food (and I know there are a range of these within our membership), we must be clear about one thing: it is entirely inappropriate for a monarch-in-waiting to be publicly expressing any kind of political opinion. This is especially significant when Charles is being critical of current Government policy.
But this isn’t the first time Charles has actively tried to influence policy. He is known to regularly write letters to Government departments pronouncing on a whole range of issues. While his mother may have been able to fool people into believing the monarch is an apolitical figure, Charles has demonstrated that he isn’t capable – or willing – to do the same.
If Charles wants to be a monarch he can’t speak out on political issues. He could be a much more effective campaigner if he gave up his ambition to become our Head of State and rejected the monarchy completely.
With his 60th birthday coming up, now would be the perfect time to renounce the ‘throne’ once and for all. He could spend the next two or three decades fighting for what he believes in, perhaps even putting himself forward for election.
So, while most comment sites are asking the question “Do you agree with Charles?”, I’ll put a different one to you:
“Have Charles’ comments affected his chances of becoming our Head of State?”
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, August 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm and is filed under Politicians, Prince Charles, Public opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
August 14th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Richard, would you say that if his views were less palatable?
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.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I suppose there are two issues here, really.
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.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Richard, I really have to disagree with you on this. I think that Charles has just made the anti-GM argument look like it is an opinion only held by crackpots. And after all, even if you feel he is right about this, what does he actually know about it? He is a self-appointed expert whose work on this issue could only begin and end with this sort of poorly-informed ranting.
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.