If we're going to have an institution as outdated and undemocratic as the monarcy, it's essential they stay completely removed from politics. So badgering ministers constantly - it's been revealed this has been going on for years - using the influence of your unearned, inherited title to advance political causes is a bit of a no-no.

As far as I understood it, he was just writing to MPs about stuff that he felt was important, which more of us should do to enable politicians to better understand what the voters think. Of course, Charles doesn't vote (as far as I know) and so this may not be a good thing for him to get involved in but I understand he has been bringing some minority issues to MPs notice. Someone like him can talk to the press about this stuff though, rather than being all shady about it.

I think it was fine for him to write to MP's - after all, he has as much right to express his feelings as any of us. And being in the public eye, shouldn't really make a difference. It isn't like he slated Labour over the papers (although it has happened now due to a leak) which he could have easily done, instead he wrote private letters

---

by Ferretgirl
I think it was fine for him to write to MP's - after all, he has as much right to express his feelings as any of us. And being in the public eye, shouldn't really make a difference. It isn't like he slated Labour over the papers (although it has happened now due to a leak) which he could have easily done, instead he wrote private letters

---

The problem is, he's not like the rest of us - part of the reason the monarchy's been allowed to remain is because they stay completely impartal, so there can be no question of undue influence; his interferance has involved a whole raft of matters over the years apparently. The government's even started letting him veto hospital designs - can't really think how much closer you can get to unnesary indulgance!

If he wants to express his democratic rights, I think that's fine - but only if he give up his undemocratic position to do so.

(Edited by Byron 28/09/2002 22:55)

However, Charles is expressing a lot of the worries that I for one have and I suspect many people share.
Also, the fact that he is not a politician but a public figure makes him the ideal person to bring such matters up.

---

by Lori
I understand he has been bringing some minority issues to MPs notice. Someone like him can talk to the press about this stuff though, rather than being all shady about it.

---

Minority issues???? Like opposing the bans on hunting? As for some other 'issues' he has written about - i find it rather offensive that he has taken it on himself to write about issues he has little/no knowledge about i.e. urban regeneration in deprived areas.

As heir to the throne he should be impartial where politics is concerned and anyone who expesses the opinion that he is just taking an interest in issues that affect the 'common people' should ask them selves where his letters to Conservative ministers were when the miners strikes went ahead and when the country was protesting against the poll tax

www.urban75.com/Punch/charles.html

For those who would like to give their opinion about how fox-hunters are more oppressed than blacks and gays.

Let's see. Raving republican here, so just what will my opinion be... Oh yeah, don't care what he does as long as he is stripped of his archaic and elitist title and privileges.

To be more precise, as others have said, he is not just 'a public figure'. He is (in theory) the future King of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth. He is not a man without influence or power. Getting a letter from him is not like getting a letter from Jo Bloggs, it has far higher consequences and opportunities for reward. And as Byron has already said, the only reason this ridiculous farce of meritless privilege has been allowed to continue is that they do not interfere in the governance of the country. They are meant to be upholders of the unwritten constitution, and general tourist novelty act. They have no more business in general politics than, say, a civil servant...

It doesn't matter what he chooses to campaign for (although I happen to agree with him on the Hunting Ban, if not in some of the rhetoric). For a member of the royal family to involve themselves in politics of any form is an abuse of power and an invitation to corruption.

It's plain wrong. So stop it now!

---

by Jayjay
the only reason this ridiculous farce of meritless privilege has been allowed to continue

---

I think you and Byron should understand, no-one 'allows' them to remain, they are here as the monachy, which is not voted on or polled in, but decended by blood, since 1066.

I think being a public figure head means you, above all others, should use your influence to bring concerns of the people to the government. Diana, for all her flaws, used her name to get charities or causes noticed (even though most was so she was in the headlines). No-one can tell any citizen (and as far as I'm aware, Charles is still a citizen) he can't write to MPs.

What Charles did was legal, it was fair, the Government aka useless potato scks, screwed up, by leeking what Charles did. It only became a political problem when it was made public, their fault, they should live with it.

---

by KieranFrost
I think you and Byron should understand, no-one 'allows' them to remain, they are here as the monachy, which is not voted on or polled in, but decended by blood, since 1066.

---

Sorry mate, but you are historically and constitutionally inaccurate. The current brood of inbreds owe, in part, their privileged lifestyle to William of Orange usurping the British constitution to avoid a Catholic monarch. His abuse of power was achieved through marriage, not blood.

Further. Cromwell and the Parliamentarians deposed the monarchy during the civil war. A Monarch was allowed to return under strict rules. Prince Charles is clearly breaking those rules.

People died in their droves to liberate us from the tyranny of a feudal monarchy, even if the following commonwealth was sold out and replaced with a constitutional monarchy. I find it an insult to the memories of those who fought for our freedom to suggest "no-one 'allows' them to remain".

As for your other points, Prince Charles is not a citizen, but a constitutional head of state. He has no right to vote, and is forbidden from being involved in politics. As for the damage done, his attempt to influence parliament is cause for serious concern, as it is unconstitutional, and can encourage the corruption of our members of parliament (like they need the help...). As he is not a member of the electorate, he can only influence parliament through coercion - ie showing favour to certain politicians, say a peerage here, or just respectability through association with the monarchy.

Again I have to reiterate that being monarch, or even first in line to the throne, does not make you some mere 'public figure'. It makes you a very powerful and influential person. The slightest attempt to use that power and influence for your own ends or personal goals is not something that should be taken lightly. It is a degradation of our democracy, and I for one take that very seriously.

Jayjay
Ignoring whether Charles should/shouldn't... just asking a question.

---

by JayJay
makes you a very powerful and influential person.

---

I can't see how Charles is a powerful and influencial person, if he isn't allowed to be powerful and influencial.
If he can't express his opinion, how is he supposed to infulence anything?

His position means that he is able to exert power and influence over others, but our constitution, and the good of democracy, says that this should not be used for political ends.

Hence you can be powerful and influential without using your power and influence to affect parliament, which is the issue at hand.

---

Originally posted by KieranFrost
I think you and Byron should understand, no-one 'allows' them to remain, they are here as the monachy, which is not voted on or polled in, but decended by blood, since 1066.

---

JayJay has said most of what I'd reply to this above - no unbroken bloodline, the superiority of Parliament - but to add a further example of the monarchy's constitutional position, take the Bill of Rights 1688, which sets out the modern parliamentary system, and the monarchy's subordination to Parliament. It was read out at William and Mary's coronation in 1689, and every subsequent monarch has had to abide by it.

The monarchy may not be "allowed" by democratic elections, but it exists at Parliament's discretion. They could abolish the entire institution tomorrow in an all-night sitting if they so chose.

---

I think being a public figure head means you, above all others, should use your influence to bring concerns of the people to the government.

---

If the figure in question doesn't enjoy an undemocratic constitutional position, by all means.

---

Diana, for all her flaws, used her name to get charities or causes noticed (even though most was so she was in the headlines). No-one can tell any citizen (and as far as I'm aware, Charles is still a citizen) he can't write to MPs.

---

Diana was never in line for the throne, and the issues she focused on were charitable ones, of a non-ideological nature. The closest she got to politics was her campaigning against landmines, but that wasn't internal politics, and it was after she was divorced from Charles, so she had absolutely no constitutional position.

Officially we're subjects, not citizens. So the people who will eventually be ruled over by Charles without their consent can most definitely tell him to respect his constitutional place and stay out of politics. If he doesn't like it, that's fine; he can give up his claim to the throne, get out the green ink and scribble away about his right to kill foxes to his heart's content.

---

What Charles did was legal, it was fair, the Government aka useless potato scks, screwed up, by leeking what Charles did. It only became a political problem when it was made public, their fault, they should live with it.

---

Of course it's only a political problem because it became public, and I'm bloody glad it has done. Otherwise Charles would be guaranteed a pile of sycophantic letters, and who-knows-what influence over government policy behind closed doors. The people have a right to know if their monarch-to-be is acting improperly.

Say what you like about the "useless potato sacks" in office - and I certainly have done - but at least we get the choice to kick them out of office every five years. Whatever the merits or otherwise of Charles's letters, the fact remains it's unacceptable for someone in his position to interfere in internal politics - for example, in the foot and mouth crisis he badgered the government to introduce vaccinations daily - and he should either shut up, or get out.

(Edited by Byron 29/09/2002 14:55)

Why is it people like to bash the monarchy when all the problems in the country are due to consecutive governments?
As I see this post, it started with a discussion on the merits of Prince Charles writing to Minister and now seems to be a general slagging off of the monarchy. I wonder how many have considered what it would be like under a President. No doubt someone as corrupt as the rest of the government. Oh, incidently, I did vote for this government, in the vain hope that things might improve. How saddening it is to see they are becoming as bad as the last. One does but hope to make a difference!
We might end up with someone like Presidant Thatcher. Is that want is really wanted? Another corrupt politician on top of a corrupt government!
Also, something that seems to have escape notice is how many countries have become dictatorships soon after abolishing a monarchy. Russia and Germany to name two prime examples. I really do not see that I need to explain any more there.
Further. The monarchy brings in millions through tourism. How many American tourists come here to see all the buildings and regalia associated withit all. Throughout Europe there are many superb buildings that were former royal residences that no one cares about because they have lost their heritage. How much of that income would be lost without the monarchy?
And as far as heritage is concerned, I believe there are great concerns about losing our heritage if we go into the single Europeon Currency. These worries may or may not be valid. The quickest way to lose our heritage would be to lose ouir Monarchy. We would soon become another faceless Republic. Whatever happened to National Pride?

OK, I'm guessing I'm one of the monarchy bashers you are referring to, so I'll try to address your points as best I can.

---

by Niblet the Jedi Gnome
Why is it people like to bash the monarchy when all the problems in the country are due to consecutive governments?
As I see this post, it started with a discussion on the merits of Prince Charles writing to Minister and now seems to be a general slagging off of the monarchy.

---

While both Byron and myself are self confessed Republicans I see nothing in our posts, or anyone elseÂ’s, that constitutes 'general slagging off of the monarchy'. We have kept our concerns to the point in hand - whether a monarch or monarch to be should involve themselves in politics by writing to ministers on specific issues. I don't see how this fits your description.

I don't see anything I've said could be construed as bashing. On the content of the letters I have even said that I agree that a ban on fox hunting would be wrong. It is not the politics of Prince Charles that I take issue with. It is his unconstitutional behaviour that I object to. Sorry if I haven't made that more clear.

However, as you have made points about the relative merit of a republic (neither something this thread is about, nor something Byron or myself have brought up), I feel it is only fair that I have a right to reply. However, should you wish to continue the debate on Monarchism vs Constitutional Monarchism vs Republicanism may I suggest starting another thread?

Yes a republic could lead to President Thatcher, but then Monarchism could lead to a Queen Thatcher. The difference in a Republic is that it would be our own fault, and we would be able to kick her out without a bloody revolution. Not so easy with a Monarchy. Your point is therefore mute.

And I'm not going to dignify your suggestion that a republic would lead to fascist dictatorship. Aside from one obvious counter example (USA), the issues behind just the two totalitarian regimes you mention are so complex to try and reduce it to just - Republic leads to Dictatorship - is absurd.

As for tourism, there is no reason why the trappings of the monarch need be destroyed. You can keep as many tourist traps as you like. After all, how many tourists actually SEE a single member of the monarchy when sight seeing? As for your suggestion that it is because our monarchy still exists that it draws so many tourists, can you please explain why the royal families of Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Monaco or Morocco don't seem to get quite as much world attention? Again, I would suggest the attraction is more complex than you suggest.

But at the end of the day, the reason I am a Republican is not based on economic or historic concerns. It is based on moral ones. The idea that someone is entitled to privilege by birth rather than merit is abhorrent to me. To suggest that an unelected inherited position is preferable to a democratically elected system I also find abhorrent. If the current crop of politicians are corrupt (and I'm not convinced that their failing is corruption, but arrogance and misplaced political values that are created by our electoral system) then it is OUR FAULT. And it is up to us to do something about it. What can you do about someone who is unelected?

Finally, the idea that we should keep the monarchy because of tradition and national pride I find quite insulting. If I am proud of this country it is for its multi-culturalism. It is for it's socialist reforms (like the Welfare State). It is for (in the most part) the peaceful way we surrendered the Empire and returned sovereignty to the people in those countries. It is for the scientific and philosophic contribution we have made and continue to make. It is not because of some inbreds taking my hard earned tax money away! We had a tradition of not giving the poor or any women the vote, were we wrong to change that? We had a tradition of punishing homosexual acts and of slavery, should we have stayed that way? And we have a tradition of monarchs with absolute power - do you want that back? I'm hoping the answer is no. Equally, while their has been a monarch of some sort throughout the history of the United Kingdom, Scotland and England, I see this as no argument against the end of that tradition, anymore than I would against the abolition of the House of Lords.

(Edited by Jayjay 30/09/2002 22:11)

Damn JayJay, you've gone and said everything I would reply again! But anyhow, to add what I can to those excellent points ...

---

by Niblet the Jedi Gnome
Why is it people like to bash the monarchy when all the problems in the country are due to consecutive governments?

---

I dislike the monarchy because I despise inherited privilege. Dislike for actions of governments and the institution of monarchy donÂ’t have to be mutually exclusive.

---

As I see this post, it started with a discussion on the merits of Prince Charles writing to Minister and now seems to be a general slagging off of the monarchy

---

I can separate between institution and individual. The Queen has no right to her position, but I can still accept she's done an excellent job in it. Charles's actions conflict with his role, so I'm not unreasonably attacking him because of the institution he represents.

While I may dislike the monarchy, if it's going to continue, it's essential that monarchs and monarchs-to-be have to accept the constraints on them attendant to their position. That's what I've been saying here.

---

I wonder how many have considered what it would be like under a President. No doubt someone as corrupt as the rest of the government. Oh, incidently, I did vote for this government, in the vain hope that things might improve. How saddening it is to see they are becoming as bad as the last. One does but hope to make a difference!
We might end up with someone like Presidant Thatcher. Is that want is really wanted? Another corrupt politician on top of a corrupt government!

---

I would much prefer a tyrannical president to a tyrannical prime minister. A president would have checks and balances restraining their position; the British office of prime minister, through the royal prerogative, has power most presidents could only dream of.

I shudder to think how, say, President George Bush would be able to act with the power of our prime minister - the US Constitution is the only thing keeping any kind of check on his actions, and even then, it fails in many cases. Imagine how he would act given the powers of Blair.

This isn't actually an argument for abolishing the monarchy par se, because the PM's position could have far greater restrictions applied to it, but it does show that using the possibility of an unfavorable individual holding the office of president as an argument against that office is flawed. And, as JayJay's already said, the other key difference is that the people get to decide who fills the office - they have no choice whatsoever with a monarch.

---

Also, something that seems to have escape notice is how many countries have become dictatorships soon after abolishing a monarchy. Russia and Germany to name two prime examples. I really do not see that I need to explain any more there.

---

And conversely, take the example of America, which became a model for modern democratic government after they kicked out our king. Your logic here seems inherently flawed, as abolition of the monarchy alone simply cannot be given as the sole reason for the subsequent events.

For example, it was because of the Russian Tzar's tyranny that there was a revolution in the first place, and because of the failings of the democratic government that replaced him that there was a further Bolshevik revolution. So Russia was in effect a dictatorship before the revolution - revolutions tend to happen because of the tyranny of the rulers, and those rulers have often been hereditary monarchs!

I cannot see how you can possibly calim dictatorships are the inevitable result of abolishing a monarchy, or that same would happen in the UK if we did so; I'm afraid the historical precedents you cite just don't back up your argument.

---

Further. The monarchy brings in millions through tourism. How many American tourists come here to see all the buildings and regalia associated withit all. Throughout Europe there are many superb buildings that were former royal residences that no one cares about because they have lost their heritage. How much of that income would be lost without the monarchy?

---

You mean like the Louver palace in Paris - now one of the most visited museums in the world. There's nothing inherent to the monarchy that means tourist revenue would be lost - Buckingham Palace, the changing of the guard etc would all remain, just with different occupants. And the tourist revenue has to be offset against the millions the institution costs us to maintain.

At the very least, excesses such as the obscenity of the Civil List - which annually pays hundreds of hangers-on who do absolutely nothing to justify the expense - needs to be abolished.

---

And as far as heritage is concerned, I believe there are great concerns about losing our heritage if we go into the single Europeon Currency. These worries may or may not be valid. The quickest way to lose our heritage would be to lose ouir Monarchy. We would soon become another faceless Republic. Whatever happened to National Pride?

---

I'd hardly call America and France "faceless Republics" - if anything, their national identity is far more clear and assured than ours. I can't see anything inherent to the monarchy that means our sense of nationhood depends on it - and as JayJay so rightly says, just because something is a tradition is absolutely no reason, on its own, for its continuation.

(Edited by Byron 01/10/2002 01:54)

it's a free country, let the man write if he wants to.

Oh Jesus! Jayjay, Byron, just listen to yourselves. I've tried to stay out of this tread, I really did. After it was clearly turning from the issue at hand to Monarchy vs Republicanism, I steered clear, but really, listen to yourselves.

Both of you hate inherited privaleges. Welcome to the world. The rich inherite from the rich, the poor inherite nothing. It's not so black and white, but if you have a rich dad, of course you'll inherite wealth. Boo hoo, life's not fair. You're one of those layabouts, who takes their boss to caught because he makes you work too hard cos your black or queer. Get over your own self importance.

It's a hard lesson to learn, so you better learn it now: LIFE ISN'T FAIR! We may want it to be, we may dream of a land where men can walk hand in hand and show their love openly everywhere. We may want a world where race isn't an issue. It ain't going to happen. Plus, loving Britain for it's multi-culturlism, yeah right! Don't see that happening.

---

by Jayjay
Charles's actions conflict with his role

---

As what, senior officer in the army? I'm sure all those foxes are causing problems bombing Iraq. Charles has little real power outside the military, sure he has influence, but you know what, so do celebrities, so do other rival MP's, hell, so do the teletubbies (a sad fact, but true). If you say anyone with any influence can't become invloved in politics, most MP's would quite tomorrow. If an MP doesn't have influence, what's he there for.

Sorry for my tone, but come on, some of the things you said were just stupid.

Kieran, from what I can discern from the rather incoherent post above (filtering out the personal abuse, which I'm not going to bother justifying with a response), you're basically saying the life's a bitch, everything's unfair, so there's no point in trying to change anything for the better, and we should all just give up and accept things as they are. Yes? If everyone through the past few hundred years held your defeatist attitude, among other things, we'd still be owning slaves, have no franchise or trade union rights, be ruled over by feudal monarchs and Lords, and would consider calling people queers and niggers acceptable.

Calling your views grossly simplistic and misanthropic doesn't really begin to cover it, but it's a good start!