Guest post: Trickier than you’d think
Originally a comment by Rob on Not needed on voyage.
I’m not a fan of constitutional monarchies, but I’m not convinced that democracies that place significant power in the hands of presidents or similar posts have covered themselves with glory either. Ceremonial presidencies seem just as pointless as a constitutional monarch, although I guess it’s less likely to become hereditary.
Getting to my rambling point, if Charles is ‘just another guy’ then why shouldn’t he have and express a view? If he’s technically head of state, then why shouldn’t he display leadership – even if we feel distaste for why he’s head of state? The point in this specific case is that now he’s head of state he’s by convention supposed to be a mouthpiece for the government and in this case the government has taken a lurch to the right and doesn’t want to pay the cost of going green because they’ve just torpedoed their own economy.
A part of me wants him to deliver a speech emphasising the importance and urgency of climate action anyway and convention be damned. On this issue it would be the right thing to do. That damages the convention of a puppet monarch though, which might be of more lasting damage to the system of government. Then again, the head of state is supposed to be the last line of defence against a rogue or incompetent government, which arguably the UK has here. Trickier than you’d think at first glance I think and people could reach different conclusions.
It’s best that Charles keep his mouth shut on any political issue. The solution to the problem is to elect a better set of MPs.
His is a position that gives him unquestioned procedural authority, but carries no moral authority whatsoever.
Unlike an elected president, even a ceremonial one, he will he will never have a pretext to usurp the legislature by claiming some popular mandate or other. All he can ever do is oversee the machinery. Seems a pretty pragmatic system, all things considered.
Better a puppet monarch than a puppet government.
If the king were to step outside his remit, that would be the end of the monarchy. I’m sure that his mother impressed upon him that the monarchy is tolerated just as long as the monarch remains entirely politically neutral. He’s had upwards of half a century to express his views, and now he has to buckle up and make sure that he does nothing but what he’s told to do, as a good little tourist attraction should.
I dare say that he is well aware that the pageantry, pomp and circumstance can continue with no royal family whatsoever; and will, if he should make unwise remarks in public.
However, he does have the ability to influence policy discretely, by cultivating a good relationship with the prime ministers as his mother did. I wonder if he has inherited enough of her strength of character to outweigh the personality he inherited from his father?