John Humphrys asks: is the Prince of Wales a legitimate political activist?
We have long known that the Prince of Wales is a man of strong views. We’ve also known that he has seldom felt constrained by his position from making those views known to people in a position to do something about them: namely, Her Majesty’s ministers. Now several of them have revealed details of the Prince’s interventions. Are his attempts to influence government policies the justifiable actions of a man deeply concerned about the public good, or does his position as heir to the throne disqualify him from interfering in public policy? Might he even jeopardise the monarchy itself by doing so?
Over the years many ministers of all parties have been known privately to roll their eyes at the torrent of what have become known as ‘black spider’ handwritten memos scribbled by the Prince and sent to ministers responsible for issues about which he has very definite views as to what should and should not be done. Of course ministers are very used to dealing with unsolicited advice: they get loads of it from members of the public and are required at least to pretend to take it all most seriously. Dealing with the Prince of Wales has required a special form of political diplomacy and some politicians have, over the years, expressed irritation at the effort it has involved. None, though, has questioned the Prince’s sincerity. And some have welcomed his interventions as helpful support in their own political battles.
In a Radio Four documentary about the Prince’s political activity, several ministers in the last Labour government have gone on the record about their dealings with the Prince. Michael Meacher, a former environment minister, clearly shared Prince Charles’s beliefs that more urgency was needed to tackle climate change and that GM food posed real dangers if it were allowed to be developed in this country.
Mr Meacher said: “We would consort together quietly in order to try and ensure that we increased our influence in government. There were always tensions within government. And I knew that he largely agreed with me and he knew that I largely agreed with him. I know he spoke to Tony Blair, obviously he would regularly speak to the Prime Minister, and I’m sure he told him his views, so we were together in trying to persuade Tony Blair to change course.”
Peter Hain, for a time the Northern Ireland Secretary, said about the Prince: “We found we shared a common view that complementary medicine should be introduced into the National Health Service, not as an alternative to conventional medicine but as a complement. I was able to introduce a trial for complementary medicine on the NHS, and it had spectacularly good results, that people’s well-being and health were vastly improved. When he learnt about this he was really enthusiastic and tried to persuade the Welsh government and the government in Whitehall to do the same thing for England but not successfully.”
Both Mr Hain and Mr Meacher clearly welcomed the Prince’s interventions, largely because their views coincided. But another Labour minister resisted the Prince’s advice because he strongly disagreed with it. David Blunkett, when he was the education secretary, was lobbied by the Prince of Wales to introduce more grammar schools. He said: “He was very keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had what he would have seen as the opportunity to escape from their background, whereas I wanted to change their background.”
How extensive is the Prince’s interference? That is something we don’t fully know. The Guardian has been trying to use freedom of information laws to have all the Prince’s letters to ministers published and it has had the support of the Information Commissioner. But the government is refusing to do this. The Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, says that to do so would be “seriously damaging to his role as future monarch”.
To those who think the Prince of Wales is abusing his position by firing off these memos, this remark of the Attorney-General’s seems to prove their point. If the government’s chief law officer believes publication would jeopardise the neutrality of the monarchy it can only be because the content of the letters is dynamite, they argue. Furthermore, even if the memos and letters remain secret, the fact that it has been admitted that their revelation would be so damaging to the monarchy is itself very damaging to the monarchy and to the requirement that it be above politics. Some would go further and say that his interventions disqualify Prince Charles from becoming king. Some, in addition, would claim his activity provides grounds for abolishing the monarchy altogether to ensure that no unelected figure could unduly influence government policy in future.
Not everyone would go anything like that far. Even former ministers who have been on the receiving end of the Prince’s pen and have politely turned down his advice, defend his right to express his views in this way. David Blunkett said: “If you are waiting to become king of the United Kingdom … you genuinely have to engage with something or you’d go spare.”
Furthermore, it’s pointed out in the Prince’s defence that he is only offering advice. It is for ministers to take the decisions and if they choose not follow the royal guidance, as is often the case, the Prince has no sanction against them. In this respect, it’s claimed, the Prince’s interventions are far less threatening to the democratic process than the offering of policy ‘advice’ by potential party donors or media moguls whose support politicians are usually desperate to win. There’s not much opportunity for mutual back-scratching between ministers and the Prince of Wales.
What perhaps matters here most, though, is the appearance rather than the substance of things. What matters is that the monarchy needs to appear to be above politics rather than that it should adopt a wholly self-denying ordinance with respect to expressing opinion. The great nineteenth-century constitutionalist, Walter Bagehot, said that a constitutional monarch had the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn and this, it seems, is what happens. In the BBC documentary, Sir John Major revealed that on several occasions he had been moved to modify policy as a result of remarks made by the Queen during his weekly audience with her, and he supposed all her other prime ministers had done the same. But he would not be drawn into giving examples for, to have done so, would have been to draw back the veil on the Queen’s views, which have remained wholly unknown to the wider world throughout her long reign. It is this veil that has maintained the impression of the Crown’s studious political neutrality.
The main charge against Prince Charles, therefore, may be that in being so public in airing his views on so many issues, he has ripped the veil to shreds. This may cause real problems in future. For when he becomes king, as soon as a government decides to do something that the world already knows to be contrary to King Charles’s personal views, the alarm will be raised that the palace and No 10 are at loggerheads.
Of course if, in these circumstances, King Charles refused to sign into law a bill voted through by Parliament, there would be a huge constitutional crisis. There could be only one outcome: the removing of King Charles from the throne and possibly the end of the monarchy itself.
Defenders of Prince Charles, however, would protest that such speculation is wild. There is all the difference in the world, they’d say, between, on one hand, Prince Charles joining the green ink brigade and bombarding ministers with advice; and, on the other, King Charles III defying parliament. There is a rather unhappy history of conflict between kings called Charles and Parliament and Charles III would never contemplate doing anything so foolish, they say.
So the issue may really come down to impression. The Queen (who, after all, came to the throne aged only 25) has kept absolutely silent in public about any views she may hold, confining her expression of them to the meetings with her prime ministers. But Prince Charles (still waiting for the throne at 65), has been open about what he thinks. Has he been wise to do so? Is he to be applauded for his sense of public duty? Or has he destroyed the vital illusion that the monarch has no views at all?
