On the 6th April [1780], Mr. Dunning moved … ‘that the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.’
– Erskine May, The Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III, Ch. 1, available free online here.
If the constitutional settlement that comes down to us from the Glorious Revolution and the 1689 Bill of Rights means anything, it is that the Crown does not interfere in the political life of the country – no political patronage, no advocacy and certainly no interfering with democracy. The heir apparent cannot be separated from the reigning monarch for three reasons. Firstly, it would be too easy for the heir apparent to be a means for the monarch to avoid the restrictions on their action. Secondly, the heir apparent receives a stipend from the state and the Duchy of Cornwall; they are bound by the same constitutional principles as the monarch. Thirdly, they can effectively give the imprimatur of the state – without recourse to Parliament.
It is worth remembering that the first grievance in the Bill of Rights reads
Whereas the late King … did endeavour to subvert and extirpate … the laws and liberties of this kingdom; by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament
While it might no longer be a matter of life and death, Chelsea Barracks is the largest urban brownfield site in the EU and were sold for £959m – no trifle. Moreover, the Prince’s actions over Chelsea Barracks are an interference in the lawful action of a private citizen in a manner not approved by Parliament.
Prince Charles, as we know, has been interfering in the democratic process by advocating his preferred architects*. However, it goes beyond this.
Through the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, there is criticism with a crest of ‘orthodox’ medicine and advocacy of homeopathy and chiropractic, amongst others.
Through the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment, there is the promotion of the old against the new.
Through Duchy Originals, there is distortion of the market and a removal of opportunities for small companies to enter the organic market.
I do not mean to diminish in any way the work of the charities supported by the Prince. However, his recent comportment, leading to damage to the constitutional settlement and criticism for his action, can be said to be favourable neither to the charities nor to the country. If the Prince is prepared to make a quiet phone call to advance the interests of one of his favoured architects, who is to say that he will not do the same to force a business’s hand?
All the other activities the Prince undertakes carry the same risk. Advocating these things aren’t necessarily bad – with the exception of the dangerous guff and nonsense spouted about medicine. If, in Bagehot’s phrase, the monarchy is the dignified part of the constitution, they must both remain and be seen to remain dignified; that implies a step’s removal from society. If their cause is worthy, none of the charities supported by the Prince would struggle without his involvement. If they are dependent for survival or eficacy on his involvement, the monarchy is entering into the political realm. I would add that there is a difference between an established society looking for a royal to be a patron, and a royal setting up a society to promote a particular interest.
One day, Charles will be King. It should be clear that intervention by the monarch in a democratic process of our country would provoke a constitutional crisis. I feel that the same principles apply to the heir apparent. I fear that the future King, even if he doesn’t breach this important principle of the constitution, may by his past actions weaken it unless it is made clear that there will be no repeat of the interference. Mr Dunning’s motion of 1780 seems appropriate now.
xD.
* – While that was going on, I was reading Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. There seemed to be certain comparisons to be made between the naf style of pastiche favoured by the cultural elite in the novel and those favoured by Prince Charles. Everything has to be old; anything contemporary is a priori bad.
I, for one, am profoundly grateful to the Prince for saving Chelsea Barracks from some Modernist eyesore. While I may not think Quinlan Terry the greatest architect ever, if the choice came between him and the bastard children of Corbousier, the former would be infinitely preferable.
I also confess, I can’t really see the problem with the heir apparent writing to a friend and asking him to choose another architect. This is not the creation of a standing army, this is not packing Parliament – and this is certainly not ‘subverting the laws and liberties of our Kingdom’. Indeed, no less an authority than Vernon Bognador has made the point that it perfectly constitutional (indeed, there is an established tradition) for the heir apparent to promote causes, provided they are not *party* political.
I rather appreciate that Charles does care about doing what he sees as his duty. However the basic thing to know about his beliefs is that at University he got the Union to run a debate on science & technology being a bad thing. He won by a handful of votes, though I doubt the students would be so subservient now.