6 2GMV2 Saturday June 11 2022 | the times
News
continuing to hold strong opinions.
Occasionally that has got him into hot
water. In 2014, during a tour of Canada,
he spoke to a Jewish museum volunteer
whose family had fled to the country
after the Nazi invasion of Poland at the
start of the Second World War. In a
reference to Russia’s annexation of
Crimea in March that year, Charles
said: “And now Putin is doing just about
the same as Hitler.”
His remarks created a furore.
Putin said that Charles’s comparison of
him to Hitler was “unacceptable” and
“wrong”, adding: “This is not what
monarchs do.”
However, despite Russian anger, and
Clarence House’s embarrassment —
aides tried to argue that Charles’s
remarks, made at an official function,
were “private” — it seemed that the
exchange did not do the prince any
damage at home. Most people believed
it was appropriate for him to comment
publicly on topics about which he felt
strongly. A poll for The Sunday Times
indicated that 65 per cent of people sup-
ported his right to speak out. Most
agreed with him, as well: 53 per cent
were in favour of what he said,
compared with 20 per cent who
thought he was wrong and 27 per cent
who were not sure.
It was not the only time Charles’s
opinions had an impact on the
diplomatic stage. In 2005 the prince
successfully sued The Mail on Sunday
after it published an extract from his
private journals — written in 1997 when
he attended the handover of Hong
Kong to China — in which he called
Chinese leaders “appalling old
waxworks”.
Charles, a strong supporter of
Tibet and its exiled spiritual leader, the
Dalai Lama, continued to express
antipathy to the Beijing regime,
boycotting banquets involving the
Chinese in 1999 and 2005. More
recently he has adopted a diplomatic
stance towards China.Royals face embarrassment
Continued from page 1
world-leading partnership with Rwanda
will see those making dangerous, un-
necessary and illegal journeys to the
UK relocated there to have their claims
considered and rebuild their lives...
“Rwanda is a safe and secure country
with a track record of supporting asy-
lum seekers and we are confident the
agreement is fully compliant with all
national and international law.”
The Commonwealth meeting is the
first since Charles was named in 2018 as
the next head of the group. He and theDuchess of Cornwall will become the
first members of the royal family to visit
Rwanda and will visit a church where
10,000 Tutsis were massacred during
the country’s genocide in 1994.
The government’s Rwanda policy is
opposed by charities and trade unions.
Some Home Office staff are reported to
have refused to work on the plans.
Civil servants opposed to the policy
put up posters comparing Paddington
Bear to an illegal immigrant after the
character featured with the Queen at
the Platinum Jubilee. Some suggestnonsense because the two situations
are completely different.”
Charles has been expressing
trenchant opinions on a wide range of
subjects all his adult life, and picking up
enemies along the way. He fell out with
a swathe of the architectural profession
in 1984 when he attacked a proposed
extension of the National Gallery as a
“monstrous carbuncle on the face of a
much loved and elegant friend”. A
number of architects’ careers were
damaged, according to Charles’s critics.
In 2009 one of his interventions had a
more direct effect when he objected to
the design by Lord Rogers of Riverside
for the redevelopment of Chelsea
barracks in London. The Qatari
developers dropped the architect after
Charles spoke to members of the royal
family in the Gulf state.
In 2015 Charles’s letters to govern-
ment ministers were revealed after The
Guardian fought a long battle under the
Freedom of Information Act. Even
though the letters showed how
Charles had written to Tony Blair
and other ministers, on subjects
including education, health, the
environment and defence (and,
memorably, the fate of the
Patagonian toothfish), there
was no evidence of the heir
to the throne exerting
inappropriate pressure on
the government. As The
Guardian itself said: “The
letters show that... most
of the time, Prince
Charles behaves more
as a bit of a bore on
behalf of his good causes
than as any sort of
wannabe feudal tyrant.”
Whatever his promises
about how he will behave as
king, Charles has given
every sign in recent years ofCharles’s letters to Tony
Blair were released in 2015Four years ago, in a documentary to
mark his 70th birthday, the Prince of
Wales gave a significant undertaking. In
an interview in which he outlined for
the first time how he would approach his
role as King Charles III, he promised that
he would not be a “meddling” monarch.
It was a remarkable turnaround for a
man who had spent decades as Prince of
Wales firing off opinions on everything
from modern architecture to badgers.
He has spoken out about GM food,
organic farming, alternative medicine,
and the importance of teaching Shake-
speare in schools, and been criticised for
the letters he wrote to government
ministers— the so-called black spider
memos.
A few years ago it seemed that the
prince, 73, wanted to carry on
expressing his opinions even when he
acceded to the throne.
When Charles turned 60 the broad-
caster and writer Jonathan Dimbleby,
who is a friend as well as official biogra-
pher, said that aides were working on
ways to allow him to speak out more
freely as king than had hitherto been
regarded as acceptable.
Dimbleby wrote in The Sunday Times
that “there are now discreet moves
afoot to redefine the future role of the
sovereign so that it would allow King
Charles III to speak out on matters of
national and international importance
in ways that at the moment would be
unthinkable”.
Dimbleby said that to breach
convention in such a way would
“represent a seismic shift in the role of
the sovereign”. It had, he said, “the
potential to be constitutionally and
politically explosive”.
Six years later another source close to
Charles was quoted as saying that rather
than being a monarch in the mould of
his mother, he would continue with his
“heartfelt interventions” as long they
did not damage the monarchy. “He will
be true to his beliefs and contributions.”
By 2018 it was a different story. In the
BBC documentary, directed by the
royal film-maker John Bridcut, Charles
appeared to say he was going to change
his ways. When told by Bridcut that
“some people have accused you of
meddling”, Charles laughed before
replying: “Really? You don’t say.”
He said: “I always wonder what med-
dling is. I mean I always thought it
was motivating, but I’ve always
been intrigued. If it’s meddling
to worry about the inner cities
as I did 40 years ago and what
was happening or not happening
there, the conditions in which
people were living... If
that’s meddling I’m
very proud of it.”
He added: “I’ve
tried to make sure
whatever I’ve done
has been non-party
political. But I think
it’s vital to remember
there’s only room for
one sovereign at a
time, not two.
“So you can’t be the
same as the sovereign if
you’re the Prince of
Wales or the heir. The
idea somehow that I’m
going to go on exactly
the same way, if I have to
succeed, is complete
News Charles on migrant policy
Prince with social conscience has
Comments
were made
in private
Analysis
T
he Prince of
Wales will be
deeply
embarrassed
by the fact
that his views on the
policy of sending
migrants to Rwanda
have been made
public, not least
because he is about to
travel to Kigali for the
Commonwealth
summit, where he will
meet President
Kagame (Valentine
Low writes).
Criticising a deal
which Kagame made
with Britain could
provide awkward
moments. But there is
a world of difference
between Charles
expressing views in
private, and behaving
in a way which could
be criticised on
constitutional grounds.
Has he overstepped
the mark? Not
according to VernonBogdanor, professor
of government at
King’s College,
London. He said the
prince was in a
different position
from the Queen. She
is bound to act on the
advice of ministers:
Charles is not. “The
only constraint is that
he must not say
anything which would
embarrass the Queen.”
What that means,
according to
Bogdanor, is that he
must not do or say
anything involving
party politics. But
there is nothing to
stop him from talking
about matters that
bear upon public
policy. He added:
“Obviously any public
reflections on
government policy
would embarrass the
Queen. The
implication would be
that the royal family
is partisan.”
This was not in
public, however; it
was in private. He was
not making a speech
attacking government
policy. As Clarence
House was at pains to
point out, Charles
“remains politicallyneutral”. In private
communications he
can say what he likes
about government
policy to ministers.
The Victorian
writer Walter Bagehot
said that the monarch
has the right to be
consulted, to
encourage and to
warn. Prince Charles,
said Bogdanor, does
not have the right to
be consulted, but he
does have the right to
encourage and to
warn. “And he has got
the same right as
anyone else to express
views privately on
government policy.”
Ministers are not
supposed to go public
with what the Queen
or Prince of Wales
has said to them, but
what about friends
and other people?
Anyone who thought
themselves a friend of
Charles or the Queen
would not repeat in
public what they said
in private. But
Charles talks to lots of
people, not just his
friends. And
sometimes they are
not discreet. He may
not like it, but he will
get over it.Whatever his promises
of how he will behave
as king, Charles shows
no sign of going quiet,
Valentine Low writes