How Prince Charles could ‘collapse’ monarchy with ‘political interventions’ unlike Queen

Queen Elizabeth II has reigned for 67 years so far, and in that record-breaking time has become well-known for remaining politically neutral. Prince Charles has been steadily been taking

over more and more duties on behalf of Her Majesty, and is currently on royal tour in New Zealand, after the Queen stopped making long-haul journeys in 2015. Many royal watchers have noticed

some signs of the reins of power being handed over, with the Prince of Wales laying the Remembrance Wreath at the Cenotaph this month, and accompanying Her Majesty during the Queen’s Speech

in Parliament in October. 

However, looking to the future, some politicians and constitutional experts have voiced concern over how Charles’ actions may imperil the position of neutrality his mother has worked so hard

to maintain. 

Constitutional law expert Robert Blackburn, in his 2006 book “King and Country: Monarchy and the Future King Charles III” looked into the way that Charles has “expressed strong views on

politics affairs”, unlike his mother. 

Professor Blackburn writes: “Of real constitutional significance was the fact that in 2005-6, it was acknowledged at the highest levels that the future King did take a stand on certain

political matters and actively lobbied the government to try to achieve his aims. 

 “The event as a whole, therefore, evoked controversy and a serious question on the constitutional legitimacy of the future King Charles’ interventions in politics and government, something

that had never come close to being an issue in the case of the Queen.” 

The late Paul Flynn MP, who was a Labour backbencher at the time, said in The Times: “His actions are suicidal. 

“The only reason why the monarchy and the Queen are successful is that she has kept out of all political decisions, and the only way it can continue to survive as an institution is if the

monarchy is seen to be above politics. 

“If he is going to find it irresistible to interfere in politics – sometimes on the side of sense, sometimes on the side of nonsense – then the monarchy would be in grave peril with him as

head of state. 

READ MORE: Camilla heartbreak: Family's fears about Charles taking throne 

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You

can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy

Liberal Democrat Paul Holmes MP added: “Either the monarch is the neutral head of state that the armed forces can swear to, or they are politically active. 

“If they are politically active, they can’t be the monarchy. 

“If he is trying to exploit his position as a future monarch then that’s unacceptable.” 

However, Conservative MP Oliver Heald, shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs at the time, commented: “Our party is very supportive of the Prince. Certainly, every time I talk

to former ministers who were approached by him, they all welcomed his comments.”

DON'T MISSSarah Ferguson's heartbreaking Prince Charles confession [REVEALED]Camilla heartbreak: Why Duchess 'dreads' becoming Queen [EXPERT]Why Prince Charles ‘should have put the greater

good before Camilla' [INSIGHT]

Although Her Majesty has maintained strict political neutrality for the most part during her reign, the monarch has been associated with some constitutional rows in the past. 

Her Majesty acted on controversial advice from her ministers in 1963, which resulted in the Queen in effect choosing the new Prime Minister without the process of a leadership election. 

The Queen’s position was also called into question during a political crisis in Australia in 1975. 

Her representative in the country, Australia’s Governor-General Sir John Kerr, stepped in to dismiss the incumbent Prime Minister and appoint a new interim PM in an episode that became known

as the Dismissal. 

The outrage the Australian public felt over the Governor-General’s actions went on to spur the Republican movement in the country.   

However, Prince Charles, who was once tipped to be a Governor-General of Australia himself in the Seventies, reportedly wrote letters encouraging Kerr in his course of action. 

Historian Jenny Hocking unearthed a 1975 letter from the Prince of Wales to Kerr, which she detailed in her book “The Dismissal Dossier”. 

Writing in 2015, Ms Hocking said: “By entering into this communication with Kerr over his own position, and agreeing even to consider a means of delaying it, the Palace had interposed itself

directly into matters of Australian politics.” 

See today's front and back pages, download the newspaper, order back issues and use the historic Daily Express newspaper archive.