26

In the aftermath of Queen Elizabeth II's death, some news outlets had started speculating what kind of monarch her successor - King Charles III - would be.

Much has been said about King Charles' more outspoken positions on certain policy areas, such as the environment and immigration. Likewise, his heir apparent - Prince William - is also outspoken on social issues like mental health.

This leads to questions as to whether he - as the monarch - is permitted to express opinions on these policy areas, provided that he does not interfere with the daily functioning of the Government or Parliament. For example, he may publicly begrudge the Government doing little on mitigating climate crisis, but he nevertheless must ratify bills which enable such policy.

Bear in mind that this is not without precedent. For example, Germany's head of state (i.e. German President) is a ceremonial office, but is still culturally permitted to express political positions to guide public discourse. Evidently, Germany has not burned to the ground just because their head of state has opinions.

Greg Martin
  • 121
  • 2
QuantumWalnut
  • 10,417
  • 30
  • 74
  • 18
    This question could specify more what "permitted" means here. By whom? Parliament? Typically everything that is not forbidden is permitted. That the previous kings and queens didn't do something doesn't mean that future ones can't do it if they wanted to but maybe they still don't dare doing it. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 10 '22 at 06:47
  • 4
    For one point of reference, the 1990s fictional drama series To Play The King (the sequel to the UK series House Of Cards) featured a new king who did make his political views clearly known, though he stopped short of actively campaigning or openly criticising his government. Spoiler alert: as a result of this, at the end of series he was forced to abdicate. Since the series stuck closely to existing practice and precedent, that's clearly not an unrealistic prospect. – gidds Sep 10 '22 at 17:06
  • 1
    @PatrickT King Edward was forced to abdicate because he was marrying an American divorcee back when that conflicted with the moral stance of the Church of England, not because he supported the Nazis. – nick012000 Sep 11 '22 at 05:19
  • 3
    The comparison with the German federal president doesn't really apply. That's an elected office, not a hereditary one. And the people elected for it are almost always renowned politicians. They don't get elected despite but because of the political slant they are expected to give to the office. – Philipp Sep 12 '22 at 13:25
  • The premise of the question seems contradictory; how would the King "express opinions on politics" in a way that wouldn't ipso facto amount to a Royal Command, and therefore "actually interfere with government policies"? – Jiří Baum Sep 13 '22 at 04:53
  • 1
    @nick012000 - as early as a month of Edward’s accession in 1936, Warren Fisher (head of the Home Civil Service), Maurice Hankey (Cabinet Secretary) and Robert Vansittart (Foreign Office Permanent Secretary) met to discuss disquiet about Edward's handling of confidential State papers. Anthony Eden, (Foreign Secretary), Vansittart said, believed that Mrs Simpson was ‘in the pocket’ of the German ambassador. Plans were drawn up for a George III style regency if it could be contrived to get Edward certified as mad. His decision to marry Simpson was the opportunity that the Establishment needed. – Michael Harvey Sep 13 '22 at 08:19
  • @nick012000 - Bottom line, Edward had to go. There are even stories that he could have been 'rubbed out'. "Some elements [of the Establishment] may have been willing to turn a blind eye to what MI5 and the Metropolitan Police Special Branch had been reliably informed was a conspiracy to assassinate the King in broad daylight on 16 July 1936. Was incompetence or collusion involved? The question is open."- James Parris (The History Press). – Michael Harvey Sep 13 '22 at 11:05
  • 1
    The partially written and partially unwritten rule is more easily stated than the consequences of breaking it. The answer to whether this is permitted it easy: it isn't. But what would be done about a minor but irritating violation of the rule? That's the hard question which isn't really squarely asked. – ohwilleke Sep 13 '22 at 15:25

6 Answers6

54

A question of written rules, unwritten rules, and bending or breaking them.

The UK political system developed from a monarchy to a democracy without the clean break of a final overthrow of the monarchy. That means formally, it is His Majesty's government, and the king can say what they king wants to say. Breaking the unwritten rules in an unpopular way would bolster republican sentiments, but since they are unwritten there is no clear boundary, just traditions which were also formed by the habits of the previous queen.

Comparing the king with the German president misses the point, the president is an elected political position with clearly described powers and the right to enter the national political debate.

Thomas Markov
  • 109
  • 4
o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • So because the king/queen is not elected, that may be seen as not having a right to take part in political debates? That's what I take home from the last paragraph. But at least on a personal level the UK monarchs are also just ordinary citizens and should have at least the same rights as anyone else, i.e. to speak their mind, or shouldn't they have this right? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 10 '22 at 06:50
  • 20
    @Trilarion one issue is that any political intervention risks alienating a part of the population. With an elected official the solution is clear, he just gets voted out of office, and it is part of the regular, accepted process. But a monarch can keep alienating the population until the people get fed with him and force him to abdicate or abolish the monarchy altogether. And due to the lack of a formal process, a sentiment that the monarch should abdicate could easily be transformed into an effect of abolishing the monarchy. – SJuan76 Sep 10 '22 at 07:11
  • @SJuan76 That are arguments for why it might not be prudent to do it or at the very least not overdo it. But it doesn't affect the question if it's permitted. Maybe the monarch would actually say something that people love like: come on guys, you're destroying the environment, do something about it before it's too late. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 10 '22 at 08:06
  • @Trilarion Monarchs do act this way of promoting things that people love, by going to charity events, showing up to show that they care for victims of disasters, giving nobility titles and distinctions to worthy people (with some mistakes). But that must be threaded very lightly: for example going to inaugurate a natural park causes no issue, but stating "come on guys; do something about the environment" may be construed as support for the political parties more vocal about the environment, to the detriment of those that claim that the measures are ok but should not affect the economy... – SJuan76 Sep 10 '22 at 10:20
  • 10
    It might seem tiny to us regular people, but there is quite a big difference between to the inauguration of a natural reserve and saying "I am pleased that you have created this" and saying "you should create more natural reserves." The later implies a mandate. For us the difference is minimal because we do not have the kind of influence that a monarch does have. – SJuan76 Sep 10 '22 at 10:28
  • 1
    As we learned from the Trump campaign and presidency, unwritten rules are worth the paper they're written on. – Barmar Sep 10 '22 at 15:19
  • 4
    @Trilarion "So because the king/queen is not elected, that may be seen as not having a right to take part in political debates?" government is replete with unelected political advisors that participate in political debates. Arguably the monarch has rather less political influence than a similarly wealthy citizen as they are constrained by these unwritten rules. – Dikran Marsupial Sep 10 '22 at 17:16
  • 4
    Nice example of bending of unwritten rules: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40356113 – Dikran Marsupial Sep 10 '22 at 17:20
  • 8
    Similarly, breaking the unwritten rules in a popular way would bolster the loyalty for the monarchy. – vsz Sep 11 '22 at 12:40
  • @vsz in the case I mentioned it would be a highly divisive way at the time - rather less so now! – Dikran Marsupial Sep 11 '22 at 13:44
  • @vsz: That's almost a tautology (being popular gets support), and certainly true in the short term (or as long as their rule-breaking continues to be seen in a positive light by most of the population). Note that taking a political stance on the more-popular side of a political issue might still be perceived negatively, even by those who agree with the position taken, if they think it's a dangerous precedent in general for a monarch to be taking political stances. – Peter Cordes Sep 12 '22 at 02:40
  • @PeterCordes, that's the effect of written vs. unwritten rules. Breaking written rules on a popular issue can still bring grief from those who uphold the rules for the sake of rules. With unwritten rules, it is more of a popularity contest. – o.m. Sep 12 '22 at 05:15
  • 1
    @DikranMarsupial The populace can still get rid of unelected political advisers, by voting out the elected officials who appointed them. Not so with a monarch. – Mike Scott Sep 12 '22 at 07:33
  • @MikeScott we can't get rid of the oligarchs and party donors (or unions), who arguably have more political influence than the monarch or advisers. We actually can get rid of the monarch through democratic means. Simply vote in a republican government, and they will put through the necessary legislation. Personally I think it is good to have a powerless ceremonial head of state. Retaining a vestige of heritage (both good and bad) is a good thing. If you don't want to repeat history, you need to start by not forgetting it. – Dikran Marsupial Sep 12 '22 at 09:07
  • @Barmar More accurately though, as we also learnt from Trump, only one person can freely get away with breaking unwritten rules, and after that there's a strong push to stop anyone getting away with it again. And perhaps even more importantly, the act of breaking those unwritten rules devalues the existence of the entire system and threatens its ongoing stability, so it's something you could only do if you don't care about the future. Which is true for Trump, who's a grifter with no loyalty to anything beyond personal aggrandisement, but not so much for the British Royal Family. – Graham Sep 12 '22 at 12:58
  • From my understanding he already has with "The Black Spider Memos". – Gary Carlyle Cook Sep 12 '22 at 15:59
  • 1
    @Dikran Marsupial Define "simply" in that context? – Gary Carlyle Cook Sep 12 '22 at 16:00
  • @GaryCarlyleCook getting rid of unelected political advisors by voting out the electoral officials who appointed them isn't exactly easy either! If the British electorate were seriously unhappy with the monarchy, it wouldn't last long. Whether a party became republican to gain power or whether it pushed a populist message to make it happen. – Dikran Marsupial Sep 12 '22 at 20:32
  • @Trilarion note that monarchs in the UK are not treated by the law as ordinary citizens, and there are (written) rules that they are bound by, that do not bind the general population. For example the monarch, as head of the Church of England, is exempt from freedom of religion, for example. Staying politically neutral is more of an unwritten rule. – James_pic Sep 13 '22 at 10:46
  • @James_pic " note that monarchs in the UK are not treated by the law as ordinary citizens," where exactly does it say that the monarchs aren't citizens? Surely freedom of expression for citizens trumps much of whatever many other laws say, or does there exist a law that the monarch is excluded from freedom of expression. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 13 '22 at 15:41
  • 2
    @Trilarion I'm not aware of any written law governing freedom of speech for a monarch, but there are laws limiting freedom of religious expression for monarchs (Act of Settlement 1701), and historically there were legal limits on who a monarch could marry (From the Royal Marriages Act 1772 until the passing of the Succession to The Crown Act 2013 - although there were also unwritten conventions on this, which were nonetheless sufficient that Edward VIII chose to abdicate rather than risk breaking them). Not all rights enjoyed by commoners in the UK are enjoyed by the monarch. – James_pic Sep 13 '22 at 16:00
  • 1
    Oh, and perhaps more obviously, the monarch does not have the right to vote, or the right to run for election. – James_pic Sep 13 '22 at 16:01
  • @Graham If we'd paid attention we could have learned that from FDR, the only US president to serve more than two terms. Prior to his presidency, nobody had, and after his presidency, we amended the constitution so that nobody could. – A. R. Sep 14 '22 at 14:56
30

As o.m. points out, questions like this tend to be much more intricate for the British political system than for many others. The constitution of the United Kingdom is not a unitary written document, but an amorphous combination of individual texts, precedents, judgements about fair play and good taste.

Having a law explicitly forbidding the monarch-as-a-human-being to make statements that could be construed as political really is not how this would be done. It would lead to all kinds of weirdness such as potential lawsuits against the human being wearing the crown, which would all be in very bad taste.

The idea that the monarch should not engage in day to day politics seems to have been around for a while. I've read about it being invoked regarding Queen Victoria, but I'm not sure when it started. But this is often discussed in the context of a statement by the monarch that is seen by the commentator as being a bit too political. So it's more been an aspiration rather than any strict regulation.

Queen Elizabeth II was apparently very strict about avoiding any impression of being engaged in political debate. Given her very long reign, this now makes it near impossible to distinguish whether it was her personal choice to act like this; or whether the expectations on the monarch have become much more restrictive.

Ultimately, the answer will be determined as usual regarding what exactly a British Monarch can and cannot do: We'll have to see how outspoken King Charles III dares to be, and if he can get away with it or not.

Arno
  • 13,675
  • 4
  • 37
  • 60
  • How is good taste part of the UK’s constitution? Or did you mean to use an "and" before "judgement"? – tchrist Sep 11 '22 at 17:25
  • 5
    Common law holds that the King is immune to all lawsuits against his person. – Spitemaster Sep 11 '22 at 20:52
  • 4
    @Spitemaster: Then a law against the monarch making such statements would either override that, or be totally useless. Even more reason not to have such a law. – Peter Cordes Sep 12 '22 at 02:44
  • 2
    @PeterCordes: "Totally useless" is a bit blunt. A law is normative (it states what should be) even when enforcement is limited. – MSalters Sep 12 '22 at 14:07
11

One interesting thing about the shared monarchy, is that Charles isn't just king of the United Kingdom, but king of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.

For each realm, the king is required by constitutional tradition (and possibly in some cases by a written constitution or statute) to act on the advice of that realm's prime minister.

The current New Zealand government likes making very strong statements on climate change (how well we live up to the rhetoric is beyond the scope of this answer). Hypothetically, the New Zealand government could ask Charles as King of New Zealand to head a delegation to an international conference and speak on climate change. His position would naturally be closer to one country's than the other.

The UK delegation could also ask this with a very different script. We would then have an interesting situation where the King of New Zealand and the King of the United Kingdom were publicly at odds with himself.

For a much more drastic precedent, the current King's grandfather was king of both the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan during the first Indo-Pakistani war (1947-1948)

Julia Clement
  • 111
  • 2
  • 3
    Can Commonwealth nations really ask the monarch to do something like that? Canada has a Governor General as the monarch's representative, chosen by the monarch on the advice of the government of Canada. It's true that Charles is the official head of state of Canada, but I think any official request from Canada or New Zealand to make a political speech would be so far outside the realm of protocol and tradition that the monarch could ignore without repercussions. (I'm no expert on this, though.) – Peter Cordes Sep 12 '22 at 02:50
  • 3
    @PeterCordes I don't know it's ever been tested, but the speech from the Throne at the state opening of the UK parliament is a political statement read from a document handed to her by the current government. When the Queen was here in 1954 she opened the NZ parliament and read a speech handed her by the then New Zealand Prime Minister Sidney Holland.

    The Governor General has powers and responsibilities delegated by the crown, but the crown retains those rights and responsibilities.

     – Julia Clement Sep 12 '22 at 06:33
  • Ok sure, but the speech from the throne is well understood as being the government's statements, with the monarch (or the governor general in their place) merely delivering the message. Outside of that ceremonial duty, things like sending them to a conference to say their own words is extremely different. And sending them to read a statement which everyone knew was written by the politician would be half way in between; they might do it as long as nobody would construe that as the monarch themselves expressing those opinions. (Unless they really wanted to jump into the deep end.) – Peter Cordes Sep 12 '22 at 06:42
  • @PeterCordes: The problem is that it's not just "the government's statements". It's officially "His Majesty's government's statements", delivered in this example by the King himself. IMO the practical resolution is that the King speaks for the country as a whole, since countries are abstract entities and can't speak for themselves. And this only works well when there is a broad national consensus - speaking for 52% of the country is asking for problems. – MSalters Sep 12 '22 at 14:16
  • 2
    Somewhat related, Canadian and UK prime ministers gave contrary advice directly to Her Majesty (but of course in respectively in her right of Canada and of the UK) on Conrad Black's peerage appointment. The matter is eventually resolved by Black renouncing his Canadian citizenship, but technically could have resulted in a full blown constitutional crisis if both prime ministers insisted on their advice. – xngtng Sep 12 '22 at 17:00
  • NZ Governor General? – Russell McMahon Sep 13 '22 at 12:24
  • @RussellMcMahon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_New_Zealand – phoog Sep 13 '22 at 17:01
4

he - as the monarch - is permitted to express opinions on these policy areas

That depends on the circumstances. The traditional address at the opening of each Parliamentary season where the Monarch just reads a given script would not be a place for personal opinions. Neither the point where royal assent is needed for a law becoming law or when appointing Ministers and all the other duties.

As head of the nation the British Monarch is just something like an automatic device performing his/her duties (more ceremoniously than actually productive) without any need or demand for personal opinions.

However, when not doing the royal duties, even the British monarch must enjoy all the rights any ordinary British citizen has like freedom of speech (see for example article 10 Human rights act 1998). This means he or she would be permitted to say pretty much what they want within some borders. So a big yes here for the permission to have and being able to publish a political opinion.

Whether it is actually prudent to do so is another matter. One possibility would be to go the way of the German president and try to be some sort of national conscience, connection to all the people, not just unpolitical embodiment of the state. It might even give him/her more purpose in the political system, otherwise people might start asking what constitutional monarchs are actually good for. But it also might make things just more complicated and actually interfere with the ceremonial duties of the monarch. So maybe it's better if the monarch refrains from directly taking part in the political discourse, which would be his/her right as every citizen, and use his indirect influence instead. Also being king or queen is quite some compensation for better not speaking ones mind in public.

NoDataDumpNoContribution
  • 9,607
  • 2
  • 31
  • 59
  • 2
    Source for the King being a British citizen protected by the ECHR? This is not trivial. A similar discussion came up in the context of the EU requirement that members be functioning democracies. Europe recognizes the unique situation of monarchs. – MSalters Sep 12 '22 at 14:31
  • @MSalters The British Monarch is not a British citizen? Sounds a bit strange to me but I will search for that. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 12 '22 at 21:15
  • I checked UK law, and it seems the King became a citizen as part of the reorganization of British subjects into Commonwealth citizens. A King of course can't be his own subject. The remaining "British subjects" are now a small group of people who are not British citizens, and likely outside ECHR jurisdiction, but the King is not among those. – MSalters Sep 12 '22 at 22:00
  • @MSalters human rights pertain to everyone regardless of nationality or lack thereof. The ECHR applies to "everyone" who is within the jurisdiction of a state that has ratified it. But the ECHR recognizes explicitly that freedom of expression is not absolute. It's also not at all clear that a duty of neutrality imposed on a head of state or other constitutional officer (king, president, judge, etc.) constitutes an infringement on the ECHR right of free expression. – phoog Sep 13 '22 at 08:31
  • 2
    @phoog: That's the sort of problem I hinted at : The King is above the jurisdiction of the UK. Not a problem unique to the UK, though. The Dutch King legally cannot express a purely personal opinion. Any expression is de jure a statement for which his government is responsible. – MSalters Sep 13 '22 at 08:35
  • "a big yes here for the permission to have and being able to publish a political opinion": while the monarch's right to publish such a political opinion may be protected by the ECHR, and I suppose that it probably is, that doesn't mean that the monarch can't be deposed for expressing such an opinion or for disrupting the constitutional order. As with anyone, freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the consequences of one's expressions. – phoog Sep 13 '22 at 08:36
  • @MSalters well yes, you can say that the king isn't "within the jurisdiction" of the UK, but by that token any UK law restricting human rights does not restrict the king's human rights because it cannot be applied to the king. But this doesn't depend on his nationality. As to the Dutch king, is his government responsible if he's making a stamppot and he says "I think I've overestimated the salt"? – phoog Sep 13 '22 at 08:54
  • @phoog very few people will care if there is an official position of the Dutch government on the quality of a particular dish? – Caleth Sep 13 '22 at 10:07
  • @Caleth indeed. My purpose is to inquire as to whether the minsters' responsibility for the king's statements is truly absolute, and, if not, where the boundaries of their responsibility lie. – phoog Sep 13 '22 at 10:47
  • @phoog "As with anyone, freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the consequences of one's expressions." Sure but that's not what the question was asking. We could also only speculate about possible consequences. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Sep 13 '22 at 15:44
  • Whether one is "permitted" to express something is not particularly meaningful except in relation to negative consequences for saying something impermissible. That which is impermissible for the king isn't the same as that which is impermissible for a commoner, and, more to the point, the consequences of impermissible statements are different. The king cannot be sued for libel as you or I can, but if the libel is severe enough there could be a constitutional crisis. Similarly, an expression of political opinion might precipitate a constitutional crisis. Does that restrict the king's rights? – phoog Sep 13 '22 at 16:05
4

Living memory has not known a monarch other than Queen Elizabeth II for 70 years now (1952-2022). Before her we had a series of short-lived Kings: George VI (1936-1952), Edward VIII (1936), George V (1910-1936), Edward VII (1901-1910) after Queen Victoria (1837-1901).

There is a combination of unwritten constitutional rules at play, along with tradition, precedent and Queen Elizabeth II's personal style.

The symbolic job of King Charles is to carry the burden of absolute power but never to actually use it, thus preventing anybody else from carrying such a burden and being corrupted by it.

As Prince Charles, he was known for his "black spider memos" to lobby MPs behind-the-scenes on issues of activist policy.

The question of where activism crosses the line into politics is a delicate one. Issues such as the environment might be considered safe cross-party issues that are not seen to favour one political party over the other. As a Prince, he might have considered himself to have more leeway in speaking his mind as an activist. As a King, we will have to see how he readjusts himself to his mother's role.

The Sword of Damocles however is that if he misjudges the public mood, there is the risk of a Republican uprising threatening to end the institution of monarchy forever. They will be looking for any excuse they can find.

James McGuigan
  • 165
  • 4
-2

The premise of the question seems flawed. The King expressing an opinion (on any matter) is effectively a Royal Command; and issuing Royal Commands on matters rightly before Parliament would be (taken as) actual interference.

It's not so much whether the King is permitted as that it seems to be a logical impossibility.

The question may be whether or to what extent King Charles will express opinions on politics, thereby actually interfering with government policies and triggering a constitutional crisis; and what Parliament and others will do about it if so. Certainly a lot of the other answers seem to be taking it that way. However, that's a fundamentally different question.

Jiří Baum
  • 97
  • 1