Charles told to ‘shut up fast’ as he risks ‘destroying monarchy’ with political meddling

Judi Love compares Prince Charles to James Bond

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. More info

Under a deal struck by Home Secretary Priti Patel in April, migrants who arrive in Britain illegally face being deported 4,000 miles away to Rwanda. Prince Charles, 73, reportedly described the approach as “appalling” while speaking in private, and expressed his opposition to it several times. The Prince of Wales is due to represent his mother the Queen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, this month – an event feared to be overshadowed by Ms Patel’s controversial policy.

A royal source told the Times: “He said he was more than disappointed at the policy.

“He said he thinks the Government’s whole approach is appalling. It was clear he was not impressed with the government’s direction of travel.”

Brexiteer Nile Gardiner disagreed both with the Prince’s point of view and the fact that he expressed it, tweeting: “Prince Charles sending completely wrong message on Rwanda migrant plan, which will act as a strong deterrent to illegal migration from France, which is overwhelmingly economic migration.

“Also wrong approach for a senior royal to comment on Government policy.”

Nigel Farage went a step further, however, claiming Prince Charles’s comments represented an existential threat to the Royal Family.

He tweeted: “Unless Prince Charles wants to destroy the monarchy he had better shut up fast.”

While Clarence House didn’t deny the Prince’s opposition to the policy, they insisted he was not trying to influence the Government.

A spokesman said: “We would not comment on supposed anonymous private conversations with the Prince of Wales, except to restate that he remains politically neutral. Matters of policy are decisions for Government.”

As Prince rather than ruling monarch, Charles is not bound by the same rules as the Queen, and unlike Her Majesty is not required to act on the advice of ministers.

Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College, London told the Times: “The only constraint is that he must not say anything which would embarrass the Queen.”

While this would include discussing party politics, talking about public policy is not restricted for Prince Charles, as long as it is in private.

Mr Bogdanor said: “Obviously any public reflections on government policy would embarrass the Queen.

“The implication would be that the royal family is partisan.”

The professor added: “He has got the same right as anyone else to express views privately on government policy.”

In a BBC documentary marking his 70th birthday in 2018, Charles said he would no longer make public interventions on such subjects once he was king, declaring: “I’m not that stupid.”

He acknowledged he would not be “able to do the same things I’ve done as heir” and as monarch would have to operate within “constitutional parameters”.

He added the idea that he would continue making interventions was “nonsense”.

DON’T MISS: Charles and Camilla could host Strictly at Buckingham Palace [REVEAL]
Sophie Wessex and Prince Edward facing the axe from working roster [ANALYSIS]
Queen taught Prince George key lesson during Platinum Jubilee [INSIGHT]

The hugely controversial Rwanda plan has just overcome a legal challenge as the first flight to deport migrants is due to go ahead on Tuesday.

The UN’s refugee agency UNHCR has backed calls to halt the flight on the grounds that it breached Britain’s international legal obligations.

The government has argued the policy is crucial to deter Channel crossings after more than 10,000 migrants crossed this year, a figure that was not reached until August last year.

A Government spokesman said: “Our world-leading partnership with Rwanda will see those making dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK relocated there to have their claims considered and rebuild their lives . . .

“Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers and we are confident the agreement is fully compliant with all national and international law.”

Source: Read Full Article