Skip to site navigation

Charles in waiting: 63-year-old pays tribute to Queen – and his own destiny?

1 June 2012

Taken from Michael White's article in the Guardian

Professor Robert Hazell, head of University College London's Constitution Unit, argues that the most powerful case that republicans could make for abolishing the ancient British monarchy – practical rather than theoretical – is "the serious burdens it places on the royal family".

"The Queen is 86, an age when most people have retired; she's been in the job for 60 years with no prospect of relief until she dies. She won't ease up and she feels her coronation oath was a sacrament, so there is no question of abdication. It is a very heavy burden, for which we will be applauding her this weekend. She's stuck on the treadmill."

Prince Charles? "He's 63, itself an age when most people are starting to contemplate retirement, yet he's not actually started the job he's spent his adult life preparing for. That is burdensome, too. There are other demands we make on them in terms of the human rights we now value. The Queen has no freedom of expression or religious belief: she must be an Anglican in England and become a Presbyterian when she crosses the Scottish border. She has no freedom to travel, which the rest of us take for granted, and royal marriages need approval. It may be gilded, but it's still a cage," concludes Hazell.

Join the Debate

Blog

News

“The precious centre of our Parliamentary democracy”: Commons governance after the Clerk appointment affair

Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:00:52 +0000

Barry K Winetrobe examines the current controversy over the appointment of a new Clerk of the House of Commons, and the lessons it has for the better management and governance of the House. It is exactly a year since I posted a piece on this blog on how the Commons could use the Government defeat […]

Read more...

Reinterpreting Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan

Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:00:51 +0000

Kensuke Ueda outlines the context for the recent reinterpretation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which until now outlawed war as a means of settling disputes. He suggests the manner in which the changes were pushed through is worrying for Japanese constitutionalism. On 1 July this year the Japanese Government passed the cabinet decision […]

Read more...

Scotland’s constitutional future – from both sides in the debate

Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:00:03 +0000

Charlie Jeffery discusses how both sides in the debate see Scotland’s constitutional future in different ways. It is striking how insular Scotland’s constitutional debate is. Both sides in the debate see Scotland’s constitutional future in different ways as bound up firmly in relationships with the rest of the UK. The Yes side envisages a form […]

Read more...
Mailing List

Connect with us

RSSFlickr

Footer menu