I find the legal perspectives and potentials in this very interesting. And King Charles has shown himself in the past really quite thoughtful on what would make for a better society. But does it not seem today that he is rather 'captured'?
I see him rather as a prisoner of his circumstances who cooperates, as prisoners must, when there's nothing to be gained by refusing to cooperate, but demonstrates his resentment of his imprisonment when he can.
I can't say I know a great deal about him but I read his book, Harmony, after watching an interview Freddie Sayers did, on Unherd TV, with one of the co-authors, Ian Skelly. My impression is he takes his role very seriously and very much wants to do what is right for the country. He certainly values tradition highly but I don't feel that he identifies particularly with the political class or corporate vested interests.
We'll see (I hope) — though there are a few details to work out before this strategy could be initiated!
I was for a very long time an admirer of Prince (as was then) Charles, who as you say has a long record of serious and thoughful engagement with the issues of society. But I have become much less an admirer of late. I was especially disillusioned by his high-profile endorsement of the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset'.
I watched the Ian Skelly / Freddie Sayers discussion back when it was first aired, and found it very interesting, with lots of, let's say, potentially noble / enlightened positions. Yet I found myself want to write a Substack answering it, because I felt that the King's philosophical outlook, as recounted by Ian Skelly, has been undermined by missing some very important angles. I may yet write that piece, but it's on a very long list of pending articles!
I'll only comment further that as with most things I read about or watch, and most especially opinions or percetptions of individuals, we are always working with very imcomplete information!
It's interesting how you say that sovereignty rests with the people, but the sovereign himself may actually provide a way out of a political/constitutional impasse.
Beyond the idea that governing always needs a degree of consent from the governed, I'm not really sure where the power of sovereignty rests. I don't particularly think democratic thinking on sovereignty is particularly logical - you need a huge number of good losers who have faith that the pendulum will swing back their way in turn and that's gone from the modern world. It also always raises the prospect that a greater quantity is somehow more democratic, legitimate or sovereign than a smaller one which - although it may be the essence of some modern thinking - seems very strange to me.
Ideally the role of the monarch as servant of the people would be formally acknowledged (which is implicit in the theme of an earlier post, Democratically Accountable Monarchy*) but I'm not sure it is at the moment – though I don't know any details of what happens at the Accession Council.
"It also always raises the prospect that a greater quantity is somehow more democratic, legitimate or sovereign than a smaller one which - although it may be the essence of some modern thinking - seems very strange to me."
Yes, it never seems quite right that, say, 70% tipping one way (but not really caring much) should outweigh 30% who are passionately committed the other way. I suspect it wouldn't be possible for any voting system to represent depth of feeling, but I think structural reforms to the framework of representation might get round that problem.
I don't know how much appetite you have for this kind of stuff, but my recent Hemispheres of Governance post discusses the underlying reasons for why the political pendulum swings, and proposes a reform that would stabilise it without neutralising the extremes.
Hi Malcolm,
I find the legal perspectives and potentials in this very interesting. And King Charles has shown himself in the past really quite thoughtful on what would make for a better society. But does it not seem today that he is rather 'captured'?
Thanks Michael.
I see him rather as a prisoner of his circumstances who cooperates, as prisoners must, when there's nothing to be gained by refusing to cooperate, but demonstrates his resentment of his imprisonment when he can.
I can't say I know a great deal about him but I read his book, Harmony, after watching an interview Freddie Sayers did, on Unherd TV, with one of the co-authors, Ian Skelly. My impression is he takes his role very seriously and very much wants to do what is right for the country. He certainly values tradition highly but I don't feel that he identifies particularly with the political class or corporate vested interests.
We'll see (I hope) — though there are a few details to work out before this strategy could be initiated!
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-charles-iii-paradox-anti-establishment-king/
Thanks Malcolm, I very much understand that view.
I was for a very long time an admirer of Prince (as was then) Charles, who as you say has a long record of serious and thoughful engagement with the issues of society. But I have become much less an admirer of late. I was especially disillusioned by his high-profile endorsement of the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset'.
I watched the Ian Skelly / Freddie Sayers discussion back when it was first aired, and found it very interesting, with lots of, let's say, potentially noble / enlightened positions. Yet I found myself want to write a Substack answering it, because I felt that the King's philosophical outlook, as recounted by Ian Skelly, has been undermined by missing some very important angles. I may yet write that piece, but it's on a very long list of pending articles!
I'll only comment further that as with most things I read about or watch, and most especially opinions or percetptions of individuals, we are always working with very imcomplete information!
It's interesting how you say that sovereignty rests with the people, but the sovereign himself may actually provide a way out of a political/constitutional impasse.
Beyond the idea that governing always needs a degree of consent from the governed, I'm not really sure where the power of sovereignty rests. I don't particularly think democratic thinking on sovereignty is particularly logical - you need a huge number of good losers who have faith that the pendulum will swing back their way in turn and that's gone from the modern world. It also always raises the prospect that a greater quantity is somehow more democratic, legitimate or sovereign than a smaller one which - although it may be the essence of some modern thinking - seems very strange to me.
(Duplicate response, already posted on Notes)
Thanks for restacking this, Samuel.
Ideally the role of the monarch as servant of the people would be formally acknowledged (which is implicit in the theme of an earlier post, Democratically Accountable Monarchy*) but I'm not sure it is at the moment – though I don't know any details of what happens at the Accession Council.
"It also always raises the prospect that a greater quantity is somehow more democratic, legitimate or sovereign than a smaller one which - although it may be the essence of some modern thinking - seems very strange to me."
Yes, it never seems quite right that, say, 70% tipping one way (but not really caring much) should outweigh 30% who are passionately committed the other way. I suspect it wouldn't be possible for any voting system to represent depth of feeling, but I think structural reforms to the framework of representation might get round that problem.
I don't know how much appetite you have for this kind of stuff, but my recent Hemispheres of Governance post discusses the underlying reasons for why the political pendulum swings, and proposes a reform that would stabilise it without neutralising the extremes.
* https://malcolmr.substack.com/p/democratically-accountable-monarchy