Good points ttbn and Is Mise. I was referring to Prince Charles and others in the Royal Family that believe(d) that they have something to offer- are trying to contribute- Charles seems to be trying to contribute something but yes he should be looking at how Queen Elizabeth contributes- for example by bringing the parties together to discuss the issues- and allowing stakeholders to express their views- but not expressing a view of her own. The monarch needs to be careful not to show too much partisanship. It's a very difficult job- and certain parties are always trying to trap you- mis-quote you, etc.

But yes the Royal Family is trained from birth to serve Britain by a host of advisors- and thousand's of years of ancestral commitment and refinement so it would be difficult to find people that can offer as much in terms of ability and loyalty to the realm

There has been plenty of hints given by British PMs that reveal how
much opinion is expressed by the monarchs.
Why do you think they have those weekly meetings at Buckingham Palace ?
There have been rumors, always denied that the Queen has been very
direct in her opinions. I think that area is what is meant by service.

Still, how would I know?

.

I guess I posted this on the wrong thread. Here it is on the right thread :

.

In their book The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy (Hart 2020) Professor Robert Hazell and Bob Morris write :

« No new political theory on this topic has been developed since Bagehot wrote about the monarchy in The English Constitution (1867) »
.

The comments on this thread about Prince Charles remind me of the following passage in The English Constitution, pp 98-99 :

« I am afraid, looking to the early acquired feebleness of hereditary dynasties, that we must expect him to be a man of inferior ability. Theory and experience both teach that the education of a prince can be but a poor education and that a royal family will generally have less ability than other families. What right have we then to expect the perpetual entail on any family of an exquisite discretion, which if it be not a sort of genius, is at least as rare as genius ?

Probably in most cases the greatest wisdom of a constitutional king would show itself in well-considered inaction »
.

Here is the link :

http://play.google.com/books/reader?id=3g0QAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PP8&hl=fr

.

It appears that University College London's Professor Robert Hazell was also against Brexit- perhaps his politics is left if not far left.

http://www.harknessfellows.org.uk/event-reports/what-are-the-consequences-of-britain-leaving-the-eu-professor-robert-hazell-cbe

.

Dear Canem Malum,

.

Thanks for the link to the article on the 2019 speech by Professor Robert Hazell on the consequences of Britain leaving the EU.

You suggest that "perhaps his politics is left if not far-left", but I see nothing in the article - or in any of his writings I've been able to consult on the internet - that suggests that.

Are you deducing that he was against Brexit and therefore "left if not far-left" because he wrote :

"Brexit is mostly a political crisis rather than a constitutional crisis; a political crisis because the Cabinet is split; the Tory party is split; the country is split, roughly 50:50 over Brexit. Debate has raged for 1000 days since the 2016 referendum, and it is no nearer achieving resolution." ?

I can't imagine that to be the case, as many conservatives, particularly in the industrial, financial, and insurance industries were very much against Brexit.

It appears that Hazell is widely recognized by his peers as an authority on matters of government and constitutional law.

But, perhaps I am missing something.

Would you please clarify ?

.

Banjo Paterson- Maybe I need to do some more research. That's why I qualified it with "perhaps". It was a first pass- I didn't even read the article- just the byline. It's also important to understand why people say things.