Read on Twitter
1/ Many of the issues raised by Prince Michael’s erm... “Activities” are connected to Harry’s and Meghan’s position. https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1391079256776663042
2/ The fundamental problem with Harry & Meghan, is that they appeared to want to pursue particular causes of their one interest and business opportunities.
3/ That’s not the role of a modern royal, which is to support the monarch, particularly when it comes to their role as “Head of Nation”.
I explored what this means in this thread below.
Basically it's representing the “nation” in a way that's one step removed from politics. https://twitter.com/craigprescott/status/1367975104827826179
I explored what this means in this thread below.
Basically it's representing the “nation” in a way that's one step removed from politics. https://twitter.com/craigprescott/status/1367975104827826179
4/ The public funding of the monarchy and it's broader position is at least partially dependent on how it fulfils this role, rather than the constitutional functions of the monarchy. That is increasingly minimal.
Most people see the monarchy in it's Head of Nation role.
Most people see the monarchy in it's Head of Nation role.
5/ At it's core it's about public service, rather than using your position for private gain. That is precisely what Prince Michael is shown as doing in this expose.
6/ Essentially, it's as if Prince Michael’s title is his “right” rather than a privilege. And he can act as he pleases. Legally it is correct.
This stems from the “George V convention” which became central to Meghan’s Oprah interview and Archie’s title.
This stems from the “George V convention” which became central to Meghan’s Oprah interview and Archie’s title.
7/ As explained above, that's not how the public see it anymore, or how they view it.
In 1992, The Queen herself said that the monarchy as an institution should be subject to scrutiny like any other.
In 1992, The Queen herself said that the monarchy as an institution should be subject to scrutiny like any other.
8/ In essence we're moving (if we haven't already) to a “role based monstchy”, where those with the titles are expected to do certain things and uphold certain standards.
9/ If you don't want the role, or you don't meet the standards expected of being in public life, then you should not have the title of Prince.
10/ This is why Prince Charles want to slim down the royal family, to focus on a core number who meet these requirements.
11/ The difficulty is what to do with those like Prince Michael, Prince Andrew and Prince Harry who have the titles, while their conduct falls below what's expected, or they don't want to fulfil the expectations or role that comes with the title of “Prince” and “HRH”.
12/ One approach is for the Queen to require that they longer use those titles - Harry no longer uses “HRH”, or to allow the monarch to strip them of their title (Diana was stripped of HRH status by the Queen).
There maybe legal issues with some of this, but not insurmountable.
There maybe legal issues with some of this, but not insurmountable.
13/ The King of Sweden did something similar in 2019... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49958085
Ends/ I explored this in the piece below in the Meghan and Harry context.
I’m likely to wrote something on Prince Michael after Despatches is broadcast on Monday https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/03/23/craig-prescott-modernising-the-monarchy-moving-beyond-the-1917-letters-patent-and-the-george-v-convention/
I’m likely to wrote something on Prince Michael after Despatches is broadcast on Monday https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/03/23/craig-prescott-modernising-the-monarchy-moving-beyond-the-1917-letters-patent-and-the-george-v-convention/
