[align=center]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4734798.stm [/align] I was reading the Evening Standard on the way home and it was whittering on about Charles not being meant to have a political opinion constitutionally, either as heir apparent or when he takes up the throne/crown. I was pondering this both historically and in regard to the 'constitution'. I think that as far as the constitution goes (and something about it not being worth the paper its written on springs to mind!!!) the heir and the monarch are perfectly within their rights to hold an opinion but it should be none partisan, i.e. not based by an affiliation to a particular party. That the 'opinion' (read policy or potential policy) may be held by this party or that is totally irrelevant, so long as this opinion is independent of party politics. If a particular party and the person concerned converge on some opinions this should be considered at worse coincedence, at best the right and correct course. The convention, constitutionally speaking, of a monarch and/or heir remaining silent on what could be considered political matters is of course quite recent. One might also add that the 'Mass Media' is also relatively recent, i.e. The Web, TV, Radio, even the mass press (and the ability of the masses to read!!!). I am sure that the monarch always had an opinion, its just we plebs never knew it.