The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it resolved: Prince Charles is unfit to be King of England

Episode Date: March 8, 2022

He's been heir to the throne for 70 years, waiting to take over as King of Great Britain from the country's longest serving monarch, his mother, Queen Elizabeth. But as the Queen's advanced age and fragile health becomes ever more apparent, many in the UK are wondering whether Charles is the right man to take over the throne from his long-beloved and admired mother. The Prince's critics point to a sense of entitlement and dour personality unbecoming of a monarch. He lectures about the environment while flying in a private jet, is thin-skinned to criticism, and is forever tainted by his alleged treatment of Diana and the very ugly details that led to the breakdown of their marriage. And most importantly, his critics argue, a constitutional monarchy requires that the sovereign not interfere in politics, a role that Queen Elizabeth has embraced and perfected over her long reign. Charles, by contrast, has used his position to express his views and influence both popular and ministerial opinion. The Prince's allies insist that he is the right man for the job – he will bring a more modern, European, and tolerant sensibility to a country that must adapt to a new world. His lifelong commitment to protecting the environment and raising awareness about climate change – long before it was deemed fashionable - shows a strength of character sorely lacking in today's leaders.  And finally, as the longest serving heir to the British throne, he has long exhibited a keen sense of duty and commitment to the monarchy which has endeared him to his subjects and guarantees an easy transition when the time inevitably comes. Arguing for the  motion is Clive Irving, former editor of The Sunday Times and author of The Last Queen: Elizabeth II's Seventy Year Battle to Save the House of Windsor Arguing against the motion is Angela Levin, royal commentator and biographer, and author of Harry: Conversations with the Prince  QUOTES: CLIVE IRVING “Charles has lived in a highly privileged cocoon. William and Kate, on the other hand, fit and understand the real world in a way that Charles has never done” ANGELA LEVIN “We are living in a tumultuous world … we need security and straightforwardness. We need someone we can really trust. And I think that Prince Charles fits that role perfectly.” Sources:  GMA, CNN, 7News, The Royal Family Channel, Sky News The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Reza DahyaBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I distinctly remember hearing someone yell, stop that van. From CBC podcasts, an investigation into how young men are being recruited and radicalized on the internet. And she asked me if I was friends with a guy named Alec Menassian. By a new supercharged form of hate. On Facebook, police say he wrote the incal rebellion has already begun. A dark online subculture that's spilling over into the real world. Boys like me, available now on CBC Listen and everywhere you. you get your podcasts.

These statues have to come down. It's always been a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The problem now is it's a pandemic of the willfully unvaccinated. Falling birth rates are good. They're good for our planet. They're good for our societies. We're not responsible for the escalation with Russia. We're not the ones who invaded Ukraine.

I don't think it's fair to portray people of color as victims. It is a very dangerous time in American politics. Welcome to the Monk Debates. every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, it resolved. Prince Charles, is unfit to be the king of England. New concerns this morning for the health of Queen Elizabeth, the 95-year-old monarch, canceling the trip the next week in Global Climate Summit in Scotland, a week after spending the night

in the hospital. Queen Elizabeth being advised by doctors to rest, for at least two weeks, the next two weeks. That's according to Buckingham Palace. Buckingham Palace says Queen Elizabeth will not be making a public appearance at the Remembrance Day service after straining her back. Queen Elizabeth out of isolation after growing concerns about the 95-year-old monarch's health

when she tested positive for COVID. Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffith. This year is supposed to be one of celebration for Queen Elizabeth, marking 70 years since she ascended to the throne in 1952. But as the queen's advanced age and fragile health becomes ever more apparent, many in the UK and around the world are wondering

whether her son, Prince Charles, is the right man to take over as the head of the British monarchy. The prince's critics point to a sense of entitlement and a dower personality, unbecoming a king. He lectures about the environment while flying in a private jet, is thin-skinned about criticism,

has a history of interfering in politics and is forever tainted in the public's mind by his supposed poor treatment of Diana and the ugly details that emerged and led ultimately to the breakdown of their marriage. The Prince's allies insist, while some of this or none of it may be true, he is still the right man for the job. He'll bring a more modern European and tolerant sensibility to an institution that is essential to constitutional. monarchies from the United Kingdom to Canada to Australia. His lifelong commitment to protecting the environment, raising awareness about climate change, shows a strength of character and a foresight about important public policy issues sorely lacking in many of today's leaders.

And as the longest-serving heir to the British throne, he has exhibited a keen sense of duty and commitment to the institution that has endeared him to many of his subjects and paves the way for a seamless transition from the reign of Queen Elizabeth to the reign of King Charles. On this installment of the monk debates, we challenge the essence of these arguments

by debating the motion, be it resolved. Prince Charles is unfit to be the king of England. Arguing for the motion is Clive Irving. He's the former editor of the Sunday Times and an author of the recent best-selling book, The Last Queen, Queen Elizabeth's 70-year battle

to save the House of Windsor. arguing against the motion is Angela Levin, a royal commentator and biographer, an author of the bestseller, Harry, Conversations with the Prince. Clive, Angela, welcome to the Monk debates. Thank you very much. Very pleased to be here. Yeah. I'm excited for this debate today. Our resolution, be it resolved. Prince Charles is unfit to be the king of England. We know all of us sending best wishes to Queen Elizabeth. as she recovers from COVID-19. But again, the whole issue of the succession of the monarchy in England is one of wide, popular, and not insignificant substance and debate.

This podcast is recorded out of Canada. We, too, are a constitutional monarchy with your crown as our crown. So we share that across the Atlantic of many Canadians. obviously interested about the future of this important institution in the years to come. We're going to put a couple minutes on our show clock right now and turn the program over to Clive, who's arguing in favor of our motion, be it resolved Prince Charles's unfit to be the king of England. Charles, give us your key opening arguments and ideas, please. Okay, so we are at a moment in the history of the monarchy, which is going to be very

critical and we all hope that the Queen can complete her stated aim of serving for as long as she feels able as Queen she has shown a remarkable stamina through the whole of the pandemic and I think she is determined to carry on for as long as it's practical but you know she's 95 coming up to 96 she has to concede the frailties of age and I think all this is accelerated and precipitated the question about the succession. And I think we face a situation where the heir has to meet the standards set by his mother. She really has shaped the monarchy over the last 70 years very strongly in her own image. So it's largely her design from the one that she inherited.

And it's unique really. I think it's partly to do with the fact that she's a woman. and how that shaped things. And she's maternalized the monarchy in a way and become a very strong mother figure for the country and for the Commonwealth. And she's above reproach. So those are the standards she herself set for the job, if you like.

And in my view, Charles doesn't meet any of those standards because he's a very different kind of person. Thank you, Clive. We'll dig into all those points and more as this debate goes on. So, Angela, a similar opportunity for you a couple minutes on the clock to make the argument against our motion today, be it resolved Prince Charles is unfit to be the king of England. I think he's wonderfully fit to be the next king. I don't see that you should keep on the same path as someone who's been there for 70 years because life changes very fast. and what Her Majesty did in all good faith years ago has now become rather old-fashioned.

I think he is the best prepared heir for the throne. He's been wanting to do this since he was a child, and he has recently shown how good he's been to stand in for Her Majesty and to work with her. He's done great things during his eardom. When we can remember, he could be sitting on a wonderful island with lots of girls and sand and drink. He doesn't have to work as hard as he does,

but he cares about the country and the Commonwealth. So he works every day for very long hours. He's found work and training for a million young people, many of whom lived on the street and had terrible mental health issues. He's very happy now. He's married to Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall,

who has given him confidence, and encouragement, but always been there for him not to try to take front of the stage. He's not hypocritical. And I think that we will enjoy very much his reign. Thank you for that opening statement. Okay, a chance now for rebuttals, an opportunity for each of you to weigh in on what you've just heard. So Clive, back to you. What of Angela's remarks do you want to spark off?

Yeah, I agree with Angela about the good works that he does. I know about that, but I don't think that's really the material point, given the circumstances. When I said that he doesn't have the queen's qualities, I'm not saying that in any way he needs to emulate what the queen has done, because obviously, as Angela says, times have changed. And I think that's really the problem that, and he's very well experienced. Obviously, he's been waiting so long, and I think that's very unfair on him, really, that he's been waiting so long, but it is also the point that he's been waiting too long. And the queen came to the throne at the age of 25, precipitated their very inexperienced, and she had a very tough time learning on the job.

She had to learn on the job, which certainly Charles wouldn't have to learn on the job because he knows all it already. But I think that you put it in crude commercial terms. They call themselves the firm. This is the 21st century. We're well into the 21st century. It's very much about the optics, the appearances. of the monarch monarchy in relation to how relevant will it seem to the young people of the 21st century institution itself, will it feel relevant to their lives? Once the queen is removed, this question

becomes altogether new. She's reigned for so long that she's put off the reckoning, and now we will face the reckoning very soon. And if, in terms of brand, the royal brand, if you're rebranding this as the firm, as they call themselves, you were faced with the choice of a transitional chief executive or a transformational chief executive, you would go for the transformational one because the whole institution needs a transformation. So Charles is 73 years old. William is 39 years old. That makes him a good deal older than the queen was when she came to the throne. William and Kate are the face of the 21st century in every way. On Friday the 29th of April 2011, crowds gathered outside Westminster Abbey as Prince William and Kate Middleton married, changing the future of the royal family.

Their fairy tale union was watched by tens of millions right around the world, now a decade on from their big day, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have grown up, they're raising a family and preparing for the crown before our very eyes. admirable couple in their character, they fit, I think, and understand the real world in a way that Charles has never done. Charles has lived in a highly privileged cocoon, and I think that's partly because of the way he was brought up, which was catastrophic. Charles had a very unhappy childhood. The queen was very remote from him, something she woke up to much later, and he was much more unhappish. under the influence of his father, who treated him very cruelly, I think. And then behind his father was Lord Van Batten, whose idea it was to send Charles to Gordonstown, where he had a terrible time,

this kind of very teutonic, muscular, Scottish, remote Scottish school. And Charles was a vet, as he said himself, he's not a team player. He doesn't really like the company of teams. He's very much a deeply introspective and thoughtful person. and that was entirely the wrong upbringing for him. And then he was forced into a catastrophic arranged marriage, the consequences of which have been very harmful to everybody involved,

including, I must say, Camilla. And I know Angela's writing a book about Camilla, and I think that Camilla, in a way, has been introduced inadvertently by playing the role of the woman who stole Charles away from Diana, which is a very glib and superficial way of looking at it. And I think, as Angela said, Camilla is an enormous prop for Charles. She's made him into a much more stable personality, I think.

But I rest my case basically on a simple thing that there's no time to go to someone who appears to live in the 18th century, not the 21st century, which I think that Charles does. It would be a sensational transformation of image and personality and vigour. and relevance and the ability to communicate if they went straight to William and Kate. It would simply be an amazing coup of transformation, which will not happen if Charles becomes king or when he becomes king. I'm sure he's going to become king. Thank you, Clive. Really interesting ideas and insights that we will explore further in this debate that we're having today, be it resolved.

Prince Charles's unfit to be the king of England. Angela, your opportunity for a rebuttal now, you can react to Clive's opening statement or what you've just heard. Well, I think to talk about rebrand and transformation is exactly what Prince Charles is waiting for. He refuses to talk about it because he has said that if he does, he looks like he's looking forward to the death of his mother, which he can't bear the thought of. And I think that's all to him, really. but he has loads of ideas to modernise the royal family. And of course he was the one who has tried to get people to listen to climate change and how to stop that and to look after the environment

and do all those things decades before anybody else got onto it. We are in the midst of a crisis that is now, I hope, well understood. global warming, climate change and the devastating loss of biodiversity are the greatest threats humanity has ever faced and one largely of our own creation. He has a knack, it's an extraordinary knack, of anticipating what's happening. He was the first person ever to complain about plastics. People thought he was bonkers, but in fact he's been absolutely right about this.

So he is in a way, he might be of a certain aim. I think it's awful to pigeonhole people as to how old they are. But he has got a very modern mind and he learns and he listens. Also, if you want to talk about being damaged, I quite agree that Prince Charles was very damaged by his childhood. But so, of course, was William. His mother used him as a sort of the male of the household and asked him all about her lovers

and he had to really look after her and help her stop crying and threaten suicide. So he's also damaged. I think people can come back from damage if they have a right person with them. And I think both Prince Charles and William do. So that's for that. And I think we don't need a mother figure

every time we change the monarch. I mean, we think we get what we take and everyone has a slightly different aspect to it. And I think that's healthy rather than trying to follow in footsteps. It's true that Charles, recognize the importance of climate change. And it's true that he was very sensitive to the environment. And some of that he inherited from his father who ran the World Wildlife Fund.

But he doesn't practice what he preaches. For example, he flies around in corporate jets, even going to meetings about climate change. He does that. And he's left not just a carbon footprint, but a carbon boot print. I mean, it's enormous. And more specifically, he owns huge tracks of land in the Duchy of Cornwall in southwest England. If he was really serious about this, he could build wind farms on that land. I long to interfere here because I've been waiting for this one and I've got a list here. He's campaigned for environment for many years. The only time he flies is if he's actually been asked the government to do something. He can't turn that down because he's heir to the throne. He doesn't use it for holidays as other members of the

royal family do. All his cars are run with an extraordinary combination, not a petrol like we all have, but it's surplus white wine and way from cheese. So he does that. He's launched a huge tree campaign. He avoids dairy on one day, eating meat and fish on two days a week, which he advises people to do. He's got solar panels, wood chip boilers. I think that he actually, that's his very best to live a very clean life so that he's not making too much action. But he can't refuse to fly because if he has to go to the Commonwealth and even Canada, he can't go there by boat and train and car. That would be nonsense. He only does it when he's needed to do that by the government.

Yeah, I don't want to go down a rabbit hole on this stuff, but I mean, look at solar panels you mentioned. He's got a few solar panels on Clarence House and a few on farm buildings in High Grove, but actually nothing's been done to put solar panels on all the palaces, which he could have had done, and that would have made a big deal. He owns them. He can't do that. They belong to the Queen.

She's there. He can't do that. He could well do that if he, this is. This is to do with his powers of persuasion with his mother, I suppose. Well, that doesn't work. She's a very small. Let me jump in here because there's a variety of issues to kind of dig into. And Clive, let me start with you.

And this is probably a topic that's front of mind for many of our listeners, tuning into this debate, be it resolved, Prince Charles is unfit to be the king of England. You know, some people would argue this is bigger than personalities. This is about an institution. And institutions have rules. And rules following by institutions generally is a good thing. It's what people expect. It promotes stability and coherence.

And the queen and Prince Charles are, in a sense, doing their duty here. They are following the proper and correct pattern and process of succession. Why isn't that the definitive answer in this debate against this. motion. Okay, well, that's the problem, really. The hereditary system is possibly the worst system ever invented for putting people in positions of authority. And it's medieval in its concept. It's undemocratic. And it's a paradox because on the one hand, you get lucky sometimes. We got very lucky with the queen and we got very lucky with the queen's father. But before them, there were several duds. There was the biggest dud of all, Edward V. There's George's the 5th. There was

a terrible tyrannical father and an awful man. And following Queen Victoria, there was Eddie, who didn't get much chance to be a king and was a kind of a luxury, a grotesque figure. So we got lucky with the queen, we got lucky with the queen's father. That is the system. And the question is, the institution itself is a very mysterious thing. It matters more to the British than I think it does to anyone else. in the Commonwealth. You may think that the monarchy is a institution that stands on its own,

independently of any other, but it actually deeply interlocked with the way the country is run. It's interlocked with the executive. It's interlocked with the military and with the law, because the queen, basically, the queen's name goes on the laws. So say if you were setting up to abolish the monarchy, you'd be removing a very subtle system of power. You'd be removing the heart and the centre from it, and the whole system would collapse. It's been very subtly and cunningly evolving over two centuries to give the appearance of a constitutional democracy.

And it is in a sense, there's no written constitutions, that's a bit of a contradiction, but it is in a sense far safer to have a head of state who appears to be powerless and is certainly neutral in the way that the Queen's always been neutral, far safer to have that than to have someone who's elected as a president

from the body of politicians available at the moment. And we do at the moment suffer from possibly the worst body of politicians in terms of ethics and integrity and competence that we've faced for a very long time. So why I have to admit, by instinct I would, want to abolish it. But as a pragmatist and an observer of the British cultural scene for a very long time, I accept that it's a very safe way of having a figurehead at the top of the country. So this debate is very important in the sense that we're debating the possible longevity of

the institution. And in my view, Charles would be very harmful to ensuring the longevity of the institution. So, Angela, let's have you come back on this because Clive's raising an interesting point. He's saying, okay, if you're an institutionalist, then get serious. This guy is not going to be good for the institution. He is not popular amongst the public. Institutions in this day and age, we may not like it, but they are subject to the whims of public opinion. Their authority, their legitimacy stems in no small part from public perceptions. And it's undeniable. in public opinion surveys, polling the popular discourse around Prince Charles is negative. And that's at times to be generous with how one might characterize the conversation,

the perceptions of his ability to act as monarch. Well, I don't agree with you. I think the queen was very low in popularity when Diana died. And she picked up. I think the formidable thing about the role of family is that it's a graph that goes up and down, like a wave. Sometimes it's very popular and sometimes it's less popular. But Prince Charles has got a lot more popular. And particularly with younger people who feel in this very sort of strange world we're now living in,

more secure with somebody who knows what they're doing has got experience than somebody who's very young. And I think that... William is not very young. He's 39 years old, for God's sake. No, no, I'm talking about Charles is not very young. I see. Sorry.

It's all right. And I think this is what happens. But the truth is there that if, say, the people in the United Kingdom decided they absolutely didn't want a monarchy, they could have a vote. And if they voted against it, then they would be out. It's not an absolute standard thing there that is always going to go on. But so far, we like it so far, and I agree with Clive on this one, for the first time, really,

that we don't want a dictator in its place. And I think that we can tell those senior royals, who have a sense of duty. I think Prince Charles has a huge sense of duty, as does William. And that will actually take us through. We don't know yet about Prince George, but we have him there and he's being brought up by a very stable family, and like William and Charles.

And perhaps, you know, he will be good, perhaps he won't. But I think that nothing is perfect, but it's far more perfect to have somebody who really cares about individuals and wanting to help here and abroad than those who are just out for themselves? Yeah, I don't buy that because I don't see that that's his image at all. And I think that to be totally realistic, if you were interviewing candidates for the rebranding exercise

as the head of a company, and you spent five minutes with Charles and five minutes with William, it would be a very easy call to make. you'd choose William because Charles is instinctively, you know, I don't want to sound glib about this because I know people have known Charles for a very long while and one of whom unfortunately is now dead but knew him for a very long while. And it's clear to me from everything that they say and they knew him extremely intimately and well that he's really two different people. He can be extraordinarily kind and generous and he can be very far-sighted in seeing basic issues. But he also

goes off on really weird rants and tangents. And he's done enormous damage to the architectural landscape of London and of Britain. For example, one of the greatest architects of the 20th century was Mies van der Roe and he wanted to put a new building in the city of London. And Charles, when he was very young, mounted a campaign with the burgers of the city of London to make sure that this project got killed, which it did. It would have been a masterpiece of 20th century architecture.

architecture. And so in the very same spot where that was going to be put, a terrible abortion appeared later on. I didn't hear Charles complaining about that one. And I think this weird town that he's constructed in Dorset, which I know very well, is like a little Disney World version of an England that never existed. And that suits and reflects Charles' view of the country, a kind of romanticised, may launch of architectural styles, some of them from Rome, some from Venice, some from the Middle Ages, some from the present. He intrudes into areas in which he has no knowledge or taste and has been very damaging and doing things in that way.

And the Queen would never dream of interfering anything like that. And I think that if Charles becomes king, he can't stop himself from doing that because he's very conscious of what he calls his convening power, which means he likes to have an echo chamber of sycophants around him who endorse his own eyes. and don't challenge him enough. And he's now in serious trouble because of that characteristic

with the Prince's Trust and the investigation by Scott Linnard into the someone offering at nighthood in return for donations. And Charles, I don't think Charles knew anything about that or had anything to do with it, but that's the problem. Now the Metropolitan Police investigating cash for honours claims around Prince Charles's charity. The allegations first came out like, summer that Michael Fawcett, one of his longest serving aides and the chief executive of the

Prince's Foundation, may have offered to help a Saudi businessman to secure an honour and British citizenship in return for a donation. He can seek cover from this scandal and it will be a scandal, possibly on the level of the Andrews scandal, but it's dereliction of duty and dereliction of attention. The thing's got his name on it, the title, The Prince's Trust means something. and I think that's all too typical of how he would perform as a modern executive. He simply is not up to it. And I think William, and I know Angela said that William had a damaged childhood and somehow that is a strike against him. But it isn't.

Williams are totally accessible modern man who speaks the language. By the way, he's been very well tutored in all the duties of being a monarch. He's gone through the whole assault course, as it were, and knows the whole thing very well. So, Angela, let's hear you a little bit on why there shouldn't have been this stepping over of Charles to William, based partly on self-interest, on the institution seeking out a monarch who would have some popular support, who, in Clive's view, would be more in tune with the issues and ideas and currents of a younger generation and the 21st century as we find it today. Well, first of all, I think it's wrong to start bringing out something that you say he did when he was very young over architecture because you can't actually blame somebody for what they did a long time ago. Secondly, Prince Charles, as the heir to the throne, had the right to make complaints and discuss things. But he did say in 2005 that when he became a question. king, if he became king, he would stop himself and he wouldn't do that. He wouldn't write to politicians

with his sort of dreadful handwriting. He wouldn't comment on these things and he hasn't. I think him within the institution is a great enormous asset. I think, as I've said before, that he looks forward and he knows about the future and he's got experience to do something that's stable. There is also the addition of Camilla, who has lived a life in a very ordinary way, quite wealthy, but she's had to do her own bringing up of her children and shopping and washing and all that sort of thing. So she's brought that to him, and she would be very strong supporter. And if she felt that he was being old-fashioned, she would, with her charm, sort of mention it. and he listens to her, he trusts her. He doesn't necessarily trust his courtiers 100% because everybody isn't perfect.

And I think it's completely unfair to tarnish him with things about age and what he did 30, 40 years ago. And I think with William, he's a good adult and he's recovered from a terrible childhood himself. But we have the protocol, and it is the way that the royal family works, that the heirs come in the right number. And he's top of the list. And he's worked very hard to stay there and to be helpful. He works incredibly hard. You can't say he's a dereliction of his duties. I mean, I spent a year with him when I wrote a long profile for his 70th birthday.

He works every day of the year and sometimes up to 2 o'clock the following morning, falling asleep on his laptop because he's so busy and doing so many things. And he can do six engagements a day. That is not being dereliction, not a dereliction of duty for any means. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, your host and moderator. I have a favor to ask you, please consider becoming a monk member. Membership is free and you get access to a series of great benefits, including a 10-plus-year library of some of our best debates, dialogues,

podcasts. You also get a free monthly newsletter featuring the debates that we're watching around the world, and you get a specially curated Friday weekly Monk Members Only podcast that focuses on the big international events and trends shaping our world. All of that, again, free at www.munkdebates.com. I hope you'll consider joining and becoming part of our community. Now, back to our As we move to closing statements, let me just shoehorn one more aspect, get the two of you to kind of prognosticate for a little bit for us about how the future will look for this institution under Charles as King. So Clive, to you first, let's say this is going to happen. They're not going to skip over and make William King. So how does this play up for you?

Do you think, Clive, that the institution itself is in jeopardy and that there could be or would be a new kind of Republican sentiment sweeping not just the United Kingdom, but countries like Canada too? Well, I do know that I have a friend who's an historian of the royal family in Australia, and she said to me that she felt that once the Queen's gone, it's an entirely different ballgame in terms of Republican sentiment, and I can't speak about Canada because I don't know the same thing. But I do think that the monarchy is giving itself an unnecessary problem

by having Charles succeed his mother. But I think it's an inevitability. So how can they manage that? And I do respect and believe what Angela says about Charles's intentions to have a modernised monarch. I just don't know what he means by that. And I think there are so many free loads. and hangers on in the outer fringes of this sprawling family,

that they would have to be cut off, and there are too many palaces that cost too much money to upkeep, and they would have to be reduced. I think that Charles would need to make very quickly a series of very strong statements about his understanding of the importance of the continuity of the monarchy and how he intends to sustain that, and he would need to make some very first.

executive decisions about the quality of the court that surrounds the monarch, because he's been running his own court in effect at Clarence House, and this has confused things because, and since the Queen moved to Windsor Castle, and there's been a geographic gulf between London and Winds, it's only 21 miles, but it's a gulf in terms of running things smoothly in an integrated way. I want to see Charles prove, as Angela believes, he can prove that he can be an effective chief executive and make and overcome the appearance he has of being aloof

and whose reflex is to resort to his sense of rank in a way that the queen never did. The queen has pulled off this amazing trick of appearing to be classless whereas Charles always looks and sounds like a very upper class person who wants all the trappings of an upper class person around it. and if he becomes king, the first thing he should do is to stop that appearance, is to unwind that whole apparatus of privilege and all the flunkies around him and opened it all up. Well, I agree with Clive very much that the palaces, there's too many palaces and there's too many staff. And I think as well that he absolutely should make statements as soon as his mother's died.

But I think it's a personal matter that he doesn't want to release all the ideas he's got while she's still alive. I think it will be cruel and unnecessary. And for a son to do that is actually quite sickening, I think. I think that the courts are in a mess as well. The Queen's Court, the Clarence House and Kensington Palace Court, they were put together. It was an idea that they would all work as one. and they were fighting with each other and arguing, and it didn't work. So they split off.

But I think that that should be handled as one court. But I think those are not really key things. What I feel you need is someone who is devoted to the country and the Commonwealth and will do their absolute best. Like the Queen said when she was young, you know, I will do this to my utmost ability. And I think Charles would, and I'm sure that a willing, William would as well, but it's just not his turn. He has to wait in line. And as for privilege, of course, the heir to the throne has privilege. William has privilege. He's also upper class,

and he doesn't mind about it. I hate this class thing. But they spend a lot of time with people who are not upper class because they can want to help them. And they do very good job, both of them. But I just think you wait in line. Okay. Let's go to closing state. And Clive, maybe if you could do me the favor, we'll just change up the order here. So we continue this excellent ping pong tennis match that we're having both of you. Today, our resolution be it resolved, Prince Charles is unfit to be the king of England. Clive, let's have your concluding remarks. What are the key points, arguments, ideas that you want to leave our audience with?

I think the key one is what Angela just spoke to, really, which is the problem of this system of selection on monarchs. and Angela said that William's got to wait. Well, you know, he's 39 now. If Charles has another 20 years on the throne, he'll be 59. It just dooms the institution to always be led by old people. And this is not a century in which you can do that to produce a meaningful and convincing transformation of the monarchy. I don't think Charles can do it, and I think that William could. Okay.

Thank you graciously for giving end. Angela, the last word in our debate today, be it resolved Charles' unfit to be the king of England. Angela? I think we are living in a tumultuous world at the moment for countless number of reasons. And I think what we need is security. We need straightforwardness. We need someone we can really trust. And I think that Prince Charles fits that perfectly.

I think there's always a risk in having somebody who is much younger because William might not be ready himself. We haven't mentioned that. He's learnt via his wife and his in-laws how to be a father because he didn't have that experience from his parents. And I think that taking him away from his children when they're very young might not work very well with him. And if he starts being resentful, I don't think that will work as well.

I think we should leave him to work hard for us, but also to be a family man and to live as much as you can an ordinary life until the door is open to him. Well, thank you both for being part of this debate. It's often one that is febrile and incoherent and over the top. But the two of you have brought civility and substance to this conversation. We've unpacked some of the big issues and ideas around this important change that will happen. Regrettable as it is, it will happen. There will be a succession. There will be a new monarch for both Canada and the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries around the world.

So a significant global event coming up, and both of you have done us a great service in unpacking its ramifications for us. Clive, Angela, thank you so much for coming on the Monk Debates today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Clive and Angela. They certainly gave us a lot to think about. If you have feedback or reflections on what you've just heard, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com.

We always appreciate your insight and analysis on our debates. And a reminder that our Monk members-only podcast is also yours, free to listen to any time as a podcast. perk of our basic complementary monk membership. You can grab that right now at triple-W-the-munk debates.com. Or more debates on everything from COVID restrictions to American democracy to the conflict in Ukraine. Visit our website, triple-w monkdebates.com. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate, one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith.

The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. The Monk Debates podcast is mixed by Residia. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.