Adrienne Thompson
Best Of The Best Featured Millennial Intel

Could Prince Charles Become A Revolutionary King?

By Adrienne Thompson

Long Live the King?

Queen Elizabeth II has been the longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, but what will the monarchy look like when her son, Prince Charles of Wales, ascends to the throne?

While the monarchy is mostly a symbolic institution for the state and the government, the role of the monarchy within the Unites Kingdom is meant to remain political neutral; showing no favorability of one party over another.

The UK is a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the monarchy has some technical state authority; however, it must be in line with the constitution.

The UK gives royal assent to Parliament who then has the power to create and enforce legislation.

Within a Parliamentary system, people vote on a political party who has its own leader.

The leader of the winning political party then becomes the prime minister and is made official by the monarch.

The prime minister meets weekly with the monarch to inform him or her of the current matters of state, but the monarch does not have the ability to set any political policies, at least not officially. 

Queen Elizabeth is well known for her lack of public political views.

But her son is something different.

Prince Charles seems to be challenging the political role of the monarchy by showing a large involvement in politics and voicing his opinions.

Some are worried that he may try to be a political force when he eventually takes the throne. (Queen Elizabeth is 90 years old)

Photo Credit: University of Essex ./ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Prince Charles has been more transparent about his political views after the publishing of his letters to government ministers from 2004-05, also known as the “black spider” memos, about a variety of his political views in 2015.

In the memos, Prince Charles states his political views concerning problems ranging from dairy-farming to the UK’s armed forces in Iraq.

He has also in recent years become a strong supporter of taking aggressive action in combating climate change.

Even though the monarchy is meant to be apolitical, it seems strange that the rulers of a democratic society, where free speech is considered a natural right, are meant to keep opinions concealed.

Monarchs do not even have the ability to vote in this case because of their duty to remain neutral.

Why is this exclusive group meant to remain quiet?

If a monarch were to present opinions regarding matters of state and sway the opinions of citizens to be in favor of one particular political party, the monarch would then have some control within matter of state and forming legislation.

While they are meant to act as figure heads and a symbol of national unity, this could be viewed as undemocratic in the sense that monarchs are not democratically elected by the people, and would be in violation of the constitution.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft, a well-known journalist and strong defender of the monarchy recently launched a campaign to get Charles to step aside and allow his oldest son- Prince William take the throne.

This doesn’t seem to be a real possibility.

However the idea of a King who gets too involved in contemporary politics is a thought that has pierced through the British zeitgeist before.

In 1993, the British version of House of Cards ran a four episode miniseries titled “To Play The King.” In it, Conservative Prime Minister Francis Urquhart has to fend off a popular and strongly liberal King.

(Spoiler alert: Urquhart is able to win in the end because the British public grew uneasy with a King who involved himself so deeply in politics.)

Prince Charles is also considered “revolutionary” in the fact that he was divorced.

While Prince Charles is widely known, his ex-wife, Princess Diana, stole the attention and hearts of millions across the globe acting as an inspirational link between citizens and the monarchy.

Photo Credit: Peter Broster/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Previously, it was frowned upon for monarchs to get a divorce, let alone be in a relationship with a divorcee.

This was the main reason Prince Edward VIII abdicated the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee, causing his brother to take the throne and later his daughter the current queen.

Times have changed, but the perception of monarchs getting a divorce is not looked well upon, nonetheless the scandal surrounding the marriage of Charles and Diana.

Charles is also scandalous in the fact that it is rumored he was having an affair with his current wife, Camilla Parker Bowles, now Duchess of Cornwall, while still married to Princess Diana.

Public opinion of a “King Charles” fell after the divorce and sudden death of Princess Diana.

Would the British public abide a King who tried to push a political agenda?

We might get a chance to find out.

 

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.

Cover Photo Credit: Steenbergs/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Featured The Zeitgeist

Is Bumble Really More Empowering For Women Than Tinder?

By Adrienne Thompson

Finding true love just got easier due to the latest trend of dating apps available on smart phones.

Users are literally finger tips away from connecting with the right person, but who will make the first move?

There is a broad range of dating app, such as OK Cupid and Tinder, but the app that caught my attention was Bumble, often referred to by many as the “feminist app.”

It works just like any other dating app, where users set up a profile of themselves and swipe right if they have an interest in someone.

But here’s the catch, women make the first move.

Men and women both make their own connections, but once a connection is made, women only have a span of 24 hours to initiate a conversation before the connection disappears.

Then men only have 24 hours to respond to that first move by the woman.

But is the ability to make the first move more empowering for women?

For many yes, women have the control in this scenario, making men wait by the phone for the first response.

It is a total inversion of the typical dating app experience in that way.

Women at a Bumble event in Melbourne, Australia. Photo Credit: Bumble/ Facebook

Women have men wrapped around their fingers waiting for that first text message.

Dating is not easy and having the courage to be the first one to reach out to a possible connection can boost the confidence of many women.

Bumble changes the stereotypical role of waiting three days for the guy to call, pushing for women to take action within a 24 hour time frame.

For others, being the first to say “Hello” is easier said than done.

For those too shy to make the first move then have a limited time frame before the connection is lost.

There is pressure to initiate the conversation, which for many can feel more disappointing than empowering.

Some simply have no idea what to say, which happens sometimes, and that should be okay.

Everyone has different experiences with dating apps, both good and bad, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Many women have reported good feedback from using Bumble and have had good conversations with their connections from going on dates to just establishing friendships.

That is the beauty of dating apps you have control to choose the person you want to have a connection with, and Bumble offers a different perspective on who makes the first move.

There is no instruction manual or rule book to follow when it comes to finding love, and everyone is entitled to go about that journey the way they choose.

So is Bumble more empowering for women than Tinder?

It certainly has the potential to be.

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.

Cover Photo Credit: Bumble/ Facebook

Scroll to top