Prince Charles cannot be a monarch and political activist

Maybe it’s because I’m a republican, but I do find Prince Charles intervention into the Chelsea Barracks development controversy totally unacceptable.

The development scheme, which would have regenerated a derelict site, bringing huge community benefits and creating 5,000 construction jobs, was recommended for approval by Westminster Council planning officers. But the scheme has now been shelved because Prince Charles personally wrote to the scheme’s funders, Qatari Diar, the development arm of the Qatar royal family, saying he didn’t like Lord Rogers’ modern architecture.

There are people, including some of Chelsea’s local resident groups, which have welcomed Charles’ intervention. Maybe there are arguments against the scheme. But that should be for the democratic process to determine, not royal patronage.

Britain’s ceremonial monarchy enjoys its enormous privileges precisely because of the convention that it withdraws from political life, a practice the current Queen has consistently followed.

I have no problem if Prince Charles wants to take an active part in public affairs. But if he does, it should be for the public to decide through the ballot box, what powers he should exercise in our name.