Charles’s real power is that of access and secrecy

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/prince-charles-real-power-access-secrecy

Version 0 of 1.

Simon Jenkins is simply wrong to claim that Charles is harmless and powerless (Our monarchy is powerless and would remain that way under King Charles, 5 February). The royals have power and influence and seek to exercise it at every opportunity. It may not be in the form of formal constitutional power – most of that these days is exercised by the prime minister (another problem with the monarchy). The power the royals have is that of access and secrecy, the opportunity to influence behind closed doors and beyond any meaningful public scrutiny.

This influence is greatly enhanced by the existence of royal consent, a veto on new laws that Charles and the Queen can exercise if such laws affect their personal and private interest. So it is no surprise that a host of laws give privileged exemptions to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. It is no surprise that royal secrecy and royal funding laws have been changed in recent years to the detriment of the public interest. It is because the royals have the power and opportunity to influence government policy.Graham SmithChief executive officer, Republic

• Simon Jenkins comforts himself with the thought that “parliament is sovereign”, not understanding that this is where the trouble lies. In the settlement of 1688, the monarchy was divested of its power, which was transferred to parliament. Parliament then had, and in essence still has, the unregulated power of an absolute monarch. Ways to remedy this? Let the people claim sovereignty; sever the ties of the monarch to parliament; set up a new parliament whose members are chosen by a proportional voting system and whose layout no longer expresses a simple binary choice. It is this process, under way in Scotland, which will spell the end of the pre-democratic structure of Britain.Robin KinrossLondon

• If as Simon Jenkins suggests the monarchy is powerless, why are we spending some £300m per annum on it. What exactly do we get in return for this handout? Prince Charles sounding off? He is welcome to moan about matters that worry him but he could do so just as well as a private citizen. He could even write a letter or two to the Guardian.John MarzillierOxford

• Simon Jenkins would have us believe that we are safe from the influence of the future King Charles because the power of the monarchy is merely symbolic and is, in any case, exercised by the government. However, the power of prominent establishment figures like Charles is exercised through informal channels via a complex of personal relationships, the details of which rarely become public. The plan for the Chelsea barracks may have been withdrawn by the Qataris, but who lobbied them to do so?Andrew ReevesMiddlesbrough

• Simon Jenkins forgets the effects of soft power on public opinion. Mass opinion has political power. It saddens me to make the point that, by this means, the monarchy is far from politically impotent. Jenkins is right in his estimate of public support for the monarchy and this support, if challenged, runs deep. Try engaging your local rugby club, the local boy scouts or members of the Women’s Institute in a discussion of the monarchy.

Ask ex-servicemen, former civil servants; try raising the subject in the pub, if you dare. And then consider the establishment. What chance is there of finding out-and-out rejection of Charles’s opinions? None of this translates directly into politics, but it’s out there. Far from Charles “having no clout, and no one has to listen to him”, the way is open It just depends on how passionately issues are raised, how hard the 75% are drawn, for a matter to become a public opinion/political issue.Richard PayneIpswich

• The argument of Simon Jenkins might be taken even further. Preserving an impotent monarchy serves as a permanent and symbolic reminder of the triumph of democracy. If it ceased to be impotent, it would cease.Tony WrightBirmingham

• You cannot wonder at the lack of confidence in government and powerful organisations when the Duchy of Cornwall and West Dorset district council may choose to ignore their own public plans like this. On 12 February, West Dorset district council is being recommended to approve plans by developers ZeroC Holdings Ltd to build five luxury detached homes on land designated in the Poundbury Masterplan as public open space for the benefit of all the people of Dorchester.

Needless to say, the recommendation to approve the planning application is contrary to the views of Dorchester town council and many local organisations concerned with the character of the town.Max HebditchDorchester