Editorial: The Prince and his principles

Prince Charles is in trouble again. He has sued the owners of Britain's Mail on Sunday for printing extracts of a private journal he had intended to be circulated only among friends, officials and his private staff of speechwriters. The journals contain some frank jottings about political leaders at home and abroad and musings on some of the prince's idiosyncratic concerns.

Some of it is familiar; the description of Chinese leaders as "appalling waxworks" at the handover of Hong Kong in 1997, for example, but it is all getting a wider run in the British papers, which have been supplied with copies of the journal since a court began to hear the suit. Commentators are feasting on entries such as his annoyance at being seated in business class for the flight to Hong Kong, his regret at the decommissioning of the yacht Britannia and his observation that Tony Blair listens to advisers who have no experience of what it is they are taking decisions about.

Comments such as that are a cue for critics to note yet again that the heir to the throne has lived a cossetted privileged life with little experience of many of the things a Government must make decisions about, but those are easy shots. The more serious revelation to emerge from the hearing of the Prince's case has come in a paper written by a former aide who suggests the Prince sees an independent role for himself in political debate, and even in diplomatic conduct.

Mark Bolland, a former deputy private secretary, says Charles sees himself as a "dissident", standing up for unpopular causes, and once took it upon himself to snub a Chinese state banquet because he did not approve of China's regime. He made sure his absence was noted in the national newspapers.

It is not clear from these disclosures whether he sees his dissident role as suitable only while he is Prince of Wales or whether he is preparing to be a more politically active monarch than his predecessors. The suggestion is enough to cause spluttering among Westminster constitutionalists but it might be time to ask, what harm would it do really?

The constitutional monarchy is no longer in any position to seriously rival the power of Parliaments, in Britain or any other place where the Queen remains the nominal head of state. The only real damage an outspoken King could do would be to the public view of the monarchy, and that would depend on the causes he chose to champion and his powers of persuasion.

Prince Charles' "dissident" opinions tend to be those of a conservative country gentleman. He doesn't like much modern architecture, is sceptical of educational fads and keenly supports conservation campaigns. None of those are likely to cause public consternation. He probably does not intend to indulge in acts of disapproval of foreign regimes and the like when he ascends the throne, but if he did, would it matter?

Foreign governments can be left in no doubt it is the elected Government that speaks for. The force of a royal snub or suchlike would depend on the level of popular respect for the monarch's view and the notice taken of him.

Conceivably the public could come to appreciate a head of state who was willing and capable of expressing concerns that might be impolitic or undiplomatic but worth hearing from someone highly placed.

In this country the Queen's representatives have occasionally acted independently of Prime Ministers to meet Treaty of Waitangi obligations as the Governors-General have seen them. The constitutional fabric has survived. If Prince Charles means to keep the power of speech when he takes the Crown, good luck to him.