Charles should learn to keep his views to himself
Prince Charles has privately described the Home Office’s Rwanda resettlement scheme for illegal immigrants as ‘appalling’. Publicly he has gone as far as to claim that ‘diversity is our strength’. Presumably, this means the Prince of Wales genuinely believes more immigration will strengthen our society, but how does this reconcile with his environmental concerns? Any attempts to combat climate change are bound to fail with increasing urban growth.
Anthony Martin, London
For 70 years, our Queen has never been involved in politics, no matter how much she agreed or otherwise with the government of the day.
Prince Charles involving himself in these matters is not right. As our next King, he should have learned from his mother and kept opinions of government to himself.
If sending people to Rwanda will help stop people dying while trying to cross the Channel, then that is a matter for the Government, not Royalty.
A. Williams, Stone
I’m sure we’d all have more sympathy for Prince Charles’s criticism of sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda if he proposed to fund an alternative. Maybe offering to accommodate them on Royal estates while also paying for their healthcare and education.
Roy Daniels, Luton
If Charles can’t or won’t deny his reported criticism of immigration policy, he’s showing he’s unfit to succeed as our apolitical head of state and he should immediately cede to Prince William.
R. French, Brentwood
If I refused to follow a legal and direct order from my employer, I’d expect to be fired. This should be a touchstone for Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS union, who refused to rule out a boycott of the Rwanda scheme, which he considers ‘illegal’, as reported in the MoS. If any civil servant has doubts, perhaps they should be looking for alternative employment.
Marcus Macleod, High Wycombe
I am somewhat annoyed by the recent questioning of Prince Charles’s right to voice his opinion.
Why should he not be able to express his opinion on anything he chooses? The Crown should be there for the people, to give intervention based upon morality and righteousness, free from the constraints of politics, which bind the Government.
Margaret Bedson, Crawley, West Sussex
The article by Professor Richard Ekins in last week’s Mail on Sunday articulated the need for a revision of the Human Rights
Act but misses one important point: with human rights come human responsibilities.
Andrew Pettigrew, Haslingden, Lancashire