Charles shows the qualities of a constitutional monarch

I THINK I am more inclined to rely on the constitutional authority of Walter Bagehot than that of William Dixon Smith (The Yorkshire Post, July 15).

The Normans were not here “over a thousand years” ago but the high Kings of England were.

First and foremost was King Alfred the Great (c 886) who had no qualms about his “divine right” to rule – and from whom, coincidentally, Prince Charles can trace a line of descent.

Mr Smith’s characterisation of the Normans as “pragmatic” however, elicited a wry smile.

The Normans’ Harrying of the North (c 1069) was a most brutal suppression: the Yorkshire Ridings were laid waste, with corpses littering the highways and byways. Pragmatism indeed!

Yes, the British monarchy has evolved and, notwithstanding the Interregnum, the nation has avoided the revolutionary fervour that beset countries like France and Russia.

Prince Charles is not the constitutional monarch. And yet Mr Smith would still seek to deny him rights enjoyed by Her Majesty’s most base subjects – even criminals enjoy free speech!

The corollary of Royal privilege is Royal duty. And contrary to Mr Smith’s conclusion, Prince Charles has amply demonstrated, to all but the most obtuse and imperceptive “those qualities required of a constitutional monarch”.

In this context, it was perhaps fortuitous that The Yorkshire Post editorial, “The Shire Prince” highlighted the Prince of Wales’s deep and heartfelt concern for the welfare of the people and the nation (The Yorkshire Post, July 15).

The leader alluded to the Prince’s Countryside Fund; and Prince Charles’s “championing” of the countryside and the rural economy, in contrast to the complacency of “Britain’s political elite”.

This is but one of around 20 charities that operate under the aegis of the Prince’s Charitable Trust.

That is the criterion by which Prince Charles should be judged, not only by his words but by his exemplary deeds.

From Walter Raine, Pennine View, Romanby, Northallerton.

I am sure that Michael Gove does not need any assistance to dodge the insults hurled at him, even from the diatribe by Jayne Dowle (The Yorkshire Post, July 17).

Her attitude is summed up very well by a correspondent to one of your London-based competitors. He, a head teacher, states that “only those who put the self-interests of the relatively few disaffected teachers above the needs of children will celebrate as he moves on”.