LONDON: The nineteenth century economist and writer Walter Bagehot’s book, The English Constitution, published in 1867, is still regarded as the classic exposition of constitutional monarchy.

Building on Magna Carta (1215), the Bill of Rights (1659) and the Act of Settlement (1701) – all of which progressively curtailed the power of the crown – he wrote that the monarch had three rights: “to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.” He also advised reticence.

The website of the royal family approvingly quotes Bagehot’s complimentary remarks that “a family on the throne is an interesting idea also. It brings down the pride of sovereignty to the level of petty life”.

But Bagehot, essential reading for every Prince of Wales since, has some more acerbic advice and unflattering asides. “Probably the greatest wisdom of a constitutional king will show itself in well considered inaction.”

Previous princes of Wales, he thought, were not a good advertisement for indulging in too much public posturing. A king he suggests would say to his minister: “The responsibility for these measures is upon you. Whatever you think best shall have my full and effectual support. But you will observe that for this reason and that reason what you propose to do is bad; for this reason and that reason what you do not propose is better. I do not oppose, but observe that I warn.”

That may well be the sort of thing the Queen has said at some of her weekly meetings with her 10 prime ministers over the past 56 years. More than 100 years ago, the conservative Bagehot was in no doubt about the value of monarchy: “The use of a queen, in a dignified capacity, is incalculable. Without her in England, the present English government would fail and pass away.”

Perhaps Charles may prefer his aphorism that “the greatest pleasure in life is doing what other people say you cannot do”.—Dawn/Guardian News Service