Activism of future King Charles may spark rethink of monarchy Prince Charles" intention to become an "activist" king could force the nation's political class to rethink the role of the monarchy, MPs have been told. The Guardian on Wednesday revealed how Charles is set to reshape the sovereign's role by making "heartfelt interventions" in national life if he becomes king, but the House of Commons heard that that may be increasingly problematic given emerging plans to devolve more powers to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Labour MP Roger Godsiff told parliament on Thursday that "the four devolved parliaments, if that is what happens, together with the Westminster parliament, are going to have to decide what the role of the monarchy is in relation to the new constitutional settlement." Comments by the prince's allies that, should he replace his mother, Charles planned to continue speaking out on issues that mattered to him sparked warnings that this could precipitate a constitutional crisis because the monarch would be breaching conventions of political neutrality. "[Given] Prince Charles" spokesman is suggesting Charles III would have a much more activist role within British politics, then maybe that would be appropriate to have such a discussion [in parliament]," Godsiff said. The prospect of parliament reviewing the monarchy's role in such circumstances is likely to concern Buckingham Palace. Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King's College, London, sought to play down how far Charles would differ from the Queen in his approach to sovereignty. He told the Times: "There is no question of him making any interventions which are not approved by the government of the day. I gather that, out of courtesy, his speeches at the moment are sent to ministers for their comments, although he is not bound by them. He is extremely sensitive to constitutional tradition. He added: "It is true that the style of the monarchy would change because he is a different person to the Queen." Anti-monarchy campaigners said Charles risked bringing down the monarchy altogether because an activist king would be intolerable in a democratic society. "The more Charles speaks out, the more transparency people will demand, and the more we'll find out about his interference," said Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, a group campaigning for an elected head of state. The time will come when the people decide they no longer want him in office, yet have no means to get rid of him. For the sake of British democracy, Charles's reign must be brief and must end with an election for the next head of state. Catherine Mayer, the author of a forthcoming biography the heir, Charles: the Heart of a King, said: "I would be extremely surprised if he does it as [the Queen] did it, not only because they are very different characters, but because he is of a different generation and will be living through different times. I think that he is someone who has always been much truer to himself than people realise and it is very hard to imagine that he would cease to be true to himself as monarch. Patrick Holden, the Prince's friend and sustainability adviser, told the BBC: "I think he's always been very good at boundaries so I don't think there is an issue here. I think he's impeccable at all times, he's ploughed the right line and he's expressed himself in the right way. I don't think there's a problem with it at all.