Prince Charles has caused a stir in the United Kingdom by reiterating his opposition to genetically-modified crops. James Gray at Republic UK succinctly notes the problem with this:

Whatever your views on GM food (and I know there are a range of these within our membership), we must be clear about one thing: it is entirely inappropriate for a monarch-in-waiting to be publicly expressing any kind of political opinion. This is especially significant when Charles is being critical of current Government policy.

By doing so, Prince Charles is actually undermining what many consider to be the main advantage of the monarchy: a head of State that is "above politics". Monarchists should worry about this - reality is often stranger than fiction - and should Charles continue to engage in controversial issues (irrespective of whether his views are in line with a majority of the populace), it will damage the monarchy as an institution.

New Zealand Blogger Liberty Scott states the sort of political controversy Prince Charles has exposed himself to:

Hasn't this untrained bludger off of European taxpayers disqualified himself from being a future apolitical head of state often enough?

Prince Charles is stirring up what is clearly anti-monarchy sentiment. Meanwhile, the Radical Royalist defends Prince Charles, stating:

"Being no politician he can speak out freely"

This is nonsense - as we all know, the Green Party (in both Australia and New Zealand) are opposed to GM. We don't need an unelected head of State to raise important issues.