Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
Well it is a legitimate point. Charles is well known for lobbying and interfering in the decisions of many Government Departments over his pet interests.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oc...to-legislation
And when he hasn't got his way, he has abused his 'power' to influence the decisions of foreign investors - recently delaying and scuppering a project that would have included much needed social housing in London.
And when FoI requests are made so that the extent of his attempts to influence policy and impact on decisions, they are rejected on the spurious grounds that they impinge on 'his preparations for kingship'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19959233
As for seeing the Royals, I walk past Charles' house every day on the way to work in Victoria from Green Park (the building works at Victoria station are a nightmare) and I reckon I've seen him once in five years - mind you, I don't go out of my way to look for him.
I'm not saying no one comes to the UK based upon the Royals or their periodic ceremonies - of course they do, but that does not negate the need for change or at least the consideration of it.
Quite frankly though, I lose far more sleep worrying about the Flames and whether Feaster is going to make something good of the next draft. |
All good points, I guess I'd argue that the same situation would exist regardless of the titles they hold simply due to wealth and power. More of a rich people problem than a monarchy problem in my eyes, but of course that wealth and power was derived from the monarchy so I see your point.
And I agree, there is certainly a need for consideration of change and action if Britain could benefit from a change.