FionaK |
|
| @ Liquid Lenny
I do not think what you are proposing can fairly be described as a monarch. Not in any usual sense of the word.
I see no reason why we should understate the corrosive character of monarchy, no matter how it is spun as a symbol or a figurehead. It is probably true that there is little direct power: but a great deal of what goes on in this land is not based on the direct effect of power. Influence matters far more and patronage is central. The royal family are powerful lobbyists, and the interference of Charles is the proof of that illegitimate influence on matters which affect us all. Westminster is the creature of the Windsors in practical ways and while the monarch may not refuse to sign bills presented to her the content of those bills is already informed by the monarch's view before ever it is presented. That is not trivial in terms of power
I prefer that we have no such covert influence from hedge funds, donors, or the monarchy which showed the way
|
| | |
