Political Monarchs?

Hopefully the longevity of the Windsor Women will ensure that this never, ever comes to pass- Charles as King has the potential to be a total disaster for the British Monarchy and could ride the venerable institution right off the rails. Potentially. Republicans have been saying that for years and it has yet to happen- but if Charles thinks he can be a 'political monarch' in a more 'activist' role someone should take him aside quietly and with a great deal of respect beat him silly with a rubber hose.

The Royals can have their playgrounds, I think- Charles has been outspoken in areas of the environment, architecture and charitable organizations and the like- but monarchs, especially unelected, symbolic ones should leave the politics to the people who get elected and confine themselves to advice given behind closed doors. The Queen knows how this show is run- she symbolically 'governs' with the 'consent and advice' of her Ministers- but she's also got decades of experience in government and if I was Prime Minister, I wouldn't hesitate to ask her for advice.

Subtlety is the order of the day. And self-sufficiency for the future. I think if a British Monarchy can one day more or less function without tax payer money- and certainly confine that to a salary for members of the Royal Family with Constitutional Obligations only, then I think the future could be assured. It's hard, I think, to make the argument for a monarchy, when it's your money paying for flossy palaces, valets and the like. But you can argue that, like the wise man said, 'tourists are money.' And the Royal Family brings 'em in.

But still: Chuck should shut his trap. And hopefully the Queen has the ear of young William and is filling his head with something resembling common sense.