I mean he’s 70-odd and has basically been powerless his whole life, if the options are to rock the boat or kick the can down the road and live out his last decade or two doing bugger-all in unimaginable opulence, I can see why he’d pick the latter.
Like it’s not necessarily the morally right option, but I get it.
Yes, I can understand that, but he’s been a lead voice on the environment a lot longer than most. I guess he’s swapped his beliefs & scruples for the trappings of monarchy, and that diminishes him rather than elivates him in my eyes.
Yes. But why remain as an impotent king?
I mean he’s 70-odd and has basically been powerless his whole life, if the options are to rock the boat or kick the can down the road and live out his last decade or two doing bugger-all in unimaginable opulence, I can see why he’d pick the latter.
Like it’s not necessarily the morally right option, but I get it.
The monarch has been technically impotent since Elizabeth II took over.
It’s been politically/constitutionally impotent since a long time before that. But I get your point.
That’s true, but I was thinking of things like Edward VIII and his friendship with Hitler.
They may not have direct power, but with their wealth and land ownership they’re definitely pulling strings behind the scenes.
Yes, I can understand that, but he’s been a lead voice on the environment a lot longer than most. I guess he’s swapped his beliefs & scruples for the trappings of monarchy, and that diminishes him rather than elivates him in my eyes.
You expected him to be making political statements as the monarch?
The only reason the monarchy still exists is because the head of it remains apolitical.
I guess I had some inchoate expectation that he’d be more influential. Sunak’s just turned him into a hypocrite.
I generally don’t want some bloke who is only there through accident of birth to have any influence on policy.
Who voted for him to have influence?
I’d support constitutional reform.