Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
From the 3 clause Act:
This suggests that Charlie would have committed a misdemeanour if he procured dosh for his charity in exchange for bestowing an honour.
Or was it one of his flunkies that did the procurement? Or is he not covered because he is capable of dishing out honours at his discretion, in theory?
|
It was a flunky.
---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------
I think what the anti-monarchists are missing is the ‘soft power’ that the system of royalty enables us to enjoy. Politicians come and go. The monarchy offers continuity, and the system is cheaper than a presidential system.
So while I’m not a fan of Prince Charles, unless he stands down, he should be allowed his time as king. Given his age, his reign will be comparatively short in any case.