Sunday, December 20, 2009

Royal neutrality

I'm definitely warming to this whole transparency lark. I wonder how long it will be before the content of Prince Charles' letters to ministers are revealed? Apparently the argument against this is that doing so would compromise the neutrality of the monarchy.

Perhaps a better way to express this is that it would expose the falsehood of that neutrality?

Here's a good post that Anthony wrote a while ago on The Democratic Society blog.
"...who needs politicians with their silly “democratic mandates” and their facile “years of experience hearing and channelling the views of voters”? If you really want to know how things are, you need to ask a man who was brought up surrounded by servants in a world of nearly unimaginable luxury.

It’s a strange fallacy, the idea that a hereditary monarch is going to be better at understanding the people than their elected politicians. There’s something disquietingly blood and iron about it – the idea that if only these footling politicians got out of the way, the true spirit of the nation would be revealed."
(I've used that quote before, in this post)

1 comment:

Optimistic Cynic said...

I don't necessarily go with the "complexion of parliament" stuff because I believe that people from different backgrounds can try and empathise with other people.

But what always strikes me about Prince Charles is how incapable he is at doing this. He still seems to live in the world of 1920s Britain before the mechanisation of agriculture and division of labour made us a whole lot richer than we were then.

I know a little about his "eco build" in Northampton. How it has all sorts of zoning rules which bans upvc or satellite dishes, how there's not enough parking, how it has ludicrous fake chimneys. No-one's buying because in the recession, they don't have to settle for such terrible housing. They can buy elsewhere and get the parking they need.