Uneasy

So, after the last entry, Mr Punk wants to know if I'm "uneasy" about the queen. That's an interesting question. I consider myself to be a hardcore republican. I think the head of state should be an elected person that can be removed by the electorate. The current system of monarchy doesn't allow for that. In actual fact, I do rather like the queen. I think she's played a blinder. She has never made speeches that betray her own political views. She's never meddled in politics in any way as far as I can recall. I have something of an issue with the fact that, although she appears to pay some income tax, she is not audited, so we essentially have to trust that she fills in her tax return forms accurately.

The problem I have is with the monarchy system, not the queen herself. While I like and trust the queen to remain fair, honest and impartial, if she does one day join the ranks of the certified barking and start talking to the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. However mad she becomes, She would still be required to perform state duties upon which the constitution relies. There is no mechanism in place to remove or replace the monarch if he or she is unable or unwilling to perform the duties required of the role. Slightly more worrying is the fact that the monarch is considered to be the choice of God and was anointed as Queen in the eyes of God, for life. She cannot abdicate because it would be against God. Some would argue that she cannot be removed for the same reason.

All the above however pales into insignificance in comparison with the problem I have with the heir in waiting. Prince Charles, unlike his mother, is I believe of extremely low intelligence. Although he has had the benefit of the best education the world has to offer, it has apparently failed to provide him with anything other than an ego the size of Belgium. Not only has he spent most of his adult life bitching about the hard time he had at arguably the best school in the world, he doesn't appear to have had an original thought in his life. A huge ego and an empty brain is indeed a bad combination.

Charles, despite his lack of wit, is hugely opinionated. He's views on architecture, the environment, farming, and alternative medicine for instance, are well known. He was also a huge fan of Tony Blair. We know this because he basically can't keep his trap shut. He writes his own speeches and spouts his opinions publicly at the drop of a hat. This in my view is a huge problem, and here's why; the British public are going to get a king with a set of publicly known opinions that will influence the governments over which he presides. The current queen no doubt has opinions, but we don't know what they are. She has been absolutely proper about keeping those opinions to herself. She has had I think eight Prime Ministers come to her requesting that they may be allowed to form a government, and we have no idea which of those she admired, and which she did not. That is how it should be. The queen understands the workings of politics and that she, as an unelected head of state, absolutely cannot get involved on a political level. Charles does not understand this.

Charles has essentially crapped in his own nest. He knows that the problem exists, but by the time he realised it was there, he was unable to turn back the clock and take back his opinions. There is no way he can now be an impartial king. His attempt at damage limitation has been to admit that he has meddled in politics as the Prince of Wales, and to promise he will not do so as King of England. Unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem. As I said, we know his opinions already, and he can't take them back. Promising to stop meddling the day he becomes King really makes no difference.

So there it is, I like the queen. I think the monarchy concept is a disaster waiting to happen, and I think Prince Charles is the disaster.