Actually the Queen has quite a lot of government responsibility, even if it’s mostly behind-the-scenes and in the form of subtle influence. She still meets with the PM weekly IIRC and reads vast amounts of official documents, not just about the UK but about the rest of the Commonwealth as well.
One of my favo(u)rite Liz stories is the one about the Canadian radio DJs who prank-called the Palace pretending to be Jean Chrétien, only to discover that the Queen a) was entirely fluent in French and b) had a comprehensive knowledge of current Canadian political issues. The DJs later released a formal apology, admitting that they’d been bested.
Sadly I’m not convinced that any of her heirs possess the same level of political nous she has, but then that may be as much a characteristic of her generation as anything else.
Or simply due to the length of time she’s been doing the job? After 63 years of dealing with PMs, foreign heads of state, diplomats etc I think anyone would develop a finely tuned political sense.
As happy as I am to snark on Charles, the toothpaste thing does have a heavy whiff of myth about it, and I’m sure I’ve heard it attributed to others.
I’m not sure that “useless” is the descriptor I’d use for his kingworthiness… I think I’d go for “nuisance”. IMHO the monarch should be dignified, uncontroversial, and most of all, compliant. I fear that Chas would be keen to foist his (sometimes batshit) ideas on education, medicine, architecture and who knows what else on government. I don’t think he’d have much success, but he could prove to be a royal pain in the arse (anecdotes of this do exist already)
We still have to see the transcripts of some of the letters he wrote to ministers (as the courts have now ruled we may). They might turn out to be not very significant, in terms of compromising his supposed impartiality on political issues, but there were stories floated that he has it in mind to use the position to take up causes, which could lead to all sorts of trouble. The whole point about the system is that, in terms of social symbolism, the monarch stays somewhere slightly behind the centre of gravity of public opinion rather than trying to lead it, and for very good reason.
I wouldn’t care a jot.
I quite like the Queen but I presume that’s because she’s the only monarch I’ve ever known.
It’d be nice if they would abandon the whole thing once she dies.
A few years back he broke his humerus in a fall playing polo. I think a few of the stories like these relate to that time, when he could only use one arm.
A senior member of his staff was accused of male rape a few years back. There’s no evidence that Charles knew anything about it. Is that what you’re alluding to?
Good God, I hope not. I don’t think you would see the sort of mass hysteria that followed Diana’s death, though, she was only 36 for a start and was a lot more photogenic and easier to construct a sympathetic narrative around. No doubt the media would still milk it for all it’s worth.
He slept with a married woman (Camilla Parker-Bowles) before and after his marriage. That’s adultery.
Sleeping with her during his marriage was ‘doubly’ adulterous.
Charles, who is particularly fond of a boiled egg after a day’s hunting, is so picky that his staff cook seven eggs ranging from runny to rock hard, which the Prince tests before choosing his favourite.
The revelation is one of a series of fascinating insights into the Royal household contained in a new book by the BBC’s arch inquisitor Jeremy Paxman, which is serialised in the Daily Mail next week.
Paxman says in his book, On Royalty: "Because his staff were never quite sure whether the egg would be precisely to the satisfactory hardness, a series of eggs was cooked, and laid out in an ascending row of numbers.
“If the Prince felt that number five was too runny, he could knock the top off number six or seven.”
Exactly what happens to the six rejected eggs, Paxman does not divulge.
The anecdote will reinforce the Prince’s reputation as an out-of-touch eccentric with an almost impossibly rarefied lifestyle.
And it is likely to lead to more questions about whether the heir to the throne really needs a private staff of 22 - including two butlers, five chefs and a valet - whose salaries are written off as a ‘business expense’ to lower his tax bill.
A painting and decorating firm in Barnsley’s employee expenses are business expenses. The son of the monarch’s are not. Can you deduct the salary of a nanny or gardener in the UK?