volver
DaisyAnne
icanhandthemback
Pantglas2, of course he didn't 'steal' a pen. It was a lighthearted comment and I am not a royalty hater. Charles did what many people do when they borrow a pen, they inadvertently forget to hand it back. I don't dislike Charles per se, I dislike what he put his children through. He has many good qualities I am sure and if he was just an ordinary CEO, I'd have no problem with him at all. My problem is that he is head of the Church. No more, no less.
This carries the same misconception as the King having any power because he is Head of State. He is the titular head of the Church of England. A titular head possesses few, if any, actual powers. This is the case with the King and the Church of England. I cannot guess what your problem is with that. Have you discussed it with your Vicar or others in authority in your church?
In most parliamentary democracies today, the head of state has either evolved into, or was created as, a position of titular leadership. Again, I cannot see any reasoned argument that makes our, very historical but also democratic arrangement, wrong.Wrong on so many counts.
If he has no power, what is the point of him?
Somebody to wave at?
The above post says nothing; it's just a little rant.
You are happy to tell me I am "wrong on so many counts" but not what those "counts" are.
You also criticise the idea that a head of state has no power. They do not govern, nor do they change laws. What power do you think they have?


