Royal family, King Charles turn a deaf ear to warning about monarchy
The royal family always maintained their silence on gossips about the monarchy and focuses on their mission and goals to serve their people with maximum approach.
However, latest questions about the Firm’s existence may have raised eyebrows among the concerned.
Presenter David Dimbleby left Britons in deep thought with his blunt queries about the monarchy’s role in the modern era.
He discussed the role and power of the sovereign in new BBC series What’s the Monarchy for?
The royal family has always tried to address things with their gestures instead of directly indulging in debate, but the questions seem to be too tough to be responded in words.
The Firm is often debated for it’s core objective to exist. However, the prople believe the monarchy symbolises national identity and unity. It promotes cultural heritage and tradition.
The royals also supporting charitable and public engagements and foster tourism and economic benefits.
They are also called a unifying figurehead for the nation and have eceremonial role in governance as a symbol of continuity and stability.
The Question Time host has spent much of his career commentating on the royal family, but for the past two years he has dedicated his time to making this monarchy-focused three-part documentary.
He even asked, “What role is there for our unelected head of state?”
The monarch’s loyalists may also be shunning the question as they want them continue with the same spirits.
However, the late Queen Elizabeth II herself said: “No institution should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who don’t.”
He asks what real tangible power does the monarch have with regard to government and explores cases, such as the time Charles’ private letters to government ministers and Prime Minister Tony Blair were made public, to prove if, in fact, the then Prince of Wales was lobbying politicians.
Dimbleby makes a point: Charles may not have been able to influence government policy but he was determined to do so if he could. After all, letters from a royal – sealed with a crest – would go to the top of a government minister’s pile.
Similarly, it would be naive to think that a Prime Minister’s weekly audiences with the monarch would have no effect or influence on government policy.
