First time was quite amusing.

Why bother responding to it then?

Sounds like you would have been a big advocate of president blair then? Far worse than any monarch we could have IMO

No offence, but you are a fine one to talk.

While I assume that is tongue in cheek, there is a serious issue that his opinions are given media attention and even credence because of who his mum is. Even if (some of) his views weren't quite so bonkers, it'd be grossly inappropriate. It absolutely isn't his remit - his remit is waving and smiling. The Queen never says anything much - Charles need to realise that is why she has managed to make a success of the role.

Summed up quite nicely here...

rlhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100047851/the-prince-of-wales-needs-to-defend-science-if-he-wants-to-defend-nature/rl

Or by Professor Michael Baum, a cancer specialist at University College London:
"The power of my authority comes with a knowledge built on 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer research. Your power and authority rest on an accident of birth."

The man knows next to nothing about science, yet he abuses his position to promote his views and sections of the public suspend their rationality to think they have especial value.

I feel a bit for the Royals, in one sense, in that you can never achieve anything through merit. William serves in the military, but has to be kept safe from harm. Charles has a food production company, but any success it has will always be attributed to his using his name. Realistically they can't even walk away to a normal life. They're comfortably cossetted, but they're less free than we are.

Hey - I just feel a bit of an affinity for the old bumbler because he appreciates our heritage and has a beautiful organic garden. I live in an old house and like my garden. And I try to avoid eating food that's genetically modified because we don't know the full extent of it's effects and long term consequences, yet.

And that's about it, really.

You mean Baldy and Jake went with you?

Fair enough. He's 62 and he's spent his whole life waiting to fill a role, so I can understand why he might cast about for something to do in the meantime. He's as entitled to an opinion as anybody else - people listening is the strange part, IMO.

The Monarchy is like Father Christmas - apart from some childish minds, nobody [ireally[/i believes in it, but it can be fun and is pretty harmless to pretend occasionally. I don't like to see any person bowing and scraping to another, but if everyone is in on the joke that is their choice I suppose. I think if we got rid, it'd subtley enhance people's sense of individulal self-worth - but for many I guess it'd diminish their sense of supporting something bigger and more glamourous, and would not be a price worth paying. If they had a greater sense of self-worth, of course...

I am serious today - I think it is the prospect of playing Wakefield with £500k of salary cap sidelined!

How come?

Still probably double what Wakefield are able to field. And Rovers are a "no excuses" club, so don't be mentioning injuries.

I'm going to see Thor 3D in a minute. I'm sure Jamie Thackray with long hair is in it.

What would have guaranteed Blair becoming President? Would he have been any worse as President than he was as Prime Minister? And at least you can get rid of a bad President.

Would you care to list, in detail, with evidence, decisions made by the monarch in the last, lets be kind to you here, and say century, and their subsequent negative impact on the United Kingdom and Commonwealth?

I enjoyed it and wish them all the best.