Britain: where common sense didn't prevail

"the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check the king by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity". (Paine, common sense)

Thomas Paine, scribe of common sense, one of the most, if not, the most scathing critique of hereditary rule and all the ugly justifications that come with it, must be dizzy from all the rolling he has done in his grave when met with the news of Prince 'drats!, still a prince at 62' Charles having veto rights over certain legislation deemed to conflict with his interests.

In the two years between 2007 and 2009, ministers consulted with the prince over legislation within policy areas  "coroners (?!, this must be a typo), economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning".

This has major implications as Prince Charles, being a royal of course, has many interests that effect not only those in his constituency but the wider public what with his pet projects concerning the envioroment among others and his property holdings that runs into the hundreds of millions in the year past earning the prince the measly, paltry, and let not forget downright unfair income of 18 million .

News like this make the average republican go red with rage, take to their blog, favorite/most scathing (usually one and the same) Tom Paine quotes at ready, and blow off steam and rightly so as  politicians, as if they weren't already subject to bend to the will of the powerful, have to consider whether given legislation should be considered at all as it affects a man who would be in line to rule divine (oh it rhymes!) if it wasn't for that little squabble over who rules that took place in the 17th century.

When one man has a big say whether given legislation can enter parliament never mind amend it based on its ability to affect his interests and the ear of any minister of his choosing just because mummy dearest just happened to be Queen Elizabeth II a.k.a 'the lady on the money' is a spit in the already phlegmy face of British democracy

In sum this not real surprise given that the monarchy, to quote paine ' in a constitutional sense, contribute nothing towards the freedom of the state'.