Prince Charles seeks more powerful role as King

Providing he keeps his opinions to himself a monarchy is preferable to a republic because it's part of the history of the country and pumps money into the tourist economy in a way I don't think a president ever would.

I'm sorry, what you're saying is completely incomprehensible.

Totally, I heard Versailles barely gets any visitors these days due to the fact there are no Capetians in residence

Out of interest, I am in favour of retaining the monarchy as long as they stick to the guidelines you laid out above. But tourism is probably the most feeble reason for retaining the monarchy I can think of. Leaving aside the fact it has no basis in reality, the only arguments that are supportable are, "What is the best form of government for the British people?". Everything else is irrelevant

Of course tourists visit the empty buildings in France but what about the hundreds of the thousands that came just for the Royal wedding

Of course tourists visit the empty buildings in France but what about the hundreds of the thousands that came just for the Royal wedding, the jubilee, the birth of Prince George? all the extra extra visitors, merchandise sales (tax income) and the world wide media attention on the UK all those events got for the UK for free, they were all headline news in every nation.

To anyone who thinks politicians are out of touch - multiply that disconnection a hundred-fold and you'll have a Prince.

This is utter guff. The monarchy maintain our traditions. In a constitutional monarchy, it is not just the Rule of One, but the Example of One. Families are constructed and relationships built and taste replicated to fit the royal model. They have the largest stake in the nation, and the queen is doing a terrible job of keeping her subjects secure. I hope the new king is stronger and actually pays attention to what parliament is doing. Hell, the house of Lords won't anymore.

What you're forgetting is that politicians aim to make as much money for themselves as possible, whilst the monarch already has vast wealth: what they want is something completely different. They are here for, potentially, forever. A government is in power for 4-10 years.

To the anarchists and federalists, let me ask you this: since the increase in democracy and destabalisation of our institutions, have we become more or less corrupt?

I'm not sure how to reply seeing as what you've written isn't relevant to what I wrote...

tl;dr is that the monarchy is a landed family like the majority. Unlike politicians the monarchy actually want their subjects to be content.

You can't reply because you are wrong that the royals are out of touch with the majority.

You didn't mention 'being in touch' in your post. Wanting subjects to be content =/= being in touch.

Understanding the issues at hand and being able to deliver is what makes them in touch. Unfortunately, the monarchy has had to remain inert for the last century because of neoliberalism attempting to delegitimise the crown. The problem with removing the crown is you end up with another USA government, rife with corruption and nothing to limit it's power.

Removing the crown and not having Prince Charles 'seek a more powerful role as King' are two very different things.

What you want to see is an inert monarch. This is effectively the same thing.

Minions will always need masters hey?

Whereas you would rather be governed by a corrupt tyranny. Good job matey! But good job ignoring any of my points and resorting to ad hominem.

It was a joke matey.

I'm assuming you specify corrupt tyranny as opposed to ordinary tyranny - as symbolised by genuine monarchial government.

You've been living under democracy for too long, you don't realise how crappy things are when petty kings rule without checks on their power.

Poor Ray. He thinks we live in a democracy.