Though in theory opposed to the concept of monarchy, the writer finds a head of state drawn from the present royal family infinitely more acceptable than one drawn from the suborned governing elite.
The Financial Times has directly or indirectly featured the prince’s work in articles this weekend:
At 1.30 – Radio 4 will ask if Prince Charles’ activism is compatible with the position of King: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b047w9kn
Implicit criticism comes from MP David Blunkett, whose portfolio in past years has listed directorships /involvement with many companies, including Oracle Capital Group, a wealth manager serving rich families around the world, DNA Bioscience, Entrust, a large U.S. security software firm and substantial payments from First Group.
The writer’s theory: vested interests – including those in the fields of modern architecture, conventional energy generation, intensive agriculture, pharmaceuticals and construction – are understandably afraid that if he becomes king and his ‘activism’ continues, their interests – and therefore profits – will be seriously affected.