There is much concern among the lieges about Charles, Prince of Wales, and his penchant for interfering in the business of government.
They fear it will get worse when, or if, Charles accedes to the throne.
He appears not to have learnt from his sensible mum Liz that the job is more about showbiz than being a ruler. Charles probably got the interfering gene from his dad Phil the Greek.
We can be relaxed about the whole business because there is an excellent precedent in how to deal with kings called Charles who have ideas above their station. Charles I lost his head in 1649 for showing no respect to Parliament and getting his country involved in two civil wars. (But that's what you get from someone who spent his early years in Dunfermline.)
A 21st-century royal beheading would make an interesting change from all those royal weddings. A ceremony with an axeman at Whitehall would certainly get a huge TV audience. In these more civilised times we would probably settle for abdication instead of execution.
The Prince of Wales should keep the heid. He would do better to follow the example of Charles II who was much more skilled (not to mention sleekit) in his dealings with Parliament and died in his bed after a brilliant career of royal hedonism.
His brother and successor James, the Grand Old Duke of York, was not so clever and was forced into exile. It was the demise of this King James that gave rise to the Jacobite phenomenon. All very romantic but I would rather have a Parliament, however dodgy, in charge than a monarch who believes in the divine right of kings. (I think royals have a divine right to get a proper job, a path the present Duke of York might like to pursue.)
So, yes, I am a Glasgow Tim who would have approved of the outcome of the Battle of the Boyne. Although I don't think we should still be stopping city centre traffic in celebration three centuries later.
But enough potted history, I hear you say. We have moved on to a democracy, however imperfect. (But maybe better after the referendum.)
Somebody should point this out to the Prince of Wales if he wants to become Charlie King of Scots.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article