The royal family always maintained their silence about gossip about the monarchy and focus on their mission and goal to serve their people with maximum approach.
However, the latest questions about the company’s existence may have raised eyebrows among those concerned.
Speaker David Dimbleby left Britons in deep thought with his blunt questions about the role of the monarchy in the modern era.
He discussed the role and power of the sovereign in new BBC series What is the monarchy for?
The royal family has always tried to address things with their gestures rather than directly engaging in debate, but the questions seem too difficult to be answered with words.
The firm is often discussed for its core purpose of existence. But proplen believes that the monarchy symbolizes national identity and unity. It promotes cultural heritage and tradition.
The royals also support charitable and public engagements and promote tourism and economic benefits.
They are also called a unifying figurehead of the nation and have a ceremonial role in governance as a symbol of continuity and stability.
The Question time the host has spent much of his career commentating on the royal family, but for the past two years he has dedicated his time to making this monarchy-focused documentary in three parts.
He even asked, “What role is there for our unelected head of state?”
The monarch’s loyalists may also avoid the question as they want them to continue in the same spirit.
However, the late Queen Elizabeth II herself said: “No institution should expect to be free from the scrutiny of those who give it their loyalty and support, not to mention those who do not.”
Dimbleby questions what real tangible power the monarch has over government, exploring cases such as when Charles’ private letters to government ministers and Prime Minister Tony Blair were made public to prove whether the then Prince of Wales actually lobbied politicians.
Dimbleby makes a point: “Charles may not have been able to influence government policy, but he was determined to do so if he could.”
The presenter went on to say that it would be naive to think that a prime minister’s weekly audiences with the monarch would have no effect or influence on government policy.
