for having too many views on his future kingdom. It’s amazing the way people who have no objection to a figurehead royal get annoyed any time he gets involved in controversies. I remember a time when foreign billionaires were allowed to make architectural changes to a posh part of London, and Prince Charles used his influence to alter it – it was never clear why the billionaires could do anything, but a future monarch was not even supposed to have an opinion.
Another time he put the cat among the pigeons – well, the British Medical Association – by saying orthodox medicine sometimes left out much of the springs of human wellbeing. He was the patron of an alternative medicine charity run by Dr Patrick Pietroni, who had a GP practice in the basement of Marylebone Church. When Pietroni became a distinguished academic, he threw a party to celebrate, to which a couple of Americans were invited. One of them wondered why Americans were interested in monarchy at all, and the other one said: “It’s the fairy tales – whoever heard of a maiden kissing a frog and it then turning into a handsome senator?”
Some think princes who take sides ought to turn into frogs, but surely doing good PR for valuable causes must be better than being a tyrant, starting wars, or beheading queens like good king Hal?
What do you think? Have your say below相关的主题文章：


http://forum.studgorodok.bsu.by/default.aspx?g=posts&t=1831248

http://www.flightsim.com

http://neko-neko-club.2.pro.tok2.com/bbs/mkakikomitai.cgi

http://cells-int.com/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2662792

http://www.eskiyolcu.com/karavansaray/olive/olivebbs/olivebbs1.cgi