Is it just me, or isn't it a bit odd to leave the closing speech at a conference about corporate governance to someone whose position in society is wholly determined by who their parents were?
I'm a totally half-hearted republican. I don't agree with monarchy in principle, but I spend no time thinking about it/doing anything about it because I consider it to be pretty irrelevant. I have no interest in what the Royal family do or say, but have no negative feelings about them. And I can see that Princes Charles seems to mean well, in the manner of a million aristos before him.
But surely the idea of hereditary power and privelege stands in total opposition to the aims of corporate governance, which seeks to ensure that positions are won on merit, and individuals are accountable.
I mean, imagine a FTSE100 board allowing the appointment of a chief executive who just happened to be son of the chair. It would never happen, shareholders would challenge it head on.