Quote Originally Posted by Romanis View Post
I do realise many or some think it's stupid to have an unelected head of state. Worse to have someone born into such privilege.

However until you live abroad or perhaps observe how some other democracies sans royals work, you realise hey it's not a bad to have someone outside politics to have a final say in determining who forms the Govt. Or even further, to act as an unbiased referee in certain conditions. Add to the fact you have someone who's been long in the job, such a person can have immeasurable benefit during a crisis.
More so in countries where you have a de facto head of state, like a Governor General. If that person becomes unworthy of high office, he can be removed by the Queen easily without a need for a drawn out political circus.

Maybe we don't need so many royals but I think having a Sovereign as constitutional monarch is a very good thing.
I may be wrong, it does happen, but I seem to remember that the Monarch in the UK is merely a figurehead. The Monarch has no say in who forms the government. Protocol/procedure demands that she invites the head of the largest party to try to form a government. If they fail, the leader of the 2nd party tries. At some point the Monarch will call for a new election if a government can't be formed. Politicians inform her that a govt can't be formed and, again, protocol/procedure tell the Monarch what to do. the Monarch has no power.

Governor Generals abroad? I also thought that they too were political appointments, decided upon by the PM and then "announced" by the Monarch. Again, I might be wrong.