Quote Originally Posted by Romanis View Post
Ah yes, I forget you're the 1 saying we don't need a Head of State. Politicians can be trusted enough to handle everything including who should run Govt or how long to stay in power. Life is so gentle and sweet, everybody will do their part and the right thing.
No need for a Constitutional umpire. Perhaps other democracies should follow suit and do away with Presidents too, because the Queen does many things a non-executive President does.

Moreover there's no need for awards even for police and soldiers. No need for visits to hospital for the injured and sick. No need to mourn with victims of terror, opening buildings and other infrastructure are a waste of time, because nobody cares. There's no prestige or honour. Life is very simple. People want simplicity not any fanfare or gesture of thanks and appreciation.

And the other royals do jack ****. All the engagements they go to are not necessary. They do nothing but foot and mouth stuff, all the 200-500 engagements they do each year are all 'foot in mouth moments.'
The Queen does nothing at all. She doesn't advise, she doesn't offer input, she doesn't warn. She's completely powerless. All these ministers, PMs, senior civil servants etc , past and present,who have acknowledged the role she plays, well it's all made up.

Her receiving ambassadors, envoys, other world leaders, her foreign trips and those of the other royals, well, it's pointless, foreign nations leaders don't expect to be treated with respect and prestige when they visit and are not keen to extend the same respect and prestige for the UK for reciprocal visits.

Life is simple really, foreign relations is pretty straight forward. Anything otherwise is a myth. we don't need a Head of State.
We should chuck away everything we've done for centuries and embark on this simple fantasy and everything will turn out fine.
I'm sure it'll make a great movie.
Sorry Rom...this is becoming really repetitive and getting us nowhere. At the end of the day...you’re a diehard Monarchist and I question whether there’s a role for the Royal Family in any modern democratic society. We’re both entitled to our views.

I will answer the points above because it seems you’ve started the strategy of deliberate misinterpretation, quite common amongst those who find their long treasured views threatened...anyway, here goes.

1) As you know, I don’t trust more than a handful of politicians but we do have a system of rules in place which determine how leaders are elected and how long they govern for. We don’t need a ‘constitutional umpire’ imo and it is a role the Queen has rarely been called on to fulfill even during the length of her epic reign.

2) I’m not sure what you mean about awards, hospital visits and mourning various victims etc. Most of these things are about social recognition and empathy aren’t they? Do the Queen’s occasional visits mean anything? They obviously would to monarchists such as yourself, they wouldn’t to me. I’m all in favour of showing recognition, sympathy and empathy but, had I been a relative of, for example, a Grenfell victim would I have felt better that someone with umpteen palaces had shown up to offer a display of empathy towards those who died because housing rules hadn’t been adhered to? No...not at all. Similarly with the Manchester bombing, it was the Mayor of Manchester and various other local ‘worthies’ who conducted most of the ‘mourning’ events and it was probably all the more relevant because of that. As for opening buildings etc...isn’t that just the culture of celebrity? When a new road or bridge is opened we might expect a minor Royal to cut the tape, when it’s Christmas lights being switched on we end up with a soap star or some other minor celebrity. What’s the difference?

3) I have never said the other Royals do ‘nothing but foot in mouth stuff’. I was referring specifically to the DoE. You said the Royal Family ‘worked’, in my opinion there have been too many times when, on you much heralded ambassadorial visits, he has been nothing other than embarrassing. Neither have I said the Queen ‘does nothing at all’. I have recognised that she has done a good job but questioned her relevance. She is politically powerless and of course those you mention have ‘acknowledged’ the part she plays...that’s just the establishment supporting itself.

4) Regarding receiving ambassadors etc and making foreign trips. I honestly don’t know whether they achieve anything. I don’t recall the Royals being involved in major trade deals or peace settlements and I don’t think meeting the Queen is a necessary part of ‘showing respect’ to foreign leaders.

5) ‘Foreign relations’ are, I accept, anything but straightforward, especially when we have such a nincompoop as Foreign Secretary but, honestly, when was the last time the Queen had any meaningful input into debate with the likes of Merkel, Obama, Trump or Putin? She just doesn’t, so what is her relevance to ‘foreign relations’ exactly?
‘Chuck away what we’ve done for centuries’...well, along with dog fighting, fox hunting, sending children up chimneys, slavery, drinking and driving, depriving women of the vote...there are things which can’t be defended just because it’s what we’ve done for ‘centuries’. It’s called ‘change’...embrace it.
As for the ‘movie’...I think it’s been done...or the mini series anyway.